Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 1 

# Responses to Public Comments

EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit

August 21, 2014

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 2 In August , 2014, EPA published the final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES ) Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP). The draft sVGP was available for public review between December 8, 2011 and February 21, 2012. Comments were accepted electronically via Docket ID EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150 at http:// www.regulations.gov , by mail, and by hand delivery. EPA received about 80 sets of comments on the draft permit and coded those comments, parsing them into approximately 450 individual comments. This final response to comments document contains these individual comments and EPA’s responses to them , ordered by topic

. A list of comment response topics follows, with comments organized by topic and by comment number. Each comment identifies the commenter name and affiliation, the document control number, and an excerpt number for that comment, and is followed by EPA’s response to that comment. EPA finalized the sVGP and its accompanying fact sheet after interagency review was completed on June 11, 2014 . While every effort was made to ensure consistency throughout the administrative record for this permit, due to timing, documents in the administrative record for this permit may contain statements or information that might be inconsistent with the f inal sVGP and the fact sheet . In such cases, EPA notes that the final sVGP and the fact sheet reflect EPA’s official and final position.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Commenters (by document control num ber)

................................ ................................ ..................... 5 GEN. 1 General Stakeholder Comments

................................ ................................ ................................ 9 SCP. 2 Scope of Permit

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 35 SCP1. 2.1 Waters Subject to this Permit

................................ ................................ ............................ 53 SCP2. 2.2 Eligible Vessels and Discharges

................................ ................................ ....................... 57 BKG. 3 Permit Background

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 83 BKG1. 3.1 Why EPA Regulates Vessels (0 comments)

................................ ................................ ..... 87 BKG2. 3.2 Moratorium

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 89 COM. 4 Compliance and Enforcement

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 93 DEF. 5 Definitions

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 105 DEF1. 5.1 Biodegradable (0 comments)

................................ ................................ .......................... 109 DEF2. 5.2 Phosphate Free

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 111 DEF3. 5.3 Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants

................................ ................................ ......... 115 DEF4. 5.4 Minimize

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 133 DEF5. 5.5 Recreational Vessel

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 141 DEF6. 5.6 Comments on Specific Definitions Other than Those Listed Above

.............................. 147 ADM. 6 Administrative Requirements

................................ ................................ ................................ 159 ADM1. 6.1 PARI Form

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 179 ADM2. 6.2 Quarterly Visual Inspection

................................ ................................ ............................ 191 ADM3. 6.3 Corrective Actions (0 comments)

................................ ................................ .................. 197 GRQ. 7 General Requirements

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 199 FUL. 7.1 Fuel Management

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 213 OIL. 7.2 Engine and Oil Control

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 21 7 SLM. 7.3 Solid and Liquid Waste Management

................................ ................................ ............. 237 DWR. 7.4 Deck Washdown and Runoff and Above Water Line Hull Cleaning

............................. 245 HLL. 7.5 Vessel Hull Maintenance

................................ ................................ ................................ 257 GWM. 7.6 Graywater Management

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 273 FHD. 7.7 Fish Hold Effluent Management

................................ ................................ ..................... 289 BAL. 7.8 Ballast Water Management

................................ ................................ ............................. 315 BAL1. 7.8.1 Eight (8) Cubic Meter Eligibility Threshold

................................ ............................ 333 BAL2. 7.8.2 Authorization to Maintain Coverage for Non

- discharge of BW (0 comments)

....... 339 BAL3. 7.8.3 BMPs

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 341Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 4 SWC. 7.9 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge

................................ ................................ ......... 345 QBL. 8 QBEL (Narrative)

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 353 CRT. 9 401 Certification, CZMA, and State Requirements

................................ ............................... 361 ECN. 10 Economics

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 371 USCG. 11 General Consistency with International or USCG Regulations

................................ ........... 385 OOS. 12 Out of Scope (0 comments)

................................ ................................ ................................ . 393 MIS. 13 Miscellaneous/Other

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 395 MFC. 14 Misfiled Comment (Misfiled in sVGP but Applicable to VGP)

................................ .......... 399Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 5 

# List of Commenters (by document control number)

Document control numbers as assigned in EPA docket number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150 for the sVGP (see http://www.regulations.gov for copies of the all of the comments submitted.)
D oc. C ontrol N o. (EPA

- HQ
- OW
- 2011
- 0150) Commenter Name Commenter Affili a tion

0295 Dwight Morrison, Co

- Chair Wheels On Trails Organization
0355 Barbara Salzman and Phil Peterson, Co

Chairs, Conservation Committee Marin Audubon Society

0365 Pete Worth ington, Mayor City of Marathon, Florida 0375 Dr. W. Ron DeHaven, Chief Executive

Officer (CEO) and Executive Vice President American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)

0377 D. K. McKoy Public 0378 Thomas M. Kelly Inland Seas Education Association 0379 Rod Moore, Executive Director West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) 0380 William H. Shropshire, President American Chemet 0381 Bill Walsh, President Coalition of Coastal Fisheries 0382 Hobe Kytr, Administrator Salmon For All 0383 Sarah K. Branch, Director of

Government Relations Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA) 0384 Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice

President, Human Resources, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary, on behalf of Ingram Barge Co. Ingram Barge Company

0385 Ken Franke Sportfishing Association of California 0387 Kent Pehler Brennan Marine, Inc 0388 James Spurr, Board Director, American

Sail Training Association Michigan Maritime Museum

0389 Angus P. Kennedy, President VapCor Inc. 0390 Stanley Mack, Mayor Aleutians East Borough (AEB) 0391 Roger E. Claff, Senior Scientific Advisor American Petroleum Institute (API) 0392 Peter Vickers, Chairman and Managing

Director Benjn. R. Vickers & Sons Ltd. (Vickers Oils)

0393 Bruno Pigott, Assistant Commissioner,

Office of Water Quality Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) 0394 Captain Les Bolton, Executive Director Grays Harbor Historical Seaport Authority
0395 Paul Belforti, President Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) 0396 Paul Belforti, President Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) 0397 Patsy Root, Senior Regulatory Affairs

Specialist IDEXX Laboratories, Inc.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 6 D oc. C ontrol N o. (EPA

- HQ
- OW
- 2011
- 0150) Commenter Name Commenter Affili a tion

0398 Deborah Hayes, Program Director and

Captain St Georges School

0399 Adam Binsfeld Brennan Marine Inc. 0400 Thomas M. Gemmell, Executive

Director United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG)

0401 Beth Moore, General Permit

Coordinator, Water Quality Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 0403 James R. Kovanda, Vice President American Chemical Technologies, Inc. 0404 Kathy Hansen, Executive Directo r Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) 0405 Tina M. Cardone, Executive Director Conference of Professional Operators for Response Towing (C

- PORT) 0406 Mark Vinsel, Executive Director United Fishermen of Alaska 0407 Craig Urness, General Counsel Pacific Seafood Group and Pacific Fishing, LLC 0408 Jennifer A. Carpenter The American Waterways Operators 0409 Dale Kelley, Executive Director Alaska Trollers Association (ATA) 0410 Edmund B. Welch, Legislative Director Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) 0411 Charles V. Darr, Director of

Environmental and Health Programs Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)

0412 Nick Schroeck, Executive Director Great Lakes Environmental Law Center 0413 William Creal, Chief Water Resources

Division Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) 0414 Alexis Cooper, Executive Director,

Board of Directors Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU)

0415 Marie Hobson and John Hopewell on

behalf of American Coatings Association (ACA) American Coatings Assoication (ACA)

0416 Wayne Heikkila, Executive Director Western Fishboat Owners Association (WFOA) 0417 Michelle Bonnett, Director Alaska Dept of Env Cons. (ADEC), Division of Water, WQ Section 0418 Nancy Fitzpatrick, Executive Director Oregon Salmon Commission , Oregon Albacore Commission 0421 Karen Holman, Manager,

Environmental Programs, Environmental and Land Use Management Unified Port of San Dieg o

0422 Olin Anderson, Water Quality

Standards Specialist Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe (PLPT)

0423 Senior Captain Tommy M. Seda,

Director Schooner Inc.

0424 Captain Richard Files, Owner Operator Schooner Victory ChimesResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 7 D oc. C ontrol N o. (EPA

- HQ
- OW
- 2011
- 0150) Commenter Name Commenter Affili a tion

0425 Dr. Guy Kaulukukui, Acting

Administrator State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) 0426 Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive

Director Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA)

0427 Thomas M. McLaughlin, President/CEO Seafood Producers Cooperative 0428 Tim Sizemore, Manager Waterway

Regulatory Programs American Electric Power River Operations (AEP) 0429 Brian D. Hughes, Vice President

Operations, Regulatory Compliance Hughes Bros. Inc.

0430 Matthew Long, Director, Government

Affairs National Association of State Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA) 0431 Robert Leitch, Floating Plant Program

Manager US Army Corps of Engineers

0432 Captain Alan Olson, Executive Director Educational Tall Ship 0433 Robert R. Boulware, Nautical Science

Faculty The Sound School

0434 David P. McGinnis, Owner and Senior

Captain Traverse Tall Ship Company, LLC

0435 Cathy Stepp, Secretary Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 0436 Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council 0437 Amy McCamphill, Environmental Law

Division New York City Law Department

0439 Beth Kerttula, Representative, House

District 3 Alaska State Legislature, et al.

0440 Diane Pleschner

- Steele, Executive

Director California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA) 0441 Bobbi M. Walker, Executive Director National Association of Charterboat Operators (NACO) 0442 Captain Jan C. Miles, Acting Executive

Director Pride of Baltimore, Inc.

0443 Bill Moore, Program Development

Services Section Manager Water Quality Program, WA State Department of Ecology (ECY) 0444 Robert D. Alverson, Manager Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 8Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 9 

# Issue Category: GEN

. 1 General Stakeholder CommentsResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 10 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 11 GEN. 1 General Stakeholder Comments
Commenter Name: Pete Worthington, Mayor, City of Marathon, Florida Commenter Affiliation: Mayor, City of Marathon, Florida Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0365

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: EPA, I would like to comment on the proposed legislation on a discharge permit for vessels “Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150” . This is neither warranted or needed as future legislation. It is a burden on all owners of small vessels to comply with this. I strongly oppose this bill and consider this as another s ign of our government not considering the impact to the owners of vessels this would affect. Response:
EPA has issued the sVGP in the event that Congress does not extend the P.L. 110

- 299 moratorium. EPA does not have the authority to grant or extend a m oratorium. Absent a valid general permit, if Congress does not extend the moratorium, small vessel owner s /operators would not be able to legally discharge (and therefore operate) in U.S. waters unless they obtained coverage under an NPDES individual permi t, which would not be a viable mechanism to be able to permit a large number of permittees (120,000 to 140,000) quickly and effectively for a number of reasons. EPA believes that it is good government to provide these vessel owner s /operators with a viable permitting mechanism if it should be needed at the end of 201 4

. EPA believes that the sVGP is straightforward and provides common
- sense management requirements, while meeting our regulatory requirements.

Commenter Name: Rod Moore, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Commenter Affiliation: West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: We appreciate the fact that EPA is propo sing a general permit rather than individual permits as administration will be less costly for both qualifying vessels and for the agency. However we don’t believe the agency fully comprehends the physical and operational characteristics of commercial fis hing vessels that fall into the sVGP category. In our comments below we illustrate some of the concerns, using vessels commonly found in Pacific coast fisheries as examples. Our comments are structured to apply first to the draft permit and then to the f act sheet. We have tried to avoid duplicating comments on issues that appear in both documents.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 12 Response: EPA disagrees with commenter that the permit does not appropriately address commercial fishing vessels. The Agency developed a permit that minimiz es the impact on small vessel owners while providing appropriate environmental controls. EPA conducted the "Study of Discharges Incidental to Normal Operation of Commercial Fishing Vessels and Other Non

Recreational Vessels less than 79 feet" in 2010 to b etter understand the discharges associated with smaller vessels and used the information contained in the study to help develop the permit language. Based on public comment , EPA provided additional clarity in the fact sheet as to applicability of the perm it terms and conditions.

Commenter Name: William H. Shropshire, President, American Chemet Corporation Commenter Affiliation: American Chemet Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0380

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment:
SEE PICTURE IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT Response: EPA notes submission of additional information on hull fouling.

Commenter Name: Bill Walsh, President, Coalition of Coastal Fisheries Commenter Affiliation: Coalition of Coastal Fisheries Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- O W

- 2011

- 0150

- 0381 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Need 45 day extension for comments

- Response: EPA notes that the draft permits were announced on November 30, 2011, and the official 75

- day comment period started on December 8, 2012. Hence, the pub lic has been given 83 days to comment on the permits. EPA believes that the 75

- day comment period provide d sufficient time for the public to review the permits and provide comments. The 75

- day comment period is significantly longer than most comment period s for other NPDES general permits.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 13 Commenter Name: Bill Walsh, President, Coalition of Coastal Fisheries Commenter Affiliation: Coalition of Coastal Fisheries Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0381

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Upon first reading of the proposed regulations it is clear that the commercial vessel operator will not understand the requirements when the requirements refer to Sections of the CFR’s and CWA’s

. The referenced sections of the CFR’s and CWA’s are not avai lable to most commercial fishermen and if they were available, it is highly unlikely that the operator would understand the legal meaning. There are many value judgments that need further definition such as maintaining a clean deck that is free of article s that might discharge overboard. Our commercial fishing organizations have not had time to thoroughly analyze the draft regulations and at a minimum request a 45 day extension to the comment period. We will be reviewing the regulations in more depth d uring the extension and will be submitting more in depth comments at a later time. Response:
Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0381, excerpt 1

.

Commenter Name: Hobe Kytr, Administrator, Salmon For All Commenter Affiliatio n: Salmon For All Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0382

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: In light of the very short timeline remaining to provide comment on the NPDES sVGP , Salmon For All would like to endorse the comments previously submitted by Rod Moore, executive director of the West Coast Seafood Processors Association, a copy of which is attached. Hard copy will follow by Priority Mail. Response:
EPA notes the comm enter’s support for Mr. Moore’s comments. Please refer to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379 for EPA’s response.

Commenter Name: Stanley Mack, Mayor, Aleutians East Borough (AEB) Commenter Affiliation: Aleutians East Borough (AEB) Document Contro l Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0390

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 14 Comment:
Please note that the AEB does not support the implementation of the small Vessel General Permit ( sVGP ). Rather, we support Congressional extension of the moratorium that expires December 18, 2012 exempting commercial fishing vessels less than 79 feet in length from having to obtain a Clean Water Act permit. The attached AEB comments address the problems w e see with the proposed sVGP , and the potential of severe hardship for coastal Alaska fishermen. Response:
Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0365, excerpt 1

.

Commenter Name: Captain Les Bolton, Executive Director, Grays H arbor Historical Seaport Authority Commenter Affiliation: Grays Harbor Historical Seaport Authority Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0394

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Grays Harbor Historical Seaport Authority is extremely concerne d about the burdens that the EPA VGP and sVGP regulations will add to our operation and those of other Tall Ship organizations. Response: EPA recognizes that commercial vessels less than 79 feet are different than larger vessels , and created the simpler sVGP to accommodate those permittees who may not be familiar with NPDES permits. Additionally, those small passenger vessels and sailing vessels that are greater than 79 feet are covered under the VGP consistent with the District Court's decision that re quires incidental discharges of non

- recreational, non

- military vessels greater than 79 feet to be covered under an N PDES permit. Additionally, please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0365, excerpt 1

.

Commenter Name: Captain Les B olton, Executive Director, Grays Harbor Historical Seaport Authority Commenter Affiliation: Grays Harbor Historical Seaport Authority Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0394

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 2Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 15 Comment: Our organization supports regulations that promote environmental awareness and protection. However, there is little in the permitting and documentation process that has any relevance to the sailing vessels that goes beyond citing other regulations that our membership are already in compliance with. Our vessels rely on fixed ballast. We do not have ballast tanks, nor do we carry cargo. For our organization, the VGP process is a significant increase in administrative paperwork for which we are accountable wit h negligible positive environmental impact. The VGP process has not changed best practices, or our standard operating protocols, it has just added another layer of paperwork for us to fill out and be responsible for maintaining, in addition to the existing paperwork we are required to maintain (including the report of any maintenance deficiencies in logs books, spills in ships logs, incident reports, etc.) Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0398

- A1 , excerpt 1.

Com menter Name: Paul Belforti, President, Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Commenter Affiliation: Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0395

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: The Passenger Vessel Associati on ( PVA ) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the proposed ( NPDES ) General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel ("proposed draft 2013 Vessel General Permit" or "2013 VGP ").

• VGP compliance should be as simple as possi ble, an objective that EPA achieved with the current VGP

. • The VGP as proposed meets this aforementioned goal in many places, but PVA is pointing out several areas for improvement, especially with regard to state add

- ons
. • PVA is concerned about the economic analysis EPA has done on the VGP

. Response:
The commenter is referring to requirements in the draft 2013 VGP . The VGP is outside the scope of today's action. For information on the 2013 VGP , including the 2013 VGP Response to Comments, please see docket number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0141 at http://www.regulations.gov

.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 16 Commenter Name: Paul Belforti, President, Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Commenter Affiliation: Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0395

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: A general permit continues to be the way to go.
PVA appreciated EPA's decision several years ago to issue an industry

- wide permit rather th an imposing a permitting requirement on each individual covered vessel. Furthermore, it was an appropriate decision by EPA to choose not to impose any permitting fee. The proposed revised VGP and the draft sVGP continue this policy choice , and PVA agrees w ith this approach. PVA would like to recognize the efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to find a workable solution for U.S.

- flag vessels in its development of the current VGP

. Response: EPA acknowledges commenter’s support for general pe rmits.

Commenter Name: Paul Belforti, President, Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Commenter Affiliation: Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0395

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18
Comment:
Conclusion
VGP compliance should be as simple as possible, an objective that EPA achieved with the current VGP . The VGP as proposed meets this aforementioned goal in many places but we have pointed out many areas of improvement in especially with regard to state add

- ons
. PVA is concerned about the economic analysis EPA has done on the VGP

. Response:
See EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0395

- A1 , excerpt 1.

Commenter Name: Paul Belforti, President, Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Commenter Affil iation: Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0396

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 17 Comment:

• PVA believes that there is no policy justification for having a sVGP in the first place because a fair reading of EPA' s report to Congress is the environmental impact of incidental discharges from small passenger vessels is minimal; PVA is trying to get Congress to extend the existing statutory exemption.
• If a Congressional extension does not occur, PVA believes that th e sVGP should be simpler and less onerous than the permit applicable to larger vessels.

• The sVGP as proposed meets this aforementioned goal in many places, but PVA is pointing out several areas for improvement, especially with regard to state add

- ons
.

• PVA is concerned about the economic analysis EPA has done on the sVGP

. Response:
Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0365, excerpt 1

. Additionally, please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 3 , for further discussion of the burden imposed by requirements in the sVGP

. EPA believes that the sVGP is straightforward and provides common
- sense management requirements, while meeting our regulatory requirements.

Commenter Name: Paul Belforti, President, Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Commenter Affiliation: Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0396

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: A general permit continues to be the way to go
. P VA appreciated EPA ' s decision several years ago to issue an industry

- wide permit rather than imposing a permitting requirement on each individual covered vessel. Furthermore, it was an appropriate decision by EPA to choose not to impose any permitting fee. The proposed revised VGP and the draft sVGP continue this policy choice, and PVA agrees with this approach. PVA would like to recogni z e the effor ts of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to find a workable solution for U.S.

- flag vessels in its development of the sVGP

. H opefully, Congress will extend the statutory exemption for smaller commercial vessels. EPA has proposed the draft Small Vesse l General Permit ( sVGP ) because it cannot assume that Congress will choose to extend the existing statutory exemption from NPDES permitting for commercial vessels of less than 79 feet in length that do not have ballast water discharges. That exemption is s cheduled to expire in December 2013. PVA understands that EPA must begin now to develop the s VGP . However, PVA is working to convince Congress to enact legislation extending the current exemption. If that occurs, the need for the SVGP will evaporate.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 18 Resp onse: EPA acknowledges commenter’s support for general permits.

Commenter Name: Paul Belforti, President, Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Commenter Affiliation: Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0396

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment:
Conclusion
PVA believes that there is no policy justification for having a sVGP in the first place because incidental discharges from small passenger vessels have minimal, if any, environmental impact. PVA is trying to get Congress to extend the statutory exemption for smaller vessels. If a Congressional extension does not occur we believe that the sVGP should be simpler and less onerous than that of larger vessels. The sVGP as proposed meets this aforement ioned goal in many places but we have pointed out many areas of improvement in especially with regard to state add

- ons
. PVA is concerned about the economic analysis EPA has done on the sVGP

. Response:
Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0396, excerpt 1. EPA developed an economic analysis to support the sVGP and it is available on our W eb page at water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/vessels/index.cfm

. Additional inf ormation on the development of the sVGP and its supporting documentation can be found in the docket for the permit ( EPA

- HQ

OW

- 2011

- 0150 ) at http://www.regulations.gov

.

Commenter Name: Thomas M. Gemmell, Executi ve Director, United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Commenter Affiliation: United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0400

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: We are disappointed that the court has or dered you to issue this permit. You have not established that there is a real problem to be addressed by establishing this permit and its attendant inspections, record keeping, costs to small businesses, and potential penalties. In essence, it is aResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 19 make wo rk project that will have little impact on the environment. We urge you to obtain permanent legislative exemption from this proposed regulatory burden. If you go forward with this rule making, each EPA Region needs to reach out and get a better understand ing of the fisheries in their area. Public hearings in Washington, DC and Chicago do not provide meaningful opportunity for dialogue with Alaskans. EPA needs a better understanding (informed by the Coast Guard and public) of what is practical, feasible, an d economically practical. In Alaska, we have fisheries that operate 20 foot long (or smaller) salmon set

- net skiffs up to and including multi

- gear/multi

- species vessels at the upper limit of the sVGP permit range. In 2010, 9,743 fishing vessels were regist ered with the State of Alaska to fish in Alaska. http://www.cfec.state.ak.us/vbycen/2010/00_ALL.htm . The median vessel length in 2010 was 36.1 feet. There are 27 separate salmon fisheries ( gear/area), 47 herring fisheries, shellfish, groundfish , dive, and many other fisheries. This diversity makes it difficult to impose ―one size fits all rules. Response:
Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0365, excerpt 1

. Additionally, EPA disagrees with the commenter that we have not developed a good understanding of all fisheries that are potentially regulated by the permit. EPA has worked with the U.S. Coast Guard’s ( USCG ’s) Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforce ment ( MISLE ) database to determine numbers of vessels and we have added information to Section 3.2 of the sVGP F act S heet. EPA also developed an economic analysis to evaluate the economic impacts of the sVGP requirements. This information is further expl ained in Section 2.5 of the sVGP F act S heet and the full economic analysis can be found in the docket for this permit (EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150) on http://w ww.regulations.gov

. EPA conducted two Public Meetings in Washi ngton D.C. and Chicago to solicit feedback on the sVGP

. In addition, EPA conducted a Webinar and two question and answer sessions to provide a diverse range of opportunity of public comment on the permit.

Commenter Name: Thomas M. Gemmell, Executive D irector, United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Commenter Affiliation: United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0400

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: 2. In general the overall regulatory package language is bureaucratic and not user friendly since it forces people to have to look up definitions (e.g. ―waters of the United States) in the Code of Federal Regulations. The permit itself lacks clarity since it requires permittees to look up information in the Code of Federal Regulations.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 20 Response: EPA disagrees with this commenter and feels that adding additional definitions would make the permit overly complex and more difficult for the regulated community to read.

Commenter Name: Thomas M. Gemmell, Executive Director, United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Commenter Affiliation: United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0400

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18
Comment: We are supportive of other comments made by United Fishermen of Alaska, At

- sea Processors Association, Cordova District Fishermen United, West Cost Seafood Processors Association, and Western Fishboat Owners Association. West Cost S eafood Processors Association comments on citizen suits and vessels circulating seawater while alongside processors are particularly appropriate. By copy hereof, we request the Alaska Congressional delegation to initiate legislative action to eliminate th is unnecessary regulatory burden. Response: EPA acknowledges commenter’s concerns and notes that responses to comments made by others are addressed elsewhere in response to those specific comments.

Commenter Name: Kathy Hansen, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Commenter Affiliation: Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Dear Sir or Madam,
Southeast Alaska Fishermen’s Alliance ( SEAFA ) is a multi

- gear, multi

- species non

- profit commercial fishing organization representing our membership. Our membership has vessels that range in size from skiffs up to 80 feet. They fish in gillnet , setnet , troll, seine, pot, and longline fisheries and most are combination vessels participating in multiple fisheries. While SEAFA comments will be centered on the sVGP permit many of the issue are also applicable to the VGPResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 21 permit and we would incorporate by reference the United Fishermen of Alaska comments on the draft sVGP and VGP permits.
SEAFA submitted comments dated April 6, 2010 on the draft EPA EPA’s Report to Congress on the Study of Discharges Incidental to Normal Operation of Commercial Fishing Vessels and Other Non

- Recreational V essels Less than 79 Feet ( USEPA , 2010) and it appears that there was not much consideration given to the comments submitted as we see many of the same errors in the fact sheet and supporting documentation that we provided comments and data on. This in turn provides for error in the estimation of the effect of these vessels. Upon review of the sVGP and VGP it becomes apparent that a better choice would have been to make a permit strictly for the commercial fishing industry with the possibility of implementi ng a few additional requirements for the larger vessels of the fleet. Response: EPA has proposed the VGP and sVGP as general permits to cover the majority of vessel types and sizes; however, cases may arise where individual permits are appropriate for c ertain vessels. Any owner/operator who believes the general permits do not adequately address their specific needs may request to be excluded from the general permits and apply for an individual permit consistent with Part 4.2.1 of the sVGP

. Comments on th e Report to Congress are beyond the scope of this permit. For a response to comments provided to that study, please see Appendix H in the Report to Congress available at wat er.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/vessels/Report

- to

- Congress.cfm

.

Commenter Name: Kathy Hansen, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Commenter Affiliation: Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 24
Comment:
Conclusion: These proposed permits will affect 10,000 commercial fishing vessels in Alaska. Within Alaska there is a very diverse range of fishing vessels in regards to length; gear type a nd area of operation. The current draft permits attempts to impose uniform regulations across broadly diverse fleets with little consideration given to the inherent diversity as well as other types of vessels. The draft permits proposed include duplicati ve, unnecessary, and unduly burdensome provisions for commercial fishing vessels in Alaska in the aggregate as well as presenting specific issues and problems for vessels participating in specific fisheries. The number of fishing vessels is a big enough u niverse that a permit for the commercial fishing industry sector wouldResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 22 have been appropriate and would have provided a better fit for conditions and best management practices and would have made all fishing vessels participating in the same fisheries to me et the same standards. At a minimum we request that you seriously consider the recommendations provided by commercial fishing associations and processors as you proceed forward or start a process that would provide for stakeholder involvement. The heari ngs held on this permit were held on the East Coast and none in Alaska or the West Coast where the greatest concentration of commercial fishing boats are located. Response:
Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404, excerpt 1 , for a discussion of the scope of the sVGP

. Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0 400

- A1 , excerpt 1 , for information on EPA's outreach for the proposed permits. Additionally, EPA reviewed the comments submitted by your organization and other commercial fishing associations and where appropriate made changes and clarifications to the final permit language.

Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) Commenter Affiliation: United F ishermen of Alaska Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment:
UFA would first like to comment that the industry’s requests submitted for a comment period extension was reasonable and should have been granted . With 22 month before these permits will be put in effect, insufficient publication of notice that the comment period had begun, the holiday season and over 350 supporting documents to the proposed permits, additional time would have been reasonable. In a ddition, the heaviest concentration of commercial fishing vessels both less than and greater than 79 feet participate in the Alaska commercial fisheries and the only hearings held were in Chicago and Washington DC. The dates and times of the webinar were a lso poorly advertised. Direct outreach to individual Alaska commercial fishing groups appears to have been minimal at best. Response: Regarding extending the comment period, please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0381, excerpt 1

.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 23 EPA provided information on the Public Hearings in the December 8th Federal Register ( FR ) notice and provided notice of the webinar and two question and answer sessions on our W eb page and via periodic v essel outreach tools (e

- mails and newsletters).

Commenter Name: Jennifer A. Carpenter, The American Waterways Operators Commenter Affiliation: The American Waterways Operators Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0408

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: The tugboat, towboat, and barge in dustry is not only an integral part of the U.S. intermodal transportation system, but also the safest and most fuel

- efficient, with the smallest carbon footprint, of any surface transportation mode. Ensuring that the federal regulatory regime governing ves sel discharges provides for a high level of environmental protection and preserves the economic efficiency of barge transportation is thus a national imperative. Put differently, regulations that do not adequately ensure the safe and environmentally respon sible operation of all towing vessels and barges, that impose unnecessary costs on companies operating towing vessels and barges, or that result in the diversion of cargo to other modes of transportation are bad not only for the industry, but for the U.S. economy and marine environment. Response: EPA acknowledges comment.

Commenter Name: Jennifer A. Carpenter, The American Waterways Operators Commenter Affiliation: The American Waterways Operators Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0408

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment:
AWO appreciates the streamlined approach that EPA has taken to the sVGP by establishing a best management practices approach to discharge limitations and proposing pared

- down quarterly visual inspection and reporting r equirements, which are appropriate for the limited volumes and types of effluent generated by small vessels as well as the limited resources of small vessel owners and operators. AWO offers the following recommendations to further improve the practicabilit y of the sVGP

. Response: EPA acknowledges comment.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 24 Commenter Name: Jennifer A. Carpenter, The American Waterways Operators Commenter Affiliation: The American Waterways Operators Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0408

- A1 Comment Excerpt N umber: 11
Comment: If Congress extends the moratorium on NPDES permits for incidental discharges from vessels less than 79 feet, or if EPA decides not to proceed with the sVGP for any other reason, AWO urges EPA to incorporate Parts 2 and 3 of the propo sed sVGP

– the best management practice, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements

– into the VGP as vessel class

- specific requirements for barges and exempt barges from the general requirements for authorized discharges of VGP Parts 1 through 4. Response : EPA acknowledges comment.

Commenter Name: Dale Kelley, Executive Director, Alaska Trollers Association (ATA) Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Trollers Association (ATA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0409

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment:
The Alaska Trollers Association (ATA) requests an extension of no less than 6 months for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) public comment period relative to both the Draft 2013 NPDES Vessel General Permit ( VGP ) and Draft Small Vessel G eneral Permit ( sVGP ). Response:
Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0381, excerpt 1

.

Commenter Name: Dale Kelley, Executive Director, Alaska Trollers Association (ATA) Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Trollers Association (ATA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0409

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 25 Comment: While we can appreciate EPA wanting to get its system in place early to help smooth the transition to a new permitting program, it has simply not been possi ble to fully digest and analyze the impact of the proposed rules in the relatively short time

- frame allowed. The comment period should be extended, at minimum. Response:
Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0381, excerpt 1

.

Commenter Name: Dale Kelley, Executive Director, Alaska Trollers Association (ATA) Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Trollers Association (ATA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0409

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: The Study
In the feder al register notice, EPA references its study on commercial fishing vessel discharge. In April 2010, ATA provided comments on this study and specific, detailed information about conduct of the troll fishery. We noted our substantial concerns about failure o f EPA's report to provide congress and the public a complete and accurate description of vessel discharges relative to a highly diverse industry, which spans a wide array of ocean and nearshore conditions from Maine to Alaska.
The troll fleet was one of t he few that EPA sampled for its study and troll vessels made up 10% of those sampled, yet a number of mischaracterizations and assumptions about our fleet and its operation were embodied in the report. Further, on a national scale, total sample size

– both number of vessels (61 total; 6 troll) and effluent samples (no more than 32 per pollutant)

– was small, as EPA itself noted. This makes the study data tenuous and the staff conclusions speculative. The data and analysis do not adequately reflect the true conduct of our fishery, nor the nature of our vessel discharges, nor the areas where discharges occur. These same concerns extend to other vessels tested in Alaska and throughout the US. The State of Alaska manages 68 fisheries under unique limited entry programs. Several other state

- run open access fisheries and a variety of federal fisheries also occur in our waters. Roughly 20,000 people hold Alaska limited entry permits

- 11,000 (77%) of them are residents of our state and half live in rural Alaskan co mmunities. At the time of the study, those individuals fished a total of 9,645 vessels, which made up 14% of the 70,000 commercial fishing vessels subject to the EPA’s study. 95% (9,146) of those vessels are less than 76 feet; 87% (8,393) are less than 50 feet.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 26 One of the biggest problems with the EPA analysis is that one size does not fit all when you are talking about conduct between fisheries or even within a fishery. There is a wide array of vessels, engines, and configurations. Sampling just 61 vessels over nine regions nationwide, and claiming that the data are reflective of the entire US fishing fleet, is wholly inadequate. We believe that a better understanding of how commercial fishing vessels operate now

- fishery by fishery and region by region

– and how they would be changed under the new permits, would help both EPA and congress see the potentially onerous and punitive nature of these regulations for small boat commercial fishermen. We do not believe that implementation of these permits will help the nation secure significant health protections for humans and wildlife, or improvements in water quality. This is particularly true in Alaska, where our fleets work large, mostly remote areas, in some of the coldest and most dynamic seas off the US coas t. Response: Please see EPA's response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1, excerpt 1 , for discussion of EPA's vessel discharge study.

Commenter Name: Dale Kelley, Executive Director, Alaska Trollers Association (ATA) Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Troller s Association (ATA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0409

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment: Should congress fail to act to exempt small boat commercial fishermen prior to the end of the current moratorium, we would urge another extension and ask that EPA engage industry stakeholders in a more thorough discussion about the nature of our operations and ways to achieve the goals and objectives of the CWA in a more reasonable manner.
Comment Period Too Short As noted, the comment period was too short to adequately understand and comment on the two permits presented. We request an extension. Additional ly, we object to the fact that no hearing was held in Alaska, despite the fact that nearly 15% of the affected vessels fish off our coastline. 'Webinars' are not yet user friendly for most Alaskans. Response:
EPA has issued the sVGP in the event that Congress does not extend the P.L. 110

- 299 moratorium. EPA does not have the authority to grant or extend a moratorium. Absent a valid general permit, if Congress does not extend the moratorium, small vessel owner s /operators would not be able to legally d ischarge (and therefore operate) in U.S. waters. EPA believes that it is good government to provide these vessel owner s /operators with a viable permittingResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 27 mechanism if it should be needed at the end of 201 4

. EPA believes that the sVGP is straightforward and provides common
- sense management requirements, while meeting our regulatory requirements. Regarding extending the comment period, please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0381, excerpt 1

.

Commenter Name: Nick Schroeck, Executi ve Director, Great Lakes Environmental Law Center Commenter Affiliation: Great Lakes Environmental Law Center Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0412

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: For the reasons set forth below, we request that EPA only approve this permit after ensuring that all safety measures and best management practices are in place to protect the fragile U.S. fresh water ecosystems, and specifically the highly sensitive waters of the Great Lakes. Public notice for the Draft Per mit states that written comments will be accepted on or before February 21, 2012. Therefore, these comments are timely submitted. Response: EPA acknowledges the comment.

Commenter Name: William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division, Michigan Departme nt of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Commenter Affiliation: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0413

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: Michigan also recognizes the potential environmental impacts that can result from other discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels proposed for coverage under the draft VGP2 and draft sVGP and the importance of effectively regulating these other discharge types in the VGP2 and sVGP

. Michigan s upports a majority of the conditions set forth in the VGP2 and sVGP with several key exceptions. The MDEQ , WRD’s specific comments relative to the draft VGP2 and draft sVGP are presented below for consideration by the USEPA

.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 28 Response: EPA acknowledges the comment.

Commenter Name: Alexis Cooper, Executive Director, Board of Directors, Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU) Commenter Affiliation: Board of Directors, Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 01 50

- 0414

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: I am writing on behalf of the Cordova District Fishermen United Board of Directors and our 300 members, who represent the commercial fisheries in Prince William Sound and the Northern Gulf of Alaska, to ask for an extension of the public comment period deadline for the “Draft sVGP for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel”. If no extension can be provided (then) we ask that Alaskan coastal fishing communities be exempt from the permitting requirement until a realistic and feasible solution can be adopted through dialogue involving the communities affected. The two public meetings held to address the proposed permit in Washington, DC and Chicago, IL, were too far from Alaskan communities tha t would be significantly impacted. Due to the lack of adequate public notice in remote communities more time is needed to further review and gain a better understanding of the definitions and reporting requirements set forth in the Draft sVGP . The majority of our members are small family run businesses that participate in (the) sustainable fisheries in the Northern Gulf of Alaska and operate vessels well under 79 feet in length. As written, the sVGP puts forward many best management practices to strive for, but is too ambiguous to be considered a legal standard for all commercial vessels under 79 feet, especially by the proposed December 2013 implementation. In order to fully digest the permit impacts and consequences we request at minimum a 45

- day extension of the public comment period and regional public informational meetings in Alaska. Response:
Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0381, excerpt 1

.

Commenter Name: Wayne Heikkila, Executive Director, Western Fishboat Owners Association (WFOA) Commenter Affiliation: Western Fishboat Owners Association (WFOA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0416

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 29 Comment:
Western Fishboat Owners Association ( WFOA ) which represents about 400 albaco re tuna vessels and supporting members on the US west coast, requests a forty

- five

- day extension of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) public comment period on the Draft 2013 NPDES Vessel General Permit (“VGP”) that would authorize discharges in cidental to the normal operation of nonmilitary and non

- recreational vessels greater than or equal to 79 feet in length, as well as Draft Small Vessel General Permit ( sVGP ). 76 Fed. Reg . 76,716 (Dec. 8, 2011). Response:
Please see EPA’s response to comme nt number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0381, e xcerpt 1.

Commenter Name: Wayne Heikkila, Executive Director, Western Fishboat Owners Association (WFOA) Commenter Affiliation: Western Fishboat Owners Association (WFOA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 015 0

- 0416

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment:
WFOA feels that an adequate time be allotted for our membership and other to review the proposed regulation and make productive comments. Response:
Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0381, e xcerpt 1.

Commenter Name: Wayne Heikkila, Executive Director, Western Fishboat Owners Association (WFOA) Commenter Affiliation: Western Fishboat Owners Association (WFOA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0416

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: Therefore, WFOA requests that EPA extend the public comment period by forty

- five days, until at least April 6, 2012, to allow for adequate review and response. Because the Draft 2013 VGP is not scheduled to go into eff ect until December 19, 2013, such an extension should not affect EPA’s ability to consider and respond to comments and the ability of regulated vessels to achieve compliance in a timely manner.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 30 Response:
Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0381, e xcerpt 1.

Commenter Name: Michelle Bonnett, Director, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), D ivision of Water, Water Quality Section Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0417

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: Furthermore, certain provisions in the permit may introduce unforeseen vessel safety issues that are unique to the Alaskan e nvironment and are described in the attac hed enclosure.
The EPA notes that vessels that are not able to meet the terms of the permit must app ly for individual vessel permits. We assume that EPA Region 10 will issue these individual permits for vessels disc harging in Alaska.
For these reasons, we encourage the EPA to refrain from opposing any potential exte nsion to the temporary moratorium on NPDES permitting for discharges subject to the 40 CFR 122.3(a) exclusion from (1) commercial fishing vessels (as defined in 46 U.S.C. § 2101 and regardless of size) and (2) from those other nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet in length , that expires on December 18, 2013. Response: EPA acknowledges the comment.

Commenter Name: Nancy Fitzpatrick, Executive Director, Oregon Salmon Commission, Oregon Albacore Commission Commenter Affiliation: Oregon Salmon Commission Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0418

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: We appreciate the fact that EPA is proposing a gener al permit rather than individual permits as administration will be less costly for both qualifying vessels and for the agency. However we don’t believe the agency fully comprehends the physical and operational characteristics of commercial fishing vessels that fall into the sVGP category.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 31 Response: Please see EPA's response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- A1 , excerpt 1 , for discussion of background for these requirements.

Commenter Name: Olin Anderson, Water Quality Standards Specialist, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe (PLPT) Commenter Affiliation: Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe (PLPT) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0422

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment:
General comments. Sectional nomenclature is extremely similar between the Permit a nd the Fact Sheet, though differing. This could be a source of confusion. For example, Fact Sheet Section 6.5 addresses Permit Section 4.11. Perhaps the numbering of the fact sheet could follow a clearly different system, or be exactly the same. Response: EPA acknowledges the comment; however, EPA has opted to retain the numbering system used in the proposed permit.

Commenter Name: Senior Captain Tommy M. Seda, Director, Schooner Inc. Commenter Affiliation: Schooner Inc. Document Control Num ber: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0423

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: We are gravely concerned about the impact that the EPA VGP and sVGP regulations will have on our operations and those of our member organizations. Response: EPA acknowledges the comm enter’s concern. EPA completed an economic and benefits analysis of this permit ( Economic and Benefits Analysis of the Final 2013 Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) ) that documents EPA’s conclusion that the sVGP is unlikely to have a significant economic impact on the vessel universe. In addition, EPA modified a number of sections of the permit based on public comment to address specific industry concerns.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 32 Commenter Name: Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA ) Commenter Affiliation: Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0426

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: As a general comment we don’t believe the EPA fully comprehends the physical and operational chara cteristics of commercial fishing vessels that fall into the sVGP category. In addition the Clean Water Act ( CWA ) violations are publicized, allowing anyone to seek compensation for a portion of fines to be levied. This has created a cottage industry of lit igators who peruse EPA enforcement data bases, file suits, and recover costs. Due to the numerous ways in which small vessels may inadvertently violate the requirements of the sVGP , we envision groups who are opposed to commercial fishing using this proces s to seek damages on small commercial fishing operations. We believe that sVGP violations should be exempt from the citizen suit recovery provisions. At a minimum, we believe that confidentiality should be provided so small fishing vessel operators don’t h ave to spend their time and money in court rather than pursuing their livelihoods. We urge the agency to review the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act confidentiality standards, which have long regulated the use of confidential inform ation in the fishing industry, and adopt those standards in this permit. Response: Please see EPA's response to comment response EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- A1 , excerpt 1 , for information on the background materials used to develop this permit and the vessel dis charge study. EPA does not have the ability to provide exemptions to the Clean Water Act (CWA) provisions, such as citizen suit provisions; however, the CWA does provide confidentiality provisions for protecting sensitive information.

Commenter Name: Thomas M. McLaughlin, President/CEO, Seafood Producers Cooperative Commenter Affiliation: Seafood Producers Cooperative Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0427

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment: The draft permits proposed include duplicate, unnecessary and unduly burdensome provisions for the commercial fishing industry. Alaska has about 10,000 fishing vessels. The current draft does not address the diversity and demonstrates a lack of knowledge a bout our industry.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 33 Although I'm sure the hearings being held in the commercial fishing industry centers of Chicago and Washington D.C. did much to recognize the diversity and educate regulation makers. Our company and our industry have a long record of env ironmental protection. Most of us want to be in business ten years from now. The only way we know how to do it is to protect the environment from which we make a living. It is disturbing that there is little statistical evidence for some of the regulations and no problem statement to define the scope of regulations or solutions. I would urge you to include our industry in going forward. Response: EPA acknowledges the comment.

Commenter Name: Bill Moore, Program Development Services Section Manager, Wat er Quality Program, Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) Commenter Affiliation: Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0443

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment:
The Wa shington State Department of Ecology ( ECY ) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the proposed general permit for small vessels ( sVGP ). The two vessel general permits are huge undertakings. We are impressed with the reasonableness of the requirements. Our comments for improving sVGP requirements are enclosed with this letter. Response: EPA acknowledges the comment.

Commenter Name: Bill Moore, Program Development Services Section Manager, Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of Ecology (EC Y) Commenter Affiliation: Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0443

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 4Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 34 Comment:
The sVGP has the potential to be a valuable tool for regulating a difficult set of polluters. We wish you luck and thank you for the opportunity to help by commenting on the proposed permit. Response: EPA acknowledges the comment.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 35 

# Issue Category: SCP. 2 Scope of PermitResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 36 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 37 SCP. 2 Scope of Permit
Commenter Name: D. K. McKoy Commenter Affiliation: Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0377 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: I believe 79 feet to be an appropriate line between vessels requiring federal permits and those that are exempt. I therefore oppose imposition of federal permits regarding discharge from vessels of less than 79 feet. One consideration is the matter of time spent in state versus federal waters. My experience on the gulf coast of Florida is that the ma jority of operation of smaller vessels is in state waters and is therefore a matter for state regulation. I worry about cost of enforcement to the agency and the cost of compliance to the small operator. Response: In July 2008, Congress enacted legislat ion to exempt discharges incidental to the normal operation of certain types of vessels from the need to obtain an NPDES permit. That legislation included a temporary moratorium on NPDES permitting for discharges subject to the 40 CFR 122.3(a) exclusion fr om (1) commercial fishing vessels (as defined in 46 U.S.C. § 2101 and regardless of size) and (2) those other non

- recreational vessels less than 79 feet in length ( S.3298, Pub. L. 110

- 299 (Jul y 31, 2008) ) . The statute’s NPDES permitting moratorium ran for a two

- year period beginning on its July 31, 2008, enactment date, during which time EPA studied the relevant discharges and submitted a report to Congress. For more information on that report,
see http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/vessels/Report

- to

- Congress.cfm . This moratorium was subsequently extended to December 18, 2014, by two fo llow

- up pieces of legislation. In order to provide permit coverage for discharges incidental to the normal operation of non

recreational, non

- military vessels less than 79 feet (including commercial fishing vessels), EPA has finalized the sVGP. Absent this authorization or Congressional action, vessels would be discharging illegally in U.S. waters or would need to obtain individual permit for their vessel discharges. In terms of the costs of compliance, see the economic analysis for the sVGP, which can be found on EPA's vessel W eb page at water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/vessels/ and in the docket for the permit.

Commenter Name: Roger E. Claff, Senior Scientific Advisor, American Petroleum Institute (API) Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute (API)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 38 Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0391

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: API acknowledges the potential benefit that the sVGP would afford. Many of the vessels used by our industry, however, are dedicated to emergency response, training for emergency re sponse, or inspections. Often they are tailored and/or out of the water and in stand

- by mode except for use during incidents, drills and inspections. This permitting scheme would be overly burdensome, with little environmental benefit, if applied to these infrequently used vessels. A provision should be made to fully exempt vessels expected to be in use on waters of the US less than 100 hours per year. Response: Regarding the scope of vessels eligible for coverage from the sVGP, please see EPA's response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0398

- A1 , excerpt 1 . Also, s ee comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0390

- A2 , excerpt 9, for discussion of the definition of "recreational vessel." Based on this and other comments, EPA has provided additional language in Part 3.2 of the permit to allow for reduced requirements for vessels that are maintained out of the water for an extended period of time.

Commenter Name: Roger E. Claff, Senior Scientific Advisor, American Petroleum Institute (API) Commenter Affiliatio n: American Petroleum Institute (API) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0391

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: API recognizes the reasoning for Small Vessel General Permits. API encourages incorporation of more flexibility, however, for those small vessels that are in waters of the US for very limited time in a calendar year. This additional flexibility would still be protective of the environment without creating excessive burden on industry or increasing environmental or safety risks b y unnecessarily deploying a vessel. API appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft Small Vessel General Permit. Response: Based on your comments and comments from other stakeholders, EPA has added language to Part 3.2 of the permit to allow for reduced requirements for vessels that are maintained out of the water for an extended period of time.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 39 Commenter Name: Captain Les Bolton, Executive Director, Grays Harbor Historical Seaport Authority Commenter Affiliation: Grays Harbor Historical Seap ort Authority Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0394

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: In recognition of the above, we join with Tall Ships America to recommend the following: Permanent exemption from the Vessel General Permit ( VGP ) and small Vessel ( sVGP ) for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels for all USCG Inspected small passenger (subchapter T) and sailing school vessel (subchapter R) auxiliary sail vessels We believe that providing this exemption will allow u s to continue to do what we do best, educate the public about the maritime word and develop the leaders of tomorrow. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Response:
Please s ee EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0377, excerpt 1.

C ommenter Name: Kathy Hansen, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Commenter Affiliation: Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 21
Comment: Page 16

– section 3.7.1 (2 nd paragraph and footnote 6) states “Vessels that are not being operated in the capacity of a means of transportation include vessels . . . or vessels that are secured to a storage facility or a seafood processing facility . . . ” is not covered under the permit. How does this work

– how can a vessel by tying up to the processor, the vessel is no longer be covered by the sVGP and the incidental discharges be prohibited and immediately stopped? What is happening if it is raining when you tie up to the dock

– do you have to suddenly prevent any deck run

- off? Who is responsible for the incidental discharges of the vessel, the seafood processor? This makes no sense as written in the different sections and needs to be revised and ma de consistent. Response:Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 40 EPA declines to revise the fact sheet, as the commenter suggests. Section 3.7.1 of the fact sheet explains that the sVGP authorizes discharges subject to the former NPDES permit exclusion set out in 40 CFR § 122.3(a) and the mor atorium on NPDES permitting enacted by Congress in P.L.110

- 299 and extended under P.L. 111

- 215 and H.R. 2838. Vessels that are not being operated in a capacity as a means of transportation were never subject to the former NPDES permit exclusion and therefo re the sVGP does not apply to discharges from such vessels. Discharges that are neither covered by this permit nor exempt from section 402 of the CWA must be authorized under a separate individual or general NPDES permit.

Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, E xecutive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: Alaska commercial fishing fleet is extremely diverse as are t he fisheries themselves. In 2007, there were 9,828 commercial fishing vessels registered ranging in length from 7 feet to 635 feet. With over 2,000 vessels 20 feet or less; over 2,000 from 21 to 29 feet; approx . 4,404 from 30 to 49 feet; 863 from 50 to 79 feet and 497 vessels over 79 feet. EPA’s understanding of the universe of the vessels only considers the documented vessels from the U.S. Coast Guard Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement database ( MISLE ) and not state registered vessels that w ill be covered under these permits. Many commercial fishing vessels are also used for recreational purposes, and we ask that fishing vessels when used for recreational purposes should receive the same exemption from discharge permits as recreational vessel s. We also ask that clarification on requirement of these permits be provided for uninspected charter vessels while paying clients are aboard. Response: Regarding the scope of vessels eligible for coverage from the sVGP, please see EPA's response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0398

- A1 , excerpt 1

. Please s ee EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0390

- A2 , excerpt 9 , for discussion rega rding the definition of "recreational vessel." EPA has also provided additional language in Part 3.2 of the permit to allow for vessels that are not in the water year

- round.

Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska (U FA) Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 17Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 41 Comment: Discharges Currently or Previously Covered by Another NPDES Permit on page 2: This draft sVGP states that a vessel is not covered under this permit if covered by another NPDES permit. Some Commercial fishing vessels are permitted under the NPDES Permit AK

- G52

- 0000 for Alaska Seafood Processors or the AK

- G52

- 4000 Offshore Alaska Seafood Processors permit yet th ese permits do not cover all the same discharges that are covered under the sVGP permit for the incidental to the normal operation of vessels. How does a vessel reconcile the permit applicable to their operation since neither permit covers the full scope o f their operations? Response:
Please see EPA’s response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1, excerpt 21. Part 1.5(f) of the sVGP states that vessel discharges covered, as of the effective date of this permit, under an individual NPDES permit or another NPDES general permit are not eligible for coverage under the sVGP. In addition, discharges that are not incidental to the normal operation of a vessel operating in a capacity as a means of transportation are not eligible for coverage under the sVGP ( s ee sVGP 1. 5(a) ) . If a vessel is operating in a capacity as a means of transportation (e.g., sailing to and from fishing grounds), its incidental discharges are covered by the sVGP. When a vessel is engaged in an industrial activity, such as seafood processing, its i ncidental discharges must be authorized under a separate individual or general NPDES permit

. The contents of other NPDES permits are outside the scope of today’s action. EPA notes that vessels subject to the seafood processor permits mentioned by the c omm enter typically do not engage in seafood processing activities within the three nautical mile from shore jurisdiction of this permit, and thus while operating subject to this permit are solely operating as a means of transportation.

Commenter Name: Craig Urness, General Counsel, Pacific Seafood Group and Pacific Fishing, LLC Commenter Affiliation: Pacific Seafood Group and Pacific Fishing, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0407

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: After reviewing the draft, we don’t believe the agency fully comprehends the physical and operational characteristics of commercial fishing vessels that fall into the sVGP category. The vast majority of these commercial fishing vessels are small businesses in what is alr eady a very difficult profession. We believe a further continuance of the existing exemption is appropriate under the circumstances. Response:
Please s ee EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0377, excerpt 1.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 42 Commenter Name: Jennifer A . Carpenter, The American Waterways Operators Commenter Affiliation: The American Waterways Operators Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0408

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: Allow Unmanned, Unpowered Barges to Obtain Coverage under the sVGP
AWO recommends that EPA allow unmanned, non

- self

- propelled barges to obtain permit coverage under the sVGP , rather than the VGP , if the barge operator so chooses. While the vast majority of inland and coastal barges are longer than 79 feet, their dis charge characteristics have far more in common with the small vessels that will be covered by the sVGP than with the other classes of vessels subject to the VGP . Indeed, most unmanned barges produce fewer effluent streams, and smaller volumes of effluent, than the small self

- propelled vessels for which the sVGP was designed. For example, of the 27 discharge categories that would be covered by the proposed VGP , hopper barges

– which are essentially floating steel boxes for carrying dry bulk cargoes

– typical ly discharge only deck runoff, occasional water pumped from void spaces below deck, and, very occasionally, ballast water. Tank barges typically produce deck runoff and, in some cases, ballast water. Response: EPA disagrees with this commenter that unman ned barges should be covered under the sVGP

. EPA understands that vessels of this type may have limited discharge streams, but EPA believes coverage of these vessels under the VGP is appropriate as described in the fact sheet for that permit

. T he economic analysis for the VGP, including an assessment of barges, can be found on EPA's vessel W eb page at http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/vessels/ and in the docket for the VGP.

Commenter Name: Jennifer A. Carpenter, The American Waterways Operators Commenter Affiliation: The American Waterways Operators Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0408

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: Given the small number of discharge streams and the small volume of effluent produced by barges, AWO sees no environmentally protective purpose served by subjecting barge operators to the more complex, administratively burdensome, and costly permit requirements contained in the VGP rather than the more str eamlined approach proposed in the sVGP . The sVGP addresses each of the discharges described above with best management practices to reduce their impactsResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 43 on the marine environment. In many cases, these practices simplify but largely restate the requirements of the VGP . If these best practices are considered adequate for the management of greater volumes of discharges, with greater potential for environmental harm, from other small vessels, then there is no reason why barge operators should not be allowed to implement them to manage their discharges, too, by obtaining coverage under the sVGP

. Response: Please see EPA's response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0408

- A1 , excerpt 5.

Commenter Name: Dale Kelley, Executive Director, Alaska Trollers Association (ATA) Com menter Affiliation: Alaska Trollers Association (ATA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0409

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: Further, ATA requests that EPA work with congress to exempt small boat commercial fishermen under the Clean W ater Act ( CWA ) from these impractical and unnecessarily burdensome permits. Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0377, excerpt 1. Legislation is outside of the scope of today’s action.

Commenter Name: Dale Kelley, Executive Director, Alaska Trollers Association (ATA) Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Trollers Association (ATA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0409

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: However, it is difficult to see why the previous exemption is not still appropriate for vessels like ours. Obviously the courts have dictated that such a provision would now take congressional authorization. Has EPA attempted to work with congress to secure the exemption that just three years ago the age ncy believed was appropriate? Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0377, excerpt 1. Legislation is outside of the scope of today’s action.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 44 Commenter Name: Dale Kelley, Executive Director, Alaska Trollers Associat ion (ATA) Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Trollers Association (ATA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0409

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment:
Recreational Vessels Under the Clean Boating Act of 2008, Congress exempted roughly 16 million r ecreational vessels from discharge requirements. We have seen no comparative data for that sector. It is a fact that many of those vessels are similar in structure and size to the vessels our industry represents. Many of those recreational vessels operate in the nearshore areas and in far greater concentrations than commercial fishing boats, particularly far roaming fleets like the Alaska troll fleet. This is not to suggest a problem with recreational vessels, but merely to point out that the nation’s 70,00 0 fishing boats total less than 0.5% of the recreational craft already exempted, and that many of our discharges occur in ports and offshore areas with a low concentration of vessels and a good tidal flush. Here in Alaska, where commercial fishing, processing, and recreational activity has taken place for more than 100 years, our waters are large, mostly unimpaired, and marine resources are healthy and abundant. Response: Legislation is outside the scope o f today’s action. Regarding environmental impacts of commercial fishing vessels and other non

- recreational vessels less than 79 feet, EPA performed a study of discharges incidental to the normal operation of these vessels and prepared a report to Congress with the Agency’s findings (to meet the Agency’s obligation under Public Law 110

- 229 (July 31, 2008) ) . The study found that some vessel discharges may have the potential to impact the aquatic environment and/or human health. A copy of the report is avail able on EPA’s NPDES Vessels homepage at http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/vessels/

.

Commenter Name: Dale Kelley, Executive Director, Alaska Trollers Association (ATA) Commenter Affilia tion: Alaska Trollers Association (ATA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0409

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment: Through EPA's past exemption, we believe the agency agreed with that conclusion and it seems appropriate for EPA now to in form congress to that effect.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 45 ATA is hopeful that EPA will ultimately work with Congress and affected stakeholders to reinstate the previous exemption for commercial fishing vessels under 79’ and protect thousands of small business owners from unnecessary discharge regulations. Response: Legislation is outside of the scope of today’s action.

Commenter Name: Wayne Heikkila, Executive Director, Western Fishboat Owners Association (WFOA) Commenter Affiliation: Western Fishboat Owners Association (WFOA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0416

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: We find the scope of the proposal very encompassing in potentially negative ways to an already stressed industry. We are concerned that a “one size fits all” approa ch will hurt the ability of many of our vessels to economically operate as our vessels already have an enormous amount of new regulations and paperwork to deal with that was not so in the past. Response: EPA disagrees that the sVGP is a “one size fits al l” approach. In terms of the cost to vessels to comply with the sVGP, the Agency estimates the per

- vessel sVGP incremental compliance costs average between $17 and $133 per year. See also the economic analysis for the s VGP, which can be found on EPA's V e ssel W eb page at http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/vessels/ and in the docket for the sVGP.

Commenter Name: Wayne Heikkila, Executive Director, Western Fishboat Owners Association (WFOA) Commenter Affiliation: Western Fishboat Owners Association (WFOA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0416

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: Most vessels have already been subject to the incidental discharge requirements of the 2008 VGP , Congressional legislation generally exempted fishing vessels from complying with these requirements, with the exception of ballast water discharges.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 46 Following the expiration of this exemption, fishing vessels may be subject to the numerous effluent limits and requirements proposed in the Draft 2013 VGP . These new measures could have a significant effect on the operation and maintenance of fishing vesse ls. Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that the new measures could have a significant effect on the operation and maintenance of fishing vessels and points out that the Agency estimates the per

vessel sVGP incremental compliance costs average betwe en $17 and $133 per year. A copy of the economic analysis for the s VGP can be found on EPA's V essel W eb page at http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/vessels/ and in the docket for the sVGP.

Com menter Name: Michelle Bonnett, Director, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Sect ion Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0417

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment:
The EPA estimates that between 118,000 and 138,000 vessels may b e eligible for coverage under the sVGP . We consider that to be a conservativ e estimate. In our research for a 2007 letter to the EPA , we estimated that nearly 10,000 commercial fishing vessels and over 4,000 charter vessels were registered in Alaska. Based on this data, the Department concurs that a general permit, administer e d b y the EPA reg ions, is feasible. Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter’s support for use of a general permit for commercial fishing vessels and charter vessels.

Commenter Name: Nancy Fitzpatrick, Executive Director, Oregon Salmon Commission, Oregon Albacore Commi ssion Commenter Affiliation: Oregon Salmon Commission Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0418

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment:
COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED sVGPResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 47 1.1 ELIGIBILITY By applying the permit to all vessels that operate in “waters c overed” the permit requirements will affect an unknown number (but a number that is several hundreds at a minimum) of small open vessels normally less than 20 feet in length that fish for salmon and other species in rivers and bays. This includes vessels e ngaged part time in subsistence fisheries in Alaska and vessels exercising tribal treaty rights in Washington, Oregon, and California. Discharges from these vessels are minimal but do occur. While we believe that small open vessels of this nature should be covered by the sVGP so that they can operate, the permit requirements for small vessels of this type can be onerous and in some cases impossible to meet. Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1, excerpt 3.

C ommenter Name: Nancy Fitzpatrick, Executive Director, Oregon Salmon Commission, Oregon Albacore Commission Commenter Affiliation: Oregon Salmon Commission Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0418

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment:
The U.S. Coast Guard uses standards found in 46 U.S.C. 12113 to determine whether a vessel is eligible for a fishery endorsement. We suggest that the permit apply to vessels eligible for a fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 12113 and that vessels less than 5 net tons as described in 46 U.S.C. 11203(a) be provided a general exemption. Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1, excerpt 3.

Commenter Name: Nancy Fitzpatrick, Executive Director, Oregon Salmon Commissio n, Oregon Albacore Commission Commenter Affiliation: Oregon Salmon Commission Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0418

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 18
Comment:
3.5.2 TERMINATING COVERAGEResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 48 The fact sheet notes that coverage is automatically terminated “if a new owner or operator has assumed responsibility for the vessel.” What is unclear is how

– if a fishing vessel is sold to a new owner

– that new owner obtains coverage and whether there would be a gap in coverage that prevents a vessel fro m operating while new coverage is obtained. We believe that these are issues that need to be clarified. Response: Section 3.5.2 of the fact sheet states that a vessel’s permit coverage is automatically terminated if a new owner or operator has assumed re sponsibility for the vessel. It goes on to explain that the new owner or operator of a vessel is authorized to discharge upon signing a copy of the Permit Authorization and Record of Inspection ( PARI ) form and retaining that form onboard the vessel. This f orm and certification must be printed, signed, and kept on the vessel while under permit coverage. There is no formal transfer of ownership or certification that is required for vessels under the sVGP

.

Commenter Name: Senior Captain Tommy M. Seda, Dire ctor, Schooner Inc. Commenter Affiliation: Schooner Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0423

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: Nationwide there are approximately 350 US flagged inspected auxiliary sail small passenger (subchapters T, not more than 100 GRT ) and Sailing School Vessels (subchapter R, not more than 500 GRT ). Contrast this to the environmental impact of the tens of thousands of commercial fishing and recreational vessels that are exempted from having to participate in this permitting and documentation scheme. These vessels represent such a small fraction of the maritime industry that none of our vessels were included as subjects when assessing the fiscal and human resource impact during the implementation study. Our organiz ation supports any regulation that promotes environmental awareness and protection. However, there is little in the permitting and documentation process that has any relevance to the sailing vessels that goes beyond citing other regulations that our member ship are already in compliance with. Our vessel relies on fixed ballast, does not have ballast tanks, nor does it carry cargo. For our community, the VGP process is a significant increase in administrative demand for negligible positive environmental impac t. In recognition of the above, we join with Tall Ships America to recommend the following: Permanent exemption from the Vessel General Permit ( VGP ) and small Vessel ( sVGP ) for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels for all USCG Inspected small passenger (subchapter T) and sailing school vessel (subchapter R) auxiliary sail vessel.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 49 Response: Please see EPA's response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0424

- A1 , excerpt 1.

Commenter Name: Captain Richard Files, Owner Operator, Schooner Victory Ch imes Commenter Affiliation: Schooner Victory Chimes Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0424

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: I am gravely concerned about the impact that the EPA VGP and sVGP regulations will have on our operations. We are a small businesses, we operate seasonally, and we promote environmental stewardship and responsibility aboard our vessel which are propelled by wind power no engine. My vessels and those of the Maine Windjam mer feet represent a tiny fraction of the commercial vessels that fall under these sets of regulations. Nationwide there are approximately 14 commercially operated pure sailing vessels.. Contrast this to the environmental impact of the tens of thousands of commercial fishing and recreational vessels that are exempted from having to participate in this permitting and documentation scheme. Our sailing vessels represent such a small fraction of the maritime industry that none of our vessels were included as su bjects when assessing the fiscal and human resource impact during the implementation study. We promote environmental awareness and protection. However, there is little in the permitting and documentation process that has any relevance to the sailing vessel s that goes beyond citing other regulations that we are already in compliance with. My vessel relies on fixed ballast, does not have ballast tanks, nor does it carry cargo has no engine. We operate as they did over a century ago. These regulations may effe ct the way these vessels are historical operated and put us in a tuff spot. For our community, and my vessel the VGP process is a significant increase in administrative demand for negligible positive environmental impact. These regulations assume that ever y vessel has power on board we do not. We meet or exceed all USCG regulations for our class of vessel. In recognition of the above we ask for Permanent exemption from the Vessel General Permit ( VGP ) and small Vessel ( sVGP ) for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels for all USCG Inspected sailing small passenger (subchapter T) vessels. We believe that providing this exemption will allow us to continue to do what we do best, keep a way of life that has just about disappeared from our US shor es. At the least exempt National Historic Landmark vessels and those in our fleet. Allow these historic vessel to continue to operate Response: If a vessel does not have a particular discharge stream, then that vessel is not required to meet the effluent limits applicable to that discharge stream. For example, if a vessel subject to the sVGP does not have any ballast tanks, then the owner/operator is not required to meet the ballast water discharge requirements of Part 2.9. EPA believes the permit require ments will not impose anResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 50 unreasonable burden on vessel owner s /operators. For information on the economic cost of the permit, see the Economic A nalysis for this permit

. EPA does not have a record on which to base a de minimis exclusion from the CWA NPDES pe rmitting requirement for the discharges the commenter believes do not warrant regulation (nor does the commenter provide such information). EPA notes that without an NPDES permit authorizing discharges on the date of vacatur of 40 CFR 122.3(a) (or a statut ory exemption) , discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel would be subject to the CWA Section 301(a) prohibition against discharge without a permit. In addition, legislation is outside the scope of this action.

Commenter Name: Captain A lan Olson, Executive Director, Educational Tall Ship Commenter Affiliation: Educational Tall Ship Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0432

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: We are gravely concerned about the impact that the EPA VGP and sV GP regulations will have on our operations and those of our member organizations. We are a (small businesses and/or a not for profit organization), we operate (seasonally/year round), and we promote environmental stewardship and responsibility aboard our ves sel(s) which is (are) primarily propelled by wind power. Our vessels and those of our fellow Tall Ships America members represent a tiny fraction of the commercial vessels that fall under these sets of regulations. Nationwide there are approximately 350 US flagged inspected auxiliary sail small passenger (subchapters T, not more than 100 GRT ) and Sailing School Vessels (subchapter R, not more than 500 GRT ). Contrast this to the environmental impact of the tens of thousands of commercial fishing and recreati onal vessels that are exempted from having to participate in this permitting and documentation scheme. These vessels represent such a small fraction of the maritime industry that none of our vessels were included as subjects when assessing the fiscal and h uman resource impact during the implementation study. Response: Please see EPA's response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0424

- A1 , excerpt 1

.

Commenter Name: Captain Alan Olson, Executive Director, Educational Tall Ship Commenter Affiliation: Educational Tall Ship Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0432

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 51 Comment: Our organization supports any regulation that promotes environmental awareness and protection. However, there is little in the permitting and documentation process that has any relevance to the sailing vessels that goes beyond citing other regulations that our membership are already in compliance with. Our vessel(s) rely on fixed ballast, does (do) not have ballast tanks, nor does it (do they) carry cargo. Fo r our community, the VGP process is a significant increase in administrative demand for negligible positive environmental impact. In recognition of the above, we join with Tall Ships America to recommend the following: Permanent exemption from the Vessel G eneral Permit ( VGP ) and small Vessel ( sVGP ) for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels for all USCG Inspected small passenger (subchapter T) and sailing school vessel (subchapter R) auxiliary sail vessel. We believe that providing this ex emption will allow us to continue to do what we do best, educate the public about the maritime word and develop the leaders of tomorrow. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Response: Please see EPA's response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0424

- A1 , excerp t 1.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 52 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 53 

# Issue Category: SCP1. 2.1 Waters S ubject to this P ermitResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 54 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 55 SCP1. 2.1 Waters S ubject to this P ermit
Commenter Name: Rod Moore, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Commenter Affiliation: West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment:
1.2 WATERS COVERED As an alternative to the exemption suggested above, the sVGP could cover vessels operating seaward of the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured (the same standard used to delineate the U.S. territorial sea and exclusive economic zone). Vessels operating shoreward of the baseline would be granted a ge neral exemption from the permit requirements while still be allowed to discharge in the course of normal vessel operations. Response:
Please see EPA’s response to c omment n umber EPA

- HQ

- 2011

- 0150

- 0426

- A2, excerpt 4.

Commenter Name: Nancy Fitzpatrick, Ex ecutive Director, Oregon Salmon Commission, Oregon Albacore Commission Commenter Affiliation: Oregon Salmon Commission Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0418

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment:
1.2 WATERS COVERED
As an alternative to the exemption suggested above, the sVGP could cover vessels operating seaward of the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured (the same standard used to delineate the U.S. territorial sea and exclusive economic zone). Vessels operating shoreward of the baseline would be granted a general exemption from the permit requirements while still be allowed to discharge in the course of normal vessel operations. Response:
Please see EPA’s response to c omment n umber EPA

- HQ

- 2011

- 0150

- 0426

- A2, excerpt 4.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 56 Com menter Name: Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Commenter Affiliation: Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0426

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment:
1.2 WATERS COVERED As an alternative to the exemption suggested above, the sVGP could cover vessels operating seaward of the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured (the same standard used to delineate the U.S. territorial sea and exclusive econom ic zone). Vessels operating only shoreward of the baseline would be granted a general exemption from the permit requirements while still being allowed to discharge in the course of normal vessel operations. Compared to the agency’s previous decision to exe mpt more than 13 million pleasure boats, of all sizes, from these permitting requirements, this exemption would be expected to have only a minor effect on marine water quality. Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that the Agency should allow only s mall vessels that operate seaward of the territorial sea baseline to seek permit coverage under the sVGP. These small non

recreational vessels must have NPDES coverage in order to legally discharge (and therefore operate) in U.S. waters in the event the P .L. 110

- 299 moratorium expir es . Hence, EPA believes the Agency must finalize today’s permit to provide an option for vessel owner s /operators subject to NPDES permit requirements to seek permit coverage. EPA does not have the authority to exempt certain t ypes of discharges or facilities (vessel types) from NPDES permitting requirements, unless the C WA itself expressly provides for such an exemption.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 57 

# Issue Category: SCP2. 2.2 Eligible V essels and D ischargesResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 58 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 59 SCP2. 2.2 Eligible vessels and discharges
Commenter Name: Rod Moore, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Commenter Affiliation: West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0 150

- 0379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment:
1.1 ELIGIBILITY By applying the permit to all vessels that operate in “waters covered” the permit requirements will affect an unknown number (but a number that is several hundreds at a minimum) of small open vessels normally less than 20 feet in length that fi sh for salmon and other species in rivers and bays. This includes vessels engaged part time in subsistence fisheries in Alaska and vessels exercising tribal treaty rights in Washington, Oregon, and California. Discharges from these vessels are minimal bu t do occur. While we believe that small open vessels of this nature should be covered by the sVGP so that they can operate, the permit requirements for small vessels of this type can be onerous and in some cases impossible to meet.
The U.S. Co ast Guard uses standards found in 46 U.S.C. 12113 to determine whether a vessel is eligible for a fishery endorsement. We suggest that the permit apply to vessels eligible for a fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 12113 and that vessels less than 5 net to ns as described in 46 U.S.C. 11203(a) be provided a general exemption. Response: EPA disagrees that the sVGP’s requirements are onerous or impossible to meet, and commenter identifies no specific concerns. In terms of the cost to vessels to comply with the sVGP, that the Agency estimates the per vessel sVGP incremental compliance costs average between $17 and $133 per year. See also the economic analysis for the s VGP, which can be found on EPA's vessel webpage at http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/vessels/ and in the docket for the sVGP. EPA disagrees that the sVGP should apply to vessels eligible for fishery endorsement consistent with 46 USC 12113. The applicability of commercial fishing ve ssels in the sVGP is consistent with those vessels whose incidental discharges are exempted from NPDES permitting until December 18, 2014.

Commenter Name: Rod Moore, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Commenter Affilia tion: West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 60 Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment:
1.5 VESSEL DISCHARGES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR COVERAGE Included in this list is “discharges from indus trial operations (e.g. seafood processing).” While we agree that industrial operations are not normal vessel operations, the permit provides no definition of “seafood processing”. There are several operations such as heading, gutting, gilling, shucking, chilling, glazing, and freezing that are normal to fishing vessels and are essential to maintaining the quality of fish. All of these could be construed as seafood processing. We believe that the permit needs to include a definition of “seafood processing” and we suggest that EPA use the definition found in 46 U.S.C. 2101( 11b ) which defines a “fish processing vessel”. This definition is familiar to the U.S. Coast Guard and has been used as the basis of definitions found in fishery management plans develope d by the Pacific Fishery Management Council and regulations issued by the Department of Commerce to implement those plans. The following wording might be appropriate:

“Seafood Processing” means the commercial preparation of fish or fish products other tha n by gutting, decapitating, gilling, skinning, shucking, icing, freezing, or brine chilling. Response: EPA agrees that the permit should include a definition of seafood processing, and added a definition to Part 6 of the permit for clarification and to b etter help vessel owner/operators determine if their vessel is eligible for coverage under the sVGP. The sVGP defines “seafood processing” as the conversion of aquatic animals from a raw to marketable form which involves more than evisceration of fish or other seafood at sea.

Commenter Name: Rod Moore, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Commenter Affiliation: West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 Commen t Excerpt Number: 16
Comment:
3.2 VESSEL UNIVERSE AFFECTED As noted in our comments regarding the sVGP , there are a large number of small vessels less than 5 net tons which would be affected. Generally speaking, it is our understanding that the U.S. C oast Guard MISLE database does not keep track of these vessels as they are state

-Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 61 numbered rather than operating under a fishery endorsement. Therefore, we believe that the universe of affected commercial fishing vessels is under

- stated in the analysis.
Re sponse: EPA used the best available information to estimate the universe of vessels eligible for coverage under the sVGP. The analysis, including data sources utilized and a discussion of uncertainties and data limitations, are included in the sVGP econ omic analysis, available in the docket for finalization of today’s permit. EPA notes that the commenter did not suggest alternate data sources the EPA should use to generate its estimates, other than stating EPA has underestimated the number of very small commercial fishing vessels.

Commenter Name: Rod Moore, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Commenter Affiliation: West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18
Comment:
3.7.1 DISCHARGES NOT SUBJECT TO NPDES EXCLUSION The fact sheet stipulates that the permit does not apply when a vessel is “secured to a...seafood processing facility.” Vessels which rely on circulating seawater systems to maintain their catch at the proper temperature for quality purposes or to keep their catch alive will need to run those systems even while secured to the dock of a processing facility, especially if there is a lag time before unloading begins. Because any discharges resulting from use of these systems are part of the normal operation of the vessel we do not believe that they should require obtaining a separate permit. Response: Please see response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1, excerpt 21.

Commenter Name: Hobe Kytr, Administrator, Salmon For All Commenter Affiliation: Salmon For All Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0382

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 62 Comment: Most fishermen today use reel boats of 24

– 30 ft. in length, either set up as stern pickers or bow pickers, with bow reel boats being the most prevalent, especially in the lower river, where their shallow draft is an advantage for fishing in the estuary of the mighty river. While these boats generally do have a small cabin, they are not equipped with galleys, nor do they have the capacity for carrying supplies of absorbent materials. Most fishermen deliver their fish to buyers and processors in the round, bu t in order to gain access to higher value markets, some fishermen troll

- bleed and gut their fish, taking extra care to deliver the highest quality product. They are not processors, but it appears such fishermen could be classified as such under the general rules and definitions of the NPDES Small Vessel General Permit ( sVGP ). Response: Based on this and other comments, EPA added a definition of seafood processing to the sVGP. Troll bleeding and gutting the fish would not be considered seafood processing under that definition.

Commenter Name: Daniel P. Mecklenborg, Senior Vice President, Human Resources, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary, on behalf of Ingram Barge Company Commenter Affiliation: Ingram Barge Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0384

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Ingram Barge would urge that EPA allow unmanned , unpowered barges to obtain permit coverage under the Small Vessel General Permit , rather than the Vessel General Permit ( VGP ) , if the owner or the oper ator of the barge so chooses. While most of the barges are over 79 feet in length , their discharge characteristics are more in common with the vessels covered by the sVGP than the VGP . Most unmanned barges produce fewer volumes of effluent, with fewer effl uent streams , than the vessels covered by the sVGP . Additionally , volumes of deck runoff are dependent on precipitation and deck runoff from washdown is rarely inclusive of any chemicals, as deck washdowns usually occur with just water. Therefore, given th e small number of discharge streams and the limited quantity of effluent produced by the barges , there is a limited environmental reason to subject barge owners and operators to the more complex permit requirements of the VGP . Instead, the streamlined appr oach of the sVGP would address the environmental concerns and provide sufficient best management practices. In particular , Ingram Barge, as an owner of 4,000 barges would see a great reduction in the recordkeeping and reporting burden imposed by the VGP if the barges were included under the sVGP , with the same benefit to the environment. We would strongly urge the EPA to allow for barges to comply with the sVGP instead of the VGP if the owner or operator elects to do so.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 63 Response:
Please see EPA’s res ponse to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0408

- A1, excerpt number 5.

Commenter Name: James Spurr, Board Director, American Sail Training Association, Michigan Maritime Museum (MMM) Commenter Affiliation: Michigan Maritime Museum Document Control Numb er: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0388 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: I am writing on behalf of the Michigan Maritime Museum (" MMM "), a small non

- profit museum. The MMM owns and has safely operated a replica tall ship, Friends Good Will, since 2004. The MMM' s mission is history education. The proposed rule should be clarified to read "length on deck" for the proposed length. Otherwise, it will include numerous sailing ships, whose sparred length, such as ours, is very slightly over the proposed length, when the hull itself is much smaller. For instance, Friends Good Will, like so many traditional sailing passenger vessels, is well short of the proposed length, in terms of hull, volume and tonnage. It would normally not fall within the rule. Only by virtue of its bowsprits and booms, extending fore and aft beyond the hull, does it exceed the proposed minimum length. Friends Good Will is only 56' on deck, but is 101' only because of its bowsprit and boom. The rule should either be clarified to measure "length just on deck," or to simply exclude spars which extend beyond the hull as a part of the measurement determining inclusion within the rule. Response: Vessel length refers to overall length as defined at 46 CFR Part 69.9. That regulation defines length as : "Overall length means the horizontal distance between the foremost part of a vessel's stem to the aftermost part of its stern, excluding fittings and attachments.” Bowsprits, bumpkins, rudders, outboard motor brackets would typically be considered fittin gs and attachments (see e.g., 46 CFR 24.10

- 1). Provided bowsprits and booms would be considered fittings and attachments for length measurements under 46 CFR Part 69.9, the example vessel given would qualify for coverage under the sVGP.
Commenter Name: Deborah Hayes, Program Director and Captain, St Georges School Commenter Affiliation: St Georges School Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0398

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 64 Comment: We are gravely concerned about the impact that the EPA VGP and sVGP regulations will have on our operations and those of our member organizations. Our organization supports any regulation that promotes environmental awareness and protection. However, there is little in the permitting and documentation process th at has any relevance to the sailing vessels that goes beyond citing other regulations that our membership are already in compliance with. Our vessel rely on fixed ballast, does not have ballast tanks, nor does it carry cargo. For our community, the VGP pro cess is a significant increase in administrative demand for negligible positive environmental impact. In recognition of the above, we join with Tall Ships America to recommend the following: Permanent exemption from the Vessel General Permit (VGP) and sm all Vessel (sVGP) for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels for all USCG Inspected small passenger (subchapter T) and sailing school vessel (subchapter R) auxiliary sail vessel. Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 0150

- 0377, e xcerpt 1.

Commenter Name: Thomas M. Gemmell, Executive Director, United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Commenter Affiliation: United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0400

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment:
3. sVGP Section 1.1. The permit is not clear what type vessel length EPA is using: registered length, length overall, molded length, etc. Response: Vessel length refers to overall length as defined at 46 CFR Part 69.9. That regulation defines length as: "Overall length means the horizontal distance between the foremost part of a vessel's stem to the aftermost part of its stern, excluding fittings and attachments.”

Commenter Name: Thomas M. Gemmell, Executive Director, United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Commenter Affiliation: United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 65 Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0400

- A1 Comment Excerpt Num ber: 5
Comment:
4. sVGP Section 1.5. The permit does not provide EPA’s definition of ―seafood processing. Does that include merely heading or gutting a fish; or does it mean processing like cooking and canning, filleting , and freezing? We suggest you us e the definition found in 46 U.S.C. 2101 ( 11b ) since this is familiar to the Coast Guard and others in the seafood industry. Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1, excerpt number 6 regarding the definition of seafood processing that has been added to the sVGP.

Commenter Name: Kathy Hansen, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Commenter Affiliation: Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2 011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: Eligibility on page 1, Section 1.1: An outstanding issue is it is not clear that uninspected charter vessels carrying passengers are covered by this permit or the exemption provided for recreational ve ssels. This permit should clarify this issue. Discharges Currently or Previously Covered by Another NPDES Permit on page 2, section 1.4: The draft sVGP states that a vessel is not covered under this permit if covered by another NPDES permit. Some Comme rcial fishing vessels are permitted under the NPDES Permit AK

G52

- 0000 for Alaska Seafood Processors or the AK

- G52

- 4000 Offshore Alaska Seafood Processors permit yet these permits do not cover all the same discharges that are covered under the sVGP permit for the incidental discharge to the normal operation of vessels. How does a vessel reconcile the permit applicable to their operation since neither permit covers all of the operations or incidental discharges for the vessel? In addition, we notic ed that the Seafood Processors permits show more knowledge and understanding of the seafood fishing/processing industry than EPA has shown in the draft sVGP & VGP permits, but it is still a permit burdensome with unrealistic expectation for the fishermen t o comply with. Vessel Discharges Not Eligible for Coverage on page 1 section 1.5 : The U.S. Coast Guard, Dept of Commerce and Regional Fishery Management Councils defines “seafood processing” means the commercial preparation of fish or fish products other than byResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 66 gutting, decapitating, gilling, skinning, shucking, icing, freezing or brine chilling. Section 1.5 states that discharges described in 40 CFR 122.3 and include but are not limited to, discharges from industrial operations (e.g. seafood processing . . . are not covered by this permit. The draft permit needs to contain the definition of seafood processing and should use the already accepted definition provided above and most importantly provide for allowing the discharges not already covered created by gutting, decapitating, gilling, skinning, shucking, icing, freezing or brine chilling as normal incidental operation of a commercial fishing vessel. Annex V of MARPOL excludes “fresh fish and parts thereof, generated during the normal operation of the ship and liable to be disposed of continuously or periodically” . . . again bringing us back to the assumption that these operations should be covered under this permit. Response: In response to this and other comments, the sVGP fact sheet provides clarification and examples of which types of vessels are recreational vessels and which vessels are eligible for coverage under the sVGP

– see section 1.1 of the sVGP fact sheet. The fact sheet explains that a recreational vessel as any vessel that is eith er: (1) manufactured or used primarily for pleasure, or (2) leased, rented, or chartered to a person for the pleasure of that person. The term recreational vessel does not include a vessel that is both subject to Coast Guard inspection and either (1) is en gaged in commercial use or (2) carries paying passengers. If the charter vessels are not subject to Coast Guard inspection, they are exempt from the need to obtain NPDES permit coverage for incidental discharges. With respect to discharges incidental to t he normal operation of a vessel that are covered by another NPDES permit, see response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 0406

- A1, excerpt 17. Also, please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1, excerpt number 6 regarding the definition of sea food processing that has been added to the sVGP.

Commenter Name: Kathy Hansen, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Commenter Affiliation: Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 17
Comment: “Seafood Processing” should be defined as the commercial preparation of fish or fish products other than by gutting, decapitating, gilling, skinning, shucking, icing, freezing or brine chilling. See comm ents below in the sVGP section of comments.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 67 Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1, excerpt number 6 regarding the definition of seafood processing that has been added to the sVGP.

Commenter Name: Tina M. C ardone, Executive Director, Conference of Professional Operators for Response Towing (C

- PORT) Commenter Affiliation: Conference of Professional Operators for Response Towing (C

- PORT) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0405

- A1. Comment Excerpt N umber: 1
Comment: Obtaining and complying with the EPA Discharge Permit will create a significant hardship for these small businesses. The vessels we operate are overwhelmingly the same in size, type and power as most recreational vessels; normally the same hull as those purchased by recreational boaters. Recreational vessels are exempt from discharge permitting and we assert we are entitled to the same exemption.

ese vessels are predominately docked at recreational marinas, not at commercial facilities found in busy ports. The concern of discharges in concentrated areas such as harbors and creeks or basins with little flushing is not relevant to our vessels. The EP A study categorized our vessels with a host of other vessels and referred to them as “utility”. We argue that the potential environmental damage that may be caused by discharges from our vessels is minimal, barely measurable, when viewed as a separate cate gory and in conjunction with their moored locations.
ranging in size from 24’ rigid hulled inflatable outboard powered vessels to 41’ standard recreational style hulls with inboard engines. There are no fish tanks or other such holding tanks normally found with these hull types.

vessels are operated locally, seldom venturi ng outside their home waters.

industry is dependent upon rapid response and our vessels must be in top running condition free of deck debris and oily bilges. This reduces the ill effects of any deck run off or other operational discharge.

Industry vessels do not have gray water discharge created from showers, sinks and the like. Our vessels are designed without these conveniences again reducing the ill effects of any such discharge.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 68 operators are not different than those of recreational boaters. I n many cases, due to our dependence on the waters for our livelihood, we are more prone to purchase environmentally friendly agents and due to our tight profit margins, use less of any such solutions. This reduces our impact on the environment with any dec k runoff
C

- PORT, on behalf of these professional operators, appreciates your attention and asks you to exempt the Marine Assistance Industry from this permit. For the reasons cited above, this exemption is appropriate for our industry and these small busin ess owners. Response: EPA believes the permit requirements will not impose an unreasonable burden on vessel owner/operators. For information on the economic cost of the permit, see the Economic Analysis. Please see EPA's response to excerpt 1 of commen t number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0398

- A1 for a discussion of why small passenger vessels and sailing vessels are covered by the sVGP.

Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 30
Comment: “Seafood Processing” should be defined as the commercial preparation of fish or fish products other than by gutting, decapitating, gilling, skinning, sh ucking, icing, freezing or brine chilling. See comments below in the sVGP section of comments Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1, excerpt number 6 regarding the definition of seafood processing.

Commenter Name: Craig Urness, General Counsel, Pacific Seafood Group and Pacific Fishing, LLC Commenter Affiliation: Pacific Seafood Group and Pacific Fishing, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0407

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 69 Comment:
1.5 VE SSEL DISCHARGES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR COVERAGE Included in this list is “discharges from industrial operations (e.g. seafood processing).” While we agree that industrial operations are not normal vessel operations, the permit provides no definition of “seafood processing”. There are several operations such as heading, gutting, gilling, shucking, chilling, glazing, and freezing that are normal to fishing vessels and are essential to maintaining the quality of fish. All of these could be construed as seafood processing. We believe that the permit needs to include a definition of “seafood processing” and we suggest that EPA use the definition found in 46 U.S.C. 2101( 11b ) which defines a “fish processing vessel”. This definition is familiar to the U.S. Coast Guard and has been used as the basis of definitions found in fishery management plans developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council and regulations issued by the Department of Commerce to implement those plans. The following wording might be appropriate: “Seafood Processing” means the commercial preparation of fish or fish products other than by gutting, decapitating, gilling, skinning, shucking, icing, freezing, or brine chilling. Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- H Q

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1, excerpt number 6 regarding the definition of seafood processing.

Commenter Name: Nancy Fitzpatrick, Executive Director, Oregon Salmon Commission, Oregon Albacore Commission Commenter Affiliation: Oregon Salmon Commission Documen t Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0418

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment:
1.5 VESSEL DISCHARGES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR COVERAGE Included in this list is “discharges from industrial operations (e.g. seafood processing).” While we agree that industrial operations are not normal vessel operations, the permit provides no definition of “seafood processing”. There are several operations such as heading, gutting, gilling, shucking, chilling, glazing, and freezing that are normal to fishing vessels and are ess ential to maintaining the quality of fish. All of these could be construed as seafood processing. We believe that the permit needs to include a definition of “seafood processing” and we suggest that EPA use the definition found in 46 U.S.C. 2101( 11b ) which defines a “fish processing vessel”. This definition is familiar to the U.S. Coast Guard and has been used as the basis of definitions found in fishery management plans developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council andResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 70 regulations issued by the Depar tment of Commerce to implement those plans. The following wording might be appropriate: “Seafood Processing” means the commercial preparation of fish or fish products other than by gutting, decapitating, gilling, skinning, shucking, icing, freezing, or bri ne chilling. Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1, excerpt number 6 regarding the definition of seafood processing.

Commenter Name: Nancy Fitzpatrick, Executive Director, Oregon Salmon Commission, Oregon Albacore Commission Commenter Affiliation: Oregon Salmon Commission Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0418

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 17
Comment:
COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED sVGP FACT SHEET
3.2 VESSEL UNIVERSE AFFECTED As noted in our comments regarding the sVGP , there are a large number of small vessels less than 5 net tons which would be affected. Generally speaking, it is our understanding that the U.S. Coast Guard MISLE database does not keep track of these vessels a s they are statenumbered rather than operating under a fishery endorsement. Therefore, we believe that the universe of affected commercial fishing vessels is under

- stated in the analysis. Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 01 50

- 0379

- A1, excerpt number 16.

Commenter Name: Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Commenter Affiliation: Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0426

- A2 Comme nt Excerpt Number: 2Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 71 Comment:
1.1 ELIGIBILITY By applying the permit to all vessels that operate in “waters covered” the permit requirements will affect an unknown number of small open vessels normally less than 20 feet in length that fish for clams, oysters and blue crabs in rivers and bays. Discharges from these vessels are minimal but do occur. While we believe that small open vessels of this nature should be covered by the sVGP so that they can operate, the permit requirements for small vessels of this type can be onerous and in some cases impossible to meet. For purse seine skiffs that are part of the operational aspect of a larger purse seine vessel, and in most cases are in the 20 foot size range, we suggest that the permit of the larger vessel b e applied to the auxiliary skiff. Response: The VGP allows auxiliary vessels that are less than 79 feet to be covered under the permit if they require permit coverage. See Part 1.2.1 of the VGP. Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1, excerpt number 3 regarding permit burden for small vessels. Also, as described in Section 3.5.1 of the VGP Fact Sheet, auxiliary vessels or craft, such as purse seine skiffs, are eligible for coverage under the VGP and are covered along wit h the larger vessels.”

Commenter Name: Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Commenter Affiliation: Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0426

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment:
1.5 VESSEL DISCHARGES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR COVERAGE Included in this list are “discharges from industrial operations (e.g. seafood processing).” While we agree that industrial operations are not normal vessel operations, the permi t provides no definition of “seafood processing”. There are several operations such as heading, gutting, gilling, shucking, chilling, glazing, and freezing that are normal to fishing vessels and are essential to maintaining the quality of fish. All of thes e could be construed as seafood processing. We believe that the permit needs to include a definition of “seafood processing” and we suggest that EPA use the definition found in 46 U.S.C. 2101( 11b ) which defines a “fish processing vessel”. Several fisheries in the Mid Atlantic region are operating in a manner that could fit a definition of “seafood processing” including scallops, monkfish and smooth dogfish. Special considerationResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 72 needs to be made to clarify that these practices, which are essential to comply with regulatory possession limits and maintain product quality, do not equate to “seafood processing” in the context of these permits. Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1, excerpt number 6 regarding the def inition of seafood processing.

Commenter Name: Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Commenter Affiliation: Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0426

- A2 Comme nt Excerpt Number: 18
Comment:
COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED sVGP FACT SHEET
3.2 VESSEL UNIVERSE AFFECTED As noted in our comments regarding the sVGP , there are a large number of small vessels less than 5 net tons which would be affected. Generally speaking, it is our understanding that the U.S. Coast Guard MISLE database does not keep track of these vessels as they are statenumbered rather than operat ing under a fishery endorsement. Therefore, we believe that the universe of affected commercial fishing vessels is under

- stated in the analysis.
3.7.1 DISCHARGES NOT SUBJECT TO NPDES EXCLUSION The fact sheet stipulates that the permit does not apply when a vessel is “secured to a...seafood processing facility.” Vessels which rely on circulating seawater systems to maintain their catch at the proper temperature for quality purposes, or to keep their catch alive, will need to run those systems even while secure d to the dock of a processing facility, especially if there is a lag time before unloading begins. Because any discharges resulting from use of these systems are part of the normal operation of the vessel we do not believe that they should require obtainin g a separate permit. Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1, excerpt number 16 regarding the universe of permitted vessels and excerpt number 18 regarding activities secured to a seafood processor.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 73 Commente r Name: Tim Sizemore, Manager Waterway Regulatory Programs, American Electric Power River Operations (AEP) Commenter Affiliation: American Electric Power River Operations (AEP) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0428

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment:
AEP recommends that at the discretion of the barge owner or operator, unmanned, nonself
- propelled barges be allowed to obtain permit coverage under the small Vessel General Permit ( sVGP ) rather than the VGP
. While the vast majority of inland barges are longer than 79 feet, their discharge characteristics have far more in common with the small vessels that will be covered by the sVGP than with the other classes of vessels subject to the VGP . Indeed, most unmanned barges produce fewer effluent streams, and smaller volumes of effluent, than the small self

- propelled vessels for which the sVGP was designed. For example, of the 27 discharge categories that would be covered by the 2013 VGP , hopper barges

– which are essentially floating steel boxes for carrying dry bulk cargoes

– typically discharge only deck runoff, occasional water pumped from void spaces below deck. Given the small number of discharge streams and the small volume of effl uent produced by barges, there is no environmental benefit to subjecting barges to the more complex permit requirements contained in the VGP rather than the more streamlined approach proposed in the sVGP

. There are also significant operational reasons why the sVGP is a better fit for unmanned barges especially in the inland barge industry. A single company may own hundreds or even thousands of barges, which may be chartered to multiple operators over relatively short spans of time. The VGP requirements for weekly visual inspections and extensive recordkeeping and reporting impose significant administrative and financial burdens on barge owners and custodians (such as towers and fleeters ) with little or no corresponding environmental benefit. EPA could signif icantly reduce the economic impact and paperwork burdens associated with the proposed permits, without undermining their environmental objectives, by allowing unmanned barges to obtain coverage under the sVGP rather than the VGP and to store / maintain rec ords for unmanned barges shore side instead of on the vessel (unmanned barge) which would not be a secure or ideal location. This would eliminate the need to retrofit existing barges (with significant cost burdens) with a mail box or other devise to store record. Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0408

- A1, excerpt number 5 regarding barges.

Commenter Name: Matthew Long, Director, Government Affairs, National Association of State Boating Law Administrators (NASBL A)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 74 Commenter Affiliation: National Association of State Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0430

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: In our role as representatives of state and territorial maritime law en forcement, I am writing to express concern regarding the language included in the draft NPDES Small Vessel General Permit ( sVGP ). Having worked with Congress to pass the Clean Boating Act, it was clear that Congressional intent was to exempt both military and law enforcement vessels from this regulation. State and territorial maritime law enforcement work as force multipliers with the military every day throughout the country, acting as one force to safeguard the security of the country. It was for this rea son, in addition to their important work as first responders that Congress did not intend to regulate law enforcement vessels. The recreational boat exemption was thought to address this issue at the time, and I believe that it still does. Although the EPA has not highlighted this exemption for state and territorial maritime law enforcement, it exists through the listed provisions. The majority of law enforcement vessels are indeed manufactured for recreational use, a clearly listed exemption in the law. Wh ile it is true that some law enforcement agencies may posses specially manufactured vessels for law enforcement purposes, they are still generally classified as a recreational

- type vessel. Regardless, no law enforcement agency has a fleet made up of specia lty boats only. Rather they are a mix of recreational boats and recreational

- type boats. It is clear that there exists an ambiguous category of boats under these regulations, state and territory owned vessels. Since the vast majority of these boats are man ufactured as recreational or recreational

- type uninspected vessels, regardless of their actual use they are exempted from the permitting process. We respectfully ask that the EPA aid the U.S. Coast Guard, the enforcement agency for these regulations, by cl early stating that state and territory owned vessels less than 79 feet in length are exempted from the NPDES Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) process for the aforementioned reasons. We are very supportive of the Clean Boating Act, especially since our me mbers will be the front line officers dealing with educating the public regarding implications for the average boater. We simply ask your assistance in clarifying the fact that state owned vessels will not require permits. Response:
The sVGP fact sheet d oes provide clarification and states that “ the following kinds of vessels would be recreational vessels within the meaning of the Clean Water Act and are not subject to this permit: Boston whaler

- type recreational vessel manufactured for activities like wa ter skiing, but also used for law enforcement purposes, for example, operated by a state police department or fish and wildlife agency.” sVGP fact sheet section 1.1. In addition, see EPA's response to excerpt 1 of comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0398

- A1 for discussion on exempting small passenger vessels and sailing vessels from the VGP and sVGP and commentResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 75 EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0390

- A2 , excerpt 9 for discussion regarding the definition of "recreational vessel."

Commenter Name: Robert Leitch, Floating P lant Program Manager, US Army Corps of Engineers Commenter Affiliation: US Army Corps of Engineers Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0431

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment:
Issue 1. The continuity of the federal register notice language and the small vessel general permit ( sVGP ) is lacking.
Reference: 76 FR 76716, Section I and small vessel general permit ( sVGP ) Section 1.1 Eligibility.
Discussion: Section I of 76 FR 76716 states: “This action applies to vessels operating in a capacity as a means of transportation that have discharges incidental to their normal operation into waters subject to this permit, except recreational vessels as defined in Clean Water Act section 502(25) and vessels of the Armed Forces as defined in Clean Water Act section 312(a)(14). Affected vessels are henceforth referred to as non

‐ military, non

‐ recreational vessels.”
USACE vessels are specifically excluded from uniform national discharge standards under 40 CFR 1700.3.
40 CFR 1700.3 states “

Armed Forces vessel means a vessel owned or operated by the United States Department of Defense or the United States Coast Guard, other than vessels that are time or voyage chartered by the Armed Forces, vessels of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or vessels that are memoria ls or museums.”
Recommendation: EPA should use consistent terminology in the sVGP for permit eligibility discussions as was done in Section I of the proposed rulemaking. The sVGP should specifically state “vessels of the armed forces” vs. “non

‐ military ves sels.” With this clarification, USACE vessels will clearly be eligible for permit coverage. Response: The commenter is correct that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers vessels are eligible to be covered under the sVGP. Based on this comment, EPA has clarifi ed in Part 1.1 of the sVGP fact sheet that the permit applies to non

- military, non

- recreational vessels less than 79 feet, and thatResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 76 "non

- military" vessels means those vessels that are not of the Armed Forces as defined in section 312(a)(14) of the Clean Wa ter Act.

Commenter Name: Robert Leitch, Floating Plant Program Manager, US Army Corps of Engineers Commenter Affiliation: US Army Corps of Engineers Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0431

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment:
Issue 11. Sewage
Reference: N/A
Discussion: USACE is aware that sewage is not part of the permit and is covered under Section 312 of the CWA

. Recommendation: USACE recommends adding the language from Section 312 of the CWA to the permit for easy reference and inform ation. Response: The commenter correctly notes that sewage is outside the scope of the permit and is covered under Section 312 of the Clean Water Act. EPA does not believe that adding Section 312 language to the permit is appropriate, as it is outside th e scope of today's action.

Commenter Name: Robert R. Boulware, Nautical Science Faculty, The Sound School Commenter Affiliation: The Sound School Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0433

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment:
These comments are submitted on behalf of The Sound School, a marine

- oriented public high school in New Haven, Connecticut. We operate the Motor Vessel Island Rover , inspected as a Subchapter T vessel, on education programs for high school students, middle school studen ts, elementary school students and young adults. We also work with some half

- dozen colleges and universities.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 77 With this vessel we conduct youth education programs, provide leadership development, instill a love of the marine environment, and promote the im portance of America’s maritime industry and traditions. The vessel serves as a laboratory and classroom. We are gravely concerned about the impact that the EPA sVGP regulations will have on our operations. We are a small school in a municipal school distri ct, and we operate seasonally. Our vessel and those of our fellow educational institutions represent a tiny fraction of the commercial vessels that fall under this set of regulations. We estimate that, nationwide there are fewer than 300 U.S. flagged inspe cted small passenger vessels (subchapters T, not more than 100 GRT ) doing similar work. Contrast this to the environmental impact of the tens of thousands of commercial fishing and recreational vessels that are exempted from having to participate in this p ermitting and documentation scheme. These vessels represent such a small fraction of the maritime industry that none of our vessels were included as subjects when assessing the fiscal and human resource impact during the implementation study. We support an y regulation that promotes environmental awareness and protection

– in fact, awareness of the marine environmental is central to our programs. We believe, however, that there is little in the permitting and documentation process that has any relevance to o ur class of vessel that goes beyond citing other regulations that we are already in compliance with. Our vessels rely on fixed ballast, do not have ballast tanks and do not carry cargo. For our community, the sVGP process is a significant increase in admin istrative demand for negligible positive environmental impact. In recognition of the above, we recommend the following: Permanent exemption from the Vessel General Permit ( VGP ) and small Vessel ( sVGP ) for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Ve ssels for all USCG Inspected small passenger (subchapter T). Response: Please see EPA's response to excerpt 1 of comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0398

- A1 for discussion on exempting small passenger vessels from the VGP and sVGP.

Commenter Name: David P. McGinnis, Owner and Senior Captain, Traverse Tall Ship Company, LLC Commenter Affiliation: Traverse Tall Ship Company, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0434

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: We are members of Tall Ships Am erica (formerly known as the American Sail Training Association), an organization dedicated to youth education, leadership development andResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 78 preservation of the maritime heritage of the United States, and organizer of the TALL SHIPS CHALLENGE® series races i n US ports. Tall Ship America’s members include 150 U.S.

- flag tall ships, including the USCG Barque EAGLE. These vessels conduct youth education programs, provide leadership development, instill a love of the marine environment, and promote the importance of America’s maritime industry and traditions. Sail training vessels serve as laboratories and classrooms taking students of all ages to sea. College and high school students can embark on semester or year

- long voyages of discovery, while elementary studen ts typically explore local waters on school field trips. Many of the vessels are also historic vessels, or their reproductions. We are gravely concerned about the impact that the EPA VGP and sVGP regulations will have on our operations and those of our mem ber organizations. We are a small business, we operate seasonally, and we promote environmental stewardship and responsibility aboard our vessel which is primarily propelled by wind power. Our vessels and those of our fellow Tall Ships America members repr esent a tiny fraction of the commercial vessels that fall under these sets of regulations. Nationwide there are approximately 350 US flagged inspected auxiliary sail small passenger (subchapters T, not more than 100 GRT) and Sailing School Vessels (subchap ter R, not more than 500 GRT). Contrast this to the environmental impact of the tens of thousands of commercial fishing and recreational vessels that are exempted from having to participate in this permitting and documentation scheme. These vessels represe nt such a small fraction of the maritime industry that none of our vessels were included as subjects when assessing the fiscal and human resource impact during the implementation study. Our organization supports any regulation that promotes environmental a wareness and protection. However, there is little in the permitting and documentation process that has any relevance to the sailing vessels that goes beyond citing other regulations that our membership are already in compliance with. Our vessel relies on f

ixed ballast, does not have ballast tanks, nor does it carry cargo. For our community, the VGP process is a significant increase in administrative demand for negligible positive environmental impact. In recognition of the above, we join with Tall Ships Ame rica to recommend the following: Permanent exemption from the Vessel General Permit (VGP) and small Vessel (sVGP) for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels for all USCG Inspected small passenger (subchapter T) and sailing school vessel ( subchapter R) auxiliary sail vessel. Response: Please see EPA's response to excerpt 1 of comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0398

- A1 for discussion on exempting small passenger vessels from the VGP and sVGP.

Commenter Name: Diane Pleschner

- Steele, Exec utive Director, California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA) Commenter Affiliation: California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0440

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 79 Comment: 1.1 Eligibility (p.1)
CWPA m embers employ auxiliary purse seine skiffs that are towed/carried to the fishing grounds and back. We believe these small accessory vessels should be exempt from the permit requirements and be considered part of the larger vessel. For purposes of any rec ordkeeping, inspections and reporting these vessels should also be considered as part of the same entity as the larger vessel. Response: For discussion on auxiliary vessel onboard vessels larger than 79 feet, please see EPA's response to excerpt 2 of c omment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0426

- A2.

Commenter Name: Bobbi M. Walker, Executive Director, National Association of Charterboat Operators (NACO) Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Charterboat Operators (NACO) Document Control Number: E PA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0441

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment:
The studies that EPA commissioned have not sampled charter boats exclusively to determine what , if any , pollution problem exists from these vessels. Charter vessel s do not have a ballast wate r tank, again we are identical to recreational vessels. They leave and return to the same docking area so there is no problem with carrying invasive species. Your own studies to a s sess the risk to water quality associated with ballast water discharges concluded the research would take 3

- 10 years to complete in order to give a defendable conclusion. Currently , we would recommend that your suggestion of 8 cubic meters of ballast water capacity be the requirement for any vessel to participate in the sVGP o r VGP process
. Other vessels with these small volumes of ballast water DO NOT pose a significant discharge problem. Vessels that have NO ballast water tanks should be permanently exempted. Additionally , we would argue that EPA was unable to evaluate the ex pected benefits of the permits in dollar terms due to data limitations. The only gain EPA expects to benefit society is ; 1) Enhan c ed water quality from reduced pollutant discharges Again, our vessels do not pose a risk to pollutant discharges and we do not have ballast tanks 2) Reduced risk of invasive species introduction
Charter boats because they leave and return generally on the same day traveling in local waters do not pose a problem for invasive species introductionResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 80 In July of 2008 we understood f rom elected officials that ALL charter boats would be exempted from this permit. We still believe that was the intention. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Response: In order to provide permit coverage for discharges incidental to the no rmal operation of non

recreational, non

- military vessels less than 79 feet (including commercial fishing vessels with less than 8 cubic meters of ballast water), EPA has finalized the Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP). Absent this authorization or Congres sional action, vessels would be discharging illegally in U.S. waters or would need to obtain individual permit for their vessel discharges. See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 0150

- 0377, excerpt 1 for a discussion of the types of vessels and discharges that are eligible for coverage under the sVGP. In addition to ballast water, charter vessels have many other discharges that also warrant coverage by the permits such as deck runoff, bilgewater and graywater . When regulated, these discharges also have a positive environmental gain. Some of the smaller charter vessels you describe may not be covered by the sVGP and EPA has clarified the definition and applicability of this in the sVGP

. Please see EPA's response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0390

- A2 , excerpt 9 regarding these changes.

Commenter Name: Captain Jan C. Miles, Acting Executive Director, Pride of Baltimore, Inc. Commenter Affiliation: Pride of Baltimore, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0442

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: We are gravely concerned about the impa ct that the EPA VGP and sVGP regulations will have on our operations and those of our member organizations. We are a not for profit organization, we operate seasonally, but occasionally year round, and we promote environmental stewardship and responsibilit y aboard our vessel which is primarily propelled by wind power. Our USCG certified passenger sailing vessel and those of our fellow Tall Ships America members represent a tiny fraction of the commercial vessels that fall under these sets of regulations. Na tionwide there are approximately 350 US flagged inspected auxiliary sail small passenger (subchapter T, not more than 100 GRT ) and Sailing School Vessels (subchapter R, not more than 500 GRT ). Contrast this to the environmental impact of the tens of thous ands of commercial fishing and recreational vessels that are exempted from having to participate in this permitting and documentation scheme. Inspected sailing vessels represent such a small fraction of the maritime industry that none of our vessels were i ncluded as subjects when assessing the fiscal and human resource impact during the implementation study.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 81 Our organization supports any regulation that promotes environmental awareness and protection. However, there is little in the permitting and documenta tion process that has any relevance to the sailing vessels that goes beyond citing other regulations that our membership are already in compliance with. Our vessel PRIDE OF BALTIMORE II relies on fixed ballast, does not have ballast tanks, nor does it carr y cargo. For our community, the VGP process is a significant increase in administrative demand for negligible positive environmental impact. On our vessel, we have for decades practiced and taught/trained "best practices" of maritime environment stewardshi p. The proposed VPG regulations for our vessel represent uncalled for levels of documentation, that also represent administrative requirements that will not produce less environmental impact while producing additional and extraordinary burdens of administr ative record keeping. In addition, the 79 foot boundary creates a significantly undemocratic inequity of application of the proposed regulation when it permits vessels in our class shorter than 79 feet to meet record keeping requirements that are insignifi cant as compared to the record keeping requirements of longer than 79 foot vessels that are restricted to carrying fewer persons than is permitted on a shorter vessel (length of vessel is frequently not representative of the numbers of persons a vessel is authorized to carry). Such inequity of applied regulation does not rise to the level of beneficial service to the public that the regulation is meant to guide for the purpose of increasing environmental stewardship. In recognition of the above, we join wit h Tall Ships America to recommend the following: Permanent exemption from the Vessel General Permit (VGP) and small Vessel (sVGP) for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels for all USCG Inspected small passenger (subchapter T) and sailing school vessel (subchapter R) auxiliary sail vessel. Response: Please see EPA's response to excerpt 1 of comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0398

- A1 for discussion on exempting small passenger vessels and sailing vessels from NPDES permits.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 82 (This page i ntentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 83 

# Issue Category: BKG

. 3 Permit BackgroundResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 84 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 85 BKG. 3 Permit Background
Commenter Name: Nick Schroeck, Executive Director, Great Lakes Environmental Law Center Commenter Affiliation: Great Lakes Environmental Law Center Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0412

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: Ballast water is a major vector for the introduction and spread of non

- native species into aquatic ecosystems. An estimated 10,000 marine species are transported around the world in ballast water every day. 3 Furthermore, nearly 30% of new species are unintentionally brought to the Great Lakes in the ballast tanks of ocean going vessels. This growing epidemic clearly establishes that c urrent discharge requirements under CWA section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES ) permits are simply not stringent enough. Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972, Clean Water Act (" CWA ") section 301(a), "the discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful" unless the discharge is in compliance with certain other sections of the Act. A person may discharge a pollutant without violating the CWA section 301 prohibition, by obtai ning authorization to discharge under a CWA section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES ) permit. The EPA issued the original Vessel General Permit (" VGP ") to regulate incidental discharges from vessels operating in a capacity as a me ans of transportation.
The 2008 VGP addressed 26 potential vessel discharge streams by establishing effluent limits, including Best Management Practices (" BMPS ") to control the discharges of waste streams and constituents found in those waste streams. For these discharges, the permit establishes effluent limits pertaining to the constituents found in the effluent and BMPS designed to decrease the amount of constituents entering the waste stream. A vessel owner is responsible for meeting the applicable effl uent limits and complying with all the effluent limits for every listed discharge the vessel produces. Furthermore, the 2008 VGP requires that owners or operators of a vessel that is either 300 or more gross register tons or has the capacity to hold or di scharge more than 8 cubic meters of ballast water is required to submit a Notice of Intent (" NOI ") to receive permit coverage. The 2008 VGP requires owners or operators of vessels to conduct routine self

- inspections and monitoring of all areas of the vesse l that the permit addresses. In light of the valid concerns about the spread of aquatic invasive species through ballast water, EPA is proposing new, more stringent changes to the 2008 VGP . The EPA is organizing these changes into three sections; changes to ballast water requirements; changes to other incidental discharge effluent requirements; and changes to administrative requirements.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 86 Response:
EPA notes that , in the introduction to his comment letter, the commenter has provided a summary of what he believe s the impacts of invasive species to be. The commenter also provides a brief description of elements of the 2008 VGP

. Finalization of the 2013 VGP is beyond the scope of today’s action (finalization of today’s sVGP). See comments in this documen t regarding ballast water (BAL, BAL1, BAL2, and BAL3) for additional discussion about ballast water related topics.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 87 

# Issue Category: BKG1. 3.1 Why EPA R egulates V essels (0 comments)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 88 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 89 

# Issue Category: BKG2

. 3.2 MoratoriumResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 90 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 91 BKG2. 3.2 Moratorium
Commenter Name: Beth Kerttula, Representative, House District 3, Alaska State Legislature et al. Commenter Affiliation: Alaska State Legislature, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0439

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: We are requesting that you do not adopt the small Vessels General Permit ( sVGP ). We support an extension of the moratorium set to expire on December 18 th , 2013, exempting commercial fisheries vessels less than 79 feet in length. Our letter addresses the problems we see with the proposed sVGP a nd the problems our coastal communities will face if the moratorium is not extended. Response:
EPA has issued the sVGP in the event that Congress does not extend the P.L. 110

- 299 moratorium. EPA notes that , at the time of the writing of this response , that moratorium has been extended until December 19, 2014 , and the permit term of the sVGP has been adjusted accordi ngly. EPA does not have the authority to grant or extend a moratorium. Absent a valid NPDES general permit, if Congress does not extend the moratorium, small vessel owner s /operators would not be able to legally discharge (and therefore operate) in U.S. wa ters. EPA believes that it is good government to provide these vessel owner s /operators with a viable permitting mechanism if it should be needed at the end of 2014. EPA believes that the sVGP is straightforward and provides common
- sense management requir ements while meeting our regulatory requirements.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 92 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 93 

# Issue Category: COM

. 4 Compliance and EnforcementResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 94 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 95 COM. 4 Compliance and Enforcement
Commenter Name: Rod Moore, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Commenter Affiliation: West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: Before providing specific comm ents below we wish to note one major concern that arises from the provisions of the Clean Water Act ( CWA ). Under the CWA , violations are generally publicized and citizen suit provisions then allow anyone to seek compensation for a portion of fines to be l evied. This has created a cottage industry of litigators who peruse EPA enforcement data bases, file suits, and recover costs. Our members have had substantial experience with this sort of activity in the past. Given the numerous ways in which small ves sels may inadvertently violate the requirements of the sVGP , we can envision groups who are opposed to commercial fishing using this process to bankrupt small commercial fishing operations. We believe that sVGP violations should be exempt from the citizen suit recovery provisions. At a minimum, we believe that confidentiality should be provided so small fishing vessel operators don’t have to spend their time and money in court rather than pursuing their livelihoods. Under the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Con servation and Management Act MSFCMA ), confidentiality is afforded fishing and processing operations except in certain cases. We urge EPA to examine the MSFCMA process and adopt it here. Response: EPA does not agree with the commenter that sVGP violation s should be exempt from citizen suit recovery provisions. The sVGP was developed in compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, and any violations of the permit constitute a violation of that Act. Thus, any noncompliance of the sVGP, as well as all other NPDES permits, may be subject to potential consequences as discussed in Section 309 of the Clean Water Act and as discussed in Part 4.3 of the sVGP. The determination of how enforcement actions are publicized is up to enforcement authorities and is outside the scope of today's action. Any confidential business information submitted to or gathered by EPA specific to the sVGP will be handled consistent with any 40 CFR Part 2 confidentiality obligations. Also, please see EPA’s response to comment response EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1, excerpt number 19, regarding public access to sVGP information, including confidential information.

Commenter Name: Stanley Mack, Mayor, Aleutians East Borough (AEB) Commenter Affiliation: Aleutians East Borough (AEB) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0390

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 96 Comment:
2. Effluent Limits and Related Requirements (p.2) Generally, the AEB is concerned that the term “minimize” as defined in the proposed permit does not clarify the trigger between compliance and non

- compliance and what must be recorded and submitted on the Annual Non

- Compliance Form ( See Appendix B). For example, if an open 16

- foot skiff (with a self

- baling deck) operating in permitted waters takes on deck wash and fish slime while tending a salmon gillnet

-- and the deck residues in the runoff result in a visible sheen on the surrounding water

-- does this action constitute a violation of the sVGP which must be recorded and submitted as non

- compliance? Put more simply, at what level does an owner/operator clearly know what constitutes a reportable non

- compliance event? Response: Please see EPA's resp onse to excerpt 19 of comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 for discussion on the term "minimize" in terms of compliance.

Commenter Name: Paul Belforti, President, Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Commenter Affiliation: Passenger Vessel Associat ion (PVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0396

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment:
It is not appropriate for a private contractor to have inspection and enforcement authority pursuant to the sVGP
. Section 4,5 (Inspection and Entry) of th e proposed sVGP states that an "authorized contractor" can act on behalf of EPA to "inspect any vessel, equipment, ... , practices, or operations regulated or required under this permit." As noted elsewhere in the proposed sVGP , violations may subject a pe rson to civil or criminal penalties. Thus, enforcement of the proposed sVGP constitutes an enforcement of our nation's federal law. It is not appropriate for a nongovernmental entity (an "authorized contractor") to engage in law enforcement, an inherently governmental function. The proposed sVGP should be amended to delete any re ference to an "authorized contractor" engaging in any type of inspection or enforcement activity. Response: EPA disagrees with commenter’s assertion that a private contractor should not be allowed to inspect any vessel on EPA’s behalf. EPA agrees that e nforcement of the sVGP, a Clean Water Act permit, is an enforcement of a federal law and an inherently governmental function. TheResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 97 commenter errs when he says that “inspection” of a vessel is an inherently governmental function. Section 308 of the Clean Wat er Act authorizes the Administrator or his authorized representative (including a private contractor acting as a representative of the Administrator) to inspect the premises of a NPDES facility; although, any determination of violations and enforcement act ions based on the findings of such inspections, are to be, and will be, performed by EPA.

Commenter Name: Thomas M. Gemmell, Executive Director, United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Commenter Affiliation: United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USA G) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0400

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14
Comment:
13. sVGP Section 4.3. This talks of fines on the order of $10

- 20,000 per day. EPA staff in Alaska has indicated fines are on the order of $16

- 37,500. Which is c orrect?
14. sVGP Section 4.5. Do Coastguardsmen carry enforcement "credentials"? Response: The CWA establishes criminal, civil, and administrative penalty authorities for violating different requirements of the Act. Section 309(d) of the CWA establishe s authority for civil penalties for permit violations not to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation. Section 309(g)(2)(A) establishes the authority for administrative penalties for Class I violations not to exceed $10,000 per violation with a maximum a mount of any Class 1 penalty assessed not to exceed $25,000. Section 309(g)(2)(B) establishes the authority for administrative penalties for Class II violations not to exceed $10,000 per day for each day during which the violation continues with the maxim um amount of any Class II penalty not to exceed $125,000. Section 4 of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, requires periodic review and adjustment of penalties. Similarly , the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 provides authority for the Agency to establish administrative procedures for imposing civil penalties and assessments against persons who make, submit, or present, or cause to be made, submitted, or presented, false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims or written statements to the Agency. Since enactment of the CWA, maximum civil penalty amounts have been adjusted four times, with the most recent being published in the Federal Register on November 6, 2013 (78 FR 66643) and effective on December 6, 2013. As a result of that adjustment, maximum civil penalties for permit violations have escalated from $25,000 per day for each violation as the law was originally enacted, to $37,500. Similarly, Class I violation adm inistrative penalty amounts have been adjusted from $10,000/$25,000 to $16,000/$37,500 and Class II violation administrative penalty amounts have been adjusted from $10,000/$125,000 to $16,000/$187,500.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 98 The CWA also provides for more significant penaltie s, including imprisonment, for knowingly or negligently violating terms of the permit. One of those provisions, as described in Part 4.3 of the sVGP, provides authority for fines of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or by both, for knowingly falsifying, tampering, or otherwise rendering inaccurate any monitoring device or method required to be maintained under this permit. Coast Guard inspector training or credentials are beyond the scope of this permit issuance. Howeve r, EPA notes that Coast Guard marine inspectors undergo significant training and certification, including eight weeks of specialized training for Marine Science Technicians. For additional information regarding Coast Guard inspections and training, please see http://www.uscg.mil/tcyorktown/mSchools/MII/

.

Commenter Name: Thomas M. Gemmell, Executive Director, United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Commenter Affiliation: United Southeast A laska Gillnetters (USAG) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0400

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 17
Comment: 17. Appendix B. Amend Section B of the form to include passenger vessels (e.g. charter vessels). Response: EPA has added passenger vess els as a vessel type permittees can select on the annual non

compliance form located in Appendix B of the sVGP. The vessel types that are listed on this form are the most common types of vessels that would be covered under the sVGP. EPA estimates that appr oximately 21,000 passenger vessels would be covered under the sVGP. See 3.2 of the sVGP fact sheet.

Commenter Name: Kathy Hansen, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Commenter Affiliation: Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment: Permit Compliance on page 11, Section 4.3:Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 99 Asking for self

- reporting of non

- compliance which generally tends to be an accident and not on purpose and then levying extremely high fines tends to minimize cooperation with self

- reporting requirements and the regulations themselves. Response: EPA disagrees with commenter and points out that all NPDES permits require reporting of non

compliance, as requ ired by the federal NPDES regulations. Also, the fines identified are the maximum allowable fines under the CWA. Consistent with Section 309(g)(3) of the CWA, EPA determines the amount of any penalty assessed taking into account the nature, circumstances , extent and gravity of the violation, or violations, and, with respect to the violator, ability to pay, any prior history of such violations, the degree of culpability, economic benefit or savings (if any) resulting from the violation, and such other matt ers as justice may require. Thus, actual fines tend to be less than the maximum allowed under the law. See also EPA's response to excerpt 4 of comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0421

- A2.

Commenter Name: Alexis Cooper, Executive Director, Board of Direc tors, Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU) Commenter Affiliation: Board of Directors, Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0414

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: Permit Compliance: The astronomical fines listed for violations of the CWA should be proportional to the severity of the infraction. Self reporting (of) violations resulting in large fines will not encourage (the) best clean water management practice. Response:
Please see EPA's response to excerpt 12 of comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1.

Commenter Name: Michelle Bonnett, Director, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Depa rtment of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0417

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 2Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 100 Comment:
How e ver, the potential exists for this p e rmit to be either a small additiona l duty or a tremendous burden for Alaska bo a t owners or operators. EPA h a d stated unofficially in teleconferenc e s that the agency does not currently have an enforcement strategy. The State of Alaska does not know what direction the EPA will pursue with com pliance enforcement. Who and how the unclear t e rms contained in t he permit are interpreted will influence whether the permit will be a small duty or a tremendous burden

. Response: EPA disagrees with commenter that the size of the burden to permittees is dependent on how EPA oversees compliance with the permit. EPA’s enforcement strategy is outside the scope of this action; however, all permittees are expected to comply with the ter ms and conditions of the sVGP. Any additional burden associated with enforcement strategy would be directly related to non
- compliance with those terms and conditions and is outside the scope of any burden assessment conducted by EPA for this permit. A c opy of EPA’s economic analysis for this permit is available from EPA’s NPDES Vessels webpage at http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/vessels/

.

Commenter Name: Karen Holman, Manager, Environm ental Programs, Environmental and Land Use Management, Unified Port of San Diego Commenter Affiliation: Unified Port of San Diego Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0421

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: • Permit Compliance (Section 4.3) : Clarification is requested on how the Proposed Permit will be enforced, the enforcing entity, and how compliance will be determined. Will there be any additional mechanism to determine compliance identified in the proposed permit? Response:
Enforcemen t of this permit will be conducted consistent with any Clean Water Act NPDES permit. CWA Section 309 authorizes EPA to enforce NPDES permits and CWA Section 505 authorizes citizens (including states, where appropriate) to do so. EPA plans to work with othe r Federal agencies and the states to develop an effective enforcement strategy for the sVGP and currently provides compliance assistance to permittees through the general e

- mail inbox: VGP@epa.gov. The PARI form, located in Appendix A of the sVGP, will hel p permittees and EPA document and assess compliance with the sVGP. Please see EPA's response to excerpt 4 of comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0436

- A2 for further discussion.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 101 Commenter Name: Cathy Stepp, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Commenter Affiliation: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0435

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment:
Standard Permit Conditions
Wisconsin DNR questions the lenient requirement in Section 4. 10 of reporting all non

compliance events only once per year for the previous calendar year's violations. Wisconsin DNR recommends that any incidence of noncompliance be reported more frequently, preferably immediately

. As watershed management approaches have shifted to allocating total maximum daily loads and waste load allocations of pollutants per waterbody , frequent reports of permit violations may be important in adjusting daily allotments of pollutants.
Notification of Water Quality Standard Violations
Wisconsin DNR requests Section 4.11 of the draft sVGP be revised to require vessel owners / operators to immediately notify the relevant state authority (in addition to EPA) when they become aware that a discharge from thei r vessel causes or contributes to an exceedance of an applicable water quality standard. Response:
EPA believes that the annual non

- compliance report required in Section 4.10 of the sVGP minimizes burden for permittees and ensures that EPA and permittees are provided information as needed. EPA notes that Section 4.10 of the permit requires compliance with standard conditions in 40 CFR 122.41. Section 122.41(l)(6) specifically requires permittees to report non
compliance that may endanger health or the en vironment within 24 hours from the time the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. Therefore, EPA did not increase the frequency of non

- compliance reporting as requested by the commenter. EPA disagrees with commenter to revise the permit to require owner/operators to immediately notify their relevant state authority (in addition to EPA) of a discharge that causes or contributes to an exceedance of an applicable water quality standard. The Agency believes annual reporting, coupled with the 24 hour r eporting requirements found at 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) included in the permit, and the requirement to take action to bring the discharge back into compliance is adequate for notification to the Agency. In those instances when a non

- compliance report identifie s a violation of water quality standards, EPA expects to notify the relevant state of such occurrence.

Commenter Name: Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Commenter Affiliation: Tip of the Mitt Watershed CouncilResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 102 Docum ent Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0436

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment:
Small Vessel General Permit Comments: All vessels should be required to maintain a copy of a letter/documentation granting coverage. This will ensure that any enforcem ent actions via through boarding vessels is easier. (page 1) Response: EPA believes that a completed PARI form as described in Part 1.3 and 3.1 of the sVGP is sufficient for showing that a vessel has sVGP coverage. Vessel owner/operators must complete th e PARI form by certifying that the vessel owner/operator has read and understood the terms of the permit and retain the PARI form onboard their vessel. As stated in Part 1.3 of the sVGP, vessels eligible for coverage will receive coverage starting on Decem ber 19, 2014 provided that the vessel owner/operator has signed the PARI form and maintains a copy of the PARI form on their vessel. As discussed in Part 5.1 of the sVGP fact sheet, the PARI form allows the vessel owner/operator and EPA to assess permit co mpliance.

Commenter Name: Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Commenter Affiliation: Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0436

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment:
What constitutes “reasonable time” under Section 4.4? This should be more definitive or have some parameters or deadlines to guide staff and the permittees . (page 11) Response: The commenter is referring to the permittee's duty to provide information sec tion located in Section 4.4 of the sVGP. This section requires permittees to provide EPA any requested information to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating this permit, or to determine compliance with this per mit within a “reasonable time” following the request. Section 4.4 of the sVGP is consistent with conditions required of all permits located in 40 CFR 122.41(h). When requesting information from a permittee, EPA will use its discretion on a case

- by

- case bas is to determine what is a reasonable time.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 103 Commenter Name: Amy McCamphill, Environmental Law Division, New York City Law Department Commenter Affiliation: New York City Law Department Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0437

- A2 Comment Excerp t Number: 5
Comment: Appendix B
- Annual Non
- Compliance Form , pg . 22 As above, the City requests that EPA define who can sign this form. Response: Based on this comment, EPA has clarified who can sign the annual non

- compliance form in Section 3.1 (Recordkeeping Requirements) of the sVGP. The vessel owner/operator or their duly authorized representative is authorized to sign and certify the annual non

- compliance form.

Commenter Name: Diane Pleschner

- Steele, Executive Director, California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA) Commenter Affiliation: California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0440

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: 2.3 Engine and Oil Control (p.4)
The EPA is proposing that any visible sheen (from engine, oil or bilge or fish residue) in the surrounding waters requires suspension of the discharge until the problem is corrected and cleaned up. Is it unclear if every appearance of a “visible sheen” constitutes a non
-- ‐ compliance ev ent that must be recorded and reported on the Annual Non

-- ‐ Compliance Form. CWPA is concerned that fishermen who are already doing all they can to minimize their discharges to the extent achievable under the sVGP will not clearly understand what constitute s true non
-- ‐ compliance vis a vis a visible sheen.
CWPA recommends that the EPA provide clarification regarding persistence (rather than mere appearance) of a visible sheen to better educate permitted fishermen as to what constitutes a non

— compliance event . We believe that a sheen that is minor in size that dissipates in a relatively brief period of time (or is caused by biodegradable oil) should not be defined as a visible sheen.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 104 Response: EPA clarifies that Part 2.3 of the sVGP requires vessel owner/o perators to suspend the discharge of bilgewater if a visible sheen is observed as a result of the discharge until the problem is corrected and cleaned up immediately. A visible sheen on surrounding waters, no matter how long it persists on the water, is co nsidered a non

- compliance of the sVGP and must be reported on the annual non

- compliance form. Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 403

- A1, excerpt number 2, for additional discussion of visible sheen.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 105 

# Issue Category: DEF

. 5 DefinitionsResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 106 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 107 DEF. 5 Definitions (Comment applicable to all definition s )
Commenter Name: Bill Moore, Program Development Services Section Manager, Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) Commenter Affiliation: Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0443

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: Our one general concern with the sVGP is the vagueness of the requirements. Several of our comments address specific examples of inadequately defined terms like "as appropriate." Not defining terms in sVGP regulatory instructions leaves the instructions open to interpretation. This situation will certainly lead to inconsistent expectations and might result in regulatory interpretations that are biased in favor of or to the disadvantage of vessel operators. Where possible, please define terms or identify whose interpretation takes precedence. B ased on our experience with the VGP , citizen complaints are expected to be a prominent enforcement mechanism for the sVGP . Responding to citizen complaints with case

- by

- case interpretations of sVGP requirements risks creating the problems identified in the previous paragraph. The sVGP should be issued with the most clear and consistent instructions possible. Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter ’ s concern about permit requirements being clear and easily interpreted. The Agency believes the permit as f inalized provides the necessary balance of clarity and flexibility to ensure that it is an appropriate tool to cover the large number/range of permittees expected to be covered under the permit. EPA has addressed the specific examples mentioned in the com ment in other responses to comments in this document on the same topic s as those examples

.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 108 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 109 

# Issue Category: DEF1

. 5.1 Biodegradable (0 comments)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 110 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 111 

# Issue Category: DEF2

. 5.2 Phosphate FreeResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 112 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 113 DEF2. 5.2 Phosphate Free
Commenter Name: Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Commenter Affiliation: Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0436

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment: The definition of “Phosphate Free” should include “and containing compounds which would readily be converted to phosphate in the aquatic environment.” Additionally, it could help to identify what term such as “phosphate encompasses phosphoric acid, phospho nates , organophosphates , any salt of a hydrogen phosphate, and any salt of a phosphate” and “Derivatives of phosphate include polyphosphates such as sodium tripolyphosphate , pyrophosphate, and phosphorus oxoacids.” (page 17) Response: EPA disagrees with th e commenter’s suggestion to alter the definition of “phosphate free

. ” EPA is maintaining the current definition to be consistent with all other EPA NPDES programs.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 114 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 115 

# Issue Category: DEF3

. 5.3 Environmentally A cceptable L ubricantsResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 116 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 117 DEF3. 5.3 Environmentally A cceptable L ubricants
Commenter Name: Angus P. Kennedy, President, VapCor Inc. Commenter Affiliation: VapCor Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0389

- A 1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment:
Item 1: In the SVGP The only section in the VGP that address’s Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants is section 2.2.9 In this section and it would appear (unless I missed it) from reading it is the only section in the VGP which address “EAL’s” . Nowhere in this section is mentioned hydraulic equipment on deck such as Blud Worth Systems used on tug barge combinations, winch es, cranes etc. When these systems leak it can have a serious environmental impact as these leaks, logically, mostly occur close too or along

- side a dock or lock and can’t always be contained. The impact would be to animals, plant life etc.
Item 2: In the White paper on EAL’s There is a fourth category of lubricant that is gaining wide use in deck hydraulics. Water Glycol hydraulics could fall under polyalkyleneglycols , but they are not all made of polyalkylene glycols . I suggest that this be a separate ide ntified lubricant. “Environmentally acceptable lubricants” means lubricants that are “biodegradable” and “non

toxic” and are not “bio

- accumulative”. What impact would a product that is classified as an “EAL” have on a water fowl if that fowl lands in it. The testing for the EAL does not include the impact on water fowl or plant life. Response: This comment appears to be focused on comments within the VGP , which is beyond the scope of today’s action in finalizing the s VGP. Nonetheless, EPA notes that Parts 2.3 and 2.5 of the sVGP contain requirements that apply to discharges of lubricants/oils from vessel discharges from sVGP

- covered vessels. Requirements for the use of EALS are contained in Part 2.3 and require that , unless technically infeasible,
ve ssels use these lubricants in all machinery and equipment where discharges of oil toResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 118 surrounding waters are likely to occur. Part 2.5 of the permit requires operators to prevent/minimize discharges of spills and other wastes. EPA received a number of comments on the Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants , a supporting document that details EPA’s rationale for requiring the use of these products on vessels. EPA appreciates the time taken to read and analyze the report, and has ta ken all of the comments into account in the context of the VGP and sVGP.
EPA revised the definition of EALs to mean “lubricants that are “biodegradable” and “minimally toxic,” and are “not bioaccumulative

. ” There are several test methods for each of thes e three criteria that qualify a lubricant as an EAL (see Part 6 of the Permit). EPA notes that the sVGP does not require traditional acute or chronic toxicity testing . T he permit does prohibit vessel owners/operators from discharging oil in quantities th at may be harmful as defined in 40 CFR Part 110 from any oil

- to

- sea interface, which provides additional environmental protection for aquatic and aquatic

- dependent species, including water fowl.

Commenter Name: Peter Vickers, Chairman and Managing Direc tor, Benjn. R. Vickers & Sons Ltd. (Vickers Oils) Commenter Affiliation: Benjn. R. Vickers & Sons Ltd. (Vickers Oils) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0392

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment:
Draft 2013 Small Vessel General Permit

– Dock et EPA
- HQ
- OW
- 2011
- 0150 Benjn

. R. Vickers & Sons Ltd (“Vickers Oils”) supplies Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants ( EALs ) to the marine industry, predominantly for below

- the

- waterline applications including stern tubes, thrusters, CP propellers and stabilisers . We would like to comment on the proposal (clause 2.3 (h)

– Engine and Oil Control) in the draft 2013 sVGP to mandate the use of EALs ; and to make ten specific, targeted recommendations (with an accompanying rationale) which are set out on the next pages.

 For simplicity, we believe that the sVGP definitions of environmentally acceptable lubricants; biodegradability; bioaccumulation ; and non

- toxicity should be the same as those in the VGP . Therefore we are submitting the same comments on these as pects about the draft 2013 sVGP as we have made about the draft 2013 VGP

.  We recommend that in order to reduce the risk of performance issues and help facilitate a smoother introduction of mandated standards, the sVGP definitions of biodegradability, bioac cumulation and aquatic toxicity should be clarified so as to ensure that EALs with the performance to meet the demanding requirements of marine operations can comply. Specific proposals are set out below.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 119  The stated definition of biodegradability sets the bar at the commonly accepted level for EALs and so should avoid the proposed 2013 sVGP being undermined by inherently biodegradable mineral oil and PAOs

.  Since it is proposed to mandate the use of EALs , the introduction of existing European best

- practice v oluntary labelling schemes needs to be done cautiously so as not to bring about a performance drop. We think that the various European labelling standards are ecologically very demanding, and that compliance sometimes can only be achieved by sacrificing pr oduct performance. However, we support their inclusion as an optional route to the highest environmental standards. (Further, we recommend that in addition to the proposed inclusion of Swedish Standard SS 155470 for environmentally acceptable greases, Swed ish Standard SS 155434 for environmentally acceptable hydraulic fluids should also be included).

 It has been suggested by some others that EALs should be defined by saltwater testing alone. We believe that freshwater data is more repeatable, more widely a vailable and more widely accepted. We support the retention of freshwater test methods, with the option to use defined saltwater methods.
SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Section 6

– Definitions Environmentally Acceptable Lubricant Definition: 1. We recommend that the European labels should remain in the proposed 2013 sVGP as one route to the highest environmental standard. 2. Moreover, we recommend that in addition to the proposed inclusion of Swedish Standard SS 155470 for environmentally acce ptable greases, Swedish Standard SS 155434 for environmentally acceptable hydraulic fluids should also be included. 3. However, we recommend that the alternative route proposed through the definitions in Section 6 of biodegradability, bioaccumulation and a quatic toxicity should be clarified and should ensure that performance is not unduly sacrificed to environmental standards as the use of EALs becomes mandatory. 4. We recommend that the components of a formulation be clarified by adding the following terms to Section 6

- Definitions:
“Constituent Substance” means each single substance present at greater than 0.1% by weight in the lubricant or grease. “Main Constituent” means any substance present at greater than 5% by weight in the lubricant or grease. “Formulation” means the finished lubricant or grease as supplied and used.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 120 5. We support the retention of freshwater test methods for both biodegradability and aquatic toxicity, with the option to use defined saltwater methods.
6. We recommend that the definition of “Biodegradable” in Section 6 should be modified to begin thus:

“ Biodegradable” means the following for the purposes of the sVGP : Regarding environmentally acceptable lubricants and greases, biodegradable means lubricant or grease formulatio ns that contain at least 90% (w/w) or 75% (w/w) respectively, of a constituent substance or constituent substances that each demonstrate either the removal of at least 70 percent of dissolved organic carbon, or production of at least 60 percent of the theo retical carbon dioxide, or consumption at least 60 percent of the theoretical oxygen demand within 28 days. Acceptable test methods are: Organization for Economic Co

- operation and Development (OECD) Test Guidelines 301 A

- F, 306, and 310, and International Organization for Standardization 14593:1999. In addition, a lubricant formulation may contain up to 10% (w/w) of a constituent substance or constituent substances that are inherently biodegradable, of which up to 5% (w/w) may be nonbiodegradable . A greas e formulation may contain a constituent substance or constituent substances that are either inherently biodegradable or non

- biodegradable up to a combined total of 25% (w/w). Acceptable test methods to demonstrate inherent biodegradability include: OECD Te st Guidelines 302 (>70% biodegradation after 28 days) or OECD Test Guidelines 301
A

- F (>20% but <60% biodegradation after 28 days).
7. We recommend that “B ioaccumulative ” should be defined thus:
“Bioaccumulative” means the partition coefficients in the mar i ne environment are log KOW ≥4 using test Methods OECD 117 and 107. Bioaccumulation must be determined for each constituent substance that is (only) inherently biodegradable or non

- biodegradable. However, the bioaccumulation does not need to be established when that constituent substance: has a molecular mass > 700 g/ mol , or has a molecular diameter > 1.5 nm, or
has a measured BCF of < 500, or is a polymer and its molecular weight fraction below 1,000 g/ mol is less than 1%.
8. We recommend that the sVGP should not attempt to distinguish between fluid lubricant types when defining environmental criteria.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 121 9. We recommend that acute aquatic toxicity using fish is only necessary when evaluating the complete formulation. Acute aquatic toxicity testing of main components, or each constituent substance, should be restricted to daphnia and algae. 10. We recommend that when evaluating toxicity of formulation and main components, acute toxicity data should be required, but when evaluating each constituent subst ance, either acute or chronic toxicity data should be required. Response: EPA agrees with the commenter’s request to better define EALs and associated terms (and to make these terms consistent with the VGP). Specifically, EPA modified the definitions an d added more specific criteria for “environmentally acceptable lubricants,” “biodegradable,” “minimally toxic,” and “not bioaccumulative” (see Part 6 of the permit). EPA points out that the use of EALs may not be feasible in all cases for vessels, particu larly for existing vessels. Specifically, EPA believes some owners/operators may have existing equipment for which no compatible EAL products are currently available. EPA expects that it will be technically feasible for a significant portion of vessel operators to use EALs, particularly for new build vessels during this permit term. Numerous commenters on the VGP, including manufacturers of these EALs, note that products are currently available that would meet permit requirements. EPA has determined tha t it is economically practicable and achievable for new build vessels and most existing vessels to use these products . T he technical infeasibility provisions are tied to availability and compatibility of the products for use in all vessel oil

- to

- sea interf aces. Additionally, EPA does not think it economically practicable and achievable for owners/operators be made to retrofit the equipment on their existing vessels exclusively so they can use an EAL product in lieu of traditional oil. EPA has defined the te rm “technically infeasible,” in the context of EALs, to mean: “no EAL products are approved for use in a given application that meet manufacturer specifications for that equipment, products which come pre

lubricated (e.g., wire ropes) have no available alt ernatives manufactured with EALs; products meeting manufacturer specifications are not available within any port in which the vessel calls or change over, and use of an EAL must wait until the vessel’s next drydocking.” Hence, if the use of an EAL is not approved for a given piece of existing equipment, its use would not be technically feasible. However, for new build vessel operators, equipment can be selected for which EALs are available for many applications. Regarding “bioaccumulative , ” EPA has added a definition for “not bioaccumulative” (see Part 6 of the Permit). The partition coefficient in the marine environment included in this definition is based on the OECD methods 117 and 107, and both of these methods apply to testing of only pure substances. In addition, the definition also includes requirements regarding molecular mass, molecular diameter, and BCF and BAF. The commenter did not provide EPA with a test method for bioaccumulation that was suitable for mixtures. In addition, other labeling pro grams above have no standard approved test method for “finished” products or formulations either. European Ecolabel, for example, uses the industry standard OECD methods mentioned to test components separately for all their approved products. Lastly, the E colabel lubricants approval processResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 122 requires that each stated substance present above 0.10% by weight shall be assessed on its biodegradation and bioaccumulation; components in very small amounts do not need to be tested. Regarding the commenter’s statements about toxicity, EPA agrees and disagrees with various parts of the comment. The permit now includes a detailed definition for “minimally toxic” with requirements for testing for either acute (OECD 201, 202, or 203) or chronic (OECD 201 or 211) t oxicity. If a substance is evaluated for the formulation and main constituents, the LC50 of fluids must be at least 100 mg/L and the LC50 of greases, two

- stroke oils, and all other total loss lubricants must be at least 1,000 mg/L. If a substance is evalua ted for each constituent substance, rather than the complete formulation and main compounds, then constituents comprising less than 20 percent of fluids can have an LC50 between 10

- 100 mg/L or a no

- observed

- effect concentration (NOEC) between 1

- 10 mg/L. Co nstituents comprising less than 5 percent of fluids can have an LC50 between 1

- 10 mg/L or a NOEC between 0.1

- 1 mg/L. Finally constituents comprising less than 1 percent of fluids can have an LC50 less than 1 mg/L or a NOEC between 0

- 0.1 mg/L. EPA concurs w ith the comment that many mineral oils and PAOs may not biodegrade sufficiently to meet the previous definition of “biodegradable.” EPA also notes that the updated definition increases consistency with the Ecolabel criteria. EPA notes that vessel owners/op erators have broad discretion in selecting individual EALs provided they meet the definition of EALs per Part 6 of the permit. EPA acknowledges the commenter's support for inclusion of test methods OECD 301 A

- F, 306 , and 310 and International Organization for Standardization 14593:1999 for biodegradability. In addition, EPA agrees with the commenter that the definition be modified to better accommodate greases , and the Agency has done so, generally consistent with commenter’s recommendations. These and oth er comments align well with the definition of “biodegradable” provided for European Ecolabel lubricant labeling, the most widely accepted labeling program (see Part 6 of the Permit). As such, EPA modified the sVGP definition to match that definition. To cl arify the definition of “biodegradable” in various applications, EPA has provided separate definitions in the contexts of lubricants/greases, cleaning products, and biocidal substances. EPA agrees with the commenter and has retained European Ecolabel and S wedish Standard SS 155470 as a labeling program that would label products likely to meet the definition of EALs as defined in the permit. Based on this comment , EPA has also added Swedish Standard SS 155434 for environmentally acceptable hydraulic fluids. EPA notes that this list of labeling programs is merely a tool for vessel operators to easily identify EALs that generally meet the permit requirements. It does not preclude vendors supplying products to any vessel operators from conducting independent tes ting of unlabeled lubricants to meet permit requirements for EALs. EPA agrees with the commenter and has not distinguished between lubricant types in its definition of EALs.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 123 Additionally, EPA has clarified that the permit requires either acute or chronic toxicity testing to meet EAL standards. T o assist vessel operators in implementing the permit, EPA continues to explicitly state that products meeting the permit’s definition s of being an “environmentally acceptable lubricant” include, for purposes of implementing the s VGP, those labeled by the following third

- party labeling programs: Blue Angel, European Ecolabel, Nordic Swan, the Swedish Standard SS 155434 and SS 155470, Con vention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North

- East Atlantic (OSPAR) requirements, and EPA’s Design for the Environment (DfE). These labeling programs identify existing EALs that generally meet the sVGP requirements. Regarding “non

- toxic , ” EPA has changed the term to “minimally toxic

. ” which is defined in further detail in Part 6 of the p ermit. Generally speaking the main constituents of the lubricant must have an LC50 of at least 100 mg/L and the LC50 of greases, two

- stroke oils, and all other total loss lubricants must be at least 1000 mg/L. EPA acknowledges the suggestion to utilize ASTM Standard D 6046

- 02(2006) Tw1; however, EPA’s sVGP definition is explicit and including the ASTM standard would be redundant. In reference to suitable marine data, EPA has modified the permit to include equivalent toxicity methods for marine species. The permit definition for “minimally toxic” now states that “[f]or purposes of the sVGP, equivalent toxicity data for marine species, including methods ISO /DIS 10253 for algae, ISO TC147/SC5/W62 for crustacean, and OSPAR 2005 for fish, may be substituted for OECD 201, 202, and 203. EPA agrees with the commenter to retain freshwater test methods for both biodegradability and aquatic toxicity with the option t o use defined salt water methods. EPA decided against adding specific definitions for “components” and “definitions” because the terminology is not consistent over all labeling programs.

Commenter Name: Peter Vickers, Chairman and Managing Director, Benjn. R. Vickers & Sons Ltd. (Vickers Oils) Commenter Affiliation: Benjn. R. Vickers & Sons Ltd. (Vickers Oils) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0392

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment:
We recommend that “Non

- toxic” is defined as follow s: “Non

- toxic” means a formulation which must meet the following criteria:

 If a formulation is evaluated by assessing the formulation and main constituents, acute aquatic toxicity LC50 limits will apply as follows:Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 124  Formulation: at least 100 mg/L for lubric ants or at least 1,000 mg/L for greases, according to OECD 201, 202 and 203.

 And for each main constituent: at least 100 mg/L by OECD 201 and 202

 If a formulation is evaluated by assessing each constituent substance (rather than the complete formulation an d main constituents), each constituent substance must be evaluated for acute toxicity using OECD 201 and 202, or be evaluated for chronic toxicity using OECD 210 and 211. Constituent substances may have a cumulative mass concentration up to the following l imits:
SEE TABLE IN ORIGINAL For both lubricants and greases constituent substances at <0.1% by weight are not regulated. Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0392

- A1, excerpt 1.

Commenter Name: Peter Vickers, Chairman and Managing Director, Benjn. R. Vickers & Sons Ltd. (Vickers Oils) Commenter Affiliation: Benjn. R. Vickers & Sons Ltd. (Vickers Oils) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0392

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment:
RATIONALE FOR THES E RECOMMENDATIONS Environmentally Acceptable Lubricant Definition (Section 6

– Definitions)
EALs are defined in Section 6 as “ lubricants that are “biodegradable” and “non

- toxic,” and are not “bioaccumulative” as defined in this permit

. Products meeting the permit’s definitions of being an “environmentally acceptable lubricant” include those labelled by the following labelling programs: Blue Angel, European Ecolabel , Nordic Swan, the Swedish Standard SS 155470 .”
The Swedish Standard SS 15 5470 is specific to greases. We wonder whether the EPA also intended to include SS 155434, which is a related standard for environmentally acceptable hydraulic fluids. We support such an inclusion therefore we recommend that in addition to the proposed inc lusion of Swedish Standard SS 155470 for environmentally acceptable greases, Swedish Standard SS 155434 for environmentally acceptable hydraulic fluids should also be included. The use of the various European labelling programs provides a simple way of inc reasing the numbers of existing lubricants that meet the highest environmental standards and avoidsResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 125 unnecessary test costs where products are already accredited to one of the schemes. However, from a formulation perspective, meeting these environmental sta ndards is very onerous, primarily due to a present lack of suitable additive chemistry. As a result, accreditation is, in some cases, achieved by a reduction in the product’s technical performance. These are voluntary schemes and therefore any decision to accept reduced performance is currently at the manufacturer’s and/ or user’s discretion. Mandating the very demanding environmental criteria of these standards may bring about a loss of product performance which could lead to operational problems. We there fore recommend that whilst the European labelling programs should remain in the proposed 2013 sVGP as one route to the highest environmental standard, an alternative route should be available that ensures performance is not unduly sacrificed. The draft 201 3 sVGP proposes an alternative to these European schemes through the definitions in Section 6 of biodegradability, bioaccumulation and aquatic toxicity. We think that there is a lack of clarity regarding these terms, which needs to be eliminated. We offer the following proposals. Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0392

- A1, excerpt 1.

Commenter Name: Peter Vickers, Chairman and Managing Director, Benjn. R. Vickers & Sons Ltd. (Vickers Oils) Commenter Affiliation: B enjn. R. Vickers & Sons Ltd. (Vickers Oils) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0392

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment:
Definitions of Lubricant Constituents The components of a formulation have not been defined in the proposed 2013 sVGP . T his leads to some ambiguity. For example, the definition of “Non

- toxic” uses the terms “main constituent” and “constituent substances” but offers no definition of these terms. In order for the sVGP to specify unambiguously the requirements for biodegradabi lity, bioaccumulation and aquatic toxicity, we recommend that the components of a formulation be clarified by adding the following terms to Section 6
- Definitions:

 “Constituent Substance” means each single substance present at greater than 0.1% by weight in the lubricant or grease.

 “Main Constituent” means any substance present at greater than 5% by weight in the lubricant or grease.

 “Formulation” means the finished lubricant or grease as supplied and used.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 126 Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment n umber EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0392

- A1, excerpt 1.

Commenter Name: Peter Vickers, Chairman and Managing Director, Benjn. R. Vickers & Sons Ltd. (Vickers Oils) Commenter Affiliation: Benjn. R. Vickers & Sons Ltd. (Vickers Oils) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0392

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: Biodegradability
The draft 2013 sVGP proposes to measure biodegradability by the following test methods: OECD 301 A

- F, 306 and 310, and International Organization for Standardization 14593:1999. Limits of 70% dissolved organic carbon, 60% theoretical carbon dioxide and 60% theoretical oxygen demand at 28 days are included. We support these test methods and limits. These test methods and limits are in line with common industry standards for various labelling schemes and represent an appropriate step forwards in reducing environmental pollution. It has been suggested by others that testing should be restricted to Biod egradability in Seawater by OECD 306. However, it has been reported i that OECD 306 is highly variable since the seawater sample cannot be controlled, and the method itself states that not only is it not a test for ready biodegradability, but it also does n ot simulate the marine environment since nutrients are added and the concentration of test substance is very much higher than would be present in the sea. We therefore recommend that the proposed biodegradability test methods and limits should stand as cur rently drafted and should not be altered. The thickener component of a grease needs special consideration when specifying biodegradability criteria. For this reason, the European labels have separate criteria for greases. We therefore recommend that the de finition of “Biodegradable” (below) be modified to better accommodate greases.

i ECETOC Technical Report No. 54, 1993, Assessment of the Biodegradation of Chemicals in the Marine Environment. Battersby, 1999, The biodegradability and microbial testing of lubricants

- some recommendations Mudge, S.M. 2010. Comparative environmental fate of marine lubricants. Unpublished manuscript. Exponent UK.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 127 Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0392

- A1, excerpt 1.

Commenter Name: Peter Vickers, Chairman and Managing Director, Benjn. R. Vickers & Sons Ltd. (Vickers Oils) Commenter Affiliation: Benjn. R. Vickers & Sons Ltd. (Vickers Oils) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0392

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: Biodegradability testing of a formulation is not generally recognised in other environmental testing schemes, although it is often favoured by marketers. In order to arrive at a satisfactory definition for bioaccumulation (below) we recommend that the biod egradability definition in Section 6 should be modified to begin thus :

“ Biodegradable” means the following for the purposes of the sVGP :

 Regarding environmentally acceptable lubricants and greases, biodegradable means lubricant or grease formulations that contain at least 90% (w/w) or 75% (w/w) respectively, of a constituent substance or constituent substances that each demonstrate either the removal of at least 70 percent of dissolved organic carbon, or production of at least 60 percent of the theoretical carbon dioxide, or consumption at least 60 percent of the theoretical oxygen demand within 28 days. Acceptable test methods are: Organization for Economic Co

- operation and Development (OECD) Test Guidelines 301 A

- F, 306, and 310, and International Organiz ation for Standardization 14593:1999.

 In addition, a lubricant formulation may contain up to 10% (w/w) of a constituent substance or constituent substances that are inherently biodegradable, of which up to 5% (w/w) may be nonbiodegradable . A grease formula tion may contain a constituent substance or constituent substances that are either inherently biodegradable or non

biodegradable up to a combined total of 25% (w/w). Acceptable test methods to demonstrate inherent biodegradability include: OECD Test Guidel ines 302 (>70% biodegradation after 28 days) or OECD Test Guidelines 301 A

- F (>20% but <60% biodegradation after 28 days). (Please note that we have removed cleaning products from the above paragraph simply because we have no experience on which to base an y recommendation for such products). Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0392

- A1, excerpt 1.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 128 Commenter Name: Peter Vickers, Chairman and Managing Director, Benjn. R. Vickers & Sons Ltd. (Vickers Oils) Commenter Af

filiation: Benjn. R. Vickers & Sons Ltd. (Vickers Oils) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0392

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment:
Bioaccumulation
Bioaccumulative is currently defined in Section 6 thus: “means the partition coefficients i n the marine environment are log KOW >3 using test Methods OECD 117 and 107.” It is not stated what must be tested i.e. formulation, main constituents or each constituent substance. Bioaccumulation testing of a formulation is not generally recognised in ot her environmental testing schemes.
Most EALs are based on biodegradable esters. These ester bases typically have a log KOW >5. If a bioaccumulation test is run on an ester

- based EAL formulation, it too would commonly have a log KOW > 5. However, provided the ester biodegrades rapidly, it is generally accepted that it poses much less risk to organic life than mineral oil since it will not exist for long enough to bioaccumulate . Therefore biodegradable base oils are not subject to bioacc umulation testing or limits in the European labelling schemes. Additives used in lubricants are less likely to biodegrade. A limited few may be inherently biodegradable according to OECD 302, but many will be non

- biodegradable. High performance additives t ypically exhibit log K OW >3, <4. These additives are commonly used in formulations at between say 1.5 to 5%, occasionally a little higher. Gear oil additive requirements are more demanding than hydraulic fluids. Improvements in additive environmental perfo rmance may come, but it will take time, and grow only with demand. We recommend that to ensure adequate lubricant performance, the bioaccumulation limit should be raised to log K OW ≥ 4. This would be in line with the Globally Harmonized System of Classifica tion and Labelling of Chemicals ( GHS ). Additionally we recommend that criteria other than Log K OW should be allowed along the lines of those used in GHS , Blue Angel and Ecolabel

. Therefore, we recommend that the definition of bioaccumulation in Section 6 should be as follows : “Bioaccumulative” means the partition coefficients in the marine environment are log K OW ≥ 4 using test Methods OECD 117 and 107. Bioaccumulation must be determined for each constituent substance that is (only) Inherently Biodegradable or non

- biodegradable. However, the bioaccumulation does not need to be established when that constituent substance:

 has a molecular mass > 700 g/ mol , or
 has a molecu lar diameter > 1.5 nm, or

 has a measured BCF of < 500, or

 is a polymer and its molecular weight fraction below 1,000 g/ mol is less than 1%.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 129 Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0392

- A1, excerpt 1.

Commenter Name: Peter Vickers, Chairman and Managing Director, Benjn. R. Vickers & Sons Ltd. (Vickers Oils) Commenter Affiliation: Benjn. R. Vickers & Sons Ltd. (Vickers Oils) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0392

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: Aqu atic Toxicity Section 6 currently defines this by the following statement:
“Non

- toxic” means a substance must pass both OECD 201, 202 and 203 for acute toxicity testing and OECD 210 and 211 for chronic toxicity testing. If a substance is evaluated for the formulation and main constituents, the LC50 of hydraulic fluids must be at least 100 mg/L and the LC50 of greases, two

- stroke oils, and all other total loss lubricants must be at least 1000 mg/L. If a substance is evaluated for each constituent substance, rather than the complete formulation and main compounds, then constituents comprising less than 20% of hydraulic fluids can have an LC50 between 10

- 100 mg/L or a no observed effect concentration ( NOEC ) between 1

- 10 mg/L, constituents comprising less than 5 percent of hydraulic fluids can have an LC50 between 1

- 10 mg/L or a NOEC between 0.1

- 1mg/L, and constituents comprising less than 1 percent of hydraulic fluids can have an LC50 less than 1 mg/L or a NOEC between 0

- 0.1 mg/L.”
Some other labelling schemes e .g. the European Ecolabel , classify fluids by a mixture of fluid type and application, and set environmental limits based on these classes. We do not believe this is a very satisfactory practice for the sVGP to adopt, since stern tube lubricants are someti mes categorised by the labelling schemes as total loss fluids (along with chain saw oils), when in fact they are not designed to be totally lost. Meanwhile, a hydraulic fluid or gear oil is usually classified separately but actually may be used in a stern tube or thruster. Therefore, we recommend that the sVGP should not attempt to distinguish between these lubricant /fluid types when defining environmental criteria. The term “main constituents” is not defined in the proposed 2013 s VGP. We assume that the d efinition of “Nontoxic” has in part been adapted from the European Ecolabel , and that “main constituents” is intended to mean any substance present at greater than 5% by weight in the lubricant. We recommend that since marine propulsion equipment is not in tended to operate on a total loss basis, when evaluating for formulation and main constituents, the LC50 of all fluid lubricant types for all applications should be at least 100 mg/L. When evaluating each constituent substance, the current wording does not explicitly state what criteria would be applied to substances present at >20% (w/w). We suggest the criteria should be definedResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 130 (see table below). In general fish are the least sensitive of the three aquatic tropic levels. Therefore, where acute aquatic te sting of each main component, or each constituent substance, is required, the European ECOLABEL requires only daphnia and algae results. Acute toxicity testing of fish is only required when testing the complete formulation. This also serves to reduce anima l testing. We recommend that this approach be adopted in the sVGP . It is unclear from the current wording whether chronic aquatic toxicity is required or optional. The opening requirement suggests "both" chronic and acute data is required but use of the wo rd "or" when evaluating each constituent substance suggests it is optional. Also, no chronic limits are proposed when testing formulation and main constituents suggesting chronic data is not required. Chronic toxicity data is less widely available. Of the European labels, only the Ecolabel recommends chronic testing (and this only applies when evaluating each constituent substance), but acute data may be substituted in order to minimize additional animal testing. We recommend that when evaluating toxicity o f formulation and main components, acute toxicity data should be required, but when evaluating each constituent substance, either acute or chronic toxicity data should be required It has been suggested by others that testing should be restricted to marine species. Toxicity data on marine species is less widely available. It has been reported ii that a sound basis exists for using freshwater toxicity data to extrapolate to saltwater effects and that an appropriate assessment factor could be applied to freshwa ter data. The study found that for certain chemicals, saltwater species were more sensitive, but for other chemicals e.g. metals, freshwater species were more sensitive. To date, no assessment factor has been developed, and freshwater testing continues to dominate standards. We therefore recommend that whilst suitable marine toxicity tests could be introduced into the sVGP as an option, freshwater toxicity tests should remain. Aquatic Toxicity Proposal We recommend the following wording in Section 6:
"Non

- toxic" means a formulation which must meet the following criteria: " If a formulation is evaluated by assessing the formulation and main constituents, acute aquatic toxicity LC50 limits will apply as follows:

 Formulation: at least 100 mg/L for lubricants o r at least 1,000 mglL for greases, according to OECD 201, 202 and 203.

 And for each main constituent: at least 100 mg/L by OECD 201 and 202 " If a formulation is evaluated by assessing each constituent substance (rather than the complete formulation and
m ain constituents), each constituent substance must be evaluated for acute toxicity using OECD 201 and 202, or be evaluated for chronic toxicity using OECD 210 and 211. Constituent substances may have a cumulative mass concentration up to the following limi ts: SEE TABLE IN ORIGINAL

ii Wheeler et al, 2002, Freshwater To Saltwater Toxicity Extrapolation Using Species Sensitivity Distributions.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 131 Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0392

- A1, excerpt 1.

Commenter Name: Robert Leitch, Floating Plant Program Manager, US Army Corps of Engineers Commenter Affiliation: US Army Corps of Engineers Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0431

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: Issue 9. Environmentally Acceptable Lub ricants Reference: Small Vessel General Permit ( sVGP ), Section 6

– Definitions “Environmentally acceptable lubricants” “Bioaccumulative” “Biodegradable” “Non

‐ Toxic”
Discussion: Part 2.3 of the sVGP now requires the use of Environmentally Acceptable (EA) lu bricants in all machinery and equipment. The definition in Part 6 of EA is based on European standards for biodegradable, non

‐ toxic and bioaccumulative . No consideration has been given to US based (ASTM) testing methods. Additionally, the USACE feels that the science in the US behind bioaccumulation is not mature to include in this permit. Finally, many of the European “Green” labels are directed for “biobased” products. Bio

‐ based products are not necessarily EA, and vice verse, non bio

‐ based products can b e EA.
Recommendation: USACE recommends that the EPA should also include US based (ASTM) testing methods and limitations/guidelines. Additionally, USACE recommends removing the requirement for bioaccumulation . For the purpose of this permit, the definition of an EA lubricant should be based around biodegradability (readily and inherently) and toxicity. With respect to toxicity, the USACE recommends an EC50 or LC50 rating of “Practically Nontoxic (100

‐ 1000 mg/L or ppm )” or better (better being Relatively Harm less at >1000 mg/L or ppm ). USACE recommends the EPA develop a US "green" label to provide to qualifying manufacturers and products. This label should be centered on environmental performance criteria, not necessarily the chemical make

‐ up/bio

‐ based of the fluid. Response : To further clarify the definition of EALs, EPA added more specific definitions for “biodegradable,” “minimally toxic,” and “not bioaccumulative” (see Appendix A in the permit). EPA acknowledges that biobased products are not necessarily EALs and vice versa . The definition of EAL does not include any renewability content criteria (such as is the case for the European Ecolabel, the Swedish Standard, and Nordic Swan). In addition, EPA notes that EALs labeled by the following labeling programs are expected to m eet the EAL specifications given inResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 132 the permit: Blue Angel, European Ecolabel, Nordic Swan, the Swedish Standard SS 155470, OSPAR requirements, and EPA’s DfE. While EPA understands the commenter’s concerns regarding these labeling programs, EPA has determi ned that those listed have the highest environmental standards in testing available at this time. EPA intends to be impartial to foreign or domestic products. Products that are not labeled in these international programs can undergo independent testing and qualify as an EAL so long as EPA standards outlined in the definition are met. Since common testing methods for biodegradability are variable and use different measurement parameters, different test types exist including measurements of ready biodegradabi lity, hydrocarbon degradability, and overall biodegradability. EPA disagrees that no consideration has been given to U.S. based (ASTM) testing methods. EPA has evaluated ASTM testing methods and how they have been used in other evaluations of EALs, includi ng them where appropriate. For example, EPA has identified ASTM methods 5864 and D

- 7373 as acceptable test methods for assessing biodegradability. For future permit iterations, EPA is open to including additional ASTM methods, provided they demonstrate tha t a given product meets EPA’s environmental criteria. Regarding the commenter’s recommendations to remove the requirement for bioaccumulation and to reduce the threshold for evaluating toxicity, EPA notes that the commenter does not provide any rationale o r environmental assessment to support his recommendations. Accordingly, EPA has retained these requirements to reduce the potential environmental impact of lubricants. Additionally, EPA appreciates the Corps’ desire for EPA to establish a U.S. “green” labe ling program. Regarding such a U.S. green label, EPA has amended Section 4.4.9 of the permit Fact Sheet to describe EPA’s DfE program initiative to label environmentally friendly lubricants. EPA has also referenced its DfE program in the definition of “env ironmentally acceptable lubricants” in the permit. Though this is beyond the scope of this permit issuance, EPA notes that the DfE program has been actively discussing labeling options with numerous product manufacturers, and the Agency is optimistic that some products will obtain this label in the near term.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 133 

# Issue Category: DEF4

. 5.4 MinimizeResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 134 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 135 DEF4. 5.4 Minimize
Commenter Name: Paul Belforti, President, Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Commenter Affiliation: Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0396

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: Retain the proposed definition of "minimize
. " In many part s of the draft sVGP , the vessel operator is told to "minimize " various discharges. Part 2 says that the term "minimize " means " reduce and/or eliminate to the extent achievable using control measures (including best management practices) that are technologically available and economically practicable and achievable in light of best marine practice. " By the phrase "to the extent achievable ," it acknowledges that many discharges are likely to continue to some extent. By qualifying the term "control measures ' with the phrase "technologically available and economically practicable and achievable," it takes into account the fact that effective technological "fixes " are not always available at a reasonable cost. By acknowledging the use of: "best management practices , " it demonstrates awareness that an operational measure may be the b est or most effective method of minimizing a discharge. This definition of "minimize" is appropriate , and it is important to retain it in the sVGP

. It may be desirable to include

" minimize " as a defined term in part 6. Response: EPA acknowledges the com ment and , for clarity, EPA added the definition of "minimize" to Part 6 of the final sVGP

.

Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska Document Control Number: E PA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 19
Comment: Effluent Limits and Related Requirements on page 2: The draft sVGP states “ In the limits below and throughout this permit, the term “minimize” means reduce and/or eliminate to the extent ach ievable using control measures (including best management practices) that are technologically available and economically practicable and achievable in light of best marine practice”. The section on definitions should contain the word “minimize” and contain this definition, and should provide more guidance on when technologically available and/ or economically practicable is the standard that takes precedence. The term “minimize” as definedResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 136 does not clarify the point between compliance and non

- compliance and what must be recorded and submitted on the Annual Non

- compliance form. Response: EPA received a number of comments regarding meaning and use of the term “minimize” in the sVGP

. One commenter supported EPA’s definition of minimize provided in the draft permit while a number of commenters offered suggestions for revising the definition or highlighted areas of confusion with the use of the term in the permit. Based on EPA’s consideration of comments received, the Agency will continue to use the term “mini mize” as a key aspect of its technology

- based effluent limitations. EPA believes use of the term “minimize” provides a reasonable approach by which EPA, permittees , and the public can determine/evaluate appropriate practices for vessels to control specifi c discharges. EPA believes the key to a clearer understanding of the term minimize is to further clarif y the term “ B est M arine P ractices” as used in the definition of minimize. “Best Marine Practices” establish the threshold upon which practices are to be considered to meet the effluent limits. That is, where the permit uses the term “minimize,” Best Marine Practices must be used to the extent technologically available and economically practicable and achievable. EPA clarifies here that a “Best Marine Practice” is any practice used to meet the effluent limitations that complies with manufacturer specifications, industry standards and recommended industry practices related to the operation of a vessel, relevant legal requirements, and other provisions th at a prudent operator would implement to reduce and/or eliminate discharges to waters of the United States. Logically, EPA expects that a “prudent operator’s” discharge is consistent with the requirements listed above

. Best Marine Practices can be actions (including processes, procedures, schedules of activities, prohibitions on practices , and other management practices), or structural or installed devices to prevent or reduce water pollution. The key is determining what measure is appropriate for a n operator’s situation in order to meet the effluent limitation. In this permit, operators are required to implement site

- specific Best Marine Practices to meet these effluent limitations. The permit along with th e fact sheet provides examples of Best Mari ne Practices, but operators must tailor these to their situations as well as improve upon them as necessary to meet the effluent limitations. The consideration of using Best Marine Practices in this permit is consistent with the CWA as well as its implemen ting regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(k)(4). Section 402(a)(2) of the CWA states: “The administrator shall prescribe conditions for such permits to assure compliance with the requirements in paragraph (1) . . . including conditions on data and information coll ection, reporting and such other requirements as he deems appropriate." (Section 402(a)(1) includes effluent limitation requirements.) This statutory provision is reflected in the CWA implementing regulations, which state that Best Management Practices can be included in permits when, “[t]he practices are reasonably necessary to achieve effluent limitations and standards or to carry out the purposes and intent of the CWA ” ( 40 CFR 122.44(k)(4) )

. When interpreting the term “minimize” for the permit, EPA belie ves that for some vessel discharges, pollutants in those discharges can be minimized without using highly engineered, complex treatment systems. For other vessel discharges, highly engineered, complex, treatmentResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 137 systems that are reliable and approved for u se on vessels are not currently available. EPA did not add definitions for terms such as “reduce,” “technologically available,” or “economically practicable” with respect to the word "minimize." Rather, EPA is relying on the phrase “in light of Best Marin e Practice” to guide prudent operators in selecting appropriate controls to comply with the minimize requirement and to record and report those instances of non

- compliance. EPA believes that the factors and considerations relevant to minimizing discharges are set out in Part 2 of the sVGP . For example, Part 2.5 of the sVGP directs owner s /operators to minimize the discharge of paint chips and residue by collecting and disposing of chips and residues onshore in accordance with applicable requirements for the facility where operations are performed. Additionally, Part 2.6 of the sVGP directs owner s /operators to minimize the transport of any visible living aquatic organisms from one waterbody to another by regularly cleaning and maintaining the hull. EPA disagr ees with one commenter’s assertion that the non

- numeric technology

- based effluent limitations contained in the permit are inappropriate because an operator’s best professional judgment may drastically differ from an EPA employee's interpretation during com pliance assessment and enforcement. Just as there is variability in vessel operations, there is variability in the Best Marine Practices that can be used to meet the effluent limitations. Therefore, EPA generally is not mandating specific Best Marine Prac tices operators must implement to meet the limitations. This is analogous to an industrial situation where discharges to w aters of the United States are via pipes and a numeric effluent limitation may be specified as a given quantity of pollutant that may be discharged, but EPA does not specify what technology should be used to meet that limitation. Thus, a given Best Marine Practice may be acceptable and appropriate in some circumstances but not in others. In this respect, the non

- numeric effluent limitati ons in this permit are similar to numeric effluent limitations, which also do not require specific control technologies as long as the limitations are met. Similarly, EPA is not distinguishing between what constitutes compliance and non

- compliance with re spect to the term “minimize” and what must be recorded and reported on the Annual Non

- Compliance Form. The permit provides operators with flexibility to implement Best Marine Practices as necessary to meet the minimize standard and EPA believes that furth er defining th at term compromises the necessary flexibility. Permittees may want to document their rationale for their approach to comply with the permit to provide supporting information that may be useful to EPA during any compliance assessment activiti es. Finally, consistent with a number of commenters , EPA added the definition of “minimize” to Part 6 (Definitions) of the sVGP

.

Commenter Name: Michelle Bonnett, Director, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0417

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 138 Comment: For example, the permit lac ks specificity about who will ultimately interpret terms such as "minimize", "reduce", and "to the extent achievable". Generally, we are conce rned that the term "minimize" as defined in the proposed permit does not distinguish between what constitutes compliance and non

- compliance and what must be recorded and submitted on the Annual Non

Compliance Form. Operators will be in a predicament where best judgment drastically differs from an EPA employee's interpretat ion during compliance enforcement. Attempts to define these terms in the permit introduce additional ambiguous terms. We are concerned th at commercial boat operators attempting to minimize thei r discharges to the extent achievable under the sVGP will not clearly understand what constitutes compliance. Further, the uncertainty could result in over reporting minor incid ences resulting in an overly burdensome paperwork process for the vessel operat ors and the regulating entities. We request that the EPA provide clarification regarding permit terms. Response: Please see EPA's response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 , excerpt 19, regarding the term “minimize.”

Commenter Name: Michelle Bonnett, Director, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section Document C ontrol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0417

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: 2. Effluent Limits and Related Requirements The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ( ADEC or the Department) requests that EPA define all permit terms that will be used to determine compliance with the permit. Example of ambiguous permit terms: The term "minimize" as defined in the proposed permit does not distinguish between what constitutes compliance and non

- compliance and what must be recorded and submitt ed on the Annual Non

- Compliance Form. The term " minimize" means reduce and/ or eliminate to the extent achievable using control measures (including best management practices) that are technologically available and economically practicable and achievable in light of best marine practice. The EPA defines the term "minimize" in this section of the permit. Unfortunately, the definition itself introduces additional ambiguous terms, such as "to the extent achievable", "technologically available", "economically pr acticable", and "best marine practice".Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 139 Other examples of ambiguous terms include reduce and to the extent achievable. Response: Please see EPA's response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 , excerpt 19, regarding the term “minimize.”

Commenter Name: Cathy Stepp, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Commenter Affiliation: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0435

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment:
Effluent Limits a n d Related R equi r ements
Both the terms "minimize" and " to the extent achievable" are vague

. The lack of more specific direction may lead to confusion on the part of the permittee . Wisconsin DNR suggests better defining the t e rm "minimize" without using t he phrase "to the extent achievable"

. Response: Please see EPA's response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 , excerpt 19, regarding the term "minimize."

Commenter Name: Beth Kerttula, Representative, House District 3, Alaska State Legislatu re et al. Commenter Affiliation: Alaska State Legislature, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0439

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: 2. Effluent Limits and Related Requirements (p.2) Generally, we are concerned that the term "mini mize" as defined in the proposed permit does not clarify the trigger between compliance and non

- compliance and what must be recorded and submitted on the Annual Non

- Compliance Form (See Appendix B). For example, if an open 16

- foot skiff (with a self

- baling deck) operating in permitted waters takes on deck wash and fish slime while tending a salmon gillnet

-- and the deck residues in the runoff result in a visible sheen on the surrounding water

-- does this action constitute a violationResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 140 of the sVGP which mus t be recorded and submitted as non

- compliance? Put more simply, at what level does an owner/operator clearly know what constitutes a reportable non

- compliance event? Response: Please see EPA's response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 , excerpt 19, regarding the term "minimize."Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 141 

# Issue Category: DEF5

. 5.5 Recreational V esselResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 142 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 143 DEF5. 5.5 Recreational V essel
Commenter Name: Stanley Mack, Mayor, Aleutians East Borough (AEB) Commenter Affiliation: Aleutians East Borough (AEB) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0390

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment:
The AEB also recommends the EPA clarify and broadly apply the "Recreational vessel" manufacture standard (See 33 U.S.C. 1362(25)) to op en skiffs less than 27 feet that are also operating in commercial fisheries . Arguably, these skiffs are the exact same vessel design being used for sport fishing activities which are currently exempt from the NPDES permit requirements. Response:
EPA ack nowledges the comment and has modified the final permit and F act S heet to further clarify the definition of recreational vessels and eligibility of vessels under the sVGP

. In the final sVGP, EPA added language to Part 1.1 that further clarifies the definition of recreational vessel and added the text from the CWA section 502(25) that defines a recreational vessel as any vessel that is either (1) manufactured or used primarily for pleasure, or (2) leased, rented, or chartered to a person for the pleasure of that person. The term recreational vessel does not include a vessel that is both subject to Coast Guard inspection and either (1) is engaged in commercial use or (2) carries paying passengers. The sVGP F act S heet includes il lustrative examples of vessels that would be recreational vessels within the meaning of the CWA and are not subject to this permit

.

Commenter Name: Thomas M. Gemmell, Executive Director, United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Commenter Affiliation: United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0400

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 16
Comment:
16. sVGP . Definition of ―recreational vessel. Some passenger vessels (e.g. six

- packs) are engaged in commercial activi ty (passenger transport, whale watching, charter fishing) but are not Coast Guard inspected; do you mean to exempt these vessels (many are the same sizes as commercial fishing vessels) from the sVGP ?Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 144 Response: Please see the response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0390

- A2 , excerpt 9 , regarding the definition of "recreational vessel."

Commenter Name: Robert Leitch, Floating Plant Program Manager, US Army Corps of Engineers Commenter Affiliation: US Army Corps of Engineers Document Control Nu mber: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0431

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment:
Issue 2. Definition of a “non

‐ recreational” vessel needs further clarification.
Reference: 76 FR 76716, Section I, sVGP , Page 17, section 7
Discussion: Section I of 76 FR references CWA section 502(25). USC 1362(25) states: “(25) Recreational vessel.

— (A) In general.

— The term “recreational vessel” means any vessel that is

— (i) manufactured or used primarily for pleasure; or (ii) leased, rented, or chartered to a person for the pleasure of that person. (B) Exclusion.

— The term “recreational vessel” does not include a vessel that is subject to Coast Guard inspection and that

— (i) is engaged in commercial use; or (ii) carries paying passengers.”
USACE has many small vessels (i.e. 1 2’ skiffs with 9 horse power outboards, Boston whalers etc.) that could generally be considered manufactured for pleasure, but are in fact used as working vessels. During an EPA webinar on the VGP / sVGP , the following question was submitted to the EPA. Q: T his is Jonathan Friedman with the US Army Corps of Engineers

‐ after reading the sVGP F act S heet, I'm still not completely clear on how this will affect a fleet of canoes, kayaks, inflatable vessels, and motorized vessels of various lengths. Is it accurate that all of these types of vessels will require a permit?

‐ follow up to my previous question

‐ all the vessels I am referring to are used for a work purpose. Not used for the purpose of recreation. The answer that was provided toResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 145 all participants was, "N

o, those types of vessels would not need a permit." Based on the fact that those vessels are specifically designed as recreational vessels, regardless of use.
While USACE understands that non

‐ motorized vessels are excluded from the sVGP since no discharge exists, USACE seeks clarification on the necessity of seeking sVGP permit coverage for vessels manufactured primarily for recreation, but used in a working capacity (i.e. patrol boat, natural resource management etc.). Given that USACE vessels are excluded from the definition of “Armed Forces Vessel” and many USACE working vessels were primarily manufactured for recreation, USACE vessels may not be considered eligible for permit coverage as the sVGP is currently written.
Recommendation: EPA should clearly d efine the scope of the statutory exemption for recreational vessels and how this definition relates to the use of a vessel primarily manufactured for recreation but used in a working capacity. A voluntarily eligibility provision may help to alleviate these concerns to the regulated community. Response: Please see the response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0390

- A2 , excerpt 9 , regarding the definition of "recreational vessel."

Commenter Name: Beth Kerttula, Representative, House District 3, Alas ka State Legislature et al. Commenter Affiliation: Alaska State Legislature, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0439

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: We also recommend the EPA clarify and broadly apply the "Recreational vessel" manufacture standard (See 33 U.S.C. 1362(25)) to open skiffs less than 27 feet that are also operating in commercial fisheries. Arguably, these skiffs are the exact same vessel d esign being used for sport fishing activities which are currently exempt from the NPDES permit requirements. Response: Please see the response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0390

- A2 , excerpt 9 , regarding the definition of "recreational vessel."Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 146 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 147 

# Issue Category: DEF6

. 5.6 Comments on S pecific D efinitions O ther than

T hose L isted A boveResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 148 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 149 DEF6. 5.6 Comments on S pecific D efinitions O ther than T hose L isted A bove
Commenter Name: Rod Moore, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Commenter Affiliation: West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15
Comment:

“ In port” should be modified to include only designated anchorages or while tied to a dock or mooring buoy. Commercial fishing vessels often seek shelter from weather and sea conditions in protected bays along the Pacific coast and their desire to obtain s afe conditions should not preclude them from normally operating, including cooking, maintaining personal sanitation, and maintaining the quality of their catch. “Oil” should be modified to specifically exclude fish slime so that the stringent r equirements surrounding fuel and engine oil and lubricants do not encompass natural residue from a vessel’s catch. A similar change needs to be made to “Oily mixture”. Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0390

- A2 , ex cerpt 8 , regarding the definition of "in

- port

. " EPA also disagrees with the commenter's suggestion that the Agency needs to specifically exclude fish slime or oils from the definitions of "oil" and "oily mixtures" in the sVGP

. The definition given is fundamentally similar to that found at 33 CFR 151.05 and the same as in the 2008 and 2013 VGP

.

Commenter Name: Stanley Mack, Mayor, Aleutians East Borough (AEB) Commenter Affiliation: Aleutians East Borough (AEB) Document Con trol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0390

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: 6. Definitions (p. 16) The definition of “In Port” means anchored, moored, or otherwise secured while located in waters subject to this permit which are inside the baseline of the U.S. territorial sea. This overly extensive interpretation of the term is problematic since it limits operational capabilities over a broader geographical area that may well be subject to strong tidal action. The AEB recommendsResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 150 the definition of "In Po rt" be when a vessel is anchored, moored or otherwise secured at a pier or dock. Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter’s suggestion as EPA intends for all vessels anchored, moored, or otherwise secured within the baseline U.S. territorial sea to com ply with the “in port” discharge requirements in the sVGP. EPA has attempted to clarify in the sVGP when certain requirements are applicable with a vessel is pierside and stationary or dockside. EPA further notes that many discharge requirements must be m et so long as it is technically feasible, practical, and safe to do so.

Commenter Name: Stanley Mack, Mayor, Aleutians East Borough (AEB) Commenter Affiliation: Aleutians East Borough (AEB) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0390

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment: The term "Oil' should be modified to exclude fish slime so that stringent requirements surrounding a visible sheen from fuel, engine oil and lubricants do not encompass natural residues from a vessel's catch. A similar change should be made to "oily mixture". Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 15 , regarding the definitions of "oil" and oily mixtures

. "

Commenter Name: Paul Belforti, President, Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Commenter Affiliation: Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0395

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: Amend definition of "voyage."
PVA urges EPA to revise the definition of a "voyage" in Appendix A. The 2013 VGP states that a "'Voyage' means, for the purposes of VGP Part 4.1.1 (including its routine visual inspection provisions), that a voyage begins when the vessel departs a dock or oth er location at which it has loaded or unloaded (in whole or in part) cargo or passengers, and ends after it has tied

- up at another dock or location in order to again conduct such activities." This definition does notResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 151 address a vessel leaving one dock and r eturning to the same dock, a common practice in the passenger vessel sector. Clarify the definition of "sewage." In the definitions section, the term "sewage" should be modified to accurately reflect the term's meaning in the Clean Water Act. The need for this modification will be explained more fully by means of a separate submission to the regulatory docket. The definition should be revised to read as follows: "Sewage" means human body wastes and the wastes from toilets and other receptacles intended to r eceive or retain body wastes that are discharged from vessels, except that with respect to commercial vessels (as that term is defined in section 312(a)(JO) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended) on the Great Lakes, the term 'sewage' also includes galley, bath, and shower water." The clarifying language is highlighted in bold italics. Response: This comment discusses the term voyage referred to in Part 4.1.1 of the VGP and, therefore, is beyond the scope of today’s finalization of the sVG P

. Please go to http://w ww.regulations.gov and search docket number OW

- 2011

- 0141 for the record for the VGP.

Commenter Name: Paul Belforti, President, Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Commenter Affiliation: Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0396

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: The definition of the term "sewage" needs to be clarified. In the definitions section, the term "sewage" should be modified to a ccurately reflect the term's meaning in the Clean Water Act. The need for this modification will be explained more fully by means of a separate submission to the regulatory docket. The definition should be revised to read as follows: "Sewage" means human body wastes and the wastes from toilets and other receptacles intended to receive or retain body wastes that are discharged from vessels , except that with respect to commercial vessels ( as that term is defined in section 312(a)(10) of the Federal Water Pol

lution Control Act, as amended ) on the Great Lakes , the term 'sewage' also includes galley, bath, and shower water." The clarifying language is highlighted in bold italics. Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0410

- A1 , excerpt 1 , regarding the term “sewage.”Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 152 Commenter Name: Kathy Hansen, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Commenter Affiliation: Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0 404

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 16
Comment:
“In Port” is currently defined in the draft permit as “for the purposes of this permit, anchored, moored, or otherwise secured while located in waters subject to this permit which are inside the baseline of the U.S territorial sea. A more appropriate definition would be “moored or otherwise secured at a pier or dock”. Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 15 , regarding the definition of "in

- port."

Commente r Name: Kathy Hansen, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Commenter Affiliation: Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18
Comment:
“Vesse l Length” One of the main differences between the sVGP and VGP is the 79 foot vessel length. Length of vessel is not defined, is it overall, documented/registered length, or keel length? SEAFA recommends that vessel length be defined. Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that a definition of vessel length is required in the permit. Vessel length refers to overall length as defined at 46 CFR § 69.9 : "Overall length means the horizontal distance between the foremost part of a vessel's stern to the aftermost part of its stern, excluding fittings and attachments."

Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) Comme nter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 153 Comment: (c) Minimize the discharge of fish hold water or ice while in port. The definition of “in port” is problematic in this section since any vessel anchored is considered in port. This would affect the fishing vessels selling/transferring product to tenders on the grounds. Many fisheries offload using a pump where the seawater is separated from the fish and pumped over the si de. What about shellfish harvesters that are continuously circulating ambient saltwater to keep the species alive. Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 15 , regarding the definition of "in

- port."

Com menter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment: “Oil” ( sVGP section 6 page 16 & VGP Appendix A) The draft permits defines “oil” as “oil of any kind or in any form, including but not limited to petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil.” Through the course of normal fishing operations, the fish which contain naturally occurring oils both internally and externally may be released, either by contact with fishing gear, compression in the nets, heading/gutting or other means. Depending upon the vessel and fishing gear, fish oil residue may r emain on the vessel surfaces and fishing gear, and may be subsequently washed overboard by precipitation, water spray, runoff, washdowns , gear deployment etc. We recommend that EPA revise the definition of Oil in the Draft VGP & sVGP to explicitly exclude fish oils and fish oil residue or to adopt a definition of “oil” that does not include animal based oil. “In Port” is currently defined in the draft permit as “for the purposes of this permit, anchored, moored, or otherwise secured while located in waters subject to this permit which are inside the baseline of the U.S territorial sea. A more appropriate definition would be “moored or otherwise secured at a pier or dock”. Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , e xcerpt 15 , regarding the definition of "oil."Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 154 Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 Comment Excerpt Numb er: 13
Comment: Vessel Length: One of the main differences between the sVGP and VGP is the 79 foot vessel length. Length of vessel is not defined, is it overall, documented/registered length, or keel length? One solution is to provide a definition for “ length” Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1 , excerpt 18 , regarding the definition of "vessel length."

Commenter Name: Craig Urness, General Counsel, Pacific Seafood Group and Pacific Fishing, LLC Commenter Affiliation: Pacific Seafood Group and Pacific Fishing, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0407

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment: “In port” should be modified to include only designated anchorages or while tied to a dock or mooring buoy. Commercial fishing vessels often seek shelter from weather and sea conditions in protected bays along the Pacific coast and their desire to obtain safe conditions should not preclude them from normally operating, including cooking, maintaining personal sanitation, and maintaining the quality of their catch. Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 15 , regarding the definition of "in

- port

. "

Commenter Name: Michelle Bonnett, Director, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section Document C ontrol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0417

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 15Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 155 Comment:
6. Definitions
The definition of "In Port" m ea ns anchored, moored, or otherwise secured while lo cated in waters subj ect to this permit which are inside the baseline of the U .S. territorial sea. This interpretation of th e term is problematic since it covers a l arge geographical area, including most of the Alexand e r Archipelago , and limits operational capabilities over an area that is subject to strong wind and tidal action. We r eco mm e nd the definition of "In Port" be when a vessel is anchored, moor e d, or otherwise secured at a pier or dock. Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 15 , regarding the definition of "in

- port."

C ommenter Name: Nancy Fitzpatrick, Executive Director, Oregon Salmon Commission, Oregon Albacore Commission Commenter Affiliation: Oregon Salmon Commission Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0418

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 15
Comment: “In po rt” should be modified to include only designated anchorages or while tied to a dock or mooring buoy. Commercial fishing vessels often seek shelter from weather and sea conditions in protected bays along the Pacific coast and their desire to obtain safe co nditions should not preclude them from normally operating, including cooking, maintaining personal sanitation, and maintaining the quality of their catch. Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 15 , rega rding the definition of "in

- port."

Commenter Name: Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Commenter Affiliation: Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0426

- A2 C omment Excerpt Number: 16Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 156 Comment: “In port” should be modified to include only designated anchorages or while tied to a dock or mooring buoy. Commercial fishing vessels often seek shelter from weather and sea conditions in protected bays along the coast without tying up to a dock. Their decision to obtain safe conditions should not preclude them from nor mally operating, including cooking, maintaining personal sanitation, and maintaining the quality of their catch. Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 15 , regarding the definition of "in

- port."

Comme nter Name: Robert Leitch, Floating Plant Program Manager, US Army Corps of Engineers Commenter Affiliation: US Army Corps of Engineers Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0431

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment:
Issue 10. Bilgewater
Refer ence: Small Vessel General Permit ( sVGP ), Section 6

‐ Definitions “Bilgewater
Discussion: Per Section 6 “Bilgewater” means the wastewater from a variety of sources that accumulates in the lowest part of the vessel (the bilge). There is no distinction as to what type of compartment the bilgewater accumulates in.
Recommendation: USACE recommends expanding the definition of bilgewater to have two "origin" classifications: 1) Bilgewater from Machinery Spaces; 2) Bilgewater from Non

‐ Machinery Spaces/Voids. For b ilgewater from non

‐ machinery spaces/voids where there is no presence/possibility of oil contamination, untreated bilgewater discharge should be authorized. For bilgewater from machinery spaces, the water must be treated prior to discharge. Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that the definition of bilgewater needs to be subdivided into two categories. Many of the vessels covered by the sVGP will not have any capability to separate bilge water from machinery and non

- machinery spaces as would a l arge ship , and Part 2.3 of the permit states that any discharge of bilgewater may not contain oil and may not produceResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 157 a visible sheen. These requirements, along with the others in Part 2.3, will prevent the discharge of oil in harmful quantities to waters covered by this permit.

Commenter Name: Beth Kerttula, Representative, House District 3, Alaska State Legislature et al. Commenter Affiliation: Alaska State Legislature, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0439

- A2 Comment Excerpt Numb er: 8
Comment:
6. Definitions (p. 16) The definition of "In Port" means anchored, moored, or otherwise secured while located in waters subject to this permit which are inside the baseline of the U.S. territorial sea. This overly extensive interpretation of the term is problematic since it limits operational capabilities over a broader geographical area that may well be subject to strong tidal action. We recommend the definition of "In Port" be when a vessel is anchored, moored or otherwise secured at a p ier or dock. Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 15 , regarding the definition of "in

- port."

Commenter Name: Diane Pleschner

- Steele, Executive Director, California Wetfish Producers Association (CW PA) Commenter Affiliation: California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0440

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment:
6. Definitions (p. 16) The definition of “In Port” now means anchored, moored, or other wise secured while located in waters subject to this permit which are inside the baseline of the U.S. territorial sea. This overly extensive interpretation of the term is problematic since it limits operational capabilities over a broader geographical area that may well be subject to strong tidal action. CWPA recommends the definition of “In Port” be when a vessel is anchored, moored or otherwise secured at a pier or dock

.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 158 Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 15 , regarding the definition of "in

- port."Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 159 

# Issue Category: ADM

. 6 Administrative RequirementsResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 160 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 161 ADM. 6 Administrative Requirements
Commenter Name: Rod Moore, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Commenter Affiliation: West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13
Comment: 3.1 RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
As noted above in our comme nts on section 1.3, the requirement for retaining forms on board is particularly onerous for small open vessels. If no general exemption is provided for such small vessels as suggested above, we recommend that the requirement for paperwork to be kept on b oard be limited to those cases where dry secure storage is available on board the vessel. Response: EPA has not provided an exemption for recordkeeping for vessels under the sVGP or taken the commenter's recommendation to limit "on board" records to tho se vessels with dry secure storage space. EPA also notes that the total recordkeeping burden under this permit for vessels that are in compliance with the terms of the permit consists of the PARI form , which can be printed on the front and back of one piec e of paper. However, EPA has clarified the sVGP so that it clearly allows electronic recordkeeping. Please see EPA's discussion of electronic recordkeeping in the response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 5

.

Commenter Name: Rod Moore, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Commenter Affiliation: West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 17
Comment:
3.5.2 TERMIN ATING COVERAGE The fact sheet notes that coverage is automatically terminated “if a new owner or operator has assumed responsibility for the vessel.” What is unclear is how

– if a fishing vessel is sold to a new owner

– that new owner obtains coverage a nd whether there would be a gap in coverage that prevents a vessel from operating while new coverage is obtained. We believe that these are issues that need to be clarified.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 162 Response: Once a new owner or operator has assumed responsibility for the vesse l, permit coverage is automatically terminated for the previous owner/operator. To prevent a gap in coverage, it is recommended that the previous vessel owner/operator keep their completed PARI form onboard until the next vessel owner/operator activates th eir coverage by completing the PARI form. This will ensure that the vessel is actively covered under the sVGP and that no gap in coverage occurs. EPA has clarified the language in Part 3.5.2 of the sVGP F act S heet to provide a clearer explanation of transf

erring sVGP coverage.

Commenter Name: Stanley Mack, Mayor, Aleutians East Borough (AEB) Commenter Affiliation: Aleutians East Borough (AEB) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0390

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment: Availability of Ind ividual Vessel Permit Information The EPA has not clarified whether the recordkeeping information submitted by permitted vessel owner/operators will be made available to the public at the EPA's electronic public document or elsewhere. We believe the inform ation submitted to the EPA by permitted individuals should be protected to the greatest extent possible. Response: The sVGP does not require permittees to report recordkeeping information to EPA and only requires permittees to keep their records onboard. EPA does not plan to share the records of all sVGP permittees with the public at this time. In the event that EPA or an authorized representative boards a vessel, the permittee will be required to show EPA or its authorized representative any records rela ted to the sVGP. Inspection records may be made available to the public. EPA notes that information will be handled consistent with any 40 CFR Part 2 confidentiality obligations.

Commenter Name: Roger E. Claff, Senior Scientific Advisor, American Petr oleum Institute (API) Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute (API) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0391

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 163 Comment: Furthermore, page 9, Section 3 of the draft sVGP details Q uarterly Visual Inspect ion Requirements. Regarding the intermittent use of vessels, and whereas these vessels may not be used on a quarterly basis, the following changes are proposed, for such vessels not exempted from sVGP applicability:
Add to Section 3.1: "For those vessels in waters of the US less than 30 days/500 hours, the vessel owner/operator must conduct annual inspections in accordance with Part 3.2 of the permit and certify that the inspections were completed on the PARI Form."
Retitle 3.2: "3.2. QUARTERLY/ANNUAL VISUAL INSPECTION REQUIRMENTS " Modify first bullet in 3.2: Change "...must conduct a quarterly visual inspection..." to "...must conduct a quarterly/annual visual inspection..." Modify last bullet in 3.2: Change "During the quarterly visual inspection..." to "During the quarterly/annual visual inspection..."
Amend the Annual Certification Statements on the PARI Form to read: "I certify that I have completed all of my quarterly/annual inspections for 20XX in accordance with Part 3.2 of the sVGP " This change would be consistent with the requirement in Equipment Deployment Exercises of National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) Guidelines: Section 2: Guiding Principles: Internal and External Exercises. (August 2002). Unnec essary deployment of vessels to observe motor discharges does incur additional environmental and safety risks. Response: EPA notes that while a vessel is outside of waters subject to this permit, the permit conditions do not apply. EPA agrees that vessel owner s /operators should not conduct inspections when the vessels are not being operated. EPA has not incorporated the commenter's language to require annual inspections. Instead, EPA has revised the sVGP to require quarterly inspections during vessels' ac tive season. Please s ee EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0378 , excerpt 2, for discussion of inspections for vessels in extended lay

- up.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 164 Commenter Name: Paul Belforti, President, Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Commenter Affiliatio n: Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0396

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: EPA should reduce administrative burdens on operators as much as possible and should not impose any additional administrative burdens.
Adherence to the sVGP will constitute yet one more regulatory mandate on thousands of small businesses that operate commercial passenger vessels of less than 79 feet in length. Consequently, EPA should make compliance as simple as possible and impose no more administrative requirements than absolutely necessary. Response: EPA disagrees that compliance with the administrative and other requirements in the sVGP would be difficult for vessel owner s /operators. EPA believes that compliance with the administrative requirements in the sVGP would cause very little burden on vessel owner s /operators. Permittees are required only to complete a PARI form (one page, front and back) certify ing that they have read and understood the terms of the permit and co mpleted the required quarterly visual inspections. Owner s /operators can keep this form on board or electronically. EPA analyzed the burden of this permit, details of which are provided in the Agency’s Economic and Benefits Analysis of the Final 2013 Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP)

. As discussed in that document, given t he preponderance of evidence showing that relatively few firms have revenue below those where the compliance costs would exceed the 1 percent cost

- to

- revenue threshold under high

- end cost assumptions, EPA concludes that the sVGP is unlikely to have a significant economic impact on a substanti al number of small entities. EPA also believes that compliance would be simple for the regulated community since the permit requires permittees to comply with effluent limits expressed as best management practices that EPA believes are common sense and th at represent current B est M arine P ractice s
.

Commenter Name: Kathy Hansen, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Commenter Affiliation: Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment:
Small VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT EPA
- HQ
- OW
- 2011
- 0150 ( sVGP )Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 165 First we request that in the final draft permit that the PARI form be simplified and written in non
- regulatory language (simple) eliminating the need to lo ok up references in the Code of Federal Register. Most fishermen find it difficult to look up the references provided in the draft sVGP permit unless a link to the exact spot in the federal register is provided. Second we would request that the PARI form only require quarterly inspections in quarters that active fishing occurred. It is easy for enforcement to prove or disapprove if a vessel participated in a commercial fishery by fish tickets. We request that the quarterly inspection whether it is every q uarter or only in quarters where active fishing takes place how compliance will consider quarterly reporting

– do you determine the year and what is a quarter

– is it exactly 90 days from the date of the last inspections, can you assume a calendar year and perform an inspection on March 31 & another on April 1 st and cover the first two quarters of the year? Response: For discussion on simplifying the PARI form and removing regulatory references, please see EPA's response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0 150

- 0406

- A1 , excerpt 16 . For discussion on the requirement for quarterly inspections when vessels are actively operating, please see EPA's response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0378 , excerpt 2 . In response to the commenter's question about frequen cy of quarterly inspections, EPA reiterates here that the term "quarterly" means calendar quarter, with those four quarters being January

March, April

- June, July

- September, and October

- December.

Commenter Name: Kathy Hansen, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Commenter Affiliation: Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 19
Comment: Recordkeeping Confidentiality : EPA does not addr ess whether the logbooks and reports required will be considered and kept confidential or will be provided on request under the Freedom of Information Act and citizen suit provisions. SEAFA strongly recommends that data be kept confidential. Response:
Th e commenter questions whether the permittee’s log book, which would include the PARI form, records of inspections and corrective actions, and records of noncompliance, would be confidential or subject to requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) . EPA clarifies that the Agency or its authorized representatives are the only entities with immediate access to the log books kept consistent with Part 3 of the permit . Part 4.5 requires permittees to produce information including the PARI form for EPA or EPA's authorized representative upon request during an inspection. That being said, EPA will consider requests by members of the public forResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 166 any documents held by EPA on a case

- by

- case bas is, consistent with applicable statutes such as FOIA , which governs the release of records in the government’s possession. Access to the elements of log books relevant to the sVGP would only be granted after review of the request, and after EPA has itself requested such records. The sVGP does not require that the information required to be entered into a vessel log be maintained in a single log book containing all information required under all f ederal laws. Nothing in the sVGP requires disclosure of inform ation (required under other f ederal laws) to be disclosed to any unauthorized person. The recordkeeping requirements in the sVGP only apply to records required to be maintained under the sVGP. EPA may decide to make the annual non

- compliance form that perm ittees are required to submit to EPA each year available for public review in the future. The annual non

- compliance form does not contain any confidential business information or other information considered too sensitive to make available for review. If t he owner/operator wishes to claim any information on the annual non

- compliance form as confidential business information, please follow the applicable regulations at 40 CFR 122.7. However, this regulation also specifies certain categories of information th at cannot be claimed as CBI, such as name, address, permit applications, permits, and effluent data.

Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska Document Control Nu mber: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14
Comment: Recordkeeping Confidentiality : EPA does not state in either draft permit whether the logbooks and reports required will be considered and kept confidential or will be provided on req uest under the Freedom of Information Act and citizen suit provisions. UFA strongly recommends that data be kept confidential. Response: For a discussion on the confidentiality of logbooks and reports, please see EPA's response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1 , excerpt 19

.

Commenter Name: Jennifer A. Carpenter, The American Waterways Operators Commenter Affiliation: The American Waterways Operators Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0408

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 167 Commen t: There are other significant operational reasons why the sVGP is a better fit for unmanned, nonself

- propelled barges. Particularly in the inland barge industry, a single company may own hundreds or even thousands of barges, which may be chartered to mu ltiple operators (such as towers and fleeters ) over relatively short spans of time. The VGP requirements for weekly visual inspections and extensive recordkeeping and reporting impose significant administrative and financial burdens on barge owners and cus todians with little or no corresponding environmental benefit. AWO appreciates EPA’s efforts to ameliorate these burdens in its proposed VGP by introducing limited visual inspections, extended unmanned period inspections, and combined annual reports for ba rges. However, the best management practices required under the sVGP are much simpler for barge owners to communicate to custodians, and the sVGP’s quarterly visual inspection and documentation requirements are far easier for a barge’s multiple operators t o facilitate. EPA could further reduce the economic impact and paperwork burdens associated with the proposed permits, without undermining their environmental objectives, by allowing unmanned barges to obtain coverage under the sVGP rather than the VGP

. Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter’s belief that the sVGP, rather than the VGP, is a better fit for certain barges; however, the Agency is retaining its current structure for the types of vessels covered under these two permits. EPA analyzed the b urden of these requirements on the permitted universe as presented in the Economic and Benefits Analysis of the Final 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) , a copy of which is available in the administrative record for the permit.

Commenter Name: Nick Schroe ck, Executive Director, Great Lakes Environmental Law Center Commenter Affiliation: Great Lakes Environmental Law Center Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0412

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: VI. Vessels Requesting a Small Vessel Gene ral Permit (" sVGP’ ) should be required to submit a Notice of Intent (" NOI ") in addition to a Permit Authorization and Record of Inspection (" PARI ")
An NOI provides permitting authorities with useful information to assist in oversight and enforcement of pe rmittees , such as specific location of the vessel and its discharge. When determining whether vessels eligible for coverage under the sVGP should be required to submit NOIs , the EPA found that the volume of discharges incidental to the normal operation of these smaller vessels are limited. Furthermore, the EPA noted the discharge from small vessels "reduced the likelihood for the introduction of significant quantities of toxic and conventional pollutants make requiring an NOI for these vessels to be of litt le value at this time." In the realmResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 168 of ballast water, the actual quantity of water being released, and its relation to the spread of aquatic invasive species is not the concern. The concern should be focused on the fact that ballast water is being release d. The NOI puts the EPA on notice that a particular vessel will be discharging ballast water. Furthermore, the administrative aspect of an NOI is relatively simple, with great benefits. Though the purpose of the PARI is to certify that the owner/operator has read and agreed to comply with the terms of the permit, it limits the ability of the EPA to manage the oversight of potential ballast water disposal. The purposes of the PARI and the NOI are different, and it would be useful for the EPA to revisit the underlying needs for these two procedural requirements. The NOI is a procedural tool for the EPA to maintain oversight on the issues of ballast water, and moreover, is potentially useful towards the development of future ballast water technology. Response : The commenter is correct that a NOI can be used by permitting authorities to determine discharges that are being released, such as ballast water, and that EPA believes that discharges from small vessels have a reduced likelihood for introducing significant quantities of toxic and conventional pollutants. EPA does not agree with the commenter that the administrative aspect of an NOI is simple. EPA believes that requiring the 11 5 ,000

- 1 38 ,000 vessels that may be covered under the sVGP to submit a NO I would be a large administrative burden for both the Agency and industry when considering the sheer number of NOIs that would be required to be submitted. In addition, EPA has access to other sources of data available for identifying discharges from vesse ls covered by the sVGP, including state registration information and the MISLE database. Therefore, a NOI may not be necessary for small vessels since other sources are available to identify their vessel discharges. Thus, EPA is not requiring permittees to submit a NOI as requested by the commenter.
T o determine whether sVGP vessels should be required to submit NOIs, EPA looked at the universe of vessels that would be covered by this permit, the types of discharges from these vessels, the variety of dischar ges containing conventional and toxic pollutants, and the volume and nature of those discharges. The volume of the discharges incidental to the normal operation of the vessel is expected to vary proportionately to the size of the vessel. Larger vessels wil l each individually have a greater volume of discharge and are more likely to have greater volume of discharges of concern (i.e., graywater and anti

- foulant leachate). The expected volume of discharges for large vessels (e.g., those larger than eligible fo r coverage under this permit) is significant for each individual vessel. For instance, a container ship can discharge thousands of cubic meters (millions of gallons) of ballast water , pounds of anti

- foulant leachate, and significant quantities of bilgewate r. Cruise ships have the potential to discharge large volumes of graywater due to the sizeable onboard ship populations, in addition to other discharges typical of such large vessels ( e.g., ballast water, bilgewater). Therefore, larger vessels are far more likely to discharge a wider range of constituents and larger quantities of toxic and conventional pollutants than smaller vessels

. Thus, the limited range of discharge types from smaller vessels and the reduced likelihood for the introduction of significant quantities of toxic and conventional pollutants make requiring an NOI for these vessels to be of little value at this time.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 169 Base d on the analysis outlined above, EPA has determined that it would be inappropriate to require smaller vessels covered by the sVGP to provide information about their discharges through submission of a NOI.

Commenter Name: Nick Schroeck, Executive Direc tor, Great Lakes Environmental Law Center Commenter Affiliation: Great Lakes Environmental Law Center Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0412

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: Finally, the sVGP should require an NOI and a PARI , as both a re administratively simple procedures, with great benefits. Response: For discussion on why EPA is not requiring that permittees complete a NOI in the sVGP, please see EPA's response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0412

- A2 , excerpt 6

.

Commenter Name: Alexis Cooper, Executive Director, Board of Directors, Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU) Commenter Affiliation: Board of Directors, Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0414

- A2 Comment Excerp t Number: 5
Comment:
Record Keeping: Quarterly inspections (again) fall into the category of unrealistic for Alaskan fisheries. Most fisheries are less than six months and boats are stored out of the water. Record keeping requirements would be onerous f or a small vessel seasonal fishery. At a minimum inspection requirements should not apply during layup periods. As an alternative, incident reporting forms and information could be carried onboard to aid in timely and accurate reporting of spills and prope r response strategies. Response: EPA agrees that vessels should be required to conduct quarterly inspections only during their active season. EPA has revised the sVGP to reflect this change. Please s ee EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0378 , excerpt 2, for discussion of inspections for vessels in extended lay

- up.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 170 Commenter Name: Wayne Heikkila, Executive Director, Western Fishboat Owners Association (WFOA) Commenter Affiliation: Western Fishboat Owners Association (WFOA) Document Co ntrol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0416

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: At first glance some of the proposals are without any good sensible reasoning, and those directly affected could make beneficial comments. For instance, in the section about k eeping a log of every greywater discharge, it appears to require the captain to log every time someone takes a shower or does the dishes inside the 3

- mile limit and include the amount of water discharged and location. It also prohibits dumping used ice ove rboard or pumping water out your fish hold at an unloading dock. It seems if these are followed and the water is discharged into the city the sewer many more problems will result. Also more pages of paper work for permit applications, inspection records, a nnual reports, etc. will only add additional and redundant paperwork and expenses to an already burdened family owned, eco

- friendly, food producing industry. Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that some of the permit conditions are unreasonable. Additionally, the purpose of holding public notic es regarding the proposed permit was to get comments from interested stakeholders, including those directly affected by the permit. The final permit includes consideration of all comments received. EPA poi nts out here that neither the proposed nor final permit contain s a requirement to log every graywater discharge. For a discussion of dumping ice and fish hold water, please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1 , excerpt 23

.

Commenter Name: Nancy Fitzpatrick, Executive Director, Oregon Salmon Commission, Oregon Albacore Commission Commenter Affiliation: Oregon Salmon Commission Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0418

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment:
1.3 OB TAINING COVERAGEResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 171 We have considerable concerns with the requirement that the Record of Inspection be retained onboard a vessel, especially as it applies to small open vessels that have no covered space available for keeping paperwork dry. While this requirement is easily met on a larger vessel with an enclosed cabin, operators of small open vessels simply have no place to store paperwork. Response: EPA agrees with the commenter and the Agency has clarified the sVGP so that it clearly allows for elec tronic recordkeeping. Please see EPA's discussion of electronic recordkeeping in the response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 5

.

Commenter Name: Nancy Fitzpatrick, Executive Director, Oregon Salmon Commission, Oregon Albacore Comm ission Commenter Affiliation: Oregon Salmon Commission Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0418

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 13
Comment: 3.1 RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS As noted above in our comments on section 1.3, the requirement for retaining forms on board is particularly onerous for small open vessels. If no general exemption is provided for such small vessels as suggested above, we recommend that the requirement for paperwork to be kept on board be limited to those cases where dry secure st orage is available on board the vessel. Response: EPA has not provided an exemption for recordkeeping for vessels under the sVGP or taken the commenter's recommendation to limit "on board" records to those vessels with dry secure storage space. EPA also notes that the total recordkeeping burden for this permit for vessels that are in compliance with the terms of the permit consists of the PARI form , which can be printed on the front and back of one piece of paper. Additionally, EPA has clarified the sVG P so that it clearly allows electronic recordkeeping. Please see EPA's discussion of electronic recordkeeping in the response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 5

.

Commenter Name: Karen Holman, Manager, Environmental Programs, Enviro nmental and Land Use Management, Unified Port of San Diego Commenter Affiliation: Unified Port of San Diego Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0421

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 172 Comment: • Monitoring and Record Keeping (Section 3

. 1

- 3

. 2):
1

. T he Proposed Permit requires the vessel owner/operators to conduct quarterly inspections and certify the inspections were completed

. Clarification is requested as to whether the Proposed Permit will require the vessel owner/operator to provide documentation of quarterly inspections in an annual report, periodic submittal, or require the documents be available upon request.
2. The Port suggests adding to the Proposed Permit the following language as stated in the proposed 2013 VGP , Section 4

. 2.9.c

. "Additional maintenance and discharge information to be recorded and kept in a log in the vessel: c. Paint application

. Record dates, materials used, application process, etc

. for any antifouling paint applied to the vessel." 3. Clarification is requested on the whether records are to be maintained on paper or electronically (as stated in the proposed 2013 VGP , Section 4.3) and the length of time records (i.e., quarterly inspection forms and SVGP PARI form) are to be maintained by vessel owner/operators and if such records shall be made available for inspection or auditing purposes by EPA upon request. Response: EPA is not requiring vessel owner s /operators to provide documentation of quarterly inspections in an annual report or other periodic submittal. E PA may require owners /operators to provide their PARI form upon request. However, any violations of the permit found during the quarterly inspection must be submitted to EPA in the annual non

- compliance report, which is located in Appendix B of the sVGP.
E PA acknowledges the commenter's suggested language for documentation of painting activities; however, the Agency has opted not to make the requested change to minimize recordkeeping burden on small vessels that are somewhat limited in their ability to docu ment and retain records onboard their vessel. Rather, the Agency is focusing recordkeeping on what the Agency considers to be the most significant activities. EPA does agree that it may be difficult to keep physical records onboard in some cases or it may be more administratively efficient to maintain electronic records, and so has allowed electronic recordkeeping for the sVGP. Please see EPA's discussion of electronic recordkeeping in the response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 5

.

Commenter Name: Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Commenter Affiliation: Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0426

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 5Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 173 Comment:
1.3 OBTAINING COVERAGE We have considerable concerns with the requirement that the Record of Inspection be retained onboard a vessel, especially as it applies to small open vessels that have no covered space available for keeping paperwork dry. While thi s requirement is easily met on a larger vessel with an enclosed cabin, operators of small open vessels simply have no place to store paperwork. Response: EPA has clarified the sVGP so that it clearly allows electronic recordkeeping. Please see EPA's discussion of electronic recordkeeping in the response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 5

.

Commenter Name: Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Commenter Affiliation: Garden State Seaf ood Association (GSSA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0426

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 14
Comment: 3.1 RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS As noted above in our comments on section 1.3, the requirement for retaining forms on board is particularly o nerous for small open vessels. If no general exemption is provided for such small vessels as suggested above, we recommend that the requirement for paperwork to be kept on board be limited to those cases where dry secure storage is available on board the v essel. In any case, maintaining 3 years of records on board a vessel is excessive and overly burdensome when the Agency could request that these records be made available within a reasonable timeframe. Response: EPA has not provided an exemption for reco rdkeeping for vessels under the sVGP or taken the commenter's recommendation to limit "on board" records to those vessels with dry secure storage space. However, EPA has clarified the sVGP so that it clearly allows electronic recordkeeping. Please see EPA' s discussion of electronic recordkeeping in the response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 5

.

Commenter Name: Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 174 Commenter Affiliation: Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0426

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 19
Comment:
3.5.2 TERMINATING COVERAGE The fact sheet notes that coverage is automatically terminated “if a new owner or operator has assumed respon sibility for the vessel.” What is unclear is how

– if a fishing vessel is sold to a new owner

– that new owner obtains coverage and whether there would be a gap in coverage that prevents a vessel from operating while new coverage is obtained. We believe th at these are issues that need to be clarified. Response: For discussion of transfer of ownership between vessel owner s /operators, please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 17

.

Commenter Name: Brian D. Hughes, Vic e President Operations, Regulatory Compliance, Hughes Bros. Inc. Commenter Affiliation: Hughes Bros. Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0429

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: We ask the EPA to reduce the annual reporting requirement s of the VGP and improve the electronic reporting system. Hughes Bros. is environmentally conscious of our carbon footprint and we work to eliminate as much paper recording as possible. However, we nearly considered sending in a paper copy of our annual re ports. We spent two days trying to figure out how to work the EPA CDX system. Even our brightest tech folks could not figure out how to fill in the complicated spreadsheets. While the folks at Avanti were extremely helpful with our computer challenges, esp ecially Jordan Gilliard of Avanti and Robin Danesi of EPA, it took an additional 2 days and multiple attempts for one of our staff to successfully file the annual reports. We ask that you only require annual reporting for reporting of violations, thereby d ecreasing the number of vessels that any company would report. We also ask that you allow all records, including the PARI form to be maintained electronically. Response: The first part of the comment is out of scope of today's action. EPA believes that w hen the commenter was referring to the annual report system, he was talking about the one

- time reportResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 175 system, which was developed for the 2008 VGP . The sVGP does not require electronic submission of information. EPA agrees with the commenter about the ann ual report including only identified permit violations. An annual report form is included in Appendix B of the sVGP for owner s /operators to use to submit such information. Also, please see EPA's discussion of electronic recordkeeping in the response to co mment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 5

.

Commenter Name: Beth Kerttula, Representative, House District 3, Alaska State Legislature et al. Commenter Affiliation: Alaska State Legislature, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0439

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment: Availability of Individual Vessel Permit Information The EPA has not clarified whether the recordkeeping information submitted by permitted vessel owner/operators will be made available to the public at the EPA's electronic public document or elsewhere. We believe the information submitted to the EPA by permitted individuals should be protected to the greatest extent possible. Response: In the future, as appropriate, EPA may decide to make recordkeeping information submitted by vessel owner s /operators available to the public. Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0440

- A2 , excerpt 9, for discussion on confidential business information.

Commenter Name: Diane Pleschner

- Steele, E xecutive Director, California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA) Commenter Affiliation: California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0440

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: Availability of Individua l Vessel Permit Information CWPA believes the information submitted to the EPA by permitted individuals should be protected to the greatest extent possible.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 176 Response: Any information that permittees report to EPA, except for confidential business informa tion (CBI), may be subject to public review. EPA clarifies that the Agency will consider requests to provide access to such records to the public on a case

- by

- case basis, consistent with relevant laws, such as FOIA. Such requests will necessarily need to g o through EPA first. EPA does not believe that the annual non

- compliance report that the sVGP requires contains any CBI or other information considered too sensitive to make available for review. If the owner/operator wishes to claim any information on the annual non

- compliance report as confidential business information, please follow the applicable regulations at 40 CFR 122.7. However, this regulation also specifies certain categories of information that cannot be claimed as CBI, such as name, address, pe rmit applications, permits, and effluent data.

Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager, Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA) Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0444

- A1 C omment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: 7. The reporting for fishing vessels delivering product shoreside should be done annually not quarterly. These vessels typically only operate less than 6 months. 8. Your proposal to inspect the vessels quarterly is not reasonable. The U.S. Coast Guard is under a similar Congressional requirement inspecting the same fleet you are suggesting EPA permits for. The U.S. Coast Guard has found out the sheer number of vessels is overwhelming. It is unreasonable to expect quarter ly reviews of these vessels. Your permit review should be annual or bi

- annual. Response: First, to be clear, the quarterly inspections referenced in the permit are to be performed by the owner/operator of the vessel, not EPA. EPA, and the Coast Guard, o versee compliance with applicable requirements; however, the frequency and methods of those inspections are outside the scope of today’s action. EPA agrees that vessel owner s /operators should not conduct inspections when the vessels are not being operated . EPA has not incorporated the commenter's language to require annual inspections. Instead, EPA has revised the sVGP to require quarterly inspections during vessels' active season. Please s ee EPA’s response to comment number EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0378 , excer pt 2, for discussion of inspections for vessels in extended lay

- up.

Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager, Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA) Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- O W

- 2011

- 0150

- 0444

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 177 Comment: Your proposed rules generally do not reflect a knowledge of the stability needs and basic design understanding of a fishing vessel, fail to recognize the limitations of coastal remote areas where fi sh are delivered, and do not identify an ecological problem that would result in such an onerous list of requirements. What is the problem you are trying to resolve with all these requirements? Has there been evidence of some problem we in the industry are unaware of? It would be helpful to understand what the permit restrictions are intended to achieve. Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that the sVGP is inappropriate. First, EPA is issuing the sVGP to provide required NPDES permit coverage for vessels less than 79 feet in length because the Public Law 110

– 299 moratorium (subsequently extended by Pub. L. 111

– 215 and further extended by the Coast Guard and Marine Transportation Act of 2012 (H.R. 2838)) expires on December 18, 2014. After that dat e, the types of discharges covered under the sVGP are required to be controlled under an NPDES permit. Second, EPA disagrees with the commenter that there are not potential environmental concerns with unmanaged vessel discharges. The purpose of this permi t is to control pollutants in vessel discharges that have been repeatedly shown to negatively impact the environment. See Part 3.8 of the sVGP fact sheet for a detailed discussion on the types of pollutants found in these discharges.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 178 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 179 

# Issue Category: ADM1

. 6.1 PARI F ormResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 180 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 181 ADM1. 6.1 PARI F orm Commenter Name: Rod Moore, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Commenter Affiliation: West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment:
1.3 OBTAINING COVERAGE We have considerable concerns with the requirement that the Record of Inspection be retained onboard a vessel, especially as it applies to small open vessels that have no covered space available for keeping paperwork dry. While this requirement is easily met on a larger vessel with an enclosed cabin, operators of small open vessels simpl y have no place to store paperwork. Response: In the sVGP, EPA has clarified that it considers records that are maintained in electronic recordkeeping systems to be “written records” kept “on the vessel or accompanying tug,” for purposes of complying wi th the sVGP in the circumstances described below. Part 3.1 of the draft sVGP requires vessel owner s /operators to keep their completed PARI forms onboard the vessel at all times to maintain valid sVGP coverage. Recordkeeping technology is a rapidly changing field. Many vessel operators are increasingly using electronic recordkeeping systems to create and maintain required records through software in onboard computers or portable devices that store the data internally or collect and transmit data electronical ly to shoreside databases for collection and storage. Given the foregoing, EPA considers records required under Part 4.2 of the sVGP that are maintained in electronic recordkeeping systems to be “written records” kept “on the vessel or accompanying tug , ” f

or purposes of complying with the sVGP, provided that the records are: in a format that can be read in a similar manner as a paper record, legally dependable with no less evidentiary value than their paper equivalent, and accessible to the inspector during an inspection to the same extent as a paper copy stored on the vessel would be. (1) Readability/Legal Dependability EPA expects that the following features of an electronic recordkeeping system would together generally ensure that records created and/or m aintained in such systems are readable and legally dependable with no less evidentiary value than their paper equivalent:Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 182 a. From the vessel or tug, and from any other point of access to the electronic recordkeeping system, electronic records, including signa tures, certifications, and alterations, can be: (i) displayed to EPA, including its authorized representatives, in a format that can be read in a manner similar to a paper record and that associates data with field names or other labels that give the data contained in the record meaning and context (not solely in a computer code or data string), (ii) easily copied for EPA, including its authorized representatives, to review and access at EPA staff computers using non

- proprietary software, and (iii) can easi ly be printed to paper form

. b. Associated metadata in their native format are preserved and available upon request

. c. Electronic records cannot be modified without detection and are preserved in a manner that cannot be altered once created. For example, any ch anges to an electronic record are automatically and indelibly recorded in a logically associated (i.e., cryptographically bound) audit trail that records each change made without obscuring the data to which the modification is made or its antecedents

. d. The electronic recordkeeping system automatically identifies any person who creates, certifies, or modifies an electronic record using electronic signatures that meet the same signature, authentication, and identity

- proofing standards set forth at 40 C.F.R. § 3.2000(b) for electronic reports (including robust second

- factor authentication)

. e. Originals of any electronic record are immediately and automatically transferred to and held at a single location by a custodian of records who is not an author, certifier, o r modifier of the electronic records. The original electronic record is secured in a fashion that protects it from tampering or destruction

. f. The electronic recordkeeping system automatically identifies: 1) the name, address, telephone number , and email add ress for the custodian of records described in “d” above , and 2) the address and owner of the location where the original electronic record is located. The electronic records and their associated metadata remain available and the discharger/permittee can d emonstrate that the records have not been changed in any modification of the recordkeeping system or migration to a successor recordkeeping system

. g. Clear instructions guide users of the electronic recordkeeping system in proper use of the system and unambi guously communicate the legal significance of using an electronic signature device

. h. Computer systems (including hardware and software), controls, and attendant documentation that are part of the electronic recordkeeping system are readily available for, and subject to, agency inspection. (2) Accessibility EPA will generally consider elec tronic records to be accessible enough to be considered to be stored “on the vessel” when the vessel operator is able to, immediately upon request, provide to government officials or authorized representatives:

a. Paper or electronic copies of requested recor ds required to be maintained pursuant to the sVGP

. b. Electronic access, using hardware and software available on the vessel or tug, to required sVGP records via electronic storage on the vessel or tug, or via direct access to anResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 183 electronic system of records stored elsewhere, provided that the location of the original record is within the United States.

Commenter Name: Kent Pehler, Brennan Marine Inc. Commenter Affiliation: Brennan Marine, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0387

- A1 Comment E xcerpt Number: 2
Comment: While all of Brennan’s boats will be required to be covered by the sVGP , all forty

- three of our barges need coverage under the VGP

. The length of these barges, ranging from 110’ to 200’, requires us to comply with the VGP , how ever the only applicable discharge covered under the VGP is deck runoff. When the barges are in our fleet, we inspect them once per voyage and at least once per week. Therefore, I believe the sVGP “PARI” is a better

- suited tool for documenting unmanned, non
- ballasting barges, as the record

- keeping requirement. As a member of the AWO Responsible Carrier Program ( RCP ), we utilize “best management practices” on all regulations and internal policies and we feel that is a better approach to these types of ba rges. The PARI Form will be much more efficient if maintained electronically. By doing so, we could utilize electronic reminding systems, emails, and electronic inspection requirements to assure a best management approach and cut back on paper use. This would also expedite permit compliance requests. Response: EPA does not agree that barges greater than 79 feet should be covered under the sVGP. EPA also does not agree that deck washdown is the only discharge that warrants environmental concern from barg es. Many barges also discharge ballast water, oily water (if they transport oil or other petroleum products), anti

- fouling hull coatings, and cathodic protection, among others. EPA developed the sVGP to accommodate the variety of vessel types less than 79 feet in length that will need to obtain permit coverage. Barges greater than 79 feet do not fit this category. EPA agrees with the commenter's statement that electronic recordkeeping for the PARI form should be allowed in the sVGP. Please see EPA's discuss ion of electronic recordkeeping in the response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 5

.

Commenter Name: Stanley Mack, Mayor, Aleutians East Borough (AEB) Commenter Affiliation: Aleutians East Borough (AEB) Document Control Number: EP A

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0390

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 7Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 184 Comment: 3.1 Record keeping Requirements (p.9) All vessels subject to this permit are required to keep the PARI Form on board the vessel at all times. The AEB recommends the EPA provide an exemption fo r open skiff vessels < 27

- feet be allowed to retain their permit documentation on land which must be provided to the EPA upon request and in a reasonable amount of time. Response: EPA does not agree that open skiff vessels less than 27 feet should be giv en an exemption to keep their PARI forms on land. However, EPA does agree that it may be difficult to keep physical records onboard, and so has allowed electronic recordkeeping for the sVGP. Please see EPA's discussion of electronic recordkeeping in the re sponse to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 5

.

Commenter Name: Paul Belforti, President, Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Commenter Affiliation: Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0395

- A 1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment:
PVA acknowledges that the Permit Authorization and Notice of Inspection ( PARI ) need not be submitted to the EPA under normal circumstances. Nevertheless, EPA should alter the conditions for the PARI . There is no justification for requiring that this document be retained on board the small vessel; the permit should allow for it to be kept on shore at the company ' s office Response: EPA assumes that the commenter is referencing the Permit Authorization and Record o f Inspection Form (PARI) in his comments. EPA agrees with the commenter's statement that electronic recordkeeping for the PARI form should be allowed in the sVGP. Please see EPA's discussion of electronic recordkeeping in the response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 5

.

Commenter Name: Paul Belforti, President, Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Commenter Affiliation: Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0396

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 185 Comment: PVA acknowledges that the Permit Authorization and Notice of Inspection ( PARI ) need not be submitted to the EPA under normal circumstances. Nevertheless, EPA should alter the conditions for the PARI . There is no justification for requiring that this document be retained on board the small vessel; the permit should allow for it to be kept on shore at the company's office. Furthermore , why is there a need for it to be filled out quarterly? This amounts to a paperwork exercise that will not benefit anyone. At most, there should be a yearly attestation of compliance entered on the PARI . Finally, many commercial passenger v essels operate seasonally, not year round. Going to a once

- a
- year attestation on the PARI will accommodate their real

- world operat ing situation. Response: EPA agrees with the commenter's statement that electronic recordkeeping for the PARI form should be allowed in the sVGP. Please see EPA's discussion of electronic recordkeeping in the response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 01 50

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 5

. EPA believes that the PARI form requires a reasonable frequency of inspections to ensure that the vessel does not pose an environmental risk and also that the requirement is not an unreasonable burden for permittees to implement. Ple ase s ee EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0378 , excerpt 2, for discussion of inspections for vessels in extended lay

- up.

Commenter Name: Adam Binsfeld, Brennan Marine Inc. Commenter Affiliation: Brennan Marine Inc. Document Control N umber: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0399

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: While all of Brennan’s boats would be covered by the sVGP , all forty

- three of our barges need coverage under the VGP

. The length of these barges, ranging from 110’ to 200’, requires us to fully comply with the VGP , however the only applicable discharge covered under the VGP is deck runoff. When the barges are in our fleet, we inspect them once per voyage and at least once per week. Therefore, I believe the sVGP “PARI” is a better

- suited tool for documenting unmanned, non

- ballasting barges, as the record

- keeping requirement. As a member of the AWO Responsible Carrier Program ( RCP ) we utilize “best management practice s” on all regulations and internal policies and I feel that is a better approach to these types of barges.
The PARI Form should be maintained electronically. By doing so, we could utilize electronic reminding systems, emails, and electronic inspection req uirements to assure a best management approach and cut back on paper use. This would also expedite permit compliance requests.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 186 Response: Please see EPA's response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0387

- A1 , excerpt 2

.

Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 16
Comment:
Small VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT EPA
- HQ
- OW
- 2011
- 0150 ( sVGP )
Firs t we request that in the final draft permit, the PARI form be simplified and written in language eliminating the need to look up references in the Code of Federal Register. Most fishermen will find it difficult to look up the references provided in the dra ft sVGP permit unless a link to the exact spot in the federal register is provided. Response: The commenter incorrectly states the PARI form contains references to the Code of Federal Register. By Code of Federal Register, we believe the commenter is ref erring to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which is the codification of general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies in the f ederal government. The PARI form, which is located in Appendix A o f the sVGP, does not contain any references to the CFR. The form requires owner s /operators to fill out information about themselves, their vessel, and quarterly inspections. It also requires the owner/operator to sign a certification statement. We believe that the form is easy to read and follow. Thus, EPA has not used the commenter's recommendation to simplify the PARI form. The sVGP does contain several references to the CFR, as well as references to various international agreements and the United States Code (USC). To help permittees locate references mentioned in the sVGP, EPA has added these documents to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150. Permittees may search a nd find each reference mentioned in the sVGP in this docket.

Commenter Name: Jennifer A. Carpenter, The American Waterways Operators Commenter Affiliation: The American Waterways Operators Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0408

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 187 Comment:
Other Comments and Concerns
AWO recommends that EPA allow the operators of small vessels to maintain the Permit Authorization and Record of Inspection Form electronically if they choose, as long as it is kept in compliance with Part 4.2.1 of the proposed VGP

– that is, in a format that can be read in a similar manner as a paper record, legally dependable with no less evidentiary value than its paper equivalent, and accessible to the inspector during an inspection to the same extent as a paper copy stored on the vessel would be. Response: EPA agrees with the commenter's statement that electronic recordkeeping for the PARI form should be allowed in the sVGP. Please see EPA's discussion of electronic recordkeeping in the response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 5

.

Commenter Name: Michelle Bonnett, Director, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality S ection Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0417

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 14
Comment: 3.1 Record keeping Requirements All vessels subject to this permit are required to keep the Permit Authorization and Record of Inspection ( PARI ) Form on boa rd the vessel at all times. We recommend the EPA provide an exemption that allows vessels without cabins to retain their permi t documentation on land and provide the form to the EPA upon request and in a reasonable amou nt of time. Many co mmercial vessels in Alaska a re open skiffs of varying size, and the vessel operation, si ze, and weather con ditions mak e it impractical to retain records onboard. Response: EPA does not agree that open skiff vessels should be given an exemption to keep their PARI forms on land. However, EPA does agree that it may be difficult to keep physical records onboard, and so has allowed electronic recordkeeping for the sVGP. Please see EPA's discussion of electronic recordkeeping in the response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 5

.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 188 Commenter Name: Thomas M. McLaughlin, President/CEO, Seafood Producers Cooperative Commenter Affiliation: Seafood Producers Cooperative Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0427

- A2 Comment Excerpt Numbe r: 1
Comment:
PARI Permit: Quarterly inspections of the vessel should be changed to quarterly reporting when active fishing took place during that quarter. Response:
Please s ee EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0378 , excerpt 2, for discussion of inspections for vessels in extended lay

- up.

Commenter Name: Amy McCamphill, Environmental Law Division, New York City Law Department Commenter Affiliation: New York City Law Department Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0437

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment:
Draft 2012 Small Vessel General Permit Comments: 3.1 Recordkeeping Requirements , pg . 9 The City requests that the requirement that all vessel owner/operators maintain a PARI form on board at all times be modified to allow for the use of a launch log in lieu of the PARI . Many vessels already maintain launch logs to record vessel activity, including discharges and other incidents related to the vessel. Allowing vessels to use their launch logs in lieu of the PARI will reduce administrative efforts and costs. Response: EPA does not agree that a vessel's launch log should be used in lieu of the PARI form . The launch log does not ensure that the vessel is complying with sVGP requirements. A completed PARI form ensures that the vessel owner/operator has read and understood the terms of the permit, as well as certified that the owner/operator has conducted the required quarterly visual inspections found in Part 3 of the sVGP. For this reason, EPA has not made the change suggested by the commenter. However, the vessel operator may keep the PARI form with their launch log or other records.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 189 Commenter Name: Amy McCamphill, Environmental Law Division, New York City Law Department Commenter Affiliation: New York Cit y Law Department Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0437

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: Appendix A
- Permit Authorization and Record of Inspection ( PARI ) Form , pg . 20. The City requests that EPA define who can sign the Permit Authoriz ation and Record of Inspection Form ( PARI ). Response: Based on this comment, EPA has clarified in Part 1.3 and 3.1 of the sVGP that the vessel owner/operator or his authorized representative may certify the PARI form.

Commenter Name: Beth Kerttula, R epresentative, House District 3, Alaska State Legislature et al. Commenter Affiliation: Alaska State Legislature, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0439

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: 3.1 Record keeping Requirements (p.9)
All vessels subject to this permit are required to keep the PARI Form on board the vessel at all times. We recommend the EPA provide an exemption for open skiff vessels less than 27

- feet be allowed to retain their permit documentation on land which must be pro vided to the EPA upon request and in a reasonable amount of time. Response: EPA does not agree that open skiff vessels less than 27 feet should be given an exemption to keep their PARI forms on land. However, EPA does agree that it may be difficult to ke ep physical records onboard, and so has allowed electronic recordkeeping for the sVGP. Please see EPA's discussion of electronic recordkeeping in the response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 5

.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 190 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 191 

# Issue Category: ADM2

. 6.2 Quarterly Visual InspectionResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 192 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 193 ADM2. 6.2 Quarterly Visual Inspection
Commenter Name: Thomas M. Kelly, Inland Seas Education Association Commenter Affiliation: Inland Seas Education Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0378 Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: Section 3.2: Add provision that vessels laid up (out of service) do not have to have a quarterly inspection during the laid up period. Response: EPA agr ees that vessels should be required to conduct quarterly visual inspections only when they are in active service. The required quarterly inspections were designed to assure that the vessel is in good operating order, has no leaks or loose materials that ma y enter any waste stream or be discharged, and does not pose an environmental risk. EPA believes that requiring quarterly inspections during a vessel's active season will be sufficient for protecting the environment and complying with sVGP requirements. In Part 2.3 of the sVGP, EPA has clarified that vessels are not required to conduct quarterly visual inspections while in extended lay

- ups. Additionally, EPA has revised the PARI form located in Appendix B to reflect these changes.

Commenter Name: Thomas M. Gemmell, Executive Director, United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Commenter Affiliation: United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0400

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment:
1. The Overview of the VGP and sVGP contains mis

- leading information since it says self inspections are required annually, while the draft sVGP requires quarterly inspections. http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs /vgp_brieffactsheet2011.pdf

. Response: The commenter is referring to a short informational fact sheet on the proposed VGP and sVGP that EPA published in November on its website located at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/vgp_brieffactsheet2011.pdf . This fact sheet mistakenly states that owner s /operators are required to perform annual inspections each year. The final sVGP requires these inspections quarterly.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 194 Commenter Name: Thomas M. Gemmell, Executive Director, United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Commenter Affiliation: United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0400

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13
Comment:
12. sVGP Section 3.2. Vessels may be laid up for the winter and not used. In some cases vessels are laid up in a different port and a harbormaster performs basic safety and pollution checks. Are quarterly inspections still required in this circumstance? Similarly Section 2.3 t alks about ―daily‖ checks of packing gland drips. Response:
Please s ee EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0378 , excerpt 2, for discussion of inspections for vessels in extended lay

- up. In the latter part of this excerpt, the commenter refers to Part G of Section 2.3 (Engine and Oil Control) of the sVGP, which requires permittees to remove any discharges of oil, including oily materials, from packing gland discharges. Section 2.3 requires that if vessel operators observe any visible sheen in surrounding waters as a result of packing gland or stuffing box effluent, they should suspend the discharge until the problem is corrected and cleaned up immediately. As noted in the permit, these daily inspections are required when the vessel is operational and manned.

Commenter Name: Kathy Hansen, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Commenter Affiliation: Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment: Quarterly Visual Inspection Requirements on page 9 section 3.2 also in the Overview page 1, section 1.3 : The quarter ly visual inspection requirement is overly burdensome particularly in short lived fisheries lasting about a month and then pulled out of the water such as Bristol Bay. A more practical and less burdensome method would be a quarterly inspection during acti ve fishing seasons. Requiring a vessel owner to go to remote locations for quarterly inspections would be costly and possible infeasible if the boats were buried under snow. Response:
Please s ee EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0378 , excerpt 2, for discussion of inspections for vessels in extended lay

- up.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 195 Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 25
Comment: Quarterly Visual Inspection Requirements on page 9 section 3.2 also in the Overview page 1, section 1.3 : The quarterly visual inspection requirement is overly burdensome particularly in short lived fisheries l asting about a month and then pulled out of the water such as Bristol Bay. A more practical and less encumbered method would be a pre

- season inspection, a quarterly inspection during active fishing seasons and post

- season inspection. Requiring a vessel own er to go to remote locations for quarterly inspections would be costly and possibly infeasible if the boats were buried under snow. Response:
Please s ee EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0378 , excerpt 2, for discussion of inspections for vessels in extended lay

- up.

Commenter Name: Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Commenter Affiliation: Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0 436

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: Quarterly inspections are not sufficient. Visual inspections need to be conducted at a minimum monthly, if not more frequently. Responsible vessel operators should be doing this on a regular basis anyway so th is should not be an additional burden. (page 9) Response: EPA does not agree that quarterly visual inspections are not sufficient for assuring compliance with the sVGP's requirements. EPA believes that the quarterly inspection s required by the sVGP are of reasonable frequency to ensure that the vessel does not pose an environmental risk and also are not an unreasonable burden for permittees to implement.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 196 Commenter Name: Amy McCamphill, Environmental Law Division, New York City Law Department Commen ter Affiliation: New York City Law Department Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0437

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: 3.2 Quarterly Visual Inspection Requirements , pg . 9 The City requests clarification on the following question: If ve ssels are moored on a boat lift out of the water for extended time periods, are quarterly visual inspections still required? Response: The sVGP applies to vessels only when they are operating as a means of transportation. Vessels that are in a boat lift out of the water for an extended time period, for example, would not be considered normally operating as a means of transportation. Therefore, the quarterly visual inspections, as well as other requirements in the sVGP, would not be required for the vesse l. Please see Part 3.7.1 of the sVGP fact sheet for further discussion on vessels being operated in a capacity other than as a means of transportation.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 197 

# Issue Category: ADM3

. 6.3 Corrective A ctions (0 comments)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 198 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 199 

# Issue Category: GRQ

. 7 General RequirementsResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 200 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 201 GRQ. 7 General Requirements
Commenter Name: Rod Moore, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Commenter Affiliation: West Coast Seafood Pr ocessors Association (WCSPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: 2.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Subsection (d) requires a vessel to minimize the introduction of pollutants such as “foam or floating solids.” Certain vessels need to head and gut fish on board in order to maintain product quality. Fish heads and viscera are solids. Other v essels need to maintain their catch either alive or at close to freezing temperatures and do so through the use of recirculating seawater tanks, which can produce foam. We believe that some distinction needs to be made between tossing garbage overboard an d returning natural material to the environment from which it was taken, especially when the discharges are essential to preserving the quality (and hence the value) of seafood products. Response: EPA disagrees with commenter that the requirement to min imize the discharge of pollutants such as foam or floating solids needs to be clarified to distinguish between garbage and natural materials. EPA has included this and other general requirements in Part 2.1 of the permit as technology

- based effluent limit s because EPA believes that they are feasible and economically practicable and achievable. As used in the permit, the term “minimize” means to reduce and/or eliminate to the extent achievable using control measures (including best management practices) tha t are technologically available and economically practicable and achievable in light of best marine practice. Thus, in certain instances (e.g., when not economically practicable and achievable), vessels may discharge pollutants such as foam or floating so lids. See also EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1, excerpt number 19, for additional discussion of the term “minimize” as interpreted for this permit.

Commenter Name: Patsy Root, Senior Regulatory Affairs Specialist, IDEXX Lab oratories, Inc. Commenter Affiliation: IDEXX Laboratories, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0397

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment:
Comment 1:Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 202 We would recommend the requirement for testing Heterotrophic Bacteria (total live bacte ria) be removed from this document. The HPC levels in these types of water matrices would likely be extremely high. In some studies levels of HPC are well over 103

– 106/ mL . Bacteria levels such as these are difficult to test due to multiple dilutions requ ired and any resulting data has a very low assurance for accuracy. Response:
The commenter is referring to requirements in the draft 2013 VGP . The Vessel General Permit ( VGP ) is outside the scope of today's action. For information on the 2013 VGP includ ing the 2013 VGP Response to Comments, please see docket number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0141 at http://www.regulations.gov . This comment was substantively addressed in that document.

Commenter Name: Thomas M. Gemmell, Executive Director, United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Commenter Affiliation: United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0400

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment:
5. sVGP Section 2.1. The permit st ates ―Any soaps, detergents or cleaners used must be non

toxic, phosphate

- free, and biodegradable. ― We have examined several soap bottles and have found statements saying they are ―Phosphate‖ free but have not seen labels saying non

- toxic or biodegradable . How do consumers know what is legal? Is there an EPA approved list? Response: In part 6 of the sVGP , EPA provides definitions for “minimally

- toxic,” “phosphate

- free,” and “biodegradable.” If the soaps, detergents or cleaners owner/operators are using fit into those definitions, then those soaps, detergents and cleaners that are being used would be in co mpliance with the sVGP . EPA does not currently have an approved list of soaps, detergents or cleaners that vessel owner/operators can use to be in compliance with the sVGP . However, EPA’s Design for the Environment (DFE) Program maintains a list of produc ts which have been labeled under their voluntary Safer Product Labeling Program. Those products are expected to meet the VGP’s requirements for soaps, detergents and cleaners. The list is available at: http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/projects/formulat/formpart.htm#62 See also EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1, excerpt number 22 regarding the lack of an available list of approved products.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 203 Commenter Name: Thomas M. Gemmell, Executive Director, United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Commenter Affiliation: United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0400

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 19
Comment: 18. If you are concerned about the impacts of soaps, detergents, lubricants, and paints on water quality, we suggest you focus your efforts on developing economically viable alternatives to existing products of concern you. Response:
This comment is ou tside the scope of today’s action. EPA does not develop soaps, lubricants, and paints. However, in the course of conducting its analyses, EPA found that these products are available. Furthermore, EPA has costed the use of these products and found that th eir use is economically achievable. Please see the economic analysis conducted for issuance of today’s permit for further discussion.

Commenter Name: Kathy Hansen, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Commenter Affiliation: Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: General Requirements on page 3 section 2.1 : (b) Annex 5 of MARPOL regulates garbage. This is unnecessary and duplicat ive language. (d) Minimize foam or floating solids. See previous comment above about seafood processing and the guts, gills, shells etc would be solids disposed of that might at times float for short intervals. Foam can be created by circulating seawate r for keeping shellfish species alive. (h) EPA should develop a list of approved soaps, detergents, cleaners and sanitizers that meet the requirements for non

- toxic, phosphate

- free and biodegradable to prevent an unnecessary burden on the commercial fishe rmen or unnecessary enforcement actions. Response: See EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1, excerpt number 20 regarding garbage, EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt number 7, regarding foam and floating solids, and EPA’s response to comment numberResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 204 EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 0150

- 0406

- A1, excerpt number 22, regarding a list of approved soaps, detergents, cleaners, and sanitizers.

Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment: Effluent Limits and Related Requirements: Change from the “extent achievable” to the “extent practicable” and ch ange “economically practicable and achievable” to “economically practicable”. Some control measures could be “achievable” but may be the effort and expense are significantly out of proportion to any significant risks, the measures are not “practicable”. Si milarly, some control measures could be economically achievable (if it took every cent you have) but are not necessarily practicable. Response: See response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 0150

- 0406

- A1, excerpt number 19 regarding the term “minimize.”

Comm enter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 22
Comment: (h) EPA should develop a list of approved soaps, detergents or cleaners that meet the requirements for non

- toxic, phosphate

- free and biodegradable to prevent unnecessary burden on the commercial fishermen and unnecessary enforcement actions. Response: EPA acknowledges commenter’s suggestion for the Agency to develop a list of approved products; however, EPA does not have the resources to develop such a tool at this time. In the future, EPA may develop such a tool to help permittees choose appropriate soaps, detergents and cleaners for use under the sVGP as resources allow. The permittee is obligated to be in full compliance with the permit. Vessel owner/operators are responsible for using the appropriate soaps, detergents or cleaners to be in compliance with the permit.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 205 As one possi ble resource to assist permittees, EPA’s Design for the Environment (DFE) Program maintains a list of products which have been labeled under their voluntary Safer Product Labeling Program. Those products are expected to meet the VGP’s requirements for soa ps, detergents and cleaners. The list is available at: http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/projects/formulat/formpart.htm#62

Commenter Name: Craig Urness, General Counsel, Pacific Seafood Group and Pacific Fishing, LLC Commenter Affiliation: Pacific Seafood Group and Pacific Fishing, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0407

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: 2.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Subsectio n (d) requires a vessel to minimize the introduction of pollutants such as “foam or floating solids.” Certain vessels need to head and gut fish on board in order to maintain product quality. Fish heads and viscera are solids. Other vessels need to mainta in their catch either alive or at close to freezing temperatures and do so through the use of recirculating seawater tanks, which can produce foam. We believe that some distinction needs to be made between tossing garbage overboard and returning natural m aterial to the environment from which it was taken, especially when the discharges are essential to preserving the quality (and hence the value) of seafood products. Response: See EPA response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt numbe r 7 regarding foam and floating solids.

Commenter Name: Michelle Bonnett, Director, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0417

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment:
2.1 (a) General RequirementsResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 206 The purpose of the permit is to prevent pollution from entering the waters of the U.S. It is unclear why the permit addresses "substances". The Department requests that the EPA define "substances" in the context of this passage, explain the benefit of "minimizing" those substances, and provide examples of practices used to minimize those su bstances.
2.1 (b) May not contain visible garbage in the effluent. The Department requests that the EPA further define "visible garbage". Please clarify if garbage includes natural and man
- made debris that a fishing boat such as a seiner or gillnetter brings aboard during the normal fishing process.
2.1 (c) May not use any dispersants , cleaners, chemicals, or other materials or emulsifiers that would remove the appearance of a visible sheen. The Department requests that the EPA clarify the context of th is requirement to define as directly related to areas of a vessel that have the potential for discharging oil in to the water.
2.1 (d) Minimize the introduction of constituents of concern or pollutants , such as foam or floating solids. The Department requests that the EPA define "constituents of concern" and "floatable solids" (see 2.1 b). Please change the word "introduction" to "discharge". Response: Consistent with goal of the Clean Water Act to control the discharge of pollutants, EPA has modified Part 2.1(a) of the permit to remove the reference to “substances.” The permit now requires that owner/operators minimize the potential for pollutants to accidentally enter the effluent, including spills. Also, EPA has revised the permit to remove the word “visible” when identifying the type of waste to be controlled. The permit now specifies permittees must not discharge garbage in the effluent. EPA disagrees with commenter’s request to clarify the context of the prohibition against us ing any dispersants, cleaners, chemicals, or other materials or emulsifiers that would remove the appearance of a visible sheen. This permit requirement, which applies vessel

- wide, is consistent with 40 CFR Part 110 which states that: “addition of dispers ants or emulsifiers to oil to be discharged that would circumvent the provisions of this part is prohibited.” Also, 33 CFR Part 151.10 (g) states that: “No discharge into the sea shall contain chemicals or other substances introduced for the purpose of ci rcumventing the conditions of discharge specified in this regulation.” See also EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 443

- A2, excerpt number 5 regarding the terms “introduction” and “constituents of concern.” EPA is not defining floatable s olids in the permit but notes that this term is used to identify solid material which will not settle or remain in suspension but instead floats to the surface.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 207 Commenter Name: Nancy Fitzpatrick, Executive Director, Oregon Salmon Commission, Oregon Albac ore Commission Commenter Affiliation: Oregon Salmon Commission Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0418

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: 2.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Subsection (d) requires a vessel to minimize the introduction of pollutants such as “foam or floating solids.” Certain vessels need to head and gut fish on board in order to maintain product quality. Fish heads and viscera are solids. Other vessels need to maintain their catch either alive or at close to freezing temperatures and do so through the use of recirculating seawater tanks, which can produce foam. We believe that some distinction needs to be made between tossing garbage overboard and returning nat ural material to the environment from which it was taken, especially when the discharges are essential to preserving the quality (and hence the value) of seafood products. Response: See response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 7 for more informa tion on foams and floating solids.

Commenter Name: Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Commenter Affiliation: Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0426

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: 2.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Subsection (d) requires a vessel to minimize the introduction of pollutants such as “foam or floating solids.” Certain vessels need to head and gut fish on board in order to maintain product quality. This is common practice in several fisheries in New Jers ey including monkfish and smooth dogfish fisheries. In this case, these vessels would be considered to be producing solids when portions of fish may be returned to the water. Some vessels in New Jersey fisheries maintain their catch through the use of refr igerated seawater tanks, a process which can also produce foam. We believe that the Agency must make some reasonable distinction between tossing garbage overboard and returning natural material to the environment from which it wasResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 208 taken, especially when th e discharges are essential to preserving the quality (and hence the value) of seafood products. Response: See response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 7 for more information on foams and floating solids.

Commenter Name: Thomas M. McLaughlin, President/CEO, Seafood Producers Cooperative Commenter Affiliation: Seafood Producers Cooperative Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0427

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment:
General Reqnirements , Section 2.1: Page 3 (b) This is unnecessar y and duplicative language. Garbage is covered under MARPOL Page 3 (h) EPA should develop and publish a list of approved soaps, detergents, cleaners and sanitizers that meet the requirements of non

- toxic, phosphate

- free and biodegradable and sanitizers. Response: See EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1, excerpt number 20 regarding garbage and comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 , excerpt number 22, regarding soaps, detergents, cleaners and sanitizers.

Commenter Name: Ro bert Leitch, Floating Plant Program Manager, US Army Corps of Engineers Commenter Affiliation: US Army Corps of Engineers Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0431

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: Issue 3. General Requirements
Reference: Small Vessel General Permit s( VGP ), Section 2.1

– General Requirements, Part (g) Discussion: Part (g) says “When feasible, cleaning, maintenance, and repair jobs should be doneResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 209 while the vessel is out of the water or in drydock.” The term “When feasible” i s open ended and can be interpreted differently among regulators and inspectors.
Recommendation: USACE recommends adding clear definition to the term “When feasible” or eliminating part (g). Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0435

- A2, excerpt number 2.

Commenter Name: Cathy Stepp, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Commenter Affiliation: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0435

- A2 Comm ent Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: General Requirements The term "feasible" is vague and needs to be defined. Response: EPA disagrees with commenters that the term “feasible” is vague and needs to be defined. The Agency uses the term “when feasible” to acknowledge that while EPA expects vessels will clean, maintain, and repair equipment when the vessel is out of the water or in drydock, the Agency acknowledges that cleaning, maintenance, and repair activities will also be necessary during normal operation of the vessel (i.e., when the vessel is in the water). Use of the term “when feasible” provides the necessary flexibili ty to ensure that these activities can be performed in a timely manner as appropriate with the expectation being that these activities be performed when the vessel is out of the water or in drydock to the extent this is suitable to the operation of the ves sel.

Commenter Name: Bill Moore, Program Development Services Section Manager, Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) Commenter Affiliation: Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) Document Cont rol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0443

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 5Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 210 Comment: 2.1(d)

- "Discharge" would be a more appropriate term than "introduction." 2.1 (d)

- Define "constituents of concern." Response: In response to commenters’ request to define the term “constituents of concern,” EPA notes that the sVGP controls a variety of materials, which for this permit, can be classified into seven major groups: aquatic nuisance species (ANS); nutrients; pathogens; oil and grease; metals; toxic and non
- conv entional pollutants with toxic effects; and other non

- conventional and conventional pollutants. EPA is establishing effluent limitations to control these materials because such materials are, depending on the particular vessel, constituents in the industri al waste, chemical waste, and/or garbage “pollutant” discharge resulting from the activities of these vessels. The discharge from vessels addressed in today’s permit falls within these broad pollutant categories. Constituents of concern include ANS.
“Indu strial waste,” “chemical waste” and “garbage” are expressly included in the CWA’s definition of “pollutant,” which governs, among other things, which discharges are properly subject to CWA permitting. See CWA § 402(a) (allowing EPA to issue permits for a “ discharge of any pollutant”); CWA § 502(12) (defining “discharge of a pollutant” to include “any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source”); and CWA § 502(6) (defining “pollutant” as “dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator resid ue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal and agricultural waste discharged into water” [emphasis add ed]). The discharge from vessels addressed in today’s permit

– a worthless or useless flow discharged during a vessel’s normal operations

– falls within those broad pollutant categories. See, e.g., Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary (1988) (d efining “waste” as “a worthless or useless by

- product” or “something, such as steam, that escapes without being used”; “industrial” as “of, relating to, or derived from industry” and “industry as “the commercial production and sale of goods and services”; “chemical” as “of or relating to the action of chemicals”; and “garbage” as “worthless matter, trash”). EPA understands that a lot of attention has been paid to whether, under various circumstances, ANS are properly considered “pollutants” under CWA §502( 6). Today’s permit controls ANS because such ANS are one constituent of concern in the waste stream that constitutes the “pollutant” subject to today’s permit. See CWA § 402(a)(1)(A) and 301(b)(1) (requiring permits to include “effluent limitations”) and C WA §502(11) (defining “effluent limitations” to include “restrictions established by ... the Administrator on ... chemical, physical, biological, and other constituents which are discharged from point sources ...” [emphasis added]). Under these circumstanc es, there is no need to address the question of whether ANS in and of themselves may be considered “pollutants” under CWA section 502(6). In addition, EPA’s conclusion that ANS are properly controlled in today’s permit does not speak as to how ANS are regu lated by the CWA under any other circumstances. Also, EPA agrees with commenter’s concern with the term “introduction” as used in Part 2.1(d) of the permit. The Agency has revised the language to require permittees to minimize theResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 211 “ discharge ” of constitue nts of concern, such as foam or floating solids” to more closely align with CWA and NPDES terminology.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 212 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 213 

# Issue Category: FUL

. 7.1 Fuel ManagementResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 214 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 215 FUL. 7.1 Fuel Management
Commenter Name: Karen Holman, Manager, Environmental Programs, Environmental and Land Use Management, Unified Port of San Diego Commenter Affiliation: Unified Port of San Diego Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0421

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: • Fuel Management (Section 2.2.a):
"All motor i zed vessels constructed on or after December 19, 2013 must have a functioning fuel

air separator or a fuel tank vent to prevent a fuel spill " This appears to be a required boating indu stry standard. Is there a current Code of Federal Regulation ( CFR ) for this provision? Please provide clarification on the basis for this requirement in the Proposed Permit. Response: EPA acknowledges that the final permit requires new motorized vessels to u se a functioning fuel

- air separator or a fuel tank vent to prevent a fuel spill by December 19, 2014 (as opposed to December 19, 2013 as proposed). The use of fuel

- oil separators or a fuel tank vent is a common industry practice but is also an existing re quirement for certain types of vessels to be covered under the permit. According to standards already promulgated by EPA under 40 CFR 1060, all new boats built after 2012 that use gasoline as fuel will be equipped with new fueling equipment to prevent spil ling of fuel and therefore automatically comply with the sVGP requirement. The requirement to install a fuel

- air separator on all new vessels would therefore only impose an incremental cost for vessels not already subject to the standards: new diesel vesse ls. Additional details of the requirement (and EPA’s estimate of the permit burden) for this requirement is provided in Part 5.2.2 of the Economic and Benefits Analysis of the F inal 201 4 Small Vessel General Permit ( s VGP)

.

Commenter Name: Robert Leitch, Floating Plant Program Manager, US Army Corps of Engineers Commenter Affiliation: US Army Corps of Engineers Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0431

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: Issue 4. Fuel Management
Reference: Small Vessel Gene ral Permit ( sVGP ), Section 2.2

– Fuel Management, Part (e) Discussion: Part (e) states “Unless impracticable, fill portable tanks onshore, instead of on yourResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 216 dock or on your vessel.” The term “Unless impracticable” is opened ended and can be interpreted di fferently among regulators and inspectors. For instance, can impracticable mean due to infrastructure (fuel pump only dockside) or can it mean physically impracticable (cannot physically carry the portable fuel tanks).
Recommendation: USACE recommends addi ng clarity to this part. Response: EPA disagrees that Part 2.2 is unclear. Vessel operators should practice common sense when filling portable containers and determining if it is safe to transfer containers from the dock to the vessel.

Commenter Name: Bill Moore, Program Development Services Section Manager, Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) Commenter Affiliation: Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0443

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: 2.2(c)

- The last part of the sentence should read "to prevent any fuel or oil from entering waters subject to this permit." 2.2(e)

- Begin the sentence with "whenever practicable" instead of "unless impracticable." Response: EPA agrees and has modified Part 2.2 (c) to include your suggested language.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 217 

# Issue Category: OIL

. 7.2 Engine and Oil ControlResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 218 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 219 OIL. 7.2 Engine and Oil Control
Commenter Name: Rod Moore, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Commenter Affiliation: West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment:
2.3 ENGINE AN D OIL CONTROL Subsection (c) stipulates that spills or overflow of oil must be cleaned up immediately. While we agree with this premise, the language continues by suggesting that absorbent material be kept onboard and restocked as necessary. Our concern here again is for small open vessels, usually operated with outboard motors, which have no capacity to maintain substantial supplies of absorbent material. How much absorbent material is considered sufficient for vessels of this nature? Again , a general exemption for small vessels would alleviate this concern. Subsection (h) requires use of environmentally acceptable lubricants “unless technically infeasible.” We believe the exception should be modified to include availability and cost. Vessels on the west coast also often operate in remote areas of Alaska where the defined lubricants are not readily available for purchase or if so can only be purchased at a significant cost differential that may have a substantial impact on profi tability of fishing operations. Small ports on the west coast may face the same problem. Requiring use of a product that is unobtainable is equivalent to restricting commercial fishing to large, well

- funded operations that deploy from large mainland port s. Response: Regarding subsection (c), please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 418

- A2, excerpt 8, regarding the storing of absorbent materials onboard vessels. Regarding subsection (h), EPA acknowledges that the mandatory requir ement for the use of EALs in applications where discharges of oil to surrounding waters are likely to occur may not be attainable in all cases. Specifically, EPA believes requiring use of these products when there is existing equipment for which no compatible products are currently available might be problematic

. The permit requires the use of EALs for certain applications unless their use is technically infeasible. Based on this and other comments requesting a definition of what constitutes "techn ically infeasible , " EPA has defined that term, in the context of EALs , to mean: “no EAL products are approved for use in a given application that meet manufacturer specifications for that equipment; products which come pre

- lubricated (e.g., wire ropes) h ave no available alternatives manufactured with EALs ; or products meeting a manufacturers specifications are notResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 220 available within any port in which the vessel calls or change s over, and use of an EAL must wait until the vessel’s next drydocking.” In develo ping these EAL requirements for existing vessels, EPA considered that if EALs do not meet the needs of existing equipment onboard existing vessels, the cost of substituting new equipment might be substantial. However, because many existing vessels can use EALs that are compatible with their existing equipment, it is technically feasible for many existing vessels to use EALs , but might not be technically feasible for some existing vessels to use EALs with existing equipment. For these vessels, EPA does not believe it is economically achievable to require those vessels to install new equipment so that they can use these more environmentally friendly lubricants. EPA has determined that the use of EALs , unless technically infeasible, is economically achievable. For additional information, see the EPA’s Economics and Benefits Analysis of the 2013 s VGP , a copy of which is available on EPA’s NPDES v essels homepage at http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/ve ssels/

.

Commenter Name: Stanley Mack, Mayor, Aleutians East Borough (AEB) Commenter Affiliation: Aleutians East Borough (AEB) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0390

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: 2.3 Engine and Oil Control (p.4) The EPA is proposing that any visible sheen (from engine, oil or bilge) in the surrounding waters requires suspension of the discharge until the problem is corrected and cleaned up. It is unclear if every appearance of a “visible sheen” constitutes a non

- c ompliance event that must be recorded and reported on the Annual Non

- Compliance Form.
The AEB is concerned that fishermen doing all they can to minimize their discharges to the extent achievable under the sVGP will not clearly understand what constitutes non

- compliance. Further, the uncertainty could result in over reporting minor incidences resulting in an overly burdensome paperwork process. The AEB is requesting the EPA provide clarification regarding these concerns. Regarding the requirement to maintain sufficient oil absorbent material onboard, we are concerned that skiffs operating in the AEB ( See comments pertaining to skiffs under item 6. Definitions, below) do not have the storage space available to acc ommodate this material. This further supports the need for a small vessel exemption for skiffs less than 27 feet in length. The EPA requires use of environmentally acceptable lubricants ( EAL ) in all machinery and equipment where discharges of oil to surrou nding waters are likely unless technically infeasible

. The AEB is concerned about cost, availability and performance of these products in Region 10 and recommend an exemption be provided for these along with technical infeasibility. According to the EPA’s research ( See Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants, 2011; EPA 800

- R

- 11

- 002; pp . 8

- 9), the ratio of EAL cost to conventional mineral oil lubricant cost is 2 to 3Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 221 times higher. For commercial biolubricants such as gear and compressor oil the ratio is 3.5

- 4. 3 times greater the cost for comparable mineral oil products. The AEB recommends the EPA include a cost differential which would preclude the need for EAL if exceeded. Response:
Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0403

- A1, ex cerpt 2, regarding visible sheens; comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 8 , regarding the requirements, costs, and availability of EALs ; and EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0418

- A2, excerpt 8, regarding keeping absorbent materials onboard.

Commenter Name: Stanley Mack, Mayor, Aleutians East Borough (AEB) Commenter Affiliation: Aleutians East Borough (AEB) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0390

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: Regarding the required use of EAL products as engine oil, the AEB is also concerned that these products may not meet manufacture’s engine specifications. We note here the EPA provides for a “technically infeasible” exclusion which the AEB recommends be specified to cover such a contingency. Response:
Please see EPA’s response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 8, regarding the requirements, cost s, and availability of E ALs

.

Commenter Name: James R. Kovanda, Vice President, American Chemica l Technologies, Inc. (ACT) Commenter Affiliation: American Chemical Technologies, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0403

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: The intention of this response is to suggest modifications we feel are necessary to the original drafts of the Vessel General Permit ( VGP ) and Small Vessel General Permit ( sVGP ) document. In dialog that American Chemical Technologies, Inc. (ACT) has had with the marine industry and various branches of the military that opera te vessels on navigable waters, three specific applications have been discussed that in the event of oil leakage, cause issue and put theResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 222 environment in harms way. These applications include propulsion systems (for example Controllable Pitch Propellers, T hrusters, etc.), hydraulically operated cranes, and hydraulically operated anchor winches. After review of the two similar sections within the VGP and sVGP that specifically reference applications on vessels, the following are our comments: Proposed Stan dard (currently in the VGP )

– Page 43 2.2 Effluent Limits and Related Requirements for Specific Discharge Categories 2.2.9 Controllable Pitch Propeller and Thruster Hydraulic Fluid and Other Oil
- to - Sea Interfaces Including Lubrication Discharges from Paddle Wheel Propulsion, Stern Tubes, Thruster Bearings, Stabilizers, Rudder Bearings, Azimuth Thrusters, Propulsion Pod Lubrication, and Wire Rope and Mechanical Equipment Subject to Immersion Proposed Standard (currently in the sVGP )

– Page 4 2.3 Engin e Oil Control (h) Unless technically infeasible, you must use environmentally acceptable lubricants (as defined in part 6 of this permit) in all machinery and equipment, including but not limited to stern tubes, wires, and two
- stroke engines, where discharges of oil to surrounding waters are likely to occur. ACT suggests that the language for the VGP more closely resemble that of the sVGP that is more conclusive in its identification of applications that can potentially leak. The VGP focuses on pr opulsion systems only, and specifically limits the references to “all oil to sea interfaces ”. With this limiting focus, the language omits deck machinery that has also been identified as applications that can potentially leak directly into sensitive wat erways. Response: This comment refers to requirements in the VGP and a response may be found by viewing the response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0141

- 0538

- A1 , excerpt 1 , in the VGP comment response document.

Commenter Name: James R. Kovanda, Vice President, American Chemical Technologies, Inc. (ACT) Commenter Affiliation: American Chemical Technologies, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0403

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 223 Comment: The change in this language is prudent and provides a solution to another issue that would otherwise exist. With the many references in both documents to “visible sheen”, if only propulsion systems were converted, and a visible sheen was observed on the w ater, how would a vessel operator quickly determine the origin of the sheen, and for example, distinguish between sheen from a leak from a converted CPP system using an EAL (vegetable oil/synthetic ester/ polyalkylene glycol), and the onboard crane currentl y using petroleum oil?
Visible Sheen
After review of 40CFR110.3 (below) referenced as a standard within both the VGP and sVGP :

TITLE 40

-- PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT
CHAPTER I

-- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (CONTINUED) PART 110_DISCHARGE OF OIL

-- Table of Contents Sec. 110.3 Discharge of oil in such quantities as ``may be harmful'' pursuant to section 311(b)(4) of the Act. For purposes of section 311(b)(4) of the Act, discharges of oil in such quantities that the Administrator has determined may be harmful to the public health or welfare or the environment of the United States include discharges of oil that: (a) Violate applicable water quality standards; or (b) Cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the surface of the water o r adjoining shorelines or cause a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon adjoining shorelines. [61 FR 7421, Feb. 28, 1996] Clarification and guidance is required on the topic of “visible sheen”. The VGP and sVGP refere nce visible sheen many times in the language. End

- users in all industries that operate equipment near sensitive waterways (for example vessels / hydroelectric / locks & dams, etc.) indicate that the driver that initiates scrutiny/remediation/fines is the presence of “visual sheen” on a body of water. Is sheen going to continue to be a criterion that end

- users must react to in the field? How will a sheen caused by a lighter than water and water insoluble EAL (vegetable oil or synthetic ester) be differentia ted in this regard? The US Clean Water Act provides language that is addressed in Appendix 1 to Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 435

– Static Sheen Test. This test allows for the assessment and identification of a fluids propensity to cause sheen. In review of t he proposed VGP and sVGP , there is no specific reference to this criterion. We realize that the test was drafted initially for oil

- based drillingResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 2 24 fluids, but felt that it was an applicable test method already in place that could be utilized for this purpos e. Response: Discharges of oil in quantities that may be harmful under 40 CFR 110 include discharges that result in a visible sheen. Harmful discharges under 40 CFR 110.3 include those that violate applicable water quality standards ; cause a film, sheen or discoloration of the water surface or adjoining shorelines ; or cause the deposition of sludge or emulsion beneath the water surface or on adjoining shorelines. EPA has used t his standard for years in implement ing the CWA § 311 program, and thus is a wel l

- known and widely used standard applicable to vessels, is defined in 40 CFR 110.3, and is also incorporated by reference into the relevant USCG regulations in the note at the end of 33 CFR 151.10(b). In the preamble to the 1987 final rule amending 40 CFR 110 (52 FR 10717, April 2, 1987), EPA stated that a sheen is typically associated with discharges containing oil concentrations in the 10 to 20 ppm range. EPA acknowledges the commenter’s concern regarding the appearance and persistence of a visible shee n and what is considered non

- compliance with respect to a visible sheen. EPA interprets non

- compliance with visible sheen requirements of the sVGP consistent with longstanding regulations at 40 CFR 110.3 prohibiting discharges of oils in such quantities th at may be harmful to the public health or welfare or the environment of the United States. This includes discharges of oil that cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the surface of the water or adjoining shorelines. As defined for those regulation s, the term oil means “ oil of any kind or in any form, including, but not limited to: fats, oils, or greases of animal, fish, or marine mammal origin; vegetable oils, including oils from seeds, nuts, fruits, or kernels; and, other oils and greases, including petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, synthetic oils, mineral oils, oil refuse, or oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil.” Thus, any reportable visible sheen, as regulated by 40 CFR Part 110, is considered non

- compliance under the sVGP and must be reported. EPA has not includ ed the static sheen test, but instead requires a visual sheen test when water is pumped from areas below deck on certain vessels, while fueling, and during routine visua l inspections. The sVGP defines “visible sheen” to mean a “silvery” or “metallic” shee n, gloss, or increased reflectivity; visual color; iridescence ; or oil slick on the surface consistent with Appendix 1 to Subpart A of Part 435

- Static Sheen Test. Those test procedures describe to some extent the significance of persistence and appearanc e to evaluate when discharges are acceptable to continue (i.e., no longer considered non

- compliance) . [Source: 58 FR 12507]. Thus, any reportable visible sheen under those regulations should be reported on the Annual Non

Compliance Form for the sVGP. Rega rding visible sheens related to the use of an EAL, regardless of the application, the permit does not authorize the discharge of any lubricant in a quantity that may be harmful as defined in 40 CFR Part 110 as these oils still cause many undesirable enviro nmental impacts, though these impacts from EALs are potentially less severe than those caused from petroleum

- based oils. For purposes of S ection 311(b)(4) of the Act, discharges of oil in such quantities that the Administrator has determined may be harmful to the public health or welfare or the environment of the United States include discharges of oil that (a) v iolate applicable water quality standards; or (b) c ause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the surface of the water or adjoiningResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 225 shorelines o r cause a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon adjoining shorelines (see 40 CFR Part 110.3).

Commenter Name: Kathy Hansen, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Commenter Affiliation: Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: Engine and Oil Control page 4, section 2.3: SEAFA is concerned about the requirement in the draft permit for environmen tally acceptable lubricants being accessible in Alaska especially in the more remote communities and the cost. The Aleutians East Borough ( AEB ) found one environmentally acceptable hydraulic oil sold in Anchorage that was more than double the cost for a 5 gallon bucket. Has EPA considered the cost of switching lubricants and oils since you generally can’t just switch over and start using a synthetic product? Response:
Please see the response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 8, for EPA ’s r esponse on the requirements, cost s, and availability of EALs

.

Commenter Name: Kathy Hansen, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Commenter Affiliation: Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Document Control Number: E PA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15
Comment:
“Oil” ( sVGP section 6 page 16) The draft permit defines “oil” as “oil of any kind or in any form, including but not limited to petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with w astes other than dredged spoil.” Through the course of normal fishing operations, the fish which contain naturally occurring oils both internally and externally may be released, either by contact with fishing gear, compression in the nets, heading/gutting or other means. Depending upon the vessel and fishing gear, fish oil residue may remain on the vessel surfaces and fishing gear, and may be subsequently washed overboard by precipitation, water spray, runoff, wash

downs, gear deployment etc. We recommend that EPA revise the definition of Oil in the Draft VGP & sVGP to explicitly exclude fish oils and fish oil residue or to adopt a definition of “oil” that does not include animal based oil.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 226 Response: See the response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 015 0

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 15 , regarding the definitions of "oil" and o ily m ixtures

. "

Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 23
Comment: Engine and Oil Control page 4, section 2.3: UFA is concerned about the requirement in the draft permit for environmentally acceptable lubricants being accessible in Alaska especially in the more remote communities and the cost. The Aleutians East Borough ( AEB ) found one environmentally acceptable hydraulic oil, sold in Anchorage, was more than double the cost of a standard petroleum 5 gallon bucket. Has EPA considered the cost of switching l ubricants and oils since you generally can’t just switch over and start using a synthetic product? Response:
Please see the response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 8, for EPA ’s response on the requirements, cost s, and availability of E ALs

.

C ommenter Name: Craig Urness, General Counsel, Pacific Seafood Group and Pacific Fishing, LLC Commenter Affiliation: Pacific Seafood Group and Pacific Fishing, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0407

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment:
2.3 ENGINE AND OIL CONTROL Subsection (h) requires use of environmentally acceptable lubricants “unless technically infeasible.” We believe the exception should be modified to include availability and cost. Vessels on the west coast also oft en operate in remote areas of Alaska where the defined lubricants are not readily available for purchase or if so can only be purchased at a significant cost differential that may have a substantial impact on profitability of fishing operations. SmallResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 227 por ts on the west coast face the same problem. Requiring use of a product that is often unobtainable is tantamount to shutting down commercial fishermen. Response:
Please see the response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 8, for EPA ’s response on t he requirements, cost s, and availability of E ALs

.

Commenter Name: Craig Urness, General Counsel, Pacific Seafood Group and Pacific Fishing, LLC Commenter Affiliation: Pacific Seafood Group and Pacific Fishing, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 20 11

- 0150

- 0407

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment: “Oil” should be modified to specifically exclude fish slime so that the stringent requirements surrounding fuel and engine oil and lubricants do not encompass natural residue from a vessel’s catch. A similar change needs to be made to “Oily mixture”. Response: See the response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 15 , regarding the definitions of "oil" and o ily m ixtures

. "

Commenter Name: Jennifer A. Carpenter, The American Waterways Operators Commenter Affiliation: The American Waterways Operators Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0408

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: Under Parts 5.4 of both the current and proposed VGP , the vessel class

- specific require ments for barges include a provision that “[a] fter every instance of pumping water from areas below decks,” vessel owners and operators “must conduct a visual sheen test [...] to detect free oil by observing the surface of the receiving water for the presenc e of an oily sheen.” According to AWO members, unwanted water in barge voids is costly, due to the fuel demands of towing added weight. Barge operators practice preventative maintenance designed to minimize leaks and, when they do occur, address them as qu ickly as possible, so the volumes of these discharges are small. AWO members also report that in their experience few, if any, corrective actions or notification requirements have been initiated as the result of a visual sheen from such discharges.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 228 Respo nse: This comment is outside the scope of the sVGP. Please see EPA’s response to comment document for the 2013 VGP available in docket number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0141 at http://www.regulations.gov

.

Commenter Name: Alexis Cooper, Executive Director, Board of Directors, Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU) Commenter Affiliation: Board of Directors, Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0414

- A2 Comment Excerpt Num ber: 2
Comment: Engine and Oil Control: Section (h): Synthetic enviro

- friendly lubricants aren’t available or affordable in most coastal Alaskan communities. Response:
Please see the response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 8, for EPA ’s respo nse on the requirements, cost s, and availability of E ALs

.

Commenter Name: Michelle Bonnett, Director, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Department of Environme ntal Conservation (ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0417

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment:
2.3 ENGINE AND OIL CONTROL
2.3 (b) Place oil absorbent material or other spill response equipment under the vessel engine or use other preventative practices to minimize oil entering the bilgewater

. This measure would be impractical on vessels with outboard engines. The Department recommends that the EPA change the wording of this requirement to "for a vessel with installedResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 229 inboard engines, place oil absorbent material or other spill response equipment under the vessel engine or engines, if equipped with more than one engine for propulsion and auxiliary power, or use other preventative practic es to minimize oil entering the bilgewater ". Response:
Please s ee EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0 418

- A2, excerpt 8, regarding use and storage of absorbent materials onboard vessels.

Commenter Name: Michelle Bonnett, Director, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 20 11

- 0150

- 0417

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment:
2.3 ENGINE AND OIL CONTROL (h)
The Department is concerned that the EPA additional cost estimates of $17 to $98 per vessel is far below what actual costs would be in Alaska. EPA's estimate is a national average that ignores the unique geography of Alaska. There are few vendors in most Alaskan ports and therefore less competition for sales to vessels. In some commercial ports there may be no vendors, and supplies may have to be transported long distance. Transportation to remote communities in Alaska is dependent upon a variety of factors such as space available on the transport vehicle, weight and balance on aircraft, distance to be traveled, and weather.
Costs for supplies required by the permittee may be triple the cost in a main Alaska port, which are far higher than in fishing areas such as the Gulf Coast or the Eastern Seaboard. A single purchase of only one product, such as hydraulic oils, even if commercially available, may surpass EPA's high e stimate of $98 of additional costs to boaters. We note here the EPA provides for a "technically infeasible" exclusion which we recommend be specified to cover such a con tingency

. Response:
Please see the response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 8, for EPA ’s response on the requirements, cost s, and availability of E AL s.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 230 Commenter Name: Nancy Fitzpatrick, Executive Director, Oregon Salmon Commission, Oregon Albacore Commission Commenter Affiliation: Oregon Salmon Commission Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0418

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment:
2.3 ENGINE AND OIL CONTROL Subsection (c) stipulates that spills or overflow of oil must be cleaned up immediately. While we agree with this premise, the language continues by sugg esting that absorbent material be kept onboard and restocked as necessary. Our concern here again is for small open vessels, usually operated with outboard motors, which have no capacity to maintain substantial supplies of absorbent material. How much abso rbent material is considered sufficient for vessels of this nature? Again, a general exemption for small vessels would alleviate this concern. Response: EPA disagrees that the requirements for using and storing oil

- absorbent material or other spill respo nse materials should be exempted for small open vessels, including vessels with outboard engines. The requirements in these sections represent prudent management practices that should be used in case of a spill or overflow of oil or other engine fluids. Th e requirement for a supply of absorbent pads, pillow, etc. to be kept onboard should be done as appropriate for each type of vessel. If it is not appropriate for a vessel to keep a large supply of these materials onboard, then they should consider bringing these materials onboard each time the vessel is operating and keeping them in a waterproof container or other appropriate receptacle. If a vessel is operating in waters subject to this permit , it needs to be prepared to respond to any spill or overflow to prevent oils and other materials from entering waters.

Commenter Name: Nancy Fitzpatrick, Executive Director, Oregon Salmon Commission, Oregon Albacore Commission Commenter Affiliation: Oregon Salmon Commission Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0418

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 16
Comment: “Oil” should be modified to specifically exclude fish slime so that the stringent requirements surrounding fuel and engine oil and lubricants do not encompass natural residue from a vessel’s catch. A sim ilar change needs to be made to “Oily mixture”.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 231 Response: See the response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 15 , regarding the definitions of "oil" and o ily m ixtures

. "

Commenter Name: Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, G arden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Commenter Affiliation: Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0426

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment:
2.3 ENGINE AND OIL CONTROL Subsection (c) stipulates that spills or overflow of oil must be cleaned up immediately. While we agree with this premise, the language continues by suggesting that absorbent material be kept onboard and restocked as necessary. Our concern here again is for small vessels which have limi ted capacity to maintain substantial supplies of absorbent material. How much absorbent material is considered sufficient for vessels of this nature? Again, a general exemption for small vessels would alleviate this concern. Response: For EPA's response on the requirement to keep absorbent materials onboard , please see the response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0418

- A2 , excerpt 8.

Commenter Name: Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Commenter Affiliation: Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0426

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 17
Comment: “Oil” should be modified to specifically exclude fish slime or fish residues so that the stringent requiremen ts surrounding fuel and engine oil and lubricants do not encompass natural residue from a vessel’s catch. A similar change needs to be made to “Oily mixture”.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 232 Response: See the response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 15 , regar ding the definitions of "oil" and o ily m ixtures

. "

Commenter Name: Thomas M. McLaughlin, President/CEO, Seafood Producers Cooperative Commenter Affiliation: Seafood Producers Cooperative Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0427

- A2 Comment Exce rpt Number: 3
Comment: Engine and Oil Control, Section 2.3: Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants are not readily available in Alaska. Response:
Please see the response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 8, for EPA ’s response on the requirements , cost s, and availability of E ALs

.

Commenter Name: Beth Kerttula, Representative, House District 3, Alaska State Legislature et al. Commenter Affiliation: Alaska State Legislature, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0439

- A2 Comment Ex cerpt Number: 4
Comment: 2.3 Engine and Oil Control (p.4) The EPA is proposing that any visible sheen (from engine, oil or bilge) in the surrounding waters requires suspension of the discharge until the problem is corrected and cleaned up. It is unclear if every appearance of a "visible sheen" constitutes a non

- compliance event that must be recorded and reported on the Annual Non

- Compliance Form. We are concerned that fishermen are doing all they can to minimize their discharges to the extent achievable under the sVGP will not clearly understand what constitutes non

- compliance. Further, the uncertainty could result in over reporting minor incidences resulting in an overly burdensome paperwork process. We are requesting the EPA provide clarification regard ing these concerns.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 233 The EPA requires use of environmentally acceptable lubricants ( EAL ) in all machinery and equipment where discharges of oil to surrounding waters are likely unless technically infeasible.
The AEB is concerned about cost, availability and performance of these products in Region 10. According to the EPA's research (See Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants, 2011; EPA 800

- R

- 11

- 002; pp . 8

- 9), the ratio of EAL cost to conventional mineral oil lubricant cost is 2 to 3 times higher. For commercial biolubricants such as gear and compressor oil the ratio is 3.5

- 4.3 times greater the cost for comparable mineral oil products. We recommend that EPA include a cost differential which would preclude the need for EAL if exceeded. The environmentally acceptable lubricants ( EALs ) that are available in Alaska are confined to types of hydraulic oil. These environmentally friendly oils are currently sold in Anchorage, but are not sold in many of the coastal communities. In Anchorage, regular Chevron ' Rando ' hydraulic oil ISO 32 can be purchased for a 5 gallon bucket at $76.00, and that same Rando oil costs $85.00 in Sand Point or King Cove. The EAL hydraulic oil available in Anchorage is Chevron Clarity Synthetic Hydraul ic Oil A W, costing $180 for 5 gallons, and is not yet sold in many coastal communities in Alaska. We are concerned that availability on EALs in our communities will continue to be a problem for some time after implementation of these rules. Since it is reasonable to assume the price will continue to be more than double of regular hydraulic oils when they are available, we are concerned of the increasing cost burden to fishermen, and the resulting economic strain on our communities. Regarding the required use of EAL products as engine oil, we are concerned that these products may not meet manufacture's engine specifications. We note here the EPA provides for a "technically infeasible" exclusion which we recommend be specified to cover such a contingency. Response:
Please s ee EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0403

- A1, excerpt 2, regarding visible sheens and EPA’s response to c omment EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 8, regarding E ALs

.

Commenter Name: Diane Pleschner

- Steele, Executive Director, California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA) Commenter Affiliation: California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0440

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 234 Comment: Regarding the requirement to maintain sufficient oil absorbent material onboard, we are concerned that if not exempted, auxiliary purse seine skiffs do not have the storag e space available to accommodate this material. Vessels of this size and auxiliary nature should be exempted from these permit requirements. The EPA requires use of environmentally acceptable lubricants ( EAL ) in all machinery and equipment where discharges of oil to surrounding waters are likely unless technically infeasible

. CWPA members are concerned about cost and performance of these products and we recommend an exemption be provided for prohibitive cost as well as technical infeasibility for use in ves sel engines.
In addition, CWPA members also are concerned that engine manufacturers specify prescribed oils in their operating procedure manuals, and any change would void the engine warranty.
While the use of EALs in engines now will void the warranty, preliminary research has found biodegradable hydraulic oils that could be substituted for mineral

– based oils without causing equipment failure; however, the cost of biodegradable oil is three or more times the cost of typical hydraulic oil. CWPA recommends that if EPA requires the use of biodegradable oils in hydraulic machinery, the government should also provide a tax credit for fishermen to help offset the significant increase in cost. One additional point, biodeg radable oils also leave a visible sheen on the water. Thus it is critically important for EPA to clarify what specifically constitutes a non
-- ‐ compliance event. Response: Regarding oil absorbent materials onboard auxiliary purse seine skiffs, EPA point s out that these vessels are covered with the “host” vessel, and as such, whether these vessels are covered under the VGP or the sVGP, these materials may be stored on either the auxiliary vessel or the host vessel. For additional discussion on absorbent materials, please see EPA’s response to EPA

- HQ

OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0 418

- A2, excerpt 8. For E ALs , please see EPA's response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 8.

Commenter Name: Diane Pleschner

- Steele, Executive Director, California Wetfish Producers Asso ciation (CWPA) Commenter Affiliation: California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0440

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 7Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 235 Comment:
The term “Oil’ should be modified to exclude fish oil or fish ‘slime’ so t hat stringent requirements surrounding a visible sheen from fuel, engine oil and lubricants do not encompass natural residues from a vessel’s catch. A similar change should be made to “oily mixture”. Response: See the response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 15 , regarding the definitions of " o il" and o ily m ixtures

. "

Commenter Name: Bill Moore, Program Development Services Section Manager, Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) Commenter Affiliation: Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0443

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: 2.3(c)

- Delete "as appropriate" because it is not defined and is an unnecessary loophole. Chang e "addressing" to "containing". The second sentence should read: "A supply of absorbent pads, pillows, or other materials should be kept onboard for use in containing or remediating any such spills"... 2.3(d)

- Add "and intended" after "designed." 2.3(g), first bullet, second sentence

- Delete "(while operating)." It is duplicative and unnecessary. 2.3(i)

- The first sentence should be changed to "Prior to pumping the bilge, inspect the bilgewater for an oily sheen if practicable." Response: EPA generally agrees with the commenter’s suggestions and the Agency has incorporated most of these concepts into the final permit.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 236 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 237 

# Issue Category: SLM

. 7.3 Solid and Liquid Waste ManagementResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 238 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 239 SLM. 7.3 Solid and Liquid Waste Management
Commenter Name: Rod Moore, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Commenter Affiliation: West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Document Cont rol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: 2.4 SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT Subsection (c) requires that loose items be secured in order to prevent them from “entering any waste stream.” Since runoff due to precipitation is considered a waste stream, how exactly does the EPA intend to enforce permit requirements when a vessel gets hit by a wave and items are washed off the deck? We recommend that Subsection (d) requires that fishing gear no t enter any waste stream. Some loss of fishing gear is inevitable in the course of normal operations. Is it the intent of the EPA to require that there be zero loss of fishing gear? How does the agency propose to accomplish this? We suggest that this entire section be simplified by requiring that garbage not be thrown overboard and that the language in subsection (b) relating to garbage receptacles be retained. Response: The required best management practices for solid and liquid waste man agement in Part 2.4 of the permit, including the requirement that waste be physically secured or otherwise prevented from entering receiving waters, will minimize the release of these materials by preventing to the extent practicable their entry into any p ermitted waste stream. These requirements are common

- sense approaches to preventing these wastes from entering any waste stream and are consistent with the existing prohibitions for many of these wastes being discharged into waters of the United States . A lso, as demonstrated by the economic analysis conducted for this permit, these requirements are practicable and economically achievable.

Commenter Name: Kathy Hansen, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Commenter Affiliatio n: Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 240 Comment: Solid and Liquid Waste Management on page 5, section 2.4: This section should be deleted since Annex V of MARPOL regulations cover all these situations and is referenced in section 2.11 Compliance with other Statues and Regulations. Response: EPA disagrees with this commenter that Section 2.4 of the permit should be eliminated. This permit does not regulate the d ischarge of rubbish, trash, garbage , or other materials discharged overboard as defined in Part 1.5 of the permit. Part 2.4 of this permit covers the prevention of materials from entering any waste stream covered by this permit and the requirement to main tain a tidy deck while operating in permitted waters.

Commenter Name: Craig Urness, General Counsel, Pacific Seafood Group and Pacific Fishing, LLC Commenter Affiliation: Pacific Seafood Group and Pacific Fishing, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- O W

- 2011

- 0150

- 0407

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: 2.4 SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT Subsection (c) requires that loose items be secured in order to prevent them from “entering any waste stream.” Since runoff due to precipitation is considered a waste stream, how exactly does the EPA intend to enforce permit requirements when a vessel gets hit by a wave and items are washed off the deck? Subsection (d) requires that fishing gear not enter any waste stream. Some loss of f ishing gear is inevitable in the course of normal operations. Is it the intent of the EPA to require that there be zero loss of fishing gear? How does the agency propose to accomplish this? We suggest that this entire section be simplified by requiring that garbage not be thrown overboard and that the language in subsection (b) relating to garbage receptacles be retained. Response: Please see EPA's response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , e xcerpt 9, with regard to solid and li quid waste management requirements.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 241 Commenter Name: Nancy Fitzpatrick, Executive Director, Oregon Salmon Commission, Oregon Albacore Commission Commenter Affiliation: Oregon Salmon Commission Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0418

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: 2.4 SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT Subsection (c) requires that loose items be secured in order to prevent them from “entering any waste stream.” Since runoff due to precipitation is considered a waste stream, how e xactly does the EPA intend to enforce permit requirements when a vessel gets hit by a wave and items are washed off the deck? Subsection (d) requires that fishing gear not enter any waste stream. Some loss of fishing gear is inevitable in the course of nor mal operations. Is it the intent of the EPA to require that there be zero loss of fishing gear? How does the agency propose to accomplish this? We suggest that this entire section be simplified by requiring that garbage not be thrown overboard and that the language in subsection (b) relating to garbage receptacles be retained. Response: Please see EPA's response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , e xcerpt 9, with regard to solid and liquid waste management requirements.

Commenter Name: Greg ory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Commenter Affiliation: Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0426

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment: 2.4 SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT Subsection (c) requires that loose items be secured in order to prevent them from “entering any waste stream.” Since runoff due to precipitation is considered a waste stream, how exactly does the EPA intend to enforce permit requirements when a vessel gets hit by a wave and items are washed off the deck? We recommend that Subsection (d) require only that fishing gear not enter any waste stream. Some loss of fishing gear is inevitable in the course of normal operations. Is it the intent of the EPA to require that there be zero loss of fishing gear? How does the agency propose to accomplish this? In addition we suggest that this entire section be simplified byResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 242 requiring that garbage not be thrown overboard and that the language in subsection (b) relating to garbage receptacles be retained. Response: Please see EPA's response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , e xcerpt 9, with regard to solid and liquid waste management requirements.

Commenter Name: Thomas M. McLaughlin, President/CEO, Seafood Producers Cooperative Commenter Affiliation: Seafood Producers Cooperative Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0427

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: Solid and Liquid Waste Management, Section 2.4: This is unnecessa ry and duplicative language. Garbage is covered under MARPOL Response: Please see EPA's response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1 , e xcerpt 6, with regard to the discharge of garbage under this permit.

Commenter Name: Bill Moore, Program D evelopment Services Section Manager, Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) Commenter Affiliation: Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0443

- A2 Comm ent Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: 2.4(a) and other VGP sections merely say "prevent trash or garbage." Some other VGP language simply says "do not." Without an auxiliary verb such as "must" or "shall," it is not clear if the language is intended as a sugge stion, recommendation, or instruction. To avoid conflicting interpretations of sVGP compliance, we recommend the consistent use of "must" or "shall" to emphasize instructions which must be followed. 2.4(b), third sentence

- Change " toxics " to "hazardous materials." Also, define hazardous materials in Section 6.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 243 Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and the Agency has incorporated this suggestion into the final permit.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 244 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 245 

# Issue Category: DWR

. 7.4 Deck Washdown an d Runoff and Above Water

Line Hull CleaningResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 246 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 247 DWR. 7.4 Deck Washdown and Runoff and Above Water Line Hull Cleaning
Commenter Name: Rod Moore, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Commenter Affiliation: West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment:
2.5 DECK WASHDOWN AND RUNOFF Under the permit definitions, “runoff” includes precipitation and sea water falling on the weather deck (we presume this means waves). Subsection (c) requires prevention of debris, residue, and spills (residue and spills of what are undefined) being introduced into runoff discharges. The weather patte rns in the Pacific Ocean are unpredictable and can be severe. It is normal for vessels to operate in weather conditions that include precipitation and sea water falling on the weather deck. How can a vessel comply with this condition and how does the EPA intend to enforce this requirement? We suggest this subsection be eliminated. Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that vessels are unable to comply with the d eck w ashdown and r unoff requirements in Part 2.5 of the permit. The requirements in th is section represent general maritime practices to prevent garbage, residues , and other debris from entering the water. The requirements reinforce existing practices to secure equipment, keep the deck free from debris and garbage that might otherwise wash overboard, and promptly clean up any deck chemical and oil leaks so that these materials cannot wash overboard. Any noncompliance with the requirements of Part 2.5 should be documented on the PARI form and must be supplied to EPA or an authorized represen tative upon request. EPA would make any enforcement determinations based on the information collected on a case

- by

- case basis.

Commenter Name: Rod Moore, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Commenter Affiliation: West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14
Comment: “Deck runoff” should be modified to cover only washdowns of a vessel. Precipitation and seawater falling on weather decks is unavoidable and the consequences of heavy rain or heavy seas are unpredictable. In the weather conditions prevalent in the Pacific Ocean, some discharge as a result of rain or wave runo ff is inevitable and prevention is futile.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 248 Response: EPA disagrees that the deck washdown and runoff discharge should be revised to include only deck washdown. EPA intends for vessel operators to manage the conditions of their topside decks (e.g., keep them tidy), which influences the quality of seawater wash as these discharges have the potential to introduce garbage, debris, oil, etc

. from deck surfaces into surrounding waters. EPA notes that the deck washdown and runoff requirements at Part 2.5 of the permit do not regard reducing the volume or frequency of deck runoff discharges (which cannot be controlled), but rather minimizing the introduction of contaminants into the discharge. EPA views these as common
- sense , pollution prevention measures that r epresent current best marine practice.

Commenter Name: Stanley Mack, Mayor, Aleutians East Borough (AEB) Commenter Affiliation: Aleutians East Borough (AEB) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0390

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment:
Th e term "Deck runoff' should be modified to cover only washdown of a vessel. Precipitation and seawater falling on decks is unavoidable and the consequences of heavy rain or heavy seas are unpredictable and unavoidable. Response:
Please see EPA ’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 14 , regarding deck runoff.

Commenter Name: Kathy Hansen, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Commenter Affiliation: Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Docum ent Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment:
Deck Washdown and Runoff and Above Water Line Hull Cleaning on page 5, section 2.5: The AK

- G52

- 4000 Offshore Alaska Seafood Processors permit addresses the deck wash

do wn issue in this section much simpler. The AK

- G52

- 4000 permit states “Wash

- down water, which includes EPA

- approved disinfectants added to the wash down water to facilitate the removal of wastes and to maintain sanitary standards during processing or to sa nitize seafood processing areas.” You could use this language and end afer . . . sanitary standards. In additionResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 249 this language acknowledges that we are in the food production industry and that sanitation is a priority. Run off of rain and seawater from waves is an act of nature and should not be required to be permitted nor treated to meet standards. Response:
Please see EPA ’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 14 , regarding deck runoff.

Commenter Name: Craig Urness, G eneral Counsel, Pacific Seafood Group and Pacific Fishing, LLC Commenter Affiliation: Pacific Seafood Group and Pacific Fishing, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0407

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment:
2.5 DECK WASHDOWN AND RUNOFF Under the permit definitions, “runoff” includes precipitation and sea water falling on the weather deck (we presume this means waves). Subsection (c) requires prevention of debris, residue, and spills (residue and spills of what are undefined) being introduced into runoff discharges. The weather patterns in the Pacific Ocean are unpredictable and can be severe. It is normal for vessels to operate in weather conditions that include precipitation and sea water falling on the weather deck. How can a vessel comply with this condition and how does the EPA intend to enforce this requirement? We suggest this subsection be eliminated. Response:
Please see EPA ’s response to EPA

- OW

- HQ

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 10 , for discussion of deck runoff.

Commenter Name: Craig Urness, General Counsel, Pacific Seafood Group and Pacific Fishing, LLC Commenter Affiliation: Pacific Seafood Group and Pacific Fishing, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0407

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment:
6. DEFINITIONSResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 250 “Deck runoff” should be modified to cover only washdowns of a vessel. Precipitation and seawater falling on weather decks is unavoidable and the consequences of heavy rain or heavy seas are unpredictable. In the weather cond itions prevalent in the Pacific Ocean, some discharge as a result of rain or wave runoff is inevitable and prevention is futile. Response:
Please see EPA ’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 14 , regarding the term "deck runof f."

Commenter Name: Jennifer A. Carpenter, The American Waterways Operators Commenter Affiliation: The American Waterways Operators Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0408

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment:
Volumes of deck runoff from barges are dependent on precipitation and surface water spray “landing on the deck in sufficient quantities to mobilize pollutants on the deck surface.” 2 The size and design of a barge are also determinants; for instance, covered barges, including tank ba rges, will generate greater volumes of deck runoff than will open barges, such as dry cargo hopper barges. During light rainfall events of 0.25 inches, as much as 2,500 gallons of deck runoff may be generated from the surface of a tank barge, depending its size and speed. “Operators of the vessel do not have control over the volume of discharge related to precipitation events or sea sprays,” 3 distinguishing deck runoff from deck washdown , which involves the intentional removal of dirt, grit, or other materi al from a deck surface, most often with the use of detergents or cleaners. In its report, EPA claims that “deck runoff incorporates pollutants that would have been included in an eventual washdown so the samples are comparable.” 4 However, because barge operators do not wash down barge decks, and so do not use detergents and disinfectants, it is unlikely that deck runoff from barges will contain pollutants associated with these cleaning agents, such as nonylphenols , phosphorous, an d chlorine. 5

2 United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010. Report to Congress: Study of Discharges Incidental to Normal Operation of Commercial Fishing Vessels and Other Non
- Recreational Vessels Less than 79 Feet. Office of Water, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. p. 145.

3 Ibid, p. 25
- 26.

4 Ibid, p. 145.

5 Ibid, p. xix.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 251 Response:
Please see EPA ’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 14 , regarding "deck runoff."

Commenter Name: Michelle Bonnett, Director, Ala ska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0417

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment:
2.5 DECK WASHDOWN AND RUNOFF AND ABOVE WATER LINE HULL CLEANING
2.5 (c) Prevent the introduction of on

- deck debris, garbage, residue, and spills into deck washdown and runoff discharges. The Department requests that the EPA define "on

- deck debris"

. Debris that a vessel brings aboard during the normal fishing process should be returned to the water. Response: EPA disagrees with commenter that a definition of "on

- deck debris" needs to be defined in the p ermit and that all materials brought onboard during the course of normal fishing operations should be returned to the water. Part 2.4 of the permit describes the best management practices for discarding used fishing line, bait boxes, hooks, and unused bai t. The permit prohibits the discharge of unused live bait, unless caught in that waterbody or watershed to prevent the spread and dispersal of potentially invasive species and invasive pathogens.

Commenter Name: Nancy Fitzpatrick, Executive Director, O regon Salmon Commission, Oregon Albacore Commission Commenter Affiliation: Oregon Salmon Commission Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0418

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment:
2.5 DECK WASHDOWN AND RUNOFFResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 252 Under the permit definitions, “ru noff” includes precipitation and sea water falling on the weather deck (we presume this means waves). Subsection (c) requires prevention of debris, residue, and spills (residue and spills of what are undefined) being introduced into runoff discharges. The weather patterns in the Pacific Ocean are unpredictable and can be severe. It is normal for vessels to operate in weather conditions that include precipitation and sea water falling on the weather deck. How can a vessel comply with this condition and how d oes the EPA intend to enforce this requirement? We suggest this subsection be eliminated. Response:
Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 10 , regarding the term "runoff."

Commenter Name: Nancy Fitzpatrick, Executive Director, Oregon Salmon Commission, Oregon Albacore Commission Commenter Affiliation: Oregon Salmon Commission Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0418

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 14
Comment:
6. DEFINITIONS
“Deck runoff” should be mo dified to cover only washdowns of a vessel. Precipitation and seawater falling on weather decks is unavoidable and the consequences of heavy rain or heavy seas are unpredictable. In the weather conditions prevalent in the Pacific Ocean, some discharge as a result of rain or wave runoff is inevitable and prevention is futile. Response:
Please see EPA ’s response to comment number EPA

- OW

- HQ

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 14 , regarding deck runoff.

Commenter Name: Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Gar den State Seafood Association (GSSA) Commenter Affiliation: Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0426

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment:
2.5 DECK WASHDOWN AND RUNOFFResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 253 Under the draft permit definition s, “runoff” includes precipitation and sea water falling on the weather deck (we presume this means waves). Subsection (c) requires prevention of debris, residue, and spills being introduced into runoff discharges (the nature of these residue and spills ar e undefined). The weather patterns in the Atlantic Ocean are unpredictable and can be severe. It is normal for vessels to operate in weather conditions that include precipitation and sea water falling on the weather deck. How can a vessel comply with this condition and how does the EPA intend to enforce this requirement? We suggest this subsection be eliminated. Response:
Please see EPA ’s response to comment number EPA

- OW

- HQ

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 10 , regarding deck runoff.

Commenter Name: Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Commenter Affiliation: Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0426

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 15
Comment:
6. DEFINITIONS “Deck runoff” should be modified to cover only washdowns of a vessel. Precipitation and seawater falling on weather decks is unavoidable and the consequences of heavy rain or heavy seas are unpredictable. In the weather conditions prevalent in the Atlantic Ocean, some discharge as a result of rain or wave runoff is inevitable and prevention is futile. Response:
Please see EPA ’s response to comment number EPA

- OW

- HQ

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 14 , regarding deck runoff.

Commenter Name: Thomas M. McLaughli n, President/CEO, Seafood Producers Cooperative Commenter Affiliation: Seafood Producers Cooperative Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0427

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: Deck Wash down and Runoff and Above Water Line Hull Cleaning, Section 2.5:Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 254 Run

- off of seawater from waves and rain should not be considered a pollutant or controlled with management practices and a simpler wash down description for best management practices would be, "Wash

- down water, which includes EPA

- approved disi nfectants added to the wash down water to facilitate the removal of wastes and to maintain sanitary standards." Response:
Please see EPA ’s response to comment number EPA

- OW

- HQ

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 14 , regarding deck runoff.

Commenter Name: Bria n D. Hughes, Vice President Operations, Regulatory Compliance, Hughes Bros. Inc. Commenter Affiliation: Hughes Bros. Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0429

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: We appreciate the EPA allowing Hughes Bro s. to comment on the draft permit. Our company is concerned that the VGP 2.0 will impose unnecessary and burdensome monitoring conditions on unmanned deck barges. Unmanned deck barges produce minimal discharges, as our equipment has no machinery, no petrol eum products and no personnel generating waste. Typical discharges on our unmanned deck barges are deck runoff and condensate pumped from below deck. Deck runoff only occurs when it rains. We occasionally pump 20

- 40 gallons of condensate from our barge voi ds only to prevent unstable conditions before loading a barge. Response: EPA notes that the comment is addressing the finalization of the 2013 VGP, and therefore, is beyond the scope of this permit (the sVGP). Nonetheless, EPA would disagree that the sV GP will impose unnecessary and burdensome requirements for unmanned deck barges, for any deck barges that would be below 79 feet. Vessels covered by the sVGP are required to meet only the terms and conditions of the permit that apply to their incidental d ischarges. In addition, Part 3.2 of the permit requires permittees to perform a quarterly visual inspection of each vessel and document the results on the PARI form. EPA believes that this is an appropriate level of oversight and burden and has prepared an economic analysis to support the permit. The sVGP economic analysis may be found in docket EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150 on http:// www.regulations.gov

.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 255 Commenter Name: Diane Pleschner

- Steele, Executive Director, California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA) Commenter Affiliation: California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0440

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment:
The term “Deck runoff” should be modified t o cover only wash

-- ‐ down of a vessel. Precipitation and seawater falling on decks is unavoidable and the consequences of heavy rain or heavy seas are unpredictable and unavoidable. Response:
Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- OW

- HQ

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 14 , regarding deck runoff.

Commenter Name: Bill Moore, Program Development Services Section Manager, Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) Commenter Affiliation: Water Quality Program, Washington State D epartment of Ecology (ECY) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0443

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: 2.5(b), second sentence

- Delete "labeled." Response: EPA acknowledges the comment but the Agency has opted to retain the term “labeled.” The first sentence of 2.5(b) sets a baseline condition that requires these materials to be minimally toxic, phosphate

- free, and biodegradable. The second sentence is intended to provide additional clarification that a product labeled toxic or highly toxic does not meet a “minimally toxic” threshold.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 256 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 257 

# Issue Category: HLL

. 7.5 Vessel Hull MaintenanceResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 258 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 259 HLL. 7.5 Vessel Hull Maintenance
Commenter Name: William H. Shropshire, President, American Chemet Corporation Commenter Affiliation: American Chemet Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0380

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Thank you for meeting with us following the Vessel Permit public hearing held in Chicago. In the discussion, you requested additional information regarding the mode of action for copper in anti

- fouling coatings and the science covering the bioavailability of the copper in water. Below is the information you requested. Copper is effective as an antifouling biocide because it provides an elevated concentration of bioavailable copper ion at the hull surface which has a deterrent effect, thus inhibiting the attachment of organisms. After accomplishing this task, it becomes nonbioavailable and therefore nontoxic in a short period of time in natural water which contains organic and inorganic material. Rarely does toxicity exist a significant distance from the hull of the vessel. When metallic copper or cuprous oxide leaches i nto marine water with oxygen present, the predominant form of the copper is the cupric ion Cu2+ (Figure 1). At the hull of the vessel where the copper is released, the cupric ion is both concentrated and bioavailable and thus overwhelms the natural biologi cal processes of the fouling organisms that under normal conditions can utilize the copper as a micronutrient or expel excess copper (Figure 2). However, this concentrated cupric ion, after repelling organisms, quickly complexes and becomes dilute as is mo ves away from the hull. Because of this mode of action, organisms can safely exist in close proximity to vessels with copper

- containing coatings, such as on pilings of piers and docks (see picture below).
SEE FIGURE IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
SEE GRAPH IN ORIGI NAL DOCUMENT Response:
EPA notes that the commenter submitted additional information that he believe s represents the mode of action and bioavailability of copper released from anti

- fouling coatings.

Commenter Name: William H. Shropshire, President, American Chemet Corporation Commenter Affiliation: American Chemet Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0380

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 260 Comment: The US EPA understands the science of bioavailability. It’s Framework for Metals Risk Assessment ( http://www.epa.gov/raf/metalsframework/index.htm ) offers "general guidance to EPA programs for considering the various properties of metals, such as environmental chemistry, bioavailability , and bioaccumulation." In 2007 the US EPA adopted the fresh water copper Biotic Ligand Model (BLM) to calculate site specific water quality criteria based on bioavailability. The Office of Water is currently reviewing the data to adopt the marine copper B LM and the Office of Pesticide Program uses bioavailability in considering copper antimicrobial registrations. As I testified, a recent study using the marine BLM and water sampling in Shelter Island Yacht Basin concluded that Shelter Island Yacht Basin is not impaired due to copper even though there are exceedences of the Clean Water Act chronic water criteria of 3.1 ug/kg. Response:
EPA notes that the commenter submitted additional information that he believe s represents the mode of action and bioavail ability of copper released from anti

- fouling coatings. See also EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0415

- A2, e xcerpt 1 , for a discussion of copper toxicity generally and the Shelter Island Yacht Basin specifically.

Commenter Name: Thomas M. Gemmell, Executive Direct or, United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Commenter Affiliation: United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0400

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment:
7. sVGP Section 2.6. This requires that vessel hulls be “periodically inspected”, which is vague. Is once every one

- three years adequate when the vessel is hauled out of the water? Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter’s concern about the meaning of the te rm “periodically” when used to describe the frequency of hull inspections. The Agency has clarified in Part 2.6 of the permit that these inspections are to be performed at least once per quarter.

Commenter Name: Marie Hobson and John Hopewell on behalf of American Coatings Association (ACA) Commenter Affiliation: American Coatings Association (ACA)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 261 Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0415

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Background of Threat of Invasive Species Compared to the Risk of Use of US EPA Registered Biofouling Products Of all of the environmental threats from vessel use the greatest threat is the transport and relocation of invasive species. Biofouling control coatings help to prevent the transportation of nonindigenous spec ies. Biocidal coatings applied in the US must be registered as safe through an exhaustive analysis by the US EPA. The VGP should not discourage the use of safe and effective biofouling controls to the extent that hull fouling could be increased. Hull fouli ng is believed to be a more significant vector for the establishment of invasive species than ballast water as shown in Figure 1 (1).
SEE ORIGINAL FOR THE GRAPH Recent compilations of marine alien species in Hawaii included some 343 species, 287 of which were marine invertebrate species. Hull fouling is believed to be the transport mechanism for 70% of them (2). These invasive species can have devastating effects on entire ecosystems. Approximately 400 of the 958 species that are listed as threatened or e ndangered under the Endangered Species Act in the US are considered to be at risk primarily because of competition with and predation by non

- indigenous species (3). In other areas of the world, nearly 80% of endangered species are threatened because of the pressures of non

- native species (4). One example of a water body impacted by small vessel transport of invasive species is the quagga mussel in Lake Mead. One of the vectors suspected to have brought the mussel to Lake Mead is hull biofouling . The proble m is now serious enough that Biologist David Wong, a researcher at UNLV’s School of Community Health indicated, "In terms of potential ecological impact and economic loss, the quaggas are the worst threat facing Las Vegas." (5)
We are concerned that the sV GP misstate the threat from registered biocidal antifouling coatings. Section 2.2.4 of the VGP states, " Some ports and harbors are impaired by copper, a biocide used commonly in anti

-

foulant paints. These waters include Shelter Island Yacht Basin in San Di ego, California, and waters in and around the ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach ." However, a recent study by The University of San Diego, SPAWAR System Center Pacific and San Diego State University Research Foundation found, "Lack of ambient toxicity and ver ified protection by BLM suggest that SIYB is not impaired due to copper ." We have attached this study in Appendix B, for your review.
We know of no measured ecosystem organism population decline due to US registered antifouling products. The environmental emphasis in the permits regarding hull maintenance should be focused on preventing invasive species first, and proper management of the hull coatings second. Further, the permits should not discourage the use of the most effective antifouling coatings ava ilable for the use and maintenance pattern of the vessel in question.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 262 Response:
EPA concurs with the commenter that the transport and relocation of invasive species is a primary environmental concern of vessel discharges (for both vessels covered under the sVGP and the VGP). Accordingly, EPA has addressed what vessels operators can do to address the threat of inv asive species in many parts of the sVGP , including ballast water, anti

- fouling coating, vessel hull maintenance, and fish hold effluent. However, EPA disagrees with the commenter’s suggested approach to formulating requirements for this discharge, which wo uld appear to downplay the importance of ensuring that the coating discharges themselves do not present an environmental threat.
EPA understands that the use of anti

- fouling coatings is an effective measure to control for invasive species, but also recogn izes that the chemicals that leach from these coatings can impact the environment, especially in waterbodies impaired by chemicals that are also used in anti

foulant coatings. EPA asks that vessel operators make considerations to minimize the impacts of th ese coatings in conjunction with their antifouling properties. For example, Part 2.6 of the p ermit specifies required management practices for anti

- fouling coatings and hull cleaning activities to minimize the impact of copper from vessels. As another exam ple, EPA’s justification for prohibiting the use of t ributyltin ( TBT ) or any other organotin compound is described in Section 4.6 of the s VGP f act s heet. EPA notes that the Agency believes copper anti

- foulant hull coatings may be appropriate for use in som e cases, but that there are potential negative environmental impacts from unmitigated copper discharges. EPA has discussed the pros and cons of copper anti

- foulant paints and their potential environmental impacts in several documents, including EPA's 2010 Study of Discharges Incidental to Normal Operation of Commercial Fishing Vessels and Other Non

Recreational Vessels Less than 79 Feet and the Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharges technical development document developed for the 2013 VGP issuance. Regardin g copper toxicity, a study of anti

- fouling biocides in California marinas found dissolved copper concentrations ranging from 0.1

– 18.4 μ g/L in the water (Singhasemanon, 2008 1 ). Concentrations were significantly higher in salt

- and brackish water marinas than in freshwater marinas. Dissolved copper concentrations in many of the salt

- and brackish water marinas exceeded established water quality standards. Thus, there are ecolog ical risks due to copper in many salt and brackish water marinas (Singhasemanon, 2008). Significant toxicity was measured in eight of 47 water samples; seven of the toxic samples came from Marina del Rey (MdR) in Los Angeles (Singhasemanon et al., 2009 2 ). The authors concluded that copper was the most likely cause of the toxicity in these samples. Two models of copper bioavailability and toxicity to aquatic organisms, the Biotic Ligand Model (BLM) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) model, were used to confi rm these findings. The BLM and DOC model predictions agreed favorably with the actual toxicity data, although both models tended to slightly overpredict toxicity, especially when close to the toxic effect concentration (i.e., EC50) (Singhasemanon, 2008).Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 263 Rivera

- Duarte et al., 2003 3 also investigated the bioavailability and toxicity of copper in San Diego Bay and found that toxicity was based on chemical speciation and followed the free ion activity model. The EC50 for mussel larval development was observed near 10

- 11 molar (i.e., 0.64 ng/L) free copper ion. The toxic threshold concentration of free copper ion was independent of spatial and temporal effects, indicating the need to study chemical speciation of copper released from antifouling paints in order to determine its environmental effects (Rivera

- Duarte et al., 2003). Weston Solutions, Inc

. ( 2012 4 ) conducted a monitoring survey in 2011, including water quality sampling at six stations and one reference station in the main channel of San Diego Bay adjac ent to Shelter Island Yacht Basin to determine dissolved copper concentrations, test for acute and chronic toxicity, and assess water quality trends over time. Although dissolved copper concentrations at all stations exceeded the chronic water criteria of 3.1 μg/L, evidence of toxicity to marine life was found at only one station. The Weston report concluded that while there is an increasing body of evidence that the 3.1 μg/L criterion is overly protective of water quality beneficial uses, further studies a re needed to understand how site

- specific factors affect copper bioavailability in Shelter Island Yacht Basin (Weston Solutions, 2012). Finally, as referenced by the commenter, the Department of Defense’s SPAWAR, in coordination with the University of San Diego, conducted sampling and toxicity testing at 62 sites in Shelter Island Yacht Basin and the main body of San Diego Bay in 2011 (SPAWAR and University of San Diego, 2012 5 ). The study findings showed elevated levels of copper in Shelter Island compared to the rest of the bay, but the authors reported that the elevated levels were generally not toxic to mussel embryos ( one out of 62 samples somewhat toxic). In light of these studies and their variable findings, EPA concludes that a greater level of
resear ch is needed to determine whether or not a change in EPA’s consideration of copper toxicity is warranted at Shelter Island Yacht Basin and other ports and harbors impaired by copper. In the meanwhile, EPA believes that the permit's requirements for copper anti

- foulant hull coatings strike an appropriate balance of recognizing the beneficial uses of copper

- based anti

- fouling coatings (including uses mitigating the transfer of aquatic nuisance species) and minimizing unnecessary copper discharges into w aters of the United States. EPA believes that the requirements at Parts 2.6 of the permit do, in fact, focus on preventing invasive species first, as suggested by the commenter, while also reducing the deleterious effects of anti

- fouling coatings. For example, P art 2.6 requires that hulls be cleaned and inspected regularly and that transporting organisms from one waterbody to another must be minimized.

1 Singhasemanon, N. 2008. Assessment of Antifouling Paint Use indicators in California Marinas. CA Department of Pesticide Regulations . Presented at: CAHMPC Annual Conference, Ventura, CA.

2 Singhasemanon, N., E. Pyatt, and J. Bacey. 2009. Monitoring for Indicators of An ti fouling Paint Pollution in California Marinas . EH08

- 05. California Environmental Protection A gency, Environmental Monitoring Branch, California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento, CA.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 264 3 Rivera

- Duarte, I., G. Rosen, D.B. Chadwick, L. Kear

- Padilla, and A. Zirino. 2003. Speciation and Bioavailability of Copper in San Diego Bay; Free Coppe r Ion Concentration as Main Vector to Study the Effect of Copper Leaching from Antifouling Paints . Presented at: International Symposium on Prevention of Pollution from Ships and Shipyards, New Orleans, LA, November 5

- 7, 2003.

4 Weston Solutions, Inc., 201 2. Shelter Island Yacht Basin Dissolved Copper Total Maximum Daily Load 2011 Monitoring and Progress Final Report

. 5 Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) and University of San Diego, 2012. Copper Bioavilability and Toxicity to Mytilus galloprov incialis in Shelter Island Yacht Basin, San Diego, CA

.

Commenter Name: Marie Hobson and John Hopewell on behalf of American Coatings Association (ACA) Commenter Affiliation: American Coatings Association (ACA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0415

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: Recommended Changes The Small Vessel General Permit should begin with a warning about invasive species, and proceed to detail the proper management of the coating to minimize its impact. We believe that beginning the sVGP (Section 2.6 Vessel Hull Maintenance) with a warning about hull coatings does more harm than good in terms of limiting the invasion of non

- indigenous species. We suggest the following wording:
2.6 Vessel Maintenance (a) If the vessel use pattern requires the use of anti

- foulant system you should use the most effective antifouling coating necessary to prevent biofouling on your vessel and to prevent the transport of organisms from one area to another. (b) Vessel hulls mus t be periodically inspected, and if necessary, cleaned to prevent the spread or dispersal of potentially invasive species. (c) Minimize the transport of any visible living aquatic organisms from one water body to another by regularly cleaning and maintain ing the hull. (d) Prior to transporting the vessel from one water body to another overland, you must inspect the visible areas of the vessel for any attached or visible stowaway living organisms. IfResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 265 organisms are found, they must be removed and appropriat ely discarded onshore. Removed organisms may not be discharged into waters subject to this permit. (e) If the vessel is equipped with an anti

- foulant system, you must minimize the impact of that system or the discharges resulting from anti

- foulant paints on the aquatic environment. • Where drying or hull cleaning at haul

- out is adequate for managing fouling (e.g., for vessels that are hauled frequently or for over

- winter storage), do not use anti

- fouling coatings if not needed. • Discharges of tributylti n ( TBT ) are prohibited (zero

- discharge standard). Two potential ways to meet this standard are to:
1. Have no TBT coatings; or 2. Have an effective overcoating that completely eliminates TBT discharges. (f) Do not clean anti

- fouling paint, which releases biocides, for the first 90 days after application. (g) If the anti

- foulant paint requires cleaning, gently clean hulls on a regular basis (this minimizes the need for stronger cleaners and more abrasive brushes). (h) When cleaning hulls coated with anti

- fouling paint while the vessel is in the water, use only soft sponges. You must examine the water while cleaning to assure that you are not causing a plume of paint to form. Stop immediately if any visibl e plume of paint appears in the water. Consider hiring a qualified, professional hull cleaner to do the work, and ensure that they follow environmental guidelines. (i) When cleaning hulls coated with anti

- fouling paint while the vessel is out of the water , always work away from the water in a location where paint chips and dust will not be washed into the water. Place a tarp under the area to catch loose particles, and properly dispose of paint chips, dust, and other particles. If you are working in an are a that is covered by an NPDES permit (e.g. marina or drydock ), you must follow the cleaning requirements of that permit. Response:
EPA thanks the commenter s for the comment, but disagrees with their suggested revisions to Part 2.6 of the permit. EPA re cognizes th e threat of invasive species and seeks to minimize those impacts through the management of multiple discharges throughout the p ermit. Please see the responses to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0415

- A2 , excerpt 1 , for more details. However, EPA is also concerned about the potential environmental impact of biocides leached from anti

- fouling coatings and asks that vessel operators make considerations to minimize the impacts of these coatings in conjunction with their anti

- fouling properties. Addressing and minimizing the environmental impacts contributed by anti

- fouling hull coatings by making considerations described in this part do not diminish the impacts attributed by invasive species. Accordingly, EPA has not rev ised the permit requirements for Vessel Hull Maintenance.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 266 Commenter Name: Marie Hobson and John Hopewell on behalf of American Coatings Association (ACA) Commenter Affiliation: American Coatings Association (ACA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 201 1

- 0150

- 0415

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment:
Visible Plume and Prohibition on TBT The language on ‘visible plume’ and the prohibition on TBT in the sVGP should match the language in the VGP

. ACA sought and received clarification on ‘visible plume’ a nd the prohibition on TBT under the VGP , and we believe this should be consistent in the sVGP . As it is written now, the explanation of visible plume in the sVGP is undeveloped and could lead to confusion whether an individual is creating a plume or not (b ecause a visible plume or sheen on the surface of the water is a normal occurrence during hull cleaning). The VGP describes a ‘visible plume’ as follows, "Production of a plume or cloud of sediment or hull growth is normal in some cases during vessel hull cleaning, but this plume or cloud must be substantially paint free (e.g., paint should not be clearly identifiable in the plume or cloud)." We suggest the sVGP incorporate this language.
The VGP is very clear that TBT is banned and we support this ban. Ho wever, when used as a catalyst, the VGP states that an organotin compound other than TBT (e.g., dibutyltin ) is not to be present above 2500 mg total tin per kilogram of dry paint. This is in alignment with the international standard set in the Antifouling System Treaty and we believe that this should be also included in the sVGP

. Conclusion We believe these proposed changes to the VGP place an emphasis on the greater environmental threat of invasive species. Further, these changes allow for the proper us e and management of FIFRA registered in a context to minimize any environmental harm while maximizing environmental benefits. Response: EPA notes that the sVGP requirements regarding a plume of paint are substantially similar to th ose in the VGP. Consi stent with this comment, the sVGP contains the language: “Production of a plume or cloud of sediment or hull growth is normal in some cases during vessel hull cleaning, but this plume or cloud must be substantially paint free (e.g., paint should not be cle arly identifiable in the plume or cloud) , ” which is identical to a sentence in the equivalent requirement in the VGP.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 267 EPA acknowledges the commenters ’ support for the prohibition of TBT anti

- foulant coatings and any TBT discharges in the sVGP. EPA also n otes that , consistent with the commenters ’ suggestion , the permit contains a condition that the operator shall “[n]ot use any other organotin compound (e.g., dibutyltin) as a catalyst if that organotin compound contains more than 2,500 milligrams total tin per kilogram of dry paint.”

Commenter Name: Marie Hobson and John Hopewell on behalf of American Coatings Association (ACA) Commenter Affiliation: American Coatings Association (ACA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0415

- A3 Comment Exce rpt Number: 1
Comment: Background of Threat of Invasive Species Compared to the Risk of Use of US EPA Registered Biofouling Products Of all of the environmental threats from vessel use the greatest threat is the transport and relocation of invasive sp ecies. Biofouling control coatings help to prevent the transportation of nonindigenous species. Biocidal coatings applied in the US must be registered as safe through an exhaustive analysis by the US EPA. The VGP should not discourage the use of safe and e ffective biofouling controls to the extent that hull fouling could be increased. Hull fouling is believed to be a more significant vector for the establishment of invasive species than ballast water as shown in Figure 1 (1).
SEE TABLE IN THE ORIGINAL DOCU MENT Recent compilations of marine alien species in Hawaii included some 343 species, 287 of which were marine invertebrate species. Hull fouling is believed to be the transport mechanism for 70% of them (2). These invasive species can have devastating eff ects on entire ecosystems. Approximately 400 of the 958 species that are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act in the US are considered to be at risk primarily because of competition with and predation by non

- indigenous specie s (3). In other areas of the world, nearly 80% of endangered species are threatened because of the pressures of non

- native species (4). One example of a water body impacted by small vessel transport of invasive species is the quagga mussel in Lake Mead. O ne of the vectors suspected to have brought the mussel to Lake Mead is hull biofouling . The problem is now serious enough that Biologist David Wong, a researcher at UNLV’s School of Community Health indicated, "In terms of potential ecological impact and e conomic loss, the quaggas are the worst threat facing Las Vegas." (5)
We are concerned that the VGP misstates the threat from registered biocidal antifouling coatings. Section 2.2.4 of the VGP states, " Some ports and harbors are impaired by copper, a biocide used commonly in anti

-

foulant paints. These waters include Shelter Island Yacht Basin in SanResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 268 Diego, California, and waters in and around the ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach ." However, a recent study by The University of San Diego, SPAWAR System Center Pacific and San Diego State University Research Foundation found, "Lack of ambient toxicity and verified protection by BLM suggest that SIYB is not impaired due to copper ." We have attached this study in Appendix B, for your review. We know of no measured ecosystem organism population decline due to US registered antifouling products. The environmental emphasis in the permits regarding hull maintenance should be focused on preventing invasive species first and proper management of the hull coatings second. Further, the permits should not discourage the use of the most effecti ve antifouling coatings available for the use and maintenance pattern of the vessel in question. Response: Please see the response to this comment in the VGP EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0415

- A2, excerpt 1.

Commenter Name: Mic helle Bonnett, Director, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section Document Cont rol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0417

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment: 2.5 (j) Vessel hulls must be periodically inspected, and if necessary, cleaned to prevent the spread or dispersal of potentially invasive species. The Department requests that the EPA define "periodically inspected". Clarify if the quarterly self

- inspections required under section 3.2 of the permit suffice

. If the periodic inspection is in addition to the quarterly inspection, the Department recommends that the EPA includes an exemption for vessels subject to this permit that do not travel outside of the region. Response: EPA agrees with commenter and has clarified section 2.5 of the permit to specify “periodically” means at least once a quarter.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 269 Commenter Name: Karen Ho lman, Manager, Environmental Programs, Environmental and Land Use Management, Unified Port of San Diego Commenter Affiliation: Unified Port of San Diego Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0421

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment:
Vesse l Hul l Maintenance (Section 2.6): 1. The presence of a visible paint plume is the most conclusive mechanism to observe the use of inappropriate cleaning practices. Further, it indicates that paint is being removed from the hull. The 2008 ( VGP Section 2.2.23) an d proposed 2013 Federal NPDES Vessel General Permit prohibit the presence of a visible p lume of paint in non

- impaired waters. As such, this standard has been used as a benchmark for enforcement for regulatory measures established in San Diego Bay. The BMP requirements for vessel hull maintenance in the Proposed Permit require the use of a sponge for cleaning hulls with antifouling paint while the vessel is in the water. The Port recommends modifying this requirement as the currently required cleanin g tool may not necessarily be the appropriate tool for all paints and/or conditions. Many BMPs require training and professional judgment to determine the appropriate cleaning tool and/or cleaning frequency

- both of which are dependent on hull paint type, age, boat use, and other conditions

. Therefore , to maintain consistency with the requirements previously established in the VGP , it is recommended that a visual means (i

. e., visible paint plume) be used 'to validate or verify the use of appropriate BMPs

. 2. Due to the fact that much of the hull cleaning activity is under water, visual observations of cleaning (i.e., tools being used, less abrasive efforts , etc.) will be difficult. The regulatory and enforcement process used for ensuring compliance with pro posed Permit conditions needs to be nonsubjective . The Port recommends the Proposed Permit identify the use of BMPs consistent with the hull cleaning industry

. This approach is consistent with BMP requirements found in existing NPDES stormwater permits.
R esponse: EPA agrees with commenter that the presence of a visible paint plume is an appropriate mechanism to observe the use of inappropriate hull cleaning practices. Like in the VGP, the sVGP contains requirements that hull husbandry cannot produce a “p lume of paint , ” and the activity must stop if that plume is noted. In addition, to ensure that BMPs consistent with the hull cleaning industry can be used to clean hulls, EPA removed the provision from the permit that required operators to use only “soft s ponges.”Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 270 Commenter Name: Dr. Guy Kaulukukui, Acting Administrator, State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) Commenter Affiliation: State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0425

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: As mentioned earlier, DLNR is also in support of the minimization of AIS spread through vessel biofouling . We are encouraged by the new requirement in section 2.6 that vessels being moved overland to new water bodies be inspected for visible organisms and where found, removed and disposed of on land.
DLNR is commencing work on managing the risks of AIS through vessel biofouling , and feels that the draft VGPs makes good headway towards tackling this issue. We are concerned about underwater ship husbandry discharges. This is an emerging issue in marine biosecurity , and is receiving attention in Australia and New Zealand with a review currently underway for in

- water hull cleaning and vessel maintenance (http://dalf.gov.au/ anirnal

- plant

- health / pests

diseasesweeds /marine

- pests/ draft

- antifouling

- and

- inwater

- cleaning

- guidelines ). DLNR would welcome the opportunity to work collaboratively with the EPA on this issue. Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter’s support for the permit requirements to inspect for and remove any visible organisms prior to transporting a vessel from one waterbody to another and other measures towards managing risks of Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) through vessel biofouli ng. EPA remains open to partnering with other organizations to improve understanding of hull fouling and ways to minimize it.

Commenter Name: Dr. Guy Kaulukukui, Acting Administrator, State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) Comm enter Affiliation: State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0425

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: In regards to managing AIS risks from biofouling , DLNR is encouraged by the ins ertion of new text in Section 2.2.3 of the VGP that attempts to minimize the risks associated with vessel cleaning. As the EPA would be aware, this issue is closely linked with managing vessel biofouling , given that shore

- based and in

- water maintenance of vessels can facilitate the release of invasive aquatic pests into the surrounding environment. The requirement that materials removed from the hull during cleaning in dry dock be collected and disposed of onshore isResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 271 supported by DLNR . Equally, DLNR support s the minimization of fouling organisms being released to the surrounding environment during in

- water cleaning. Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter’s support for the permit.

Commenter Name: Robert Leitch, Floating Plant Program Manager, US Army C orps of Engineers Commenter Affiliation: US Army Corps of Engineers Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0431

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment:
Issue 5. Vessel Hull Maintenance Reference: Small Vessel General Permit ( sVGP ), Section 2.6

– Vessel Hull Maintenance, Part (h) Discussion: Part (h) discusses looking for and removing attached or visibly stowaway living organisms prior to transporting the vessel from one body of water to another overland. This is a good BMP but the risk of transpor ting living organisms (may not necessarily be visible) may still be present in accumulated bilge water.
Recommendation: USACE recommends adding a BMP to clean and remove all accumulated bilge water prior to transporting the vessel from one waterbody to ano ther over land. Response:
EPA thanks the commenter for his comment and has incorporated the comments into Part 2.4 of the sVGP.

Commenter Name: Bill Moore, Program Development Services Section Manager, Water Quality Program, Washington State Departmen t of Ecology (ECY) Commenter Affiliation: Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0443

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment: 2.6(a), second bullet

- Delete "if not needed." If the rest of the sentence applies, then toxic hull coatings are assumed to be not needed.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 272 2.6(a)

- Add a third bullet: "Consider that the use of a non

- toxic hard hull coating combined with frequent cleaning can result in substantial fuel savings, reduced ai r pollution, and a faster vessel."0 Response: EPA acknowledges the comments and has modified the permit to delete “if not needed.” EPA does not dispute the commenter’s assertion that “a non

- toxic hard hull coating combined with frequent cleaning can resu lt in substantial fuel savings, reduced air pollution, and a faster vessel” for some or many vessels. However, EPA notes that these benefits may not be realized for all vessels. EPA believes that this message, when formed in the context of “consider,” is an appropriate outreach for EPA and the s tates to deliver, but is not appropriate to include as a permit condition in the sVGP.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 273 

# Issue Category: GWM

. 7.6 Graywater ManagementResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 274 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 275 GWM. 7.6 Graywater Management
Commenter Name: Rod Moore, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Commenter Affiliation: West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Co mment:
2.7 GRAYWATER Subsection (c) stipulates that excess oils used during cooking not be discharged. We are at a loss trying to determine what a small vessel with primitive galley facilities is supposed to do when they wash their cooking i mplements. We suggest that the second sentence of this subsection be deleted. Response: In response to the commenter’s concern regarding cooking oils, EPA notes that the permit requirement at Part 2.7 is not “zero discharge” of cooking oil, but rather to “minimize the introduction of cooking oil to the graywater system

. . This practice could be as simple as using a paper towel to wipe down the inside of a used pan before washing that pan. EPA believes such practices are well suited to vessels with minima l galley space such as small commercial fishing vessels and are already common practice. As referenced at Part 2.11 of the permit, oil (e.g., from the galley and scullery) may not be discharged in quantities that may be harmful as required in 40 CFR Part 110. In addition, Part 1.5.c of the permit specifies that discharges of used or spent oil no longer being used for their intended purposes are not eligible for coverage under the permit. These requirements are also in existence in other places in U.S. fede ral law (e.g., CWA 311). EPA disagrees that these sVGP provisions should be removed and believes that they are reflective of ongoing practices for most vessel owner s /operators.

Commenter Name: Paul Belforti, President, Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Commenter Affiliation: Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0395

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15
Comment:
U.S.
- flagged "small ship" cruise vessels should have a best management practices requirement for graywa ter discharges, as does the current VGP
.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 276 Several PV A companies operate "small ship" overnight cruise vessels flagged in the United States. These vessels predominantly serve routes along U.S. coasts , rivers, and the Great Lakes. Most carry 250 passengers or fewer. The small size of the vessels is essential to offering the types of cruises that they perform. The proposed VGP categorizes them as "medium cruise ships" (100

- 499 passengers), although this t erm is somewhat misleading as applied to them

. The proposed permit would impose essentially the same level of graywater purification on "medium cruise ships" as it proposes for vessels in the "large cruise ship" category. Large cruise ships typically carry thousands of passengers and crew , and nearly all are foreign

- flagged. To comply with the proposed graywater purification requirements, a U

. S.

- flagged "small ship" cruise vessel would have to install the same treatment equipment designed for a large oceang oing cruise vessel that carries thousands of passengers and crew members. This equipment is so large and heavy that it is physically impossible to retrofit a smaller "medium cruise ship" to accommodate it. Furthermore, attempting to place such equipment on a smaller existing vessel would likely threaten the vessel's stability. Has the EPA consulted with the U.S. Coast Guard on how this treatment equipment would affect stability of "small ship" cruise vessels? Response:
The sVGP is applicable to non

- recreational, non

- military vessels less than 79 feet in length as defined in Section 1.1 of the permit. The vessels described in this comment are likely larger than 79 feet, and therefore not eligible for coverage under the sVGP. If the “small ships” described in this comment meet the eligibility requirements in Part 1.1, then they are required to meet the graywater requirements in Part 2.7 of the permit. If the “small ships” described are not less than 79 feet in length, then they must meet the requirements in the VGP

. Information on the VGP may be found on EPA’s W eb page at http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/vessels/ and in the docket for the VGP EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0141

. EPA notes that comments on the VGP are beyond the scope of today’s issuance of the sVGP.

Commenter Name: Paul Belforti, President, Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Commenter Affiliation: Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Document Control Number: EP A

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0395

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 16
Comment:
Furthermore , requiring best management pract i ces for graywater (as the current VGP does) is an effective way to ensure that a "medium cruise sh i p " ameliorates any slight environmental impact of this kind of discharge. Response: EPA notes that this is a comment on the VGP, and not today’s sVGP. The record, including responses to public comments, on the VGP can be found at http://w ww.regulations.gov , andResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 277 searching for docket EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0141. Additionally, specific requirements for Medium Cruise Ships can be found in the VGP available at http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/vessels/

.

Commenter Name: Patsy Root, Senior Regulatory Affairs Specialist, IDEXX Laboratories, Inc. Commenter Affiliation: IDEXX Laboratories, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0397

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment:
Comment 3:
Fecal coliform as an indicator has been changed to E coli and/or enterococci in most other Clean Water Act

‐ based testing. These improved indicators are used under both wastewater discharge permits and the newly proposed Water Quality Criteria (EPA

‐ HQ

‐ OW

‐ 2011

‐ 046 6), including the use of E coli or enterococci for beach monitoring.
IDEXX recommends the Agency allow the option to monitor graywater for either: E coli, enterococci or fecal coliform . Other sections within the Agency have invested significant time and f inancial resources to determine that enterococci and E coli are the best indicators and predictors of threat to human health. Allowing vessel operators to test and report for either E coli , enterococci or fecal coliforms aligns this section with other sect ions of the Agency. Relevant sections include: 2.2.15.1 ii); 2.2.15.2; 5.1.1.1.2; 5.2.1.1.2; 5.1.2.2.1; page 131 of the proposed Permit where total live bacteria are listed on the form. Response:
The sVGP does not contain any graywater monitoring provi sions; specific requirements for graywater monitoring are applicable only to the VGP

. Comments on the VGP are beyond the scope of today’s issuance of the sVGP. More information on the VGP is available at http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/vessels/ and in the docket for the VGP at EPA

- HQ

- OW

2011

- 0141

.

Commenter Name: Thomas M. Gemmell, Executive Director, United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Commenter Affiliation: United Southeast Alask a Gillnetters (USAG) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0400

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 278Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 279 Comment:

8. sVGP Section 2.7. This requires minimization of gray water in ―national wildlife refuges

. Are there any refugees that include navigable waters? Many, if not most, refuge boundaries are limited to land areas and not water. Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and notes that there are n ational w ildlife r efuges that include waters subject t o the sVGP. For instance , Lake Woodruff in Florida contains over 1 , 000 acres of lakes, streams , and canals. There are 548 n ational w ildlife r efuges in 50 states, and others also include navigable waters. A complete list of refugees can be found at http://w ww.fws.gov

.

Commenter Name: Kathy Hansen, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Commenter Affiliation: Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 20 11

- 0150

- 0404

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: Graywater on page 6, section 2.7: The draft permit stipulates that excess oils used during cooking not be discharged. How is a small commercial fishing vessel with minimal galley space going to meet a zero discharge of cooking oils when washing dishes? This sentence should be deleted as other federal regulations make it clear that dumping a pan of cooking oil overboard is illegal. The EPA proposed that all vessels must minimize graywater discharges in port. (Again the definition of “in port” would mean any place the vessel is anchored even in remote locations taking refuge from weather and not a port as in a harbor with many vessels and likely not much flushing action.) Most commercial fishing vesse ls don’t have the capacity or ability to store graywater so there is no choice but to discharge some amount of graywater when tied up in the harbor. Vessel owners and crewmembers at times live on the vessel during the fishing season while in ports thus co mplicating the requirement to minimize graywater discharge and production. EPA has not provided any guidance or standard of “minimize” discharge vis a vis compliance. SEAFA recommends that EPA strike the word “must” from this section and encourage an ope rator to minimize graywater discharge as reasonably able to do so. Response: Please see the response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 11 , for discussion of discharge of excess oils used during cooking.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 280 EPA disagrees with the commenter’s suggestion s to encourage, rather than require, operators to minimize discharges of graywater. EPA points out that the permit requires owners/operators to “minimize” the discharge; EPA added a definition of “minimize” in Part 6 of the final permit to mean “to reduce and/or eliminate to the extent achievable using control measures (including best management practices (BMPs)) that are technologically available and economically practicable and achievable in light of best marine practice.” The Agency acknowledges in man y instances, particularly as this term relates to graywater, that “minimize” is likely something less than “eliminate” but that it does require operators to consider ways to reduce such discharges. The language in Part 2.7 (b) of the permit does require minimiz ing graywater while a vessel is stationary in confined waters, but requires storage of graywater only where the vessel has the capacity to do so. Where a vessel does not have th is capacity, the vessel operator can practice management procedures to reduce graywater discharges while shoreside or stationary (e.g., not doing laundry while pierside and stationary, avoiding showers while pierside and stationary ) IF the mariner has other valid options ( shoreside facility or they can reasonably wait until the vessel is underway).

Commenter Name: Kathy Hansen, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Commenter Affiliation: Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1 Comment E xcerpt Number: 22
Comment: Page 29

– Graywater 4.7 (2 nd paragraph) The fact sheet “prohibits the addition of cooking oils to graywater systems” while the sVGP permit states “excess oils, must not be added to the graywater system or into any other discha rge covered by this permit. This section should be deleted in both areas are at least consistent with each other taking out the word “must”. Response: Please see the response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 11 , for discussion of discharge of excess oils used during cooking.

Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 C omment Excerpt Number: 4Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 281 Comment: Graywater ( sVGP page 6, section 2.7 & VGP page 45, section 2.2.15): There are particularly two issues in this section that we would like to point out. The draft permits stipulates that excess oils used during cooking not be discharged. How is a small commercial fishing vessel with minimal galley space going to meet a zero discharge of cooking oils when washing dishes? This sentence should be deleted as other federal regulations make it clear that dumping a pan of cooki ng oil overboard is illegal. The EPA proposed that all vessels must minimize graywater discharges in port. (Again the definition of “in port” would mean any place the vessel is anchored even in remote locations taking refuge from weather and not a port as in a harbor with many vessels and likely not much flushing action.) Most commercial fishing vessels don’t have the capacity or ability to store graywater so there is no choice but to discharge some amount of graywater when tied up in the harbor. Crewmember s often live on the vessel during the fishing season while in port thus complicating the requirement to minimize graywater discharge and production. EPA has not provided any guidance or standard of “minimize” discharge vis a vis compliance. UFA recommends that EPA strike the word “must” from this section and encourage an operator to minimize graywater discharge as reasonably able. Response: Please see the response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 11 , for discussion of discharge of excess oils used during cooking. Please see the response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1 , excerpt 8 , for a discussion of the term “minimize.”

Commenter Name: Craig Urness, General Counsel, Pacific Seafood Group and Pacific Fishing, LLC Commenter Affiliation: Pacific Seafood Group and Pacific Fishing, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0407

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment:
2.7 GRAYWATER Subsection (c) stipulates that excess oils used during cooking not be discharged. We are at a loss trying to determine what a small vessel with primitive galley facilities is supposed to do when they wash their cooking implements. We suggest that the second sentence of this subsection be deleted.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 282 Response: Please see the response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 11 , for discussion of discharge of excess oils used during cooking.

Commenter Name: Edmund B. Welch, Legislative Director, Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Commenter Affiliation: Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Document Contr ol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0410

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: In that letter, PVA recommended that the proposed definition of the term “sewage” be clarified to incorporate a reference to section 312(a)(10) of the Clean Water Act (the defini tion of the term “commercial vessels”) and indicated that this recommendation would be supplemented by a more detailed additional submission. Even though they may engage in commercial operations, passenger vessels (such as ferries, dinner boats, and excur sion vessels) that sail on the Great Lakes do not fall within the Clean Water Act’s definition of “commercial vessels;” therefore, their discharges of graywater are not governed by section 312 of the Clean Water Act. For purposes of the Marine Sanitation Device section of the Clean Water Act (section 1322 of title 33 United States Code ; section 312 of the Clean Water Act, as amended), the term “sewage” is defined in subsection (a)(6). In most instances, it means “human body wastes and the wastes from toil ets and other receptacles intended to receive or retain body wastes.” However, the statutory term has a broader meaning with respect to the Great Lakes. In that region with respect to commercial vessels , the term “sewage” includes graywater

. Graywater i s defined in subsection (a)(11) to include galley, bath, and shower water. The Small Vessel General Permit defines the terms “sewage” and “graywater” in a manner that is consistent with the language of section 312 of the Clean Water Act. It is important to note that the broader statutory definition of “sewage” for purposes of the Great Lakes applies only to “commercial vessels.”
Section 312 of the Clean Water Act defines the term “commercial vessels” in subsection (a)(10). It means “those vessels used i n the business of transporting property for compensation or hire, or in transporting property in the business of the owner, lessee, or operator of the vessel.” Section 312 does not use the term “transporting property or persons for compensation or hire.”Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 283 Contrast the narrower definition of subsection (a)(10) with the broad definition of the terms “new vessel” and “existing vessel” found in subsection (a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Clean Water Act. They embrace “every description of watercraft or other artifici al contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on the navigable waters ....” Thus, not all vessels fall with section 312’s definition of the term “commercial vessels.” Since the broader definition of the term “sewage” to includ e graywater is to be used in the Great Lakes only for commercial vessels that transport property for compensation or hire, not for the more expansive group characterized as “every description of watercraft,” the question is whether a Great Lakes passenger vessel operating as a dinner boat, excursion vessel, or ferry is a commercial vessel for the purposes of section 312 of the statute. Clearly, the answer is “no.” While passengers on such a vessel likely pay compensation to the operator for their carriage, it cannot be reasonably or fairly asserted that these individuals are “property.” Had Congress wished for the more expansive definition of “sewage” to apply to passenger vessels on the Great Lakes, it would have defined the term “commercial vessels” as “ those vessels used in the business of transporting property or passengers for compensation or hire. Instead, Congress chose to use the narrower term in the statute. In addition, property is generally inanimate and material. Passengers are living human be ings. In the United States, the concept of humans as property vanished with the constitutional abolition of slavery. The analysis above leads to the conclusion that graywater discharges from passenger vessels operating on the Great Lakes are not governed by section 312 of the Clean Water Act. Instead, just as for graywater discharges from passenger vessels that operate on other waters of the United States, the graywater discharges are discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. They are a uthorized discharges under the EPA’s proposed Small Vessel General Permit. Thus, it is appropriate to clarify the proposed permit’s definition of the term ‘sewage” to read as follows: “... means human body wastes and the wastes from toilets and other recep tacles intended to receive or retain body wastes except that with respect to commercial vessels (as that term is defined in section 312(a)(10) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended) on the Great Lakes, the term “sewage” also includes galle y, bath, and shower water.” Response: EPA agrees with commenter that the term “sewage” or “sewage from vessels” as the term is used in the sVGP means human body wastes and the wastes from toilets and other receptacles intended to receive or retain body wastes that are discharged from vessels, except that with respect to commercial vessels (as that term is defined in Section 312(a)(10) of the CWA) on the Great Lakes, the term “sewage from vessels” also includes galley, bath, and shower water. The final s VGP reflects this revision to the definition. EPA notes that under CWA section 312(a)(6), the definition of sewage includes graywater discharges from “commercial vessels” (as defined in CWA section 312(a)(10)) operating on theResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 284 Great Lakes. If a vessel oper ating on the Great Lakes is not a “commercial vessel” as defined in CWA section 312(a)(10), and is less than 79 feet in length, the vessel’s graywater discharges are eligible for coverage under this permit. Additionally, EPA declines to specifically opine on the issue of what constitutes a “commercial vessel” under Section 312 of the CWA at this time. However, EPA notes that if the vessel is a "commercial vessel" under section 312 of the CWA , the vessel is subject to that section ’ s graywater requirements on the Great Lakes. If the vessel is not a "commercial vessel" under Section 312 of the CWA , but it is a n "sVGP covered" vessel, then it must meet the limits found in the sVGP for its graywater discharges into the Great Lakes.

Commenter Name: William Cre al, Chief Water Resources Division, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Commenter Affiliation: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0413

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment:
1. Graywater

- Michigan requests Section 2.7 of the draft sVGP be revised to clarify that Section 312 of the federal Clean Water Act prohibits "commercial" vessels from discharging graywater when operating on the Great Lakes. Response: EPA agrees with t he commenter that Section 312 of the CWA applies to sewage, including graywater, when commercial vessels, as defined under 312(a)(10) are operating on the Great Lakes. A “no discharge zone” under S ection 312 of the CWA is a prohibition on the discharge of sewage, and is outside the scope of today’s permit. No discharge zones are designed to give states an additional tool to address water quality issues associated with vessel sewage discharges.

Commenter Name: Michelle Bonnett, Director, Alaska Departm ent of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0417

- A 2 Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment:
2.7 GRAYWATERResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 285 2.7 (a) Minimize graywater discharges in areas that have heavy vessel traffic or heavy recreational use and in marine sanctuaries, national wildlife refuges, national wild and scenic rivers, and national wildern ess areas. If the vessel has the capacity to store gray water in these waters, it should be stored and later discharged in oth er waters or onshore. The Department requests that the EPA define "heavy vessel traffic" and "heavy recreational use".
2.7 (b) Minimize the production of gray water while the vessel is stationary in confined waters (e

. g., marinas, harbors). If the vessel h as the capacity to store graywater , it should be stored and discharged at an appropriately equipped onshore facility or discharged while the vessel is underway.
Please confirm that "should" means that the owner or operator is not required to store and disc harge graywater at an onshore facility or while the vessel is underway. ADEC notes that many ports in Alaska lack "appropriately equipped onshore facilities." Response: Based on this and other comments, EPA has added a definition of “ minimize ” to Appendi x A of the permit. EPA has not provided an additional definition of heavy vessel traffic or heavy recreational use as this is dependent on the size and flushing capabilities of each port. The language in Part 2.7 (b) of the permit does require minimiz ing graywater while a vessel is stationary in confined waters, but requires storage of graywater only where the vessel has the capacity to do so. Where a vessel does not have th is capacity, the vessel operator can practice management procedures to reduce gray water discharges while shoreside or stationary (e.g., not doing laundry while pierside and stationary, avoiding showers while pierside and stationary ) IF the mariner has other valid options (shoreside facility or they can reasonably wait until the vessel i s underway).

Commenter Name: Nancy Fitzpatrick, Executive Director, Oregon Salmon Commission, Oregon Albacore Commission Commenter Affiliation: Oregon Salmon Commission Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0418

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment:
2.7 GRAYWATER Subsection (c) stipulates that excess oils used during cooking not be discharged. We are at a loss trying to determine what a small vessel with primitive galley facilities is supposed to do when they wash their cooking implements. We suggest that the second sentence of this subsection be deleted.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 286 Response: Please see the response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 11 , for discussion of discharge of excess oils used during cooking.

Commenter Name: Gregory P. DiDomenico, Exe cutive Director, Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Commenter Affiliation: Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0426

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment:
2.7 GRAYWATER Subsection (c) stipulates th at excess oils used during cooking not be discharged. We are at a loss trying to determine what a small vessel with primitive galley facilities is supposed to do when they wash their cooking implements. We suggest that the second sentence of this subsectio n be deleted. Response: Please see the response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 11 , for discussion of discharge of excess oils used during cooking.

Commenter Name: Thomas M. McLaughlin, President/CEO, Seafood Producers Cooperative Commenter Affiliation: Seafood Producers Cooperative Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0427

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: Graywater , Section 2_7: The sentence regarding cooking oil should be deleted from this section. Response: Please see the response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 11 , for discussion of discharge of excess oils used during cooking.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 287 Commenter Name: Robert Leitch, Floating Plant Program Manager, US Army Corps of Engineers Commenter Affiliation: US Army Corps of Engineers Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0431

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment:
Issue 6. Greywater Reference: Small Vessel General Permit ( sVGP ), Section 2.7

– Greywater , Part (a) Discussion: Part (a) discusses minimizing gr eywater discharges in areas that have heavy vessel traffic or heavy recreational use. The terms “heavy vessel traffic” and “heavy recreational use” is opened ended and can be interpreted differently among regulators and inspectors.
Recommendation: USACE re commends providing clarity to the terms “heavy vessel traffic” and “heavy recreational use.” Response:
Please see EPA ’s response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0417

- A2 , excerpt 11 , for discussion of the term “minimize” and consideration of definitions for “heavy recreational use” and “heavy vessel traffic.”

Commenter Name: Cathy Stepp, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Commenter Affiliation: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0435

- A2 Comm ent Excerpt Number: 4
Comment:
G r aywater Graywater discharges are only required to be "minimized" in specific areas. Wisconsin DNR requests Section 2

. 7 of the draft sVGP be revised to clarify that Section 312 of the federal Clean Water Act prohibits "commercial" vessels from discharging graywater when operating on the Great Lakes

. Response:
Please see EPA ’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0413

- A2 , excerpt 4, for a discussion of graywater discharges in the Great Lakes.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 288 Commenter Name: Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Commenter Affiliation: Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0436

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment:

 Require zero graywater discharges in marine sanctuaries, national wildlife refuges, national wild and scenic rivers, and national wilderness areas. There is no reason a vessel should discharge in such sensitive and pristine areas designated due to their ecological importance. ( page 6) Response: EPA agrees that vessels should minimize graywater discharges in marine sanctuaries, national wildlife refuges, national wild and scenic rivers, and national wilderness areas; however, the Agency did not require zero discharge in these a reas. The sVGP covers all commercial vessels that are less than 79 feet in length and the types and capabilities of these vessels are diverse. Many vessels have no capacity to store graywater and therefore imposing a zero discharge standard would prevent many vessels from entering these areas.

Commenter Name: Bill Moore, Program Development Services Section Manager, Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) Commenter Affiliation: Water Quality Program, Washington State Dep artment of Ecology (ECY) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0443

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment: 2.7(a), second sentence

- Delete "later." It is unneeded and confusing. 2.7(a) says graywater should be stored and later discharged in oth er waters or onshore. Define "other waters" and make clear that "onshore" means to a permitted treatment system. Otherwise, the discharge might be to ground. Response: EPA agrees with the commenter and has modified Part 2.7(a) to incorporate this suggested change and to make clear that discharge of graywater to an onshore facility should be done at a fully equipped and permitted facility.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 289 

# Issue Category: FHD

. 7.7 Fish Hold Effluent Man agementResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 290 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 291 FHD. 7.7 Fish Hold Effluent Management
Commenter Name: Rod Moore, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Commenter Affiliation: West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment:
2.8 FISH HOLD EFFLUENT Subsection (b) prevents the discharge overboard of any unused bait unless caught “in that waterbody .” For ocean waters, how is “waterbody” defined? Is squid caught in the Pacific Ocean off California and used as bait in a crab pot in the Pacific Ocean off Oregon considered to be from the same waterbody ? If bait is lost off a hook in the course of trolling for salmon or a lbacore tuna, is the loss considered a discharge? We suggest that subsection (b) is inappropriate for commercial fishing in the ocean and that it be deleted. Subsection (c) stipulates that fish hold effluent containing solid fish waste not be discharged while in port. First, we note that the definition of “in port” includes being anchored in internal waters, a matter that we will comment on below. Second, we note that “solid fish waste” is a vague term which could include such things as scale s, bits of skin, and other small

– but solid

– particles that are often dislodged from fish being kept in a fish hold. Finally, we suggest that this provision is impossible for any vessel using a recirculating seawater system to meet. This includes vesse ls in live fish, crab, and Pacific whiting fisheries, all of which require recirculation of water. Vessels in these fisheries

– and especially in the crab and whiting fisheries

– often need to wait at a dock before their catch can be unloaded. There is n o feasible method to filter the water in their fish holds, nor is it feasible to turn off the recirculation system as that will mean loss of the fish hold contents due to either lack of oxygenated water or temperature increases which destroy the quality of the fish. Vessels on the Pacific coast will often pull into a bay for safety in the event of weather changes; they are in the same situation as a vessel waiting at a dock. We suggest this subsection be eliminated. Response: EPA disagrees with commenter that subsection (b) is inappropriate for commercial fishing in the ocean. Transport and discharge of unused live bait may contribute to the spread of invasive fish species and pathogens (e.g., see Drake et al., 2014. Can we pr edict risky human behaviour involving invasive species? A case study of the release of fishes to the wild. Biological Invasions, 1

- 18.) EPA did revise the sVGP to prohibit the discharge of unused “live” bait not caught in the same waterbody. For purposes of this permit, the entire Pacific Ocean should not be considered one waterbody, but regions of an ocean where the ecosystem and species found are similar could be regarded as part of the same waterbody. This approach for identifying a “waterbody” is con sistent for all areas covered under this permit. Frozen bait is not live so theResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 292 provision would not prevent or otherwise affect the use of frozen bait. The discharge of bait into the water during use (i.e. fishing), whether that bait is alive or dead, is not prohibited by the permit. EPA understands that bait loss will occur during fishing, but seeks to prevent unnecessary discharge of bait outside of the fishing process. EPA acknowledges commenter’s concern about the term “solid fish waste” as used in the permit. The Agency clarified the requirement applicable to this waste to be that acceptable physical separation methods include using 1⁄2 inch coarse screens or smaller, a screened hose having 1⁄2 inch screen openings or smaller, filters, or other methods to remove large solids. Solid fish waste that is separated from effluent using a coarse filter having a screen size 1⁄2” or less would be prevented from being discharged. Based on this and other comments, EPA clarified that, for purposes of the sVGP, solid fis h waste means large solid pieces of fish waste, such as fish heads or fish organs, which would not pass through a 1⁄2” screen opening. Vessel operators may use coarse filters, or they may remove solid fish waste using another method, such as by manually
remo ving it from the effluent prior to discharge. Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1, excerpt number 7 regarding use of recirculation water to keep the catch alive.

Commenter Name: Ken Franke, Sportfishing Association of California Commenter Affiliation: Sportfishing Association of California Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0385 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment:
2.2.27 Comment

– This section states “The discharge of unused bait overboard is prohibited, u nless you caught that bait in the same water body or watershed. Unused bait purchased from a bait shop or dealer may not be discharged overboard.” Our fleet is the largest live bait coastal fishing fleet in the world. These vessels discharge unused live b ait and some of the dead bait in the bottom of the bait tanks, prior to entering the harbor at the end of a day. At times this is a large amount of live bait. It is caught from the local watershed and is in compliance with the first sentence of the regulat ion, but because it is purchased from a live bait “dealer” it would be a violation of the second sentence. Removing the bait to be in compliance of this section would require letting the bait die in the tanks, then scooping it out by hand, and then taking it to a dumpster thus creating a smelly and unsanitary situation in the tourism center of our harbors. We recommend this section be removed. From an ecological standpoint the lobsters and crabs and coastal fish naturally feed of these bait fish. Response: Based on this and other comments, EPA has clarified that the prohibition of unused bait applies only to unused live bait not caught in the same watershed. The permit also allows unused liveResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 293 bait purchased from a bait shop or dealer to be discharged overboa rd, provided the permittee can document the origin of the bait and that it came from the same waterbody. Due to the risk posed by the live bait in introducing invasive species when that bait comes from other waterbodies (e.g., see Drake et al. 2014), EPA h as prohibited the release of unused live bait in this permit. EPA advises that permittees should either seek live bait from the same waterbody, use all of the bait they bring on a given day, save the bait for the next fishing trip, or make arrangements to kill the residual live bait if it does not come from the same waterbody.

Commenter Name: Stanley Mack, Mayor, Aleutians East Borough (AEB) Commenter Affiliation: Aleutians East Borough (AEB) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0390

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: 2.8 Fish Hold Effluent (p.7)
The AEB is extremely concerned about the impacts of a prohibition on discharging fish hold effluent that contains solid fish waste while in port and at the pier unless a physical separation method is used. Salmon seine vessels offloading to tender vessels while “in port” simply separate salmon from the refrigerated seawater, the fish are offloaded to the tender and the seawater is pumped through a screened hose and discharged directly over the side . The requirement for additional filtration of fish solids from fish hold effluent may well require construction of additional filtering systems that are not currently required. It is not clear if this requirement is adequately reflected in the sVGP cost a nalysis for small vessels operating in our Region 10 fisheries. ( See 76 FR 76724) Additionally, salmon seine vessels offloading at a pier operate in much the same way

-- fish are offloaded to the shore side facility and the seawater is separated from the fish and pumped over the side. However, the EPA is requiring that all reasonable steps be taken to prevent the discharge of excess fish hold water while stationary at the pier. [Note, it is unclear here if the filtration requirement is a prerequisite for pier side discharge as well as in port discharges as specified in 2.8(C)

– for the purposes of our comments we assume it to apply in both locations]. We recommend the EPA consider the follow ing: (1) provide an “in port” exemption for discharges of fish hold refrigerated seawater containing fish waste if taken from the nearby surrounding environment if there is no other technically feasible alternative; (2) encourage best management practices for the screening of fish hold effluent being discharged overboard using a pump hose outfitted with a non

- standardized wire mesh screen; (3) provide a minimum tolerance level for fish hold effluent that can be discharged at the pier (e.g. 1,000 gallons or less) beyond which a physical separation method must be required.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 294 Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0417

- A2, excerpt number 13 regarding physical separation methods for fish hold effluent. Note that the requirement to use physical separation methods for solids from fish hold effluent applies to both pier side and port side discharges. Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0440

- A2, excerpt number 4 regarding a minimum tolerance level for fis h hold effluent that can be discharged at a pier without physical separation.

Commenter Name: Thomas M. Gemmell, Executive Director, United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Commenter Affiliation: United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Document C ontrol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0400

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment:
9. sVGP Section 2.8. a. This section speaks to bait "you caught". In reality, most bait is purchased from a local processor or other fishermen and consists mostly of bait from the local area (.e.g. cod, salmon, herring, etc). Can locally caught, but purchased, bait be discarded? What is a waterbody

— are you talking the scale of the Gulf of Alaska, North Pacific Ocean, or a bay? Putting local bait back into the water is simpl y returning nutrients back to the ecosystem they came from. In fact in many fisheries, groundfish longline and shellfish, this bait is put back in the water in order to catch target fish species. b. "...prevent the discharge of excess fish hold water and ic e while the vessel is stationary at the pier...". While this guideline is not necessary in many instances, we have one question. If the vessel is moored in a current, is that adequate to disperse the fish hold ice and water. After all what difference does it make if the vessel is moving through the water or the water is moving by the vessel? c. The restrictions you are attempting to impose on fish hold effluent in port are unnecessarily strict in most areas in Alaska, especially those with strong tidal flushing or currents. In addition, forcing the cleaning of fish holds while the vessel is un derway may create unnecessary safety risks to both vessels and crew. Response: Please see EPA’s responses to comment numbers EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1, excerpt number 12 and EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 0150

- 0385, excerpt number 1 regarding discharging unused bait,Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 295 and EP A

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0414

- A2, excerpt number 3 regarding environmental concerns associated with such discharges. Also, EPA disagrees with commenter that the permit forces the cleaning of fish holds while the vessel is underway and thereby creates unnecessar y safety risks to both vessels and crew. The permit does not require vessels to undertake any activity that may create a safety hazard. The permit states that vessels must take “[a]ll reasonable steps” in preventing such discharge; actions that create a t hreat to safety would not be considered “reasonable” and should be avoided. The cleaning of fish holds while pierside is allowed, as long as detergents and cleaners are non

- toxic, phosphate free, and biodegradable (see Part 3.8(d) of the sVGP), and residu al solids are not washed into the surrounding waters. EPA also disagrees with commenter that the restrictions for fish hold effluent are unnecessarily strict for discharges in ports in Alaska because of strong tidal flushing and currents or at piers where a vessel is moored in a current. Although tidal flushing and many other environmental circumstantial factors affect the degree to which fish hold effluent causes an adverse environmental impact, those effects cannot be easily quantified. The sVGP requires that all reasonable steps be taken to prevent the discharge of excess fish hold effluent in all near

- shore waters as this is a reasonable management practice to reduce the discharge of pollutants. Additionally, EPA notes that the fish hold requirements of the permit are technology

- based effluent limits (TBELs) that are designed to reduce pollutant discharges. EPA did not consider factors such as tidal flushing and currents when developing limits based on the capacity of technology.

Commenter Name: Beth Mo ore, General Permit Coordinator, Water Quality, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Commenter Affiliation: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0401

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comme nt: 2.8 FISH HOLD EFFLUENT requires the following (a) If you are unloading your catch at a shore

- based seafood processor or other pier and a shore

based discharge facility is available and economically achievable, you must discharge your effluent (includ ing dirty ice) to that shore

- based facility instead of discharging to surrounding waters. DEQ's Comment: Part 2.8 refers to two shore

- based facilities. Is shore

- based the same as land

based? Please clarify what is meant by "that" shore

- hased facility in (a ) above.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 296 Response: EPA acknowledges commenter’s confusion regarding “shore

- based” facilities and notes that shore

- based and land

- based facilities are considered one in the same. The permit and fact sheet now refer to these as “shore

- based.” Discharges t o shore

- based facilities are to those facilities capable of handling this effluent, which may be a different shore

- based facility than the seafood processor.

Commenter Name: Kathy Hansen, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Commenter Affiliation: Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: Fish Hold Effluent on page 7, section 2.8: The prohibition on the discharge of unused bait is ridiculous. The bait used during the course of fishing whether on hooks or in pots would have already introduced to the waters being fished. What makes the unused bait different? You would already have introduced invasive species to the waterway. This s ection needs to be deleted and bait that is from the local waters, been frozen or cured is exempted from any discharge prohibitions. In other words prohibit the use of live bait that is not from the local area/ waterbody to prevent the spread of invasive s pecies. The requirements to off

- load fish hold effluent at a shoreside facility should be deleted and instead a simple best management practice be recommended instead that states “fish hold effluent pumps will be screened to prevent particles larger than a 1⁄2” from being pumped overboard. Larger particles separated from the effluent must be disposed of as garbage per Marpol Annex 5 regulations or at a shoreside facility disposal site. The restrictions of pumping fish hold effluent and ice in port is problem atic particularly with the definition of “in

port”. Requiring processors to handle all fish hold effluent is an economic hardship, causes backup in the plants because it ties up the unloading facilities. Response: EPA disagrees with commenter that permit should prohibit the use of live bait that is not from the local area/waterbody to prevent the spread of invasive species. EPA did modify the provisions in this section of the permit to clarify that the discharge of unused “live” bait that is not from the local area/waterbody is prohibited; however, t he discharge of bait into the water during use (i.e. fishing), whether that bait is alive or dead, is not prohibited by the permit. Please see also EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1, excerptResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 297 number 12 and EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0385, excerpt number 1 for additional discussion on unused live bait.

Also, EPA disagrees with commenter that the Agency should delete the requirement for fish hold effluent to be discharged to a shore

- based fac ility. Consistent with the commenter’s argument that requiring processors to handle all fish hold effluent is an economic hardship, the permit provides that discharge to the shore

- based facility is only required if its use is economically achievable and t hat facility either has a valid NPDES permit or discharges to an NPDES

permitted sewage treatment plant.

Commenter Name: Kathy Hansen, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Commenter Affiliation: Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 23
Comment:
EPA Fish Hold Effluent and Fish Hold Cleaning Wastewater Discharge Report (Supporting Document) : This report contains false and misleading information. The descriptions of types of vessels, discharges, and practices should be re

- examined. It is obvious that this was written by individuals with no knowledge of commercial fishing. Page 3

– 3 rd paragraph: We believe that the st atement, Almost all purse seiners, tenders and crabbing vessels have RSW systems, while hook and line and set net vessels use ice tanks. A vessel with an installed RSW system would not use the tanks as ice tanks even if their gear type changed.” To state that most crabbing vessels have RSW tanks is not accurate. The vessels that SEAFA represent are multi

- gear and the type of refrigeration depends upon the vessel and the species/fishery. There are vessels that have RSW systems installed on board that will use the RSW for salmon, circulating seawater for crab and ice for halibut. Page 4

- 2.1 Lobster/Crabber

- 1 st paragraph: Vessels catch Dungeness , king and snow crab are typically 50 feet and 150 feet in length and are larger than crab boats used along the East Coast and Gulf Coast for catching blue crabs. This is untrue in Southeast Alaska, Dungeness crab boats are open skiffs to larger vessels, SE Red King Crab, Golden King Crab and Tanner crab vessels are average length of 45 foot to 80 foot, while crab vessels in the Bering Sea are probably closer to 100 to 150 feet in length. Page 4

- 2.3 Fish Tenders: Tenders participate in a variety of fisheries including but not limited to crab, salmon, groundfish , and halibut. In Southeast Alaska tenders purchase on the grounds all species of salmon, not just chum, they also tender in other fisheries such as crab.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 298 Page 5

– 2.4 Gillnetter : In Alaska, most salmon caught by gillnetters are sold and delivered in the round not gutted on

- board as provided in the descr iption. Not all fish harvested by a gillnetter are dead when pulled onboard. Whether a fish is alive or dead is dependent upon the amount of time between setting and picking the net. Fishermen are encouraged to keep their nets picked often in order to p roduce a better quality product (i.e. pick the net while the fish are alive). Page 5

– 2.5 Longliner : In Alaska, longliners are quite diverse in length from skiffs to large vessels and it is impossible to put an average size to the vessels just as you can’t generalize the length of a longline and the amount of soak time. In many areas in Alaska if you soaked a longline more t han 6 hours you wouldn’t have a fish left because of the sand fleas. Some longlines are fairly short with a hundred hooks. The fact sheet also mis

- quotes Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Association that some longliners “clean their fish holds between each off

- load while others add fresh ice to the tanks before leaving on another fishing trip and clean their fish holds periodically”. What Attachment A (page A

- 4) states is that “longliners almost always clean their tanks between each offload”. Page 10

- Section 4, 4 th paragraph: It states that “small fishing vessels such as salmon trollers and longliners in Alaska, off

- load the catch daily and also clean the fish hold tanks daily.” In the descriptions previous, you describe trollers as skiffs to large ocean

- go ing vessels and Longliners as vessels typically 50 to 100 feet so how did they now get to be small vessels. We also do not believe that even the small vessels within these fleets deliver daily and clean the fish hold tanks daily. A typical trip would be five days long. Occasionally a vessel will do a short day trip for a variety of reasons but it is not the standard for the majority of troll species harvested and longline trips unless the amount of quota left to harvest is that small. Page 11

– Table sho uld be reevaluated completely. Since you are using the US Coast Guard database for vessels and not factoring in state registered vessels, we believe that you have not accurately reflected the fishing fleet in Alaska. (We can’t speak for the rest of the Co untry since we are not familiar with the different fisheries.) Page 12

– Section 5, 3 rd paragraph: The description of Seafood Producers Cooperative ( SPC ) located in Sitka , Alaska is in inaccurate. The majority of their fleet is made up of Trollers , follo wed by longliners and then gillnetters

. Page 14

– Section 6, 2 nd paragraph: While some facilities may have the capability to accept fish hold effluent, you are not considering the economic impact on the seafood processor in terms of cost (Alaska is high e lectricity costs, lost production because unloading the ice is taking the same length of time as it would for the next vessel to unload, and the workforce/labor to handle the dirty ice/fish hold effluent. This is not practical. The draft sVGP permit did n ot consider those areas including harbors and by processing plants where there is sufficient tidal action that fish hold effluent shouldn’t be an issue due to the flushing action in the area.
Attachment A

– page A

- 2: Telephone Call Record for Sitka Sound Co

- op

– name is actually Seafood Producers Cooperative (SPC) it states in the third paragraph that, “Salmon and BlackResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 299 Cod are sold as whole fish so require little processing at the facility itself.” While this is true of black cod, the majority of the sal mon are troll dressed (i.e. gutted & gilled).
Attachment A

– page A

- 7: Telephone Call Record for United Fishermen of Alaska. In the third paragraph, it states that an installed RSW system would not use the tanks as ice tanks even if their gear type chang ed. This is not necessarily true, some vessels with RSW capability will still use slush ice or ice depending upon the fishery they are participating in and the cost that the processors will pay for the type of chilling system used. Processors will on som e species pay more for fish that are RSW chilled and therefore it is cost effective for the fishermen to run the engine for the RSW. If the processor isn’t paying the extra money then the fisherman might choose to get ice from the processor and use slush ice instead. Processors prefer halibut to be dry iced rather than held in slush ice or RSW. Response:
EPA received a number of comments on the Fish Hold Effluent and Fish Hold Cleaning Wastewater Discharge Report , a supporting document. EPA appreciates t he time taken to read and analyze the Report, and has taken all of the comments into account in the context of the sVGP. Any changes to that Report are outside the scope of this permitting action.

Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: Fish Hold Effluent ( sVGP page 7 section 2.8 & VGP section 2.2.27): This section is particularly burdensome and worrisome to the commercial fishing industry. For illustrative purposes we will use section 2.8 of the sVGP to work our way through this issue but it is are also germane to the VGP fish hold effluent section. (a) If you are unloading your catch at a shore based seafood processor or other pier and a shore

based discharge facility is available and economically achievable, you must discharge your effluent (including dirty ice) to that shore

- based facility instead of discharging to surrounding waters. What is the standard of “economically achievable”? UFA believes that EPA doesn’t understand that trying to unload dirty ice to a shore

- based facility is extremely burdensome to the processor, slows down unloading of fish and the only thing you have gained is filter out fish parts larger than 1⁄2” grind. (b) Do not discard any unused bait overboard, unless you caught that bait in that waterbody or watershed. Unused bait purchased from a bait shop or dealer may not be discharg ed overboard. This section does not make any sense. What is the definition of waterbody or watershed? How far away can fresh bait harvested be used? Bait that is purchased is usually the same bait as couldResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 300 be harvested by the individual or harvested in an earlier season and frozen but the fishery resource is from the local waterbody /watershed. In the proposed Small Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet page 30 & 31 it states that “prohibiting the discard of unused bait, . . . will prevent the spread or dispersal of potentially invasive species if the bait are invasive species or are contaminated with invasive pathogens.” What logic prevents unused bait from being discarded in the waters you were fishing in, as any different than the bait you used on the hooks or in the pots etc. that end up in the same waters? Response: Regarding the term “economically achievable” when discussing fish hold effluent discharges to shore

- based facilities, see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0417

- A2, excerpt num ber 12. Regarding unused bait, see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1, excerpt number 12.

Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska Docu ment Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: Recommendations: Provide an exemption for ambient seawater circulating through crustacean tanks to keep the species alive. Define “fish waste”, “residuals” and “physical separation” or clarify that solid fish parts larger than 1⁄2” must be separated from the fish hold effluent. This is a simple solution that allows the use of screens when pumping overboard the effluent. Please reference the comments submitted by Alaska State Legislators, joint comments by At

- Sea Processors Association & Freezer Longline Coali tion, West Coast Seafood Processors Association and Alaska Groundfish Data Bank on the issue of Fish hold effluent for additional details, and descriptions and recommendations on this point source. Response: In response to concerns regarding the feasibil ity of filtration for vessels that use re

- circulating seawater tanks to keep their catch alive, EPA revised the VGP to clarify these vessels are not required to meet the conditions identified by commenters as threatening their ability to keep that catch al ive. Regarding commenter’s request to define “fish waste,” “residuals,” and “physical separation,” in the permit itself, EPA notes that the commenters did not provide specific language for these definitions absent conventional or uniformly used definitions . In order to further characterize these terms, EPA has revised the sVGP to state “if large solid pieces of fish waste are containedResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 301 in the fish hold effluent (e.g., fish heads and internal organs) the fish hold effluent may not be discharged while the ves sel is pier

- side unless a physical separation method is used (e.g., 1⁄2 inch or less coarse screens, a screened hose having 1⁄2 inch screen openings or less, filters, or other methods to remove large solids).” This permit requirement is not intended to remove liquids such as blood, fish slime and fish oils since these items would pass through a 1⁄2 inch coarse screen.

Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska Document Co ntrol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 21
Comment: (d) Minimize foam or floating solids. See previous comment above about seafood processing and the guts, gills, shells etc would be solids disposed of that might at times float for short intervals. Foam can be created by circulating seawater for keeping shellfish species alive. Response: See EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1, excerpt number 7 regarding foam and floating solids.

Commenter Nam e: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 27
Comment: Fish Hold Effluent and Fish Hold Cleaning Wastewater Discharge Report (Supporting Documents) : This report contains false and misleading information. The descriptions of types of vessels, discharges, and practices should be re

- examined. It is obvious that this was written by individuals with no kno wledge of commercial fishing. Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1, excerpt number 23.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 302 Commenter Name: Craig Urness, General Counsel, Pacific Seafood Group and Pacific Fishing, LLC Commenter Affiliation: Pa cific Seafood Group and Pacific Fishing, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0407

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment:
2.8 FISH HOLD EFFLUENT Subsection (b) prevents the discharge overboard of any unused bait unless caught “in that waterbody .” For ocean waters, how is “waterbody” defined? Is squid caught in the Pacific Ocean off California and used as bait in a crab pot in the Pacific Ocean off Oregon considered to be from the same waterbody ? If bait is lost off a hook in th e course of trolling for salmon or albacore tuna, is the loss considered a discharge? We suggest that subsection (b) is inappropriate for commercial fishing in the ocean and that it be deleted. Subsection (c) stipulates that fish hold effluent containing solid fish waste not be discharged while in port. First, we note that the definition of “in port” includes being anchored in internal waters, a matter that we will comment on below. Second, we note that “solid fish waste” is a vague term whic h could include such things as scales, bits of skin, and other small

– but solid

– particles that are often dislodged from fish being kept in a fish hold. Finally, we suggest that this provision is impossible for any vessel using a recirculating seawater system to meet. This includes vessels in live fish, crab, and Pacific whiting fisheries, all of which require recirculation of water. Vessels in these fisheries

– and especially in the crab and whiting fisheries

– often need to wait at a dock before thei r catch can be unloaded. There is no feasible method to filter the water in their fish holds, nor is it feasible to turn off the recirculation system as that will mean loss of the fish hold contents due to either lack of oxygenated water or temperature in creases which destroy the quality of the fish. Vessels on the Pacific coast will often pull into a bay for safety in the event of weather changes; they are in the same situation as a vessel waiting at a dock. We suggest this subsection be eliminated.
Res ponse: See EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1, excerpt number 12.

Commenter Name: Dale Kelley, Executive Director, Alaska Trollers Association (ATA) Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Trollers Association (ATA) Document Control Num ber: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0409

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment:Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 303 The troll fleet is 87% Alaska resident and a large percentage of permit holders live in small, rural communities. The third largest town in Alaska

– and biggest in our region

- is Juneau with a population of less than 30,000. Many Alaska troll ports do not have sewers or the infrastructure and services to cope with such things as receiving used ice from fishing vessels. Even the larger towns would be hard pressed to provide such sup port. Response: V essels are only required to transfer fish hold effluent to a shore

- based facility in ports where such facilities exist and are specifically designed to handle fish hold effluent. Vessels are not required to discharge fish hold effluent to shore

- based facilities that are not set up to handle fish hold effluent and that are thus unable to process the effluent. Second, even if such a facility did exist at the port in which the fishing vessel is unloading its catch, the vessel would not be
r equired to transfer its fish hold effluent to that shore

- based facility if doing so would not be economically achievable. Several commenters requested a definition of the term “economically achievable.” Some criteria that EPA considers relevant in determin ing whether transfer of fish hold effluent to a shore

- based facility is economically achievable include: whether the shore

based facility has been designed to receive fish hold effluent; whether the vessel and the shore

based facility currently have the in frastructure to transfer the effluent from the vessel to shore

based receiving facility; whether the receiving facility has the hydraulic capacity to handle the fish hold effluent volume; whether such transfer would impair the quality of the catch; and whe ther the transfer would not unduly delay the departure of the fishing vessel.

Commenter Name: Alexis Cooper, Executive Director, Board of Directors, Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU) Commenter Affiliation: Board of Directors, Cordova District Fi shermen United (CDFU) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0414

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment:
Fish Hold Effluent : The entire article is impractical to uphold. Most processors shore based or otherwise are not equipped to receive the volu me of fish hold effluent this permit would require and the city sewage infrastructure could not handle the volume. There is no perceived problem with fish hold effluent in this region. Isn’t this just reintroduction into the environment from whence it came ...having no negative impact on water quality. Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0409

- A1, excerpt number 3 regarding the requirement to discharge fish hold effluent to shore

- based facilities.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 304 In response to the commenter’s assertion that there is no perceived problem with fish hold effluent, EPA notes that in addition to the pollutants from fish hold cleaning, fish hold effluent also may contain waste fish parts or other materials generated by fish cleaning, unus ed bait, solids, oils, nutrients, bacteria, and viruses. Fish hold effluent may create scum and foam, produce a visible slick or sheen on surface waters, generate odors, and exert oxygen demand in receiving waters. This discharge also has the potential to introduce ANS into receiving waters.

Commenter Name: Michelle Bonnett, Director, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (A DEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0417

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment:
2.8 FISH HOLD EFFLUENT
2.8 (a) If you are unloading your catch at a shore

- based seafood processor or other pier and a shore

- based discharge facility is available and economically achievable, you must discharge your effluent (including dirty ice) to that shore

- based facility instead of discharging to surrounding waters. The Department requests that the EPA define "economically achievable." Response: While EPA does not define the term “economically achievable” in the permit, s ome criteria that EPA considers relevant in determining whether transfer of fish hold effluent to a shore

- based facility is “economically ach ievable” include: whether the shore

- based facility has been designed to receive fish hold effluent; whether the vessel and the shore

- based facility currently have the infrastructure to transfer the effluent from the vessel to shore

- based receiving facility ; whether the receiving facility has the hydraulic capacity to handle the fish hold effluent volume; whether such transfer would impair the quality of the catch; and whether the transfer would not unduly delay the departure of the fishing vessel.

Commente r Name: Michelle Bonnett, Director, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Division of Water, Water Quality Section D ocument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0417

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 13Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 305 Comment: 2.8 (b) Do not discard any unused bait overboard, unless you caught that bait in that waterbody or watershed. Unused bait purchased from a bait s hop or dealer may not be discharged overboard.
The draft sVGP Fact Sheet Section 4.8 states "Prohibiting the discard of unused bait, unless the bait was caught in that water body or watershed, will prevent the spread or dispersal of potentially invasive species if the bait are invasive species or are contaminated with invasive pathogens." Please specify if this is live bait only.
If this also applies to frozen bait, the Department questions the environmental benefit gained from this provision. First, bait used in the fi shing process is dead and cannot propagate. Discarding overboard unused bait has little potential to spread or disperse invasive species, particularly if that bait has been frozen. Second, since the bait is placed in the waterbodies during fishing operations, it is not clear why that action would not spread invasive species but discarding used bait would. Additionally, unused bait is often stored in bait holds and not fish holds. The permit prohibits discarding unused bait from fish holds, but not bait holds. Bait held in fish holds is often landed with fish from the ocean and is therefore "used" bait, and therefore should be able to be discarded in compliance with the permit. 2.8 (c) Minimize the discharge of fish hold water or ice w hile in port. All reasonable steps must be taken to prevent the discharge of excess fish hold water and ice while the vessel is stationary at the pier. If solid fish waste is contained in the fish hold effluent, the fish hold effluent may not be discharged while in port, unless a physical separation method is used (e.g. filters or removal of residuals). The Department requests that the EPA define "reasonable steps". Additionally, salmon seine vessels and Refrigerated Seawater ( RSW ) equipped gillnetters offl oading while rafted to tender vessels or themselves pier side while "in port" simply separate salmon from the refrigerated seawater. The fish are offloaded to the tender and the seawater is pumped through a screened hose and discharged directly over the si de. The requirement for additional filtration of fish solids from fish hold effluent may well require construction of additional filtering systems that are not currently required. It is not clear if this requirement is adequately reflected in the sVGP cost analysis for small vessels operating in our Region 10 fisheries. (See 76 FR 76724). This requirement may inadvertently encourage vessel operators to leave the safety of the pier to discharge underway, while at the same time the vessel would have a partial liquid load in the fish hold. This condition could result in an unsafe vessel stability issue caused by free

- space free

- surface effect of the partial liquid load sloshing uncontrollably in the hold.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 306 Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1, excerpt number 12 regarding unused bait. Regarding commenter’s statement that the permit prohibits discharging unused bait from fish holds but not bait holds. For purposes of the sVGP, however, EPA interprets the discha rge of unused live bait from a bait hold and a fish hold to be indistinguishable. Though EPA believes the practice should be generally avoided, EPA agrees with the commenter that “used” bait from fish (or bait) holds could be discarded into waters subject to the permit, as long as the used bait taken from the fish (or bait) hold is dead. Any unused live bait remaining in the fish (or bait) hold can only be discharged if it was obtained from the same water body; any discharge of live bait from a fish (or bai t) hold from a different water body would be a permit violation. Regarding the commenter’s request to define what would be considered “reasonable steps” that must be taken to prevent the discharge of excess fish hold effluent. EPA responds that fishing
ves sels should use a common sense approach to determining reasonableness. For example, any actions which would pose a threat to safety, incur excessive costs, or unduly delay the vessel would be considered unreasonable. Discharges while a vessel is underway t hat could result in an unsafe vessel stability issue and pose a threat to safety would not be considered “reasonable” and should be avoided. Finally, EPA is unclear of the additional costs for filtration of fish solids from fish hold effluents described by commenter since the commenter notes that the seawater is pumped through a screened hose and discharged directly over the side. Provided this screened hose has a 1⁄2 inch or smaller openings, additional solids control of this discharge is unnecessary. EPA assumed no additional equipment costs for meeting this requirement in the sVGP, although this does not preclude permittees from having to install any necessary equipment to meet permit requirements. Vessel operators may use coarse filters, or they may rem ove solid fish waste using another method, such as by manually removing it from the effluent prior to discharge. As stated in the Economic Analysis, the use of coarse filters is already recommended by the Codex Alimentarius.

Commenter Name: Nancy Fitzp atrick, Executive Director, Oregon Salmon Commission, Oregon Albacore Commission Commenter Affiliation: Oregon Salmon Commission Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0418

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment:
2.8 FISH HOLD EFFLUENTResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 307 Subsection (b) prevents the discharge overboard of any unused bait unless caught “in that waterbody.” For ocean waters, how is “waterbody” defined? Is squid caught in the Pacific Ocean off California and used as bait in a crab pot in the Pacific Ocean off Oregon con sidered to be from the same waterbody ? If bait is lost off a hook in the course of trolling for salmon or albacore tuna, is the loss considered a discharge? We suggest that subsection (b) is inappropriate for commercial fishing in the ocean and that it be deleted. Subsection (c) stipulates that fish hold effluent containing solid fish waste not be discharged while in port. First, we note that the definition of “in port” includes being anchored in internal waters, a matter that we will comment on below. Seco nd, we note that “solid fish waste” is a vague term which could include such things as scales, bits of skin, and other small

– but solid

– particles that are often dislodged from fish being kept in a fish hold. Vessels on the Pacific coast will often pull into a bay for safety in the event of weather changes; they are in the same situation as a vessel waiting at a dock. We suggest this subsection be eliminated. Response: See EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1, excerpt number 12.

Commenter Name: Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Commenter Affiliation: Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0426

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 13
Comment:
2.8 FISH HOLD EFFLUENT Subsection (b) prevents the discharge overboard of any unused bait unless caught “in that waterbody.” For ocean waters, how is “waterbody” defined? The impacts of this are potentially enormous; consider that New Jersey fisheries h arvesting squid, Atlantic herring, Atlantic mackerel and Atlantic menhaden, to varying degrees, are often frozen and shipped all over the United States for use as bait and chum (macerated fish) . Is it the intent of the EPA to prohibit and chum from New Je rsey entering a “waterbody” in the Gulf of Mexico? The reliance upon our bait products is essential to commercial and recreational fisheries all over the United States. We suggest that subsection (b) is an inappropriate standard for commercial fishing in t he ocean and that it be deleted. Subsection (c) stipulates that fish hold effluent containing solid fish waste not be discharged while in port. First, we note that the definition of “in port” includes being anchored in internal waters, a matter that we wil l comment on below. Second, we note that “solid fish waste” is aResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 308 vague term which could include such things as scales, bits of skin, and other small

– but solid

– particles that are often dislodged from fish being kept in a fish hold. Finally, we suggest t hat this provision is impossible for any vessel using a refrigerated seawater system to meet. Refrigerated seawater systems are found on vessels both over and under the arbitrary 79 foot cutoff proposed in these permits, including vessels in many of our pe lagic fisheries including loligo squid, illex squid, Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel. Furthermore offshore lobster fisheries keep their product alive by the use of refrigerated seawater. In addition, our gillnet fisheries routinely hold many different species in a large container of ice slurry on deck, to maintain product quality. Vessels in these fisheries often need to wait at a dock before their catch can be unloaded. There is no feasible method to filter the water in their fish holds, nor is it feasible to turn off the recirculation system as that will mean loss of the fish hold contents due to either lack of oxygenated water or temperature increases which destroy the quality of the fish. For the ice slurry mi xture, what would a vessel do with that after the fish has been removed? We suggest this subsection be eliminated. Response: See EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1, excerpt number 12 regarding discharging unused bait. Also, see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1, excerpt number 7 regarding use of recirculation water to keep the catch alive.

Commenter Name: Thomas M. McLaughlin, President/CEO, Seafood Producers Cooperative Commenter Affiliation: Seafo od Producers Cooperative Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0427

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: Fish Hold Effluent, Section 2.8: There is confusion between the permit and the fact sheet (page 16, section 3.7.1 of the sVGP fact sheet) r egarding the coverage of this permit and what is allowed regarding fish hold effluent. The fact sheet implies that the sVGP permit does not cover a vessel that is tied to a seafood facility which is when some of the fish hold effluent is discharged. Respon se: See response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1, excerpt 21.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 309 Commenter Name: Thomas M. McLaughlin, President/CEO, Seafood Producers Cooperative Commenter Affiliation: Seafood Producers Cooperative Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 201 1

- 0150

- 0427

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: EPA Report
- Fish Hold Effluent and Fish Hold Cleaning Wastewater Discharge:
Section I

- Introduction: page 2; Section 5 page 12
EXPLAIN SPC Policy on fish hold and dirty ice and then how it is processed. Responding to comment in last paragraph on page 2, last paragraph on page 12 (include correction of SPC's fleet) If you have any idea of what the cost to deal with dirty ice in the plant costs SPC might comment if significantly different than table and te xt on page 14. Check out page A
- 2 and make any corrections that you think appropriate here
- like the comment that the salmon are sold in the round. Response:
EPA received a number of comments on the Fish Hold Effluent and Fish Hold Cleaning Wastewater Dis charge Report , a supporting document. EPA appreciates the time taken to read and analyze the Report, and has taken all of the comments into account in the context of the sVGP. Any changes to that Report are outside the scope of this permitting action.

Commenter Name: Beth Kerttula, Representative, House District 3, Alaska State Legislature et al. Commenter Affiliation: Alaska State Legislature, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0439

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment:
In review ing your draft regulations we also know that many of the changes that would be required for operators to be compliant could potentially be dangerous to the vessel and the crew. For instance, to discharge effluent containing minimal amounts of fish waste, v essels could have to leave the safety of nearshore calm waters, which is particularly unsafe (as the Coast Guard could certainly confirm). Along with the Aleutians East Borough ( AEB ), we would like to express our concerns with the proposed sVGP

.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 310 Response : Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0400

- A1, excerpt number 10 regarding washing fish holds.

Commenter Name: Beth Kerttula, Representative, House District 3, Alaska State Legislature et al. Commenter Affiliation: Alaska State Legislature, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0439

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: 2.8 Fish Hold Effluent (p.7)
As with AEB , we are extremely concerned about the impacts of a prohibition on discharging fish hold effluent that contains solid fish waste while in port and at the pier unless a physical separation method is used. Salmon seine vessels offloading to tender vessels while "in port" simply separate salmon from the refrigerated seawater, the fish are offloaded to the tender and the seawater is pumped through a screened hose and discharged directly over the side. The requirement for additional filtration of fish solids from fish hold effluent may well require construction of additional filtering systems that are not cu rrently required. It is not clear if this requirement is adequately reflected in the sVGP cost analysis for small vessels operating in our Region 10 fisheries. (See 76 FR 76724) Additionally, salmon seine vessels offloading at a pier operate in much the sa me way -- fish are offloaded to the shore side facility and the seawater is separated from the fish and pumped over the side. However, the EPA is requiring that all reasonable steps be taken to prevent the discharge of excess fish hold water while stationary at the pier. [Note, it is unclear here if the filtration requirement is a prerequisite for pier side discharge as well as in port discharges as specified in 2.8(C)

- for the purposes of our comments we assume it to apply in both locations]. We recommend the EPA consider the follow ing: (1) provide an "in port" exemption for discharges of fish hold refrigerated seawater containing fish waste if taken from the nearby surrounding environment if there is no other technically feasible alternative; (2) encourage best management practices for the screening of fish hold effluent being discharged overboard using a pump hose outfitted with a non

- standardized wire mesh screen; (3) provide a minimum tolerance level for fish hold effluent that can be discharged at the pier (e.g. 1,000 gallons or less) beyond which a physical separation method must be required. Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0390

- A2, excerpt number 5.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 311 Commenter Name: Diane Pleschner

- Steele, Executive Director, California Wetfish Produce rs Association (CWPA) Commenter Affiliation: California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0440

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment:
2.8 Fish Hold Effluent (p.7)
CWPA members offload fish products at p ier

-- ‐ side operations whereby both fishery products and water are pumped into the shore

-- ‐ side facility. However, there is ultimately some minor discharge of fish hold effluent into the surrounding waters. We recommend the EPA provide a minimum tolerance level for fish hold effluent that can be discharged at the pier (e.g. 1,000 gallons or less) beyond which a physical separation method must be required. Response: EPA disagrees with commenter that a minimum tolerance level for fish hold effluent be esta blished below which physical separation is not required. EPA acknowledges that there will be some minor discharge of fish hold effluent into the surrounding waters when fishery products are pumped into the shore

- based facility; however, the commenter pro vides no basis for their request to establish a threshold quantity discharged below which physical separation is not required.

Commenter Name: Bill Moore, Program Development Services Section Manager, Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) Commenter Affiliation: Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0443

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment: 2.8(b)

- This does not belong in the Fish Hold Efflu ent section. Move 2.8(b) into its own section or change the section title. 2.8(b), first sentence

- Add "live" just before "bait." 2.8(b)

- Add a third sentence: "Dead unused bait may not be discharged in confined or nearshore waters."Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 312 2.8

- Add "(e) Any p ierside discharge resulting in visible solids, foam, or sheen is a violation of water quality standards and this permit. If onshore disposal is unavailable, permittees must plan for discharge in open water while underway."
2.8

- Should exempt water from cr abbers that is pumped through holding tanks for the sole purpose of keeping the catch alive and then is immediately discharged. Response: EPA agrees with commenter that the requirements for unused bait do not fit in the “Fish Hold Effluent” section of the permit. Those unused bait requirements have been move to Part 2.4, Solid and Liquid Waste Management. Also, several commenters requested clarification of whether the prohibition on the discard of unused bait applied only to live bait. The movement of liv e bait between watersheds has been identified as a mechanism to introduce potentially invasive bait fish species to new habitats. For example, two major invasions to the San Francisco Bay

– the European green crab ( Carcinus
maenas ) and the rough periwinkle snale ( Littorina saxatilis ) are thought to have been introduced by live bait releases. EPA agrees with these commenters and has inserted the word “live” before the word “bait” to clarify that the permit prohibits only the discharge of unused live bait tha t is not caught from the same watershed. The discharge of bait into the water during use (i.e. fishing), whether that bait is alive or dead, is not prohibited by the permit. EPA understands that bait loss will occur during fishing, but seeks to prevent unn ecessary discharge of bait outside of the fishing process. Also, EPA disagrees with commenter that the permit should clarify that any pierside discharge resulting in visible solids, foam, or sheen is a violation of water quality standards and this permit and that if onshore disposal is unavailable, permittees must plan for discharge in open water while underway. EPA has included a general technology

- based requirement in Part 2.1 of the permit to minimize the discharge of pollutants such as foam or floati ng solids because EPA believes that they are feasible and economically practicable and achievable. As used in the permit, the term “minimize” means to reduce and/or eliminate to the extent achievable using control measures (including best management practi ces) that are technologically available and economically practicable and achievable in light of best marine practice. Thus, in certain instances (e.g., when not economically practicable and achievable), vessels may discharge pollutants such as foam or flo ating solids. See also EPA’s response to comment number EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1, excerpt number 19, for additional discussion of the term “minimize” as interpreted for this permit. Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1, excerpt number 7 regarding use of recirculation water to keep the catch alive.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 313 Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager, Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA) Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0444

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: 1. Fish Hold Effluent ( sVGP page 7 section 2.8 and VGP section 2.2.27). We refer you to the UFA concerns for dirty ice and unused bait.
2. Definitions. "Fish Hold," "Ballast Water," and "Ballast Tank" need to be defined. Most of our vessels have one area called a fish hold and another area called an engine room. Your discussion of ballast water, fish hold, and ballast tank suggests these terms are all the same . These terms for our industry represent very different construction areas of our vessels. Response: EPA agrees with commenter and has added definitions for these three terms in the permit.

Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager, Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA) Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0444

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: 5. Our vessels must have the ability to wash and sanitize our fish holds between trips otherwise we are going to have bacteria problems in the fish holds. Washing fish holds with approved detergents in harbors or protected areas should be permitted. Forcing a vessel to clean their fish holds outside 3 miles can be a safety haza rd for the vessel and crew. 6. When a vessel uses refrigerated seawater in the fish hold, this water must be discharged at the dock in order to get the product safely ashore. Not allowing this discharge unless you are outside three miles will create "free surface" stability problems for the vessel and reduce the quality of the product delivered. Fish holds that are tanked for water should not be restricted in pumping the fish hold down in order to offload fish or crabs. Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0400

- A1, excerpt number 10 regarding washing fish holds. Also, discharges while a vessel is underway that could result in an unsafe vessel stability issue and pose a threat to safety (and reduce the quality of the pr oduct delivered) would not be considered “reasonable” and are not required to be performed in such a way. Also, EPA disagrees with commenter’s implication that the permit restrictsResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 314 pumping fish holds down in order to offload seafood products. The permit allows for such discharge provided these activities are performed consistent with permit requirements (e.g., physical separation of solids is performed).Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 315 

# Issue Category: BAL

. 7.8 Ballast Water ManagementResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 316 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 317 BAL. 7.8 Ballast Water Management
Commenter Name: Comment submittted by Dwight Morrison, Co

- Chair, Wheels On Trails Organization Commenter Affiliation: Wheels On Trails Organization Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0295 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Over 20 years ago, a number of science teachers ( myself included) recognized that the ballast water from international ships was discharging 'invasive species' into lake Superior. Twenty two years later there is finally some reaction to this o bvious problem, by having the EPA initiate a permit process, that is long overdue. Wheels On Trails Organization adds its support, for this EPA Permit process. We strongly support the EPA process and recommend immediate implementation. The need is severe, so the strengthening of this EPA Permit process to eliminate this obvious problem is desired. We also recommend the starting of this Permit Process with all international shipping ASAP, as this type of change can take 10 years to implement if it only appl ies to new shipping or new boats. We need it to apply to ALL boats as soon as possible

- and that may not be enough. We need to get this EPA Permit process in place now for ALL shipping

- not wait another ten years while new ships are built.
We have exten sive examples of the damage done over the last 20 years by the Zebra muscle in the great lakes. Adoption of the weak 'International Maritime Organizations' Standard is a positive step, but the international agreement is also "to little

- to late". Living i n Duluth, we have seen the problem develop in the lake over the years. We need to deal with the invasive species now ! We need a stronger effort than even California, as the great lakes are far inland and need stronger protection. Response:
EPA acknowledges commenter’s support for permitting vessel discharges under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. The Agency is permitting vessels consistent with its authority under the Clean Water Act and NPDES program.

Commenter Name: Barbara Salzman, C o
- Chair Conservation Committee and Phil Peterson, Co

- Chair, Conservation Committee, Marin Audubon Society Commenter Affiliation: Marin Audubon Society Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0355

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 318 Comment:
We are wri ting to express our support for adoption of standards that assure effective treatment of ballast water and to request that a public hearing be held in San Francisco Bay Area. The San Francisco Bay/Estuary is the largest and most important estuary on the We st Coast. It is also one of the most heavily invaded estuaries in the world with more than 300 exotic species, most of which have been introduced from ballast water. These exotic, organisms are considered among the primary threats to the health of the estu ary. The San Francisco Bay Area is a logical location for a public hearing on ballast water standards because of its extensive exotic species populations and because California and the San Francisco Bay Area have played a leading role in attempting to add ress this major problem. Also, some of the nation's largest ports are on the West Coast and San Francisco Bay is central to these ports, Regardless of whether San Francisco Bay is the hearing location, it is fair and equitable that a hearing be scheduled for the West Coast. West Coast problems and concerns cannot be fully or most effectively presented in Washington DC and Chicago venues. Response: EPA acknowledges the comment regarding the location selection of the public hearing and public meeting. It w as EPA’s intention to reach as many stakeholders as possible; however, due to resource constraints EPA was only able to hold meetings in two locations. In addition, EPA conducted a Webcast and two question and answer webinar sessions to provide a diverse r ange of public participation options in development of the permit. These webinars were conducted at several different times in order to allow for participation from multiple time zones.

Commenter Name: Dr. W. Ron DeHaven, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) a nd Executive Vice President, American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Commenter Affiliation: American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0375

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment:
This letter is in response to the Environmental Protection Agency's request for comments on its draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES ) Vessel General Permit ( VGP ) and draft NPDES Small Vessel General Permit ( sVGP ). The A VMA recognizes the pressing ne ed for effective actions, based on sound science and coordinated among all relevant stakeholders, to ensure the future health of aquatic animals and the ecosystems that support them. According to a 2003 statement by the EPA's then Assistant Administrator f or Water (G. Tracy Mehan ) before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water, " ... it is estimated that more than 10,000 marine species (e.g., zebra mussel, Asian clam, green crab) are transported eac h day in ballast water, allowing newResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 319 invasions to occur regularly in coastal waters." Organisms transported in ballast water may be harmful to the ecosystems into which they are released. Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS) is a devastating viral disease of fish which can cause massive fish die

- offs and for which ballast water is considered to be a potential means of disease spread. Introduced invasive species can threaten the existence of native species and may reduce biodiversity. As an advocate for animal s and animal health, A VMA is concerned about the possible extinction of animal species and supports effective actions for the conservation of wild animals in their native habitats. The influence of transported organisms may reach beyond the immediate eco systems into which they arrive. According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the estimated economic impact of the invasive zebra mussels on users of U. S. and Canadian waters within the Great Lakes region was approximately $5 billion between 2000 and 2010. Zebra mussels have also caused public health issues by interfering with water supply. To protect animal, human, and environmental health, the AVMA supports the use of appropriate surveillance and control measures on international commerce and travel to pr event the entry of foreign disease vectors and invasive species into the United States.
While the A VMA recognizes potential risks associated with ballast water and other discharges of vessels, it also acknowledges that the development, utilization, and reg ulation of effective prevention and control measures are complicated, involve many domestic and international stakeholders, require substantial resources, and necessitate identifying and overcoming knowledge gaps and other current limitations. We commend t he EPA's continued collaboration with the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, the National Invasive Species Council ( NISC ), and other authorities and stakeholders in seeking science based solutions to potential risks posed by ballast water and other disch arges of vessels. In addition to economic, environmental, and industry considerations, successful mitigation of these risks must include One Health, which is the integrative effort of multiple disciplines working locally, nationally, and globally to attain optimal health for people, animals, and the environment. We strongly urge the EPA to include among the other disciplines consulted on these issues veterinarians with expertise in areas such as aquatic ecosystems, ecology, or environmental toxicology. Resp onse: EPA acknowledges, as discussed in the fact sheets for the sVGP and VGP and other documents in the administrative record that ballast water and other ship

- related vectors have been a major source for the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species (ANS) into the Great Lakes and other water bodies, resulting in significant environmental, economic, and social costs. EPA notes that the limits and other requirements contained in the sVGP and VGP combined are expected to substantially reduce the environmental, economic, and social costs from new ANS introductions and establishments. With respect to VHS, while EPA acknowledges ballast water could be a potential source for spread of VHS, EPA notes that other vectors (e.g., live bait) are also likely vectors. In developing the draft and final VGP and sVGP, EPA involved experts in a number of subject areas such as aquatic ecosystems, ecology, or environmental toxicology, and will continue to involve experts in such fields in its future efforts to addre ss aquatic nuisance species.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 320 Commenter Name: Bruno Pigott, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Water Quality, Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) Commenter Affiliation: Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0393

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: IDEM recommends that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA ) develop national standards for ballast water discharge that adequately protect the water resources of t he Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River ecosystem. This can be most effectively done by creating a robust national regulatory system between the USEPA and the U.S. Coast Guard ( USCG ) rather than a state

- by

- state approach, and implementing a strong enforcemen t program that will deter violators from discharges that introduce and spread aquatic invasive species ( AIS ). Response: With respect to development of national ballast water standards that are adequately protective of the Great Lakes and St Lawrence River , EPA notes that the final 2013 VGP and sVGP are responsive to this recommendation. Though beyond the scope of today’s issuance of the sVGP, the VGP establishes, as a technology

- based numeric ballast water discharge limit, a standard that is consistent wi th that adopted by the Coast Guard in their March 23, 2012 rulemaking (77 FR 17254), and further provides, as a water quality based limit, ballast water exchange plus treatment by oceangoing vessels entering the Great Lakes after taking on freshwater or br ackish ballast water (VGP section 2.2.3.7). Further, like the VGP, t he sVGP requires that vessel operators implement simple best management practices to minimize the potential harm posed by ballast water discharges. EPA believes that the practices are sens ible ways to minimize the risk of invasions, while being flexible enough to impose no incremental costs on small vessel owners. With respect to the commenter’s desire for use of a national system rather than a state

- by

- state approach, EPA notes that the di scharges covered by the VGP remain subject to regulation under State authorities preserved under CWA section 510, and that, as an NPDES permit issued by EPA under authority of the CWA, the VGP is subject to imposition of more additional conditions by State s in accordance with CWA section 401 as well. See generally, Lake Carriers Ass’n v. EPA, 652 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir., 2011). With respect to the desire for a strong enforcement program, EPA intends to work closely with the Coast Guard or other interested partner s to establish cooperation and coordination between the agencies for implementing and en forcing the sVGP. Sharing of information, expertise, and technical assistance for sVGP implementation is intended to reduce redundancy in government oversight of vessel activities and increase the effectiveness of each Agency's ability to accomplish its mission.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 321 Commenter Name: Thomas M. Gemmell, Executive Director, United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Commenter Affiliation: United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0400

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment:
10. sVGP Section 2.9. We suggest using the Coast Guard definition of ballast and make sure you do not include fish hold water in the definition. Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1, excerpt number 8 regarding definition of terms.

Commenter Name: Kathy Hansen, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Commenter Affiliation: Southeast Alas ka Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13
Comment: Definitions on page 14
- 18, section 6:
Definitions of “Fish Hold”, “Ballast water” and “Ballast Tank” should be included in these dr aft permits. The criteria for whether a vessel needs a VGP or sVGP is related to length (greater or less than 79 feet) as well as capacity of ballast water (greater or less than 8 cubic meters). While the draft permit makes the distinction in categories b etween “fish hold effluent” and “ballast water”, no definitions are provided.
The USCG defines ballast water in 33 CFR 151.1504 in relation to vessel stability. The definition refers to “ water and suspended matter taken on board a vessel to control or mai ntain, trim, draught

, stability, or stresses of the vessel.” Additional clarity can be found in USCG NVIC Circular 07

- 04 Change 1 (Oct 29, 2004) which states that ballast tanks filled with fresh water from municipal or commercial water supplies do not coun t as ballast water. Nor do tanks that are permanently ballasted (with the exception of being emptied for dry docking or hauling out). NVIC 07

- 04 reiterates that ballast water is related to water taken on board for trim or stability.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 322 Response:
Please se e EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1, excerpt number 8 regarding definition of terms.

Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment:
Definitions : Definitions of “Fish Hold” “Ballast water” and “Ballast Tank” should be included in these draft permits. The criteria for whether a vessel needs a VGP or sVGP is related to length (greater or less than 79 feet) as well as capacity of ballast water (greater or less than 8 cubic meters). While the draft permit makes the distinction in categories between “fish hold effluent” and “ballast water”, no definitions are provided. The USCG defines ballast water in 33 CFR 151.1504 in relation to vessel stability. The definition refers to “ water and suspended matter taken on board a vessel to control or maintain, trim, draught , stability, or stresses of the vessel.” Additional clarity can be found in USCG NVIC Circular 07

- 04 Change 1 (Oct 29, 2004) which states that ballast tanks filled with fresh water from municipal or commercial water supplies do not count as ballast water. Nor do tanks that are permanently ballast ed (with the exception of being emptied for dry docking or hauling out). NVIC 07

- 04 reiterates that ballast water is related to water taken on board for trim or stability. We recommend that EPA make it explicitly clear that water taken onboard a commercial fishing vessel in a fish hold for purposes of fishing and tendering (fish and shellfish) is not defined as ballast water. It should be made clear that a fish hold is not a ballast tank

– regardless of whether the fish hold is greater than 8 cubic meters o r not. We also recommend that EPA make it clear that vessels with ballast water capacity (greater than 8 cubic meters) that have designated ballast tanks that are either filled with potable water or permanently filled (with the exception of drydocking ), ar e not defined as ballast water. This is consistent with the USCG regulations and guidance. Response: EPA agrees with commenter and the final permit contains definitions for the four terms identified by the commenter. EPA notes that the definitions in th e sVGP for “ballast water” and “ballast tank” are based upon the USCG regulations defining those terms and thus declines to make changes that would create inconsistent definitions between the Coast Guard and EPA programs. EPA has sought to maximize consist ency between its programs and those of the CoastResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 323 Guard as appropriate.) EPA notes that if a fish hold tank is used to transfer and preserve cargo, and it is not taken on to control or maintain, trim draught, stability or stresses of the vessel, then it wou ld not be considered ballast water under these definitions. In addition, the commenter does not provide any reason why one might mistake fish hold tanks for ballast tanks when the sVGP contains a section specific to fish hold effluent. EPA thus has made n o changes in response to this comment.

Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 26
Comment: Definitions on page 14
- 18: The following definitions should be added to this section Seafood Processing, ballast water, ballast tank, and fishing hold Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1, excerpt number 8.

Commenter Name: Jennifer A. Carpenter, The American Waterways Operators Commenter Affiliation: The American Waterways Operators Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0408

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: Finally, as previousl y discussed, in its VGP Fact Sheet EPA acknowledges that the agency “does not believe that barges are a significant discharger of ballast water.”6 Response: EPA acknowledges commenter’s statement regarding barges. Few barges covered under the sVGP are b elieved to be affected by the requirements pertaining to ballast water discharge. Vessels less than 79 feet typically operate in more sheltered environments and do not load and discharge ballast. The Agency established narrative effluent limits applicable to all vessels covered under the sVGP for managing ballast water discharges in Part 3.9 of the sVGP. The sVGP requires that vessel operators implement simple best management practices to minimize the potential harm posed by ballast water discharges. EPA believes that the practices are sensibleResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 324 ways to minimize the risk of invasions, while being flexible e nough to impose no incremental costs on vessel owners.

Commenter Name: Jennifer A. Carpenter, The American Waterways Operators Commenter Affiliation: The American Waterways Operators Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0408

- A1 Comment Excerp t Number: 12
Comment:
AWO also recommends that EPA add to Part 6 of the proposed permit the definition of “ballast water capacity” found in Appendix A of the proposed VGP , to ensure consistency and eliminate confusion. Response: EPA agrees with commen ter and has added a definition of “ballast water capacity” to Part 6 consistent with the definition in Appendix A of the VGP.

Commenter Name: William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Commenter Af

filiation: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0413

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: The Great Lakes define the State of Michigan and protection of this precious water resource from new introductions of aquatic invasive species ( AIS ) is an economic and ecological imperative. Four of the Great Lakes (Superior, Huron, Michigan, and Erie) largely define the borders of Michigan’s upper and lower peninsulas. Michigan enjoys 3,300 miles of Gre at Lakes shoreline. The Great Lakes provide premier boating and fishing opportunities that are critical to Michigan’s $15 billion annual tourism industry. Strong federal ballast water management regulations are required to prevent the irreparable harm to M ichigan’s water resources, to our highly regarded fishing industry, and ultimately to tourism in our state. Ballast water from oceangoing vessels is the predominant pathway of new AIS invasions to the Great Lakes. The total economic impact (damages/econom ic losses and management/control costs) of AIS in the Great Lakes region is estimated to be as high as $5.7 billion per year. In particular, annual losses to the Great Lakes region by ship

- borne invasive species is estimated to be at least $200 million due to impacts to sport fishing, commercial fishing, wildlife watching, and raw water usage. The unpredictable, unanticipated and long

- lasting nature of impacts fromResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 325 AIS once they are established highlights the importance of having prevention as a top priorit y. Michigan’s primary concern relative to vessel operation continues to focus on the establishment and implementation of regulations to protect the Great Lakes from the devastating effects of continued introductions of AIS through ballast water discharges from oceangoing vessels. Response: EPA acknowledges, as discussed in the Fact Sheets for the VGP and sVGP and other documents in the administrative record for these two permits that ballast water has been a source for the introduction and spread of aqua tic nuisance species (ANS) into the Great Lakes and other water bodies, resulting in significant environmental, economic, and social costs. EPA notes that the limits and other requirements contained in the VGP and sVGP are expected to substantially reduce the environmental, economic, and social costs from new ANS introductions and establishments. We agree that strong federal ballast water regulations will help protect resources of concern to Michigan, and as explained in the Fact Sheets for the final 2013 V GP and sVGP, EPA believes that the final permits are fully consistent with the mandates of the CWA. We further note that discharges covered by the sVGP remain subject to regulation under Michigan State authorities preserved under CWA section 510, and that, as an NPDES permit issued by EPA under authority of the CWA, the sVGP is subject to imposition of more stringent conditions by Michigan in accordance with CWA section 401 as well. See generally, Lake Carriers Ass’n v. EPA, 652 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir., 2011).

Commenter Name: William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Commenter Affiliation: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0413

- A2 Comment Ex cerpt Number: 2
Comment:
Since the mid

- 1990s , Michigan has been a major player at the regional and national levels in the pursuit of aggressive strategies to prevent the continued introduction of AIS to the Great Lakes through ballast water releases fro m oceangoing vessels. Michigan’s Ballast Water Control General Permit (issued on October 11, 2006) is still the only discharge permit in the nation that currently requires oceangoing vessels to actually treat their ballast water discharges for AIS

. Pursua nt to the Settlement Agreement in State of Michigan v USEPA , (D.C. Circuit No. 09

- 1131), representatives from the MDEQ’s WRD and the Michigan Department of Attorney General met with the USEPA’s staff on August 5, 2011, and August 31, 2011, and again with t he USEPA’s "political management" on September 22, 2011, to present Michigan’s views regarding appropriate numeric concentration

- based ballast water discharge limitations and associated compliance timeframes for the draft VGP2 . Unfortunately, Michigan’s re view of the draft VGP2 reveals the overall fruitlessness of those three meetings. It is imperative for theResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 326 VGP2 to be issued with a single set of numeric concentration

- based limitations for live organisms (applicable to ballast water discharges from oceang oing vessels) that are protective of water quality in the entire Great Lakes basin. It is also imperative that this set of water quality

based effluent limits for live organisms in ballast water be accompanied in the draft VGP2 with a reasonable schedule o f compliance. Response: EPA notes that the comment is relevant to the VGP, and not today’s issuance of the sVGP. Hence, it is beyond the scope of today’s permit issuance. Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0141

- 0536

- A2, excerpt number 2 in the VGP administrative record.

Commenter Name: William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Commenter Affiliation: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0413

- A5 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Michigan’s laws and rules that pertain to the water quality

- based regulation of Aquatic Invasive Species in ballast water discharges are presented below: 1. Section 324.3103a(1)(a) of Part 31, Water Resources Protection, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended ( NREPA ), establishes a goal for Michigan "to prevent the introduction of and minimize the spread of aquatic nuisance species within the Great Lakes." 2. Section 324.3103a(1)(b) of Part 31 of the NREPA requires Michigan to "cooperate with the United States and Canadian authorities, other states and provinces, and the maritime industry" to achieve the goal of preventing the introduction of and minimizing the spread of aquatic nuisance species within the Great Lakes.
3. Section 324.3106 of Part 31 of the NREPA requires the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality ( MDEQ ) to "establish pollution standards for lakes, rivers, streams, an d other waters of the state in relation to public use to which they are or may be put, as it considers necessary." This section of Part 31 also requires the MDEQ to "issue permits that will assure compliance with state standards to regulate municipal, indu strial, and commercial discharges or storage of any substance that may affect the quality of the waters of the state." 4. Section 324.3109(1) of Part 31 of the NREPA stipulates that "a person shall not directly or indirectly discharge into the waters of the state a substance that is or may become injurious to any of the following: (a) to the public health, safety, or welfare; (b) to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, or other uses that are being made or may be made of suchResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 327 water s;. . . (d) to livestock, wild animals, birds, fish, aquatic life, or plants or to their growth or propagation; (e) to the value of fish and game." 5. Section 324.3109(4) of Part 31 of the NREPA states that "unless authorized by a permit ..., the discharge into the waters of this state from an oceangoing vessel of any ballast water is prima vacie evidence of a violation of this part. . ." Section 324.3112(6) of Part 31 provides, in part, that "beginning January 1, 2007, all oceangoing vessels engaging in por t operations in this state shall obtain a permit from the department. The department shall issue a permit for an oceangoing vessel only if the applicant can demonstrate that the oceangoing vessel will not discharge aquatic nuisance species or . . .that the operator of such a vessel will utilize environmentally sound technology and methods, as determined by the department, that can be used to prevent the discharge of aquatic nuisance species." 6. The Part 4 Rules, Water Quality Standards, promulgated under Part 31 of the NREPA establish "water quality requirements applicable to the Great Lakes, connecting waters, and all other surface waters of the state, to protect the public health and welfare, to enhance and maintain the quality of water, to protect the s tate’s natural resources. . ." 7. R 323.1098(2) of the Part 4 Rules requires "the level of water quality necessary to protect existing uses shall be maintained and protected" for all of the waters of the state. 8. R 323.1100(1) of the Part 4 Rules estab lishes the designated uses for all surface waters of the state. This rule stipulates that "at a minimum, all surface waters of the state are designated for, and shall be protected for, all of the following uses: (a) agriculture, (b) navigation, (c) industr ial water supply. . ., (e) warmwater fishery, (f) other indigenous aquatic life and wildlife. . ." In addition, R 323.1100(5) demands that "all Great Lakes and their connecting waters . . . shall be protected, as coldwater fisheries." Response: EPA notes that it reviewed and evaluated Michigan’s water quality standards, along with other states, in determining the WQBELs in today’s sVGP. See discussion, including examples, of the state water quality standards EPA reviewed deriving the WQBELs in today’s per mit in section 6.5 of the sVGP fact sheet. In addition, EPA notes that Michigan provided additional 401 certification requirements for the sVGP that EPA interprets to indicate that combined with the sVGP management measures are sufficient to meet water qua lity standards in Michigan’s waters.

Commenter Name: Alexis Cooper, Executive Director, Board of Directors, Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU) Commenter Affiliation: Board of Directors, Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0414

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 4Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 328 Comment:
Ballast Water: Just as a clarification, fish holds are not to be confused with ballast tanks; they are separate areas with separate functions. However, seawater is used in fish ho lds to help keep fish cool during harvest and is used in a localized area (and is returned in the same area). Response: EPA acknowledges commenter’s clarification that fish holds are different than ballast tanks. The Agency added definitions to the final permit for “fish hold,” “ballast tank,” and “ballast water” to clarify the requirements applicable to these areas.

Commenter Name: Thomas M. McLaughlin, President/CEO, Seafood Producers Cooperative Commenter Affiliation: Seafood Producers Cooperative Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0427

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment: Definitions, Section 6:
The sVGP permit should include a definition of "Fish Hold" to provide clarity that fish holds are not ballast water. Response: EPA agrees with commenter and the final permit now contains definitions for the terms “fish hold,” “ballast tank,” and “ballast water.”

Commenter Name: Cathy Stepp, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Commenter Affiliation: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0435

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: Ballast Water Requirements
Wisconsin DNR has several questions about some of the ballast water requirements

. How is a small vessel operator exp ected to learn about local infestations, harmful pathogens, algal blooms , sewage outfall locations, dredging operations, poor tidal flushing, etc.? Wisconsin DNR suggests that these requirements be defined in the permit. Ballast Water RecordkeepingResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 329 Is any basic recordkeeping of ballasting activities expected to be kept onboard the vessel? Wisconsin recommends that a ballast log be required for location, date and time of ballasting and de

- ballasting activities

. Response: EPA disagrees with commenter that t he permit should specifically require operators to learn about local infestations, harmful pathogens, etc. EPA believes the requirements themselves (e.g., to avoid the discharge or uptake of ballast water in certain areas) establish the expectation that o perators understand the waterbodies in which they operate. Specifically, the permit requirement to minimize uptake of ballast water in certain sensitive areas requires that operators gain a better understanding of the waters in which they operate (and as such, expectations to learn more about these sensitive areas). Also, EPA disagrees with commenter that a ballast log be required for all ballasting and de

ballasting activities. EPA believes that the Agency's approach for the sVGP, that covers much smalle r ballast water discharges than the VGP, is an appropriate one because it balances the need to receive information from it permittees regarding compliance with the permit with the administrative burdens associated with collecting and managing information a nd data (taking into account current practice regarding on

- board recordkeeping).

Commenter Name: Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Commenter Affiliation: Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0436

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Nearly all of Michigan’s waterways have suffered substantial environmental impacts over time. This is especially true when you consider the impact of invasive species upon the Great Lakes. I nvasive species such as round gobies , zebra and quagga mussels, sea lamprey, and ruffe have taken over Great Lakes ecosystems not only at the expense of native species, but also to the expense of Great Lakes residents and businesses as well. As such, the m ajority of our comments focus on invasive species and the ballast water requirements within the draft permits. Since the 1800s , more than 185 alien species have invaded the Great Lakes ecosystem from around the world, costing us millions, and in some cases , irreparably damaging the Great Lakes ecosystem. Most invasive species introductions can be linked to economic activities, such as production, trade, shipping, and recreation. More than one

- third of these organisms have been introduced in the past 30 year s
- since the St. Lawrence Seaway opened up. Exotic species are brought to the Great Lakes region and spread in ballast water dumped by ships that have been overseas, and are further spread on board personal watercraft, and by people traveling between bodi es of water. There are both economic and ecological impacts, both of which are quite serious. Ecologically, aquatic invasive species impacts include food web disruptions, native species reduction or loss,Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 330 water quality degradation, and the introduction of pathogens. Furthermore, ecosystem disruptions and imbalances can result in increased danger to human health. Once introduced into the Great Lakes, many aquatic invasive species can find their way into inland lakes, rivers, wetlands, and other waterways, th us greatly compounding the problems associated with invasive species. Moreover, 42 percent of threatened and endangered species in the U.S. are at risk, mainly because of invasive species. The negative economic impact of invasive species is in the billions of dollars and once they are introduced into the Great Lakes ecosystem, controlling them is a losing battle. Invasive species adversely affect many commercial, agricultural, aquacultural, and recreational activities that rely heavily on a strong and stabl e ecosystem. Economic losses in the Great Lakes Basin from aquatic invasive species were estimated in 2005 at $5 billion per year. Additionally, the costs incurred by the state, local municipalities, and businesses to respond to the introduction of an aqua tic invasive species is quite significant. Furthermore, studies have estimated lost property values on infested water bodies of $12,000 per property.
General Comments: The VGP and sVGP essentially provide an institutional “rubber stamp” on projects that sh ould otherwise be reviewed on an individual permit basis. Through the individual permit review, professional and knowledgeable agency staff are able to more fully assess impacts and ensure the least damaging alternatives are identified and exercised. Such review is preferred to ensure protection of our valuable Great Lakes; however, we recognize that lack of funding has severely limited the resources required for the EPA to conduct individual permit reviews for all vessels in US Waters. Furthermore, the per mit

- by

- rule granted by the proposed VGP and sVGP hinders enforcement and actual protection of the Great Lakes from pollution and invasive species. We do acknowledge that the proposed Vessel General Permit and Small Vessel General Permit are an improvement over existing regulations in that they require vessels entering the Great Lakes system to adhere to a numeric system for discharges. This is an important intermediary step toward reducing the risk of invasion by non

- native aquatic species brought in by oce angoing vessels. We appreciate the EPA taking these further steps to protect the Great Lakes and the Waters of the U.S. Response: EPA acknowledges, as discussed in the Fact Sheet for the VGP and sVGP and other documents in the administrative record for t hese two permits that ballast water has been a major source for the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species (ANS) into the Great Lakes and other water bodies, resulting in significant environmental, economic, and social costs. EPA notes that th e limits and other requirements contained in the VGP and sVGP are expected to substantially reduce the environmental, economic, and social costs from new ANS introductions and establishments. We note that neither the VGP nor sVGP are “permits by rule,” as commenter asserts, but are general NPDES permits issued under authority of CWA section 402. EPA’s regulations specify when general permits may be used

– see 40 CFR 122.28

– and the commenter provides no argument for why EPA’s use of that approach is imperm issible here. Further, EPA notes that any comments expressing disagreement with that regulation are outsideResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 331 the scope of today’s permitting action. In any event, EPA notes its disagreement with commenter’s assertion that general permits are institutional “ rubber stamps”, as they contain specific effluent limitations, monitoring, and reporting requirements and, as with individual permits under section 402, are fully enforceable under the CWA. Commenter is referred to section 2.4 of the sVGP Fact Sheet for fu rther discussion of CWA general permits. EPA acknowledges commenter’s statement that the proposed VGP and sVGP are an improvement over existing regulations.

Commenter Name: Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Commenter A ffiliation: Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0436

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment: While scientists throughout the region agree that invasive species are one of the greatest threats to the Great Lake s, you do not have to be a scientist to recognize the damage these invaders inflict on our fisheries, economy, and human health. Comprehensive action is needed to combat the future wave of invasions from occurring. A strong national standard that will elim inate the threat of invasive species from ballast water is needed now. If we are going to maintain the proud heritage of the Great Lakes, now is the time to shut the door on aquatic invasive species. The longer the wait, the more expensive the investment w ill be and the more we will lose because of the delay. Response: EPA acknowledges commenter’s support for increased control of ballast water discharges. EPA acknowledges, as discussed in the Fact Sheet for the VGP and the sVGP and other documents in the administrative record for both of these permits that ballast water has been a major source for the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species (ANS) into the Great Lakes and other water bodies, resulting in significant environmental, economic, and social costs. EPA notes that the limits and other requirements contained in the VGP and sVGP combined are expected to substantially reduce the environmental, economic, and social costs from new ANS introductions and establishments.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 332 (This page intentiona lly left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 333 

# Issue Category: BAL1

. 7.8.1 Eight ( 8 ) C ubic M eter E ligibility T hresholdResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 334 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 335 BAL1. 7.8.1 8 C ubic M eter E ligibility T hreshold
Commenter Name: Kathy Hansen, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Commenter Affiliation: Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14
Comment: We recommend that EPA make it explicitly clear that water taken on board a commercial fishing vessel in a fish hold for purposes of fishing and tendering (fish and shellfish) is not defined as ballast water. It should be made clear that a fish hold is not a ballast tank

– regardless of whether the fish hold is greater tha n 8 cubic meters or not. Additionally, that vessels with continuous circulating ambient seawater to keep shellfish species alive is exempted from fish hold effluent discharge prohibitions and from considerations of being ballast water. Additionally, th e threshold of 8 cubic meters is not the handiest unit of measure for commercial fishing vessels. That translates to 2113 gallons = 283 cu ft = or a ballast tank that measures slightly over 6.5’ X 6.5’ feet X 6.5’ feet. EPA should provide units of measure more commonly used on vessels than cubic meters. Response: In regards to the definition of ballast water and fish hold tanks, ballast water and ballast water tanks are defined in Part 7 of the sVGP. Please see Part 7 of the permit for this definition. EP A notes that ballast water means "any water and suspended matter taken on board a vessel to control or maintain trim, draught, stability, or stresses of the vessel, regardless of how it is carried." Ballast tank means "any tank or hold used for carrying ba llast water, whether or not the tank was designed for that purpose." These definitions are consistent with U.S. Coast Guard regulations as to what constitutes a ballast tank. A fish hold that is used only "for purposes of fishing and tendering" and is not used to "control or maintain trim, draught, stability, or stresses of the vessel" would not be a ballast tank, and therefore, not subject to the ballast water requirements of the VGP. However, any fish hold used to carry "ballast water" (e.g., water taken onboard to maintain trim and stability on a voyage from San Diego to Anchorage) would be considered a ballast tank for purposes of the VGP, and must meet the requirements of Part 2.9 of the Permit. Additionally, based on this and other comments, EPA added a definition of Fish Hold to the sVGP. The EPA has defined Fish Hold, based on information collected in its 2010 Vessels Report to Congress and other sources, to be: “the area where seafood or seafood products are kept once caught and kept fresh during the remainder of the voyage before being offloaded to shore or another tender vessel. The fish hold is typically a refrigerated seawater holding tank, where the seafood product is kept cool by mechanical refrigeration or ice. It can also include continuous fl ow systems needed to keep certain organisms such as lobster and crab alive until they are unloaded. Fish hold effluent is the water discharged from fish holds.”Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 336 In response to concerns regarding applicability of discharge prohibitions for recirculating sea water used to keep shellfish catch alive, EPA revised the s VGP to clarify vessels are not required to meet the conditions threatening their ability to keep that catch alive. Specifically, the permit now states that discharges from holding tanks for the so le purpose of keeping the catch alive are not subject to the requirement to d ischarge that effluent to an available shore

- based facility. With respect to measuring ballast water capacity using cubic meters, based on this and other comments, EPA has removed the requirement that a vessel must discharge less than 8 cubic meters of ballast water to be eligible for coverage under this permit. The Agency determined that the 8 meter cutoff for excluding ballast water discharges from the sVGP need not apply because doing so would require vessel operators to seek coverage under the VGP, and could create unnecessary confusion about which permit vessel operators could seek coverage under . The cutoff is also no longer appropriate because the final VGP uses an alternati ve metric (e.g. the vessel’s gross registered tonnage) to determine the threshold at which vessels are required to meet the numeric ballast water treatment limits . Specifically, the numeric standards do not apply to inland and seagoing vessels less than 1600 GRT. In removing the 8 cubic meter threshold for applicability of numeric limits in the VGP, EPA took a closer look at the record for the proposal and reass essed whether it demonstrated that ballast water treatment technologically is available and economically achievable for smaller inland and seagoing vessels. Based upon that review, EPA concluded that, though technologies are promising for future developmen t, the record at proposal did not support the conclusion that numeric ballast water treatment limits for small inland and seagoing vessels represents BAT at this time or over the life of the permit. For example, most ballast water treatment systems have be en designed for larger vessels and/or vessels which only uptake or discharge ballast water on either end of longer voyages

. Supplemental analysis by the Agency confirmed the conclusion that the ballast water numeric limits did not reflect BAT for this clas s of vessels See Part 4.4.3.5 of the VGP and EPA’s response to comment document for further discussion

. Furthermore, the ballast water non

- numeric best management practices applicable to small vessels in the VGP are similar to those required for vessels u nder 79 feet in length in the sVGP (minor differences are the result, for example, of the different structure/styles of the two permits ) . For example, under the sVGP, EPA incorporated BMP s similar to the VGP that require vessel owner/operators to m inimize or avoid uptake of ballast water in certain areas and situations , to d ischarge only the minimal amount of ballast water essential for vessel operations , and when feasible, to use potable water for ballasting. Therefore, it is reasonable to allow vessels less than 79 feet in length to obtain coverage under the sVGP, regardless of cubic meters of ballast water capacity. 1

1 EPA expects there will be very few, if any, vessels that fall within the universe subject to the VGP’s numeric discharge li mitation but operate pursuant to the sVGP. To the extent EPA becomes aware of any such vessel, the sVGP contains a permit provision in Part 4.2 that provides a mechanism for EPA to require that the vessel apply for an individual permit or obtain coverage under an alternative general permit (e.g., the VGP), as necessary.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 337 Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 29
Comment: Additionally, the threshold of 8 cubic meters is not the handiest unit of measure for commercial fishing vessels. That translates to 2113 gallons = 283 cu ft = or a ballast tank that measures slightly over 6.5’ X 6.5’ feet X 6.5’ feet. EPA should provide units of measure more commonly used on vessels than cubic meters. Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1, excerpt 14, r egarding selection of ballast tank sizing criteria.

Commenter Name: Dr. Guy Kaulukukui, Acting Administrator, State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) Commenter Affiliation: State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resource s (DLNR) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0425

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 2Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 338 Comment:
DLNR supports the introduction of a new vessel general permit for small vessels ( sVGP ) and in section 2.9, the requirement that ballast water (BW) manage ment occurs for all commercial vessels, irrespective of BW capacity. Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter’s support for the sVGP provisions for ballast water management requirements.

Commenter Name: Dr. Guy Kaulukukui, Acting Administrator, State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) Commenter Affiliation: State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0425

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: The proposed chang es to numerical discharge limits for ballast water management (section 2.2.3) within the VGP consistent with the International Maritime Organization's Ballast Water Management Convention is timely, given the Convention is highly likely to take effect soon. DLNR acknowledges the cost to the shipping industry to make the necessary amendments, however feels that this is balanced by the international view that there is a need to manage the biosecurity risk posed by ballast water. Such measures also provide the State of Hawai'i with a greater level of protection from potential AIS impacts for those vessels transiting state waters. Response: This comment is relevant to EPA’s recent permit issuance of the VGP and is not a comment on today’s sVGP. Therefore, the comment is beyond the scope of today’s action. Nonetheless, EPA acknowledges the commenter’s general support for ballast water management requirements, and the Agency notes that ballast water BMPs can be found for smaller vessels eligible for coverage und er the sVGP in Part 2 of today’s permit.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 339 

# Issue Category: BAL2

. 7.8.2 Authorization to M aintain C overage for

N on
- discharge of BW (0 comments)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 340 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 341 

# Issue Category: BAL3

. 7.8.3 BMPsResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 342 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 343 BAL3. 7.8.3 BMPs
Commenter Name: Robert Leitch, Floating Plant Program Manager, US Army Corps of Engineers Commenter Affiliation: US Army Corps of Engineers Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0431

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment:
Issue 7. Ballast Water Reference: Small Vessel General Permit ( sVGP ), Section 2.9

– Ballast Water, Part (b) Discussion: A bullet in Part (b) states vessels “...must minimize or avoid uptake of ballast water in darkness....” In theory, this BMP m ay delay vessels because they cannot uptake ballast water in darkness.
Recommendation: USACE recommends removing this BMP as it is not reasonable. Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that the requirement to minimize or avoid uptake of ballast water in darkness may delay vessels. EPA has included this and other BMPs in Part 2.9(b) of the permit as technology

- based effluent limits for ballast water because EPA believes that th ey are feasible and economically practicable and achievable. These requirements are common
- sense measures that reduce the risk of vessels transporting potentially harmful pollution and aquatic nuisance species from one waterbody to another. As used in the permit, the term “minimize” means to reduce and/or eliminate to the extent achievable using control measures (including BMPs ) that are technologically available and economically practicable and achievable in light of best marine practice. Thus, in certai n instances (e.g., when not economically practicable and achievable), vessels may uptake ballast water in darkness. See also EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1, excerpt 19, for additional discussion of the term “minimize” as inte rpreted for this permit. Additionally, EPA notes that this requirement is fundamentally similar or the same as in both the USGC ballast water regulations found in 33 CFR Part 151 and the 2008 and 2013 VGPs. Existing vessels that seek coverage under today’ s sVGP would have previously had to meet these other regulatory limits, and are still subject to the cited USCG regulations.

Commenter Name: Robert Leitch, Floating Plant Program Manager, US Army Corps of Engineers Commenter Affiliation: US Army Corps of Engineers Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0431

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 8Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 344 Comment:
Issue 8. Ballast Water Reference: Small Vessel General Permit ( sVGP ), Section 2.9

– Ballast Water, Part (b) Discussion: A bullet in Part (b) states “. ..must minimize or avoid uptake of ballast water where propellers may stir up the sediment.” This is difficult to judge/enforce/comply with. Many inland vessels operate in shallow water and in areas where the clearance between the bottom and the propeller is very small.
Recommendation: USACE recommends providing an exemption for inland vessels. In addition, the language in the permit is relative and ambiguous. The permit should set forth clear guidance for this BMP (i.e. avoid uptake of ballast water where the clearance below the keel/propeller is less than ### feet). Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that the requirement to minimize or avoid uptake of ballast water where propellers may stir up the sediment is difficult to judge, enforce, and comp ly with. EPA has included this and other BMPs in Part 2.9(b) of the permit as technology

- based effluent limits for ballast water because EPA believes that they reflect the applicable statutory levels of control . These requirements are common
- sense measure s that reduce the risk of vessels transporting potentially harmful pollution and aquatic nuisance species from one waterbody to another. For this permit, based on available information, EPA does not believe it is appropriate to establish a required cleara nce distance because this is a general permit covering a wide range of vessels and waters. Additionally, EPA recognizes that to “minimize or avoid uptake of ballast water where propellers may stir up the sediment” requires the vessel master and crew to ex ercise their judgment, and in some situations (such as with some inland vessels in some waters), it may not be possible to avoid the uptake of ballast water. Nonetheless, EPA notes that these requirements are identical to those found in USCG regulations, and in the interest of maintaining consistency with those regulations, the Agency has not made the suggested edits provided by the commenter. Existing vessels that seek coverage under today’s sVGP would have previously had to meet these other regulatory limits, and are still subject to the cited USCG regulations. See also EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1, excerpt 19, for additional discussion of the term “minimize” as interpreted for this permit.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 345 

# Issue Category : SWC

. 7.9 Seawater Cooling Overboard DischargeResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 346 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 347 SWC. 7.9 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge
Commenter Name: Thomas M. Kelly, Inland Seas Education Association Commenter Affiliation: Inland Seas Education Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0378 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Section 2.10a regarding cooling water discharges should be deleted as it is a minimal impact on surrounding waters. If cooling water is included in the permit, what about the impacts of external heat exchangers (also minimal impact) If desired, the section could contain a suggestion to limit the operation of main and auxiliary engines as practical when a dockside. Response: EPA disagrees with this com ment that cooling water discharges do not have a potential impact on surrounding waters. As described in Section 4.10 of the sVGP fact sheet, these discharges were included at the request of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ) fisheries who identified that inclu ding these requirements would better protect essential fish habitats. However, to address the specific concern of when these vessels are dockside, see EPA’s comment response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0390

- A2, excerpt 6, for more info rmation on overboard cooling water discharges.

Commenter Name: Stanley Mack, Mayor, Aleutians East Borough (AEB) Commenter Affiliation: Aleutians East Borough (AEB) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0390

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Commen t: 2.10 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge (p.8) The EPA recommendation to reduce production and discharge of seawater cooling overboard when the vessel is in port is technologically infeasible. There are virtually no instances in Region 10 (Alaska) wh ere adequate shore based power is readily available. Thus, there are no alternatives but for vessels to run auxiliary engines for power generation resulting in wet exhaust and cooling water discharge which cannot be captured or stored.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 348 Response:
EPA is aware of the restrictions of technologies on board vessels and of the limited capabilities of many ports. As such, these management practices described in Part 2.10 of this p ermit are recommendations with the p ermit providing specific exclusions if the sh ore
- based power is not readily available, accessible, or cannot meet the needs of the vessel. Additionally, EPA has removed the introductory language of Part 2.10 , which suggested that vessels discharge cooling water when underway, if possible.

Commente r Name: Paul Belforti, President, Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Commenter Affiliation: Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0395

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14
Comment: The provision entitled "Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge" should be clarified. Section 2.2.19 deals with the discharge of coolant water and uses the term "seawater." This term may be misleading, as thousands of passenger vessels draw coolant water from the waterbody on which they are operating and in many cases this involves freshwater, not seawater. Perhaps EPA should use another term instead of "seawater." EPA should understand that with respect to the passenger vessel sector it is standard practice to draw and discharge coolant wate r. Furthermore, this frequently occurs when the vessel is docked, and frequently there is no shorebased power available. Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and , based on this comment and the comments from other stakeholders , we have modified Part 2.1 0 to Overboard Cooling Water Discharge.

Commenter Name: Paul Belforti, President, Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Commenter Affiliation: Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0396

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment: The provision entitled "Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge" should be clarified
. Section 2.10 deals with the discharge of coolant water and uses the term "seawater." This term may be misleading, as thousands of passenger vessels draw cool ant water from the waterbody onResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 349 which they are operating and in many cases this involves freshwater , not seawater. Perhaps EPA should use another term instead of "seawater." EPA should understand that with respect to the passenger vessel sector it is stand ard practice to draw and discharge coolant water. Furthermore, this frequently occurs when the vessel is docked, and frequently there is no shorebased power available

. Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Please see EPA's comment response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0395

- A1 , e xcerpt 14, for changes to Part 2.10 and seawater cooling language.

Commenter Name: Thomas M. Gemmell, Executive Director, United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Commenter Affiliation: United Southeast Alaska Gillnetter s (USAG) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0400

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment:
11. sVGP Section 2.10. When vessels (with overboard cooling discharge) are moored or at anchor, and they intend to go somewhere, they must, of necessity start their engines and run them till they reach the required operating temperature; this generates the dischar ge of cooling water. What are you suggesting as an alternative? Generally speaking, most operators do run their engines needlessly dockside due to the high cost of fuel. Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Please see EPA's response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 20 11

- 0150

- 0390

- A2 , e xcerpt 6, for more information on overboard cooling water discharges.

Commenter Name: Kathy Hansen, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Commenter Affiliation: Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment: Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge on page 8, section 2.10: The EPA requirement to discharge seawater cooling overboard when the vessel is underway and run on shore power when in port is technologically infeasible. Some vessels are seawater cooledResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 350 and must be run in port in order to move, another use is refrigeration condensers and freezer plates which run continuously while products are on board, requiring th e generator/engine to circulate ambient seawater as necessary to maintain efficient cooling. There is no way to capture this discharge so it should not be a requirement to do so. In Alaska, adequate shore based power is not readily or economically availa ble since many remote communities run on diesel generators anyways , thus there is no alternative for vessels but to run auxiliary engines for power generation in port and out. Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Please see EPA's response to EPA

- HQ

- O W

- 2011

- 0150

- 0390

- A2 , e xcerpt 6, for more information on overboard cooling water discharges.

Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska Document Control Number: E PA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment: Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge ( sVGP page 8 & VGP page 48): The EPA requirement to discharge seawater cooling overboard when the vessel is underway and run on shore power when in port is technologically infeasible. First, refrigeration condensers are in use or the freezer is running at all times, requiring the generator/engine circulating ambient seawater as necessary to maintain efficient cooling. There is no way to capture this discha rge so it should not be a requirement to do so. In Alaska, adequate shore based power is not readily or economically available, thus there is no alternative for vessels but to run auxiliary engines for power generation in port and out. Response:
EPA ack nowledges the comment. Please see EPA's response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0390

- A2 , e xcerpt 6, for more information on overboard cooling water discharges.

Commenter Name: Beth Kerttula, Representative, House District 3, Alaska State Legislature et al. Co mmenter Affiliation: Alaska State Legislature, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0439

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 6Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 351 Comment: 2.10 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge (p.8) The EPA recommendation to reduce production and discharge o f seawater cooling overboard when the vessel is in port is technologically infeasible. There are virtually no instances in Region 10 (Pacific Northwest) where adequate shore based power is readily available. Thus, there are no alternatives but for vessels to run auxiliary engines for power generation resulting in wet exhaust and cooling water discharge which cannot be captured or stored. Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Please see EPA's response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0390

- A2 , e xcerpt 6, for mor e information on overboard cooling water discharges.

Commenter Name: Diane Pleschner

- Steele, Executive Director, California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA) Commenter Affiliation: California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA) Document Control Nu mber: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0440

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment:
2.10 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge (p.8) The EPA recommendation to reduce production and discharge of seawater cooling overboard and wet exhaust when the vessel is in port is technologically infeasible. When several vessels are in port (or at the dock) at the same time there is simply no alternative to keep seafood products wholesome without running refrigeration condensers and auxiliary generators to maintain power and keep se awater at the appropriate temperature. Vessels must access auxiliary engines for power generation resulting in wet exhaust and cooling water discharge which cannot be captured or stored. Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Please see EPA's response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0390

- A2 , e xcerpt 6, for more information on overboard cooling water discharges.

Commenter Name: Bill Moore, Program Development Services Section Manager, Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) Commenter Affiliation: Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 3 52 Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0443

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 13
Comment: 2.1 10(b), second bullet

- Delete "needed." The sentence will still say "all electricity required for vessel operations." Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and has included the suggested change in the final permit language.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 353 

# Issue Category: QBL

. 8 QBEL (Narrative)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 354 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 355 QBL. 8 QBEL (Narrative)
Commenter Name: Paul Belforti, President, Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Commenter Affiliation: Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0395

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment:
The draft VGP appropriately states that compliance with its provisions should put a vessel operator in compliance with water
- quality based effluent limitations. Section 4.11 of the proposed VGP says the water

- quality

- based effluent limitation supplements the technology

- based limitations found elsewhere in the permit. A water

- quality based effluent limitation is related to the applicable water quality standards that pertain to the waterbody that receives the vessel's discharge.
The VGP contains this important declaration: "EPA expects that compliance with the other conditions in this permit will control discharges as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards." Thus, the VGP makes a pres umption that one who complies with the technology

based limitations of the permit will as a result also comply with the water

- quality based standards. This presumptive statement is appropriate, and it should be retained in the final version of the VGP

. Response: This comment is discussing EPA’s previous issuance of the VGP and is beyond the scope of today’s issuance of the sVGP. For information regarding the VGP, please go to http://w ww.regulations.gov a nd se e docket number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0141.

Commenter Name: Paul Belforti, President, Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Commenter Affiliation: Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0396

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment:
The draft sVGP appropriately states that compliance with its provisions should put a vessel operator in compliance with water
- quality based effluent limitations. Section 4.11 of the proposed sVGP says the water

- quality

- based effluent limitation supplement the technology

- based limitations found elsewhere in the permit. A water

- quality based effluent limitation is related to the applicable water quality standards that pertain to the waterbody that r eceives the vessel's discharge.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 356 The sVGP contains this important declaration: "EPA expects that compliance with the other conditions in this permit will control discharges as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards." Thus , the sVGP makes a pre sumption that one who complies with the technology

based limitations of the permit will as a result also comply with the water

- quality based standards

. This presumptive statement is appropriate , and it should be retained in the final version of the sVGP

. R esponse: EPA acknowledges the commenter’s support for EPA’s approach to water

- quality

- based effluent limitations as finalized in the sVGP. EPA developed the permit’s effluent limits and related requirements (i.e., BMPs) to be protective of water quality standards, as the CWA requires.

Commenter Name: Thomas M. Gemmell, Executive Director, United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Commenter Affiliation: United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0400

- A1 Co mment Excerpt Number: 15
Comment:
15. sVGP Section 4.11.1 It would be helpful to provide a link to a list of impaired waters to improve awareness. Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter’s request for a list of impaired waters to improve awareness. The public can access the list of impaired waters on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/index.cfm . Additionally, EPA has prepared a consolidat ed list of copper and nutrient impaired waters it maintains at http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/vessels/

.

Commenter Name: William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Commenter Affiliation: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0413

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment:
2. Notification

- Michigan requests Section 4.11 of the draft sVGP be revised to require vessel owners/operators to immediately notify the relevant state authority (in addition to the USEPA )Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 357 when they become aware that a discharge from their vessel causes or contributes to an exceedance of an applicable water q uality standard. Response:
EPA does not believe it is necessary to require, as advanced by the commenter, that in all instances both the state and EPA should be notified immediately when an operator becomes aware that a discharge from a vessel causes or contributes to an exceedance of an applicable water quality standard. The permit require s operators to take action to bring such a discharge back into compliance and report such exceedances on the next annual non

- compliance report. Additionally, consist ent with 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) as referenced in Part 4.10 of the permit, non

compliance that may endanger health or the environment must be reported to the EPA region within 24 hours. Further, s tates, territories, and tribes may have established such requir ements as identified in Part 5 of the permit.

Commenter Name: Olin Anderson, Water Quality Standards Specialist, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe (PLPT) Commenter Affiliation: Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe (PLPT) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 042 2

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Permit Section 4.11 Second Paragraph Third Sentence: Better enforcement may happen with more observers of water quality included in the field, to address potential violations. Suggested wording is placed in italics: If at any time you become aware, or an applicable tribal agency, state agency or the EPA determines, that your discharge causes or contributes to an exceedance of applicable water quality standards, you must take action to bring your vessel discha rge into compliance, and you must report exceedances of water quality standards and the steps you take to bring your vessel into compliance on your annual noncompliance report. Permit Section 4.11.1 First Paragraph First Sentence: It is proper to include t ribes, as they can issue 303(d) listings. Suggested wording is placed in italics: Impaired waters or "water quality limited segments]" are those which have been identified by a Tribe, State or EPA pursuant to Section 303(d) of the CWA as not meeting applic able Tribal or State water quality standards. Section 5. State Specific Requirements.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 358 We understand that 401 Certification requirements will be inserted here. Since our tribes with TAS can be providing 401 Certification requirements as well, we suggest rewording the section to "State and Tribal Specific Requirements.''' Response: EPA agre es with the commenter in part and disagrees in part, and has modified the permit consistent with these recommendations. Though EPA agrees that states and tribes are suited to determine when and if there has been an excursion of water quality standards, th ey are not directly charged with administering the sVGP. In developing the draft sVGP and fact sheet, EPA did not identify how an operator may become aware that a violation of water quality standards had occurred; however, EPA expects that in many instance s awareness would be as a result of notification by some other government agency. That government agency may notify EPA , and the Agency may determine that the discharge causes or contributes to an exceedance of applicable water quality standards. EPA agree s with commenter that tribes can issue 303(d) listings and has modified the first sentence of the first paragraph of Part 4.11.1 to note such. Finally, Part 7 (formerly Part 5) of the permit has been renamed to reflect the fact that this section contains requirements for more than just “states.”

Commenter Name: Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Commenter Affiliation: Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0436

- A2 Comment Excerp t Number: 2
Comment: However, these standards are weak international standards and are not strict enough to ensure the next major invasive species threat is prevented. Therefore, we recommend that that ballast water requirements within the VGP be streng thened. In particular, we recommend zero discharge water quality

- based effluent limitation to ensure no movement of live organisms or water, from one bioregion to another. In addition, there are significant inconsistencies among various vessels as well as the States. The states of New York and California have already adopted far more stringent standards, based upon their own scientific determinations that such standards are vital to the protection of their waters. At a minimum, the EPA standards should be a t least as stringent as the highest standards established by the states or other federal agencies. Furthermore, if a Canadian or U.S. vessel has traveled outside the EEZ and returns to the Great Lakes with residual ballast, it should meet the same requirem ents as a foreign vessel. Ownership of the vessel makes no difference in the species that could be picked up by a vessel in its travels, or the risk it poses to the Great Lakes. We strongly urge the EPA to ensure that their finalized permit does not exempt any vessels including Lakers from meeting the same performance standards as all other vessels traveling within the Great Lakes. Specifically, Laker vessels take up and discharge billions of gallons of ballast water every year as they travel from port to p ortResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 359 within the Great Lakes, playing a significant role in spreading invasive species after they have been introduced. Therefore, we recommend that the EPA develop stringent numeric effluent limits for Lakers

. Response: This comment appears to be discussin g EPA’s previous issuance of the VGP and inclusion of numeric ballast water limits for larger vessels: therefore, it is beyond the scope of today’s issuance of the sVGP. For information regarding the VGP, please go to http://w ww.regulations.gov and see docket number OW

- 2011

- 0141.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 360 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 361 

# Issue Category: CRT

. 9 401 Certification, CZMA , and State

RequirementsResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 362 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 363 CRT. 9 401 Certification, CZMA , and State Requirements
Commenter Name: Paul Belforti, President, Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Commenter Affiliation: Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0395

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: The failure to ensure a single national standard for discharges is a serious flaw in the VGP ; there must be a process of public review of and comment on conditions proposed by states as " add
- ons " during the 401 certification process. Many vessels commonl y move from state to state. Even passenger vessels that limit their operational area to a single waterbody may routinely cross state lines (for example , ferries that connect Connecticut and New York across Long Island Sound, ferries that run between Connec ticut and Block Island, Rhode Island ; sightseeing vessels in New York Harbor that sail in the waters of N ew Jersey and New York , ferries that traverse Delaware Bay between Delaware and New Jersey; ferries that go from one state to another at several locations on the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers). In this respect , they are like commercial airliners

. Our nation ha s a policy that the re gulation of the interstate airline industry (including environmental regulation) should be done at the federal level, not by the states. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if states could impose their own policy choices, including with regard to environmen tal measures , on interstate air conveyances. Why is there a different approach to regulating the commercial maritime industry than to other forms of interstate traffic? PV A acknowledges that EPA has no legal authority to prevent individual states from "ad ding on" conditions to the proposed 2013 VGP . The Clean Water Act in its current form allows such " add

- ons
. " Congress needs to act to ensure that there is a single national standard for various discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. In fact, the House of Representatives has voted in favor of such a bill. EPA and the Administration need to speak out to Congress to advocate enactment of a single national standard for wastewater discharges from vessels in interstate commerce.
When EPA devis ed the original VGP , it consulted extensively with affected maritime entities and other parties interested in the issue. Methods of consultation included public hearings, notice and comment on a proposed permit by means of a Federal Register document, and other contacts. This process resulted in a substantially improved and refined VGP compared to the original proposal. However , the process by which states conducted their 401 certifications was s eriously flawed. There was no "give and take, " and no opportun ity to comment on a state ' s "add

- on" conditions to the VGP . As EPA certainly realizes now , the most controversial and unworkable portions of the original VGP are those provisions included as a result of the state certification process

.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 364 As EPA develops the revised VGP and creates the sVGP , it must modify its administrative procedures so that proposed state "add

- on" conditions are subject to the same public notice, comment , and scrutiny as apply to all other portions of the permits. Response:
Please see EPA ’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0396

- A1, excerpt 3.

Commenter Name: Paul Belforti, President, Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Commenter Affiliation: Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0396

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: The failure to ensure a single national standard for discharges is a serious flaw in the sVGP ; There must be a process of public review of and comment on conditions proposed by states as " ad d
- ons " during the 401 certification process. Many vessels commonly move from state to state. Even passenger vessels that limit their operational area to a single waterbody may routinely cross state lines (for example, ferries that connect Connecticut and N ew York across Long Island Sound, ferries that run between Connecticut and Block Island, Rhode Island; sightseeing vessels in New York Harbor that sail in the waters of New Jersey and New York, ferries that traverse Delaware Bay between Delaware and New Je rsey; ferries that go from one state to another at several locations on the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers). In this respect, they are like commercial airliners. Our nation has a policy that the regulation of the interstate airline industry (including environ mental regulation) should be done at the federal level, not by the states. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if states could impose their own policy choices, including with regard to environmental measures, on interstate air conveyances. Why is there a di fferent approach to regulating the commercial maritime industry than to other forms of interstate traffic? PV A acknowledges that EPA has no legal authority to prevent individual states from "adding on" conditions to the proposed sVGP . The Clean Water Act in its current form allows such "add

- ons." Congress needs to act to ensure that there is a single national standard for various discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. In fact, the House of Representatives has voted in favor of such a bi ll. EPA and the Administration need to speak out to Congress to advocate enactment of a single national standard for wastewater discharges from vessels in interstate commerce. When EPA devised the original VGP , it consulted extensively with affected mariti me entities and other parties interested in the issue. Methods of consultation included public hearings, notice and comment on a proposed permit by means of a Federal Register document, and other contacts. This process resulted in a substantially improved and refined VGP compared to theResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 365 original proposal. However, the process by which states conducted their 401 certifications was seriously flawed. There was no "give and take," and no opportunity to comment on a state's "add

- on" conditions to the VGP . As EPA certainly realizes now, the most controversial portion of the original VGP are those provisions included as a result of the state certification process. As E PA develops the revised VGP and creates the sVGP , it must modify its administrative procedures so that proposed state " add on" conditions are subject to the same public notice , comment, and scrutiny as apply to all other portion s of the permits

. Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter ’ s support for uniform standards and concerns regarding the possibility that there may be times when vessels will pass through multiple states during a single voyage, and could be subject to differing state requirements. However, under the NPDES program, it is not possible to have a “single nationwide system” that does not accommodate the states ’ ability to include state

- specific requirements to implement their own water quality standards and requirements. CWA § 510 expressly preserves s tate authority to issue more stringent requirements than the f ederal government and, under CWA § 401, federally issued NPDES permits are subject to certification by the states as to compliance with state water quality standards and other requirements of state law. Therefore , sVGP Part 7 includes conditions provided by the states in ac cordance with the CWA § 401 certification process. Legislation is outside of the scope of today’s action.

Commenter Name: Jennifer A. Carpenter, The American Waterways Operators Commenter Affiliation: The American Waterways Operators Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0408

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: Before commenting on the content of the proposed sVGP , we emphasize that AWO continues to believe that as a matter of public policy, the NPDES permit program, which was designed for stationary, land

- based facilities, is an ill

- fitting framework for the regulation of discharges from mobile sources like vessels, which regularly travel between the waters of multiple states. As we have seen, under t he section 401 certification process states may add contradictory or unachievable conditions to vessel general permits, creating a confusing patchwork of impracticable rules for vessels in interstate commerce. Legislation passed by the House of Representat ives in November 2011 would address this untenable situation by establishing nationally consistent, clear, and science

- based standards for vessel discharges. 1 We respectfully urge EPA to work to generate Administration support for this and other congressio nal efforts to reform the regulation of vessel discharges that would effectively safeguard the marine environment while eliminating the operational and administrative difficulties that have been caused by the grafting of a permit program designed for fixed facilities onto vessels.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 366 1 United States Congress. 2011. Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2011, Title VII, Commercial Vessel Discharges Reform. U.S. Congress, H.R. 2838, passed in House on November 11, 2011. Response: Legislation is outside of the scope of today’s action. Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0396

- A1, excerpt 3.

Commenter Name: Jennifer A. Carpenter, The American Waterways Operators Commenter Affiliation: The American Waterways Operators Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0408

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: In the meantime, AWO recognizes that EPA must administer the NPDES permit process as effectively as possible within the confines of current law. We therefore urge EPA to affirmatively manage the section 401 state certification process to ensure that vessel operators are not faced with inconsistent and unnecessarily burde nsome state requirements as they transit through the waters of multiple states. AWO believes that EPA can help to prevent another unacceptable patchwork of infeasible state conditions by working with the states to make the section 401 certification process as transparent and accessible to the regulated community as possible. During the certification process accompanying the first VGP in 2008, it was extremely difficult, and in many cases impossible, for the regulated community to obtain timely information o n proposed state requirements and provide needed expertise and perspective before the certifications and associated conditions were finalized. We urge EPA to facilitate stakeholders’ engagement with the states by providing information about state notice an d comment periods and any other opportunities for public participation in their certification processes, and publishing these announcements on the EPA Website. EPA should also play a leadership role in helping states that share a waterway or coastline to r esolve any conflicts or inconsistencies among their proposed conditions before they certify the sVGP. Response:
Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0429

- A2, excerpt 4.

Commenter Name: Tim Sizemore, Manager Waterway Regulatory Programs, American Electric Power River Operations (AEP) Commenter Affiliation: American Electric Power River Operations (AEP) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0428

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 5Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 367 Comment:
AEP River Operations urges USEPA to affirmatively manage the state 401 certification process to ensure that vessel operators are not faced with inconsistent and unnecessarily burdensome state requirements as they travel through the waters of multiple states. To avoid this unacceptable result , AEP River Operations urges the Agency to work with the states to make the 401 certification process as transparent and accessible to stakeholders as possible. USEPA should facilitate stakeholders’ engagement with the states by providing information on st ate notice and comment periods and any other opportunities for public engagement in their certification processes, and publishing these announcements on the USEPA Web site. The Agency should also play a leadership role in helping states that share a waterw ay or coastline to resolve any conflicts or inconsistencies among their proposed conditions before certifying the permit. Response:
Please s ee EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0429

- A2, excerpt 4.

Commenter Name: Brian D. Hughes, Vice President Operations, Regulatory Compliance, Hughes Bros. Inc. Commenter Affiliation: Hughes Bros. Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0429

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: Our equipment works on the East Coast from Maine to Florid a and occasionally in the Gulf of Mexico. A vessel transiting from New York to Florida will pass through the waters of 9 states. Our barges, and the tugs pulling those barges, will have difficult time following a patchwork of regulations. Hughes Bros. resp ectfully requests that the EPA affirmatively manage the section 401 state certification process by publicizing opportunities for vessel owners and operators to engage in states’ certification processes and by helping states that share a waterway or coastli ne to resolve their conflicts before certifying permits. Response: EPA has worked with the states to make the 401 certification process as transparent and accessible to stakeholders as possible, and has played a leadership role in helping states that share a waterway or coastline to resolve any conflicts or inconsistencies among their proposed conditions before certifying the permit. With respect to requesting 401 certification from s tates, t ribes, and t erritories, EPA acted in accordance with Section 401 and its implementing regulations when prescribing timeframes for responses to requests for certification. EPA provided s tates with more than 9 months to grant, grant with condition, deny , or waiveResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 368 certif ication of the Draft Next VGP under CWA section 401. EPA explained each state’s obligations under CWA section 401 and 40 CFR § 124.53(e) in EPA’s written requests for S ection 401 certification. In January 2012, EPA facilitated a meeting and webinar in EPA Region V’s office with the Great Lakes states to provide them the opportunity to share information with each other and to discuss appropriate interstate coordination of their S ection 401 certifications. Also, EPA posted all certifications received in the d ocket for this permit, which has provided various stakeholder groups the opportunity to review those certifications prior to permit finalization.

Commenter Name: Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Commenter Affiliation: Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0436

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: State that discharges from vessels must meet all other state and federal applicable laws. In particular, many states have separ ate ballast water regulations that still must be met. (page 2) Response: Parts 4.8 and 4.9 clarify that nothing in the permit shall be construed to affect, super s ede, or relieve the vessel owner or operator of any otherwise applicable f ederal or state regu lations, respectively. In addition, Part 5 contains additional permit conditions applicable to vessels in specific states, Indian Country, or territories.

Commenter Name: Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Commenter Af

filiation: Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0436

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: Under compliance with other statues and regulations, state that discharges from vessels must meet all other state an d federal applicable laws. In particular, many states have separate ballast water regulations that still must be met. (page 8) Response:
Please s ee EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0436

- A2, excerpt 5.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 369 Commenter Name: Bill Moore, Program Development Services Section Manager, Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) Commenter Affiliation: Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 044 3

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: We will consider 401 certification conditions to fill gaps in sVGP interpretation even though the conditions might create inconsistency between states. Response:
Please s ee EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0396

- A1, excerpt 3.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 370 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 371 

# Issue Category: ECN. 10 EconomicsResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 372 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 373 ECN. 10 Economics
Commenter Name: Stanley Mack, Mayor, Aleutians East Borough (AEB) Commenter Affiliation: Aleutians East Borough (AEB) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0390

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment:
The EAL lubricants that are available in Alaska are confined to types of hydraulic oil. These environmentally

- friendly o ils are currently sold in Anchorage but are not sold in the Aleutians East Borough. In Anchorage, 5 gallons of regular Chevron “Rando” hydraulic oil ISO 32 can be purchased for $76.00 (from Inlet Petroleum, 907

- 274

- 3835). The same product costs $85.00 in S and Point (from Peter Pan Seafoods, 907

- 383

- 2822) or King Cove. By comparison, the EAL equivalent hydraulic oil available only in Anchorage is Chevron Clarity Synthetic Hydraulic Oil AW costing $180.00 for 5 gallons. This product is not sold in AEB communi ties. We are concerned that availability on EALs in the AEB will continue to be a problem for some time after implementation of these rules. Since it is also reasonable to assume the price will continue to be more than double that of regular hydraulic oils when they are available, we remain concerned of the cost burden to fishermen and resulting economic strain on the AEB communities. Response: For the purposes of the economic analysis, EPA obtained cost data from retailers of marine lubricants for over 50 products classified across the four categories, with at least one product in each category being advertised as biodegradable or environmentally safe. Whether the environmentally safer products were more expensive than conventional products depended on the type of lubricant; environmentally preferred dry lubricants and gear oils were 54 and 32 percent more expensive than their counterpart s , respectively, but engine oils and lubricants for general application were less expensive (by 28 and 24 percent, respec tively). EPA notes that this incremental cost is based on prices charged in major U.S. ports and that regional prices may differ from this average. Based on this analysis , EPA found that the use of EALs could result in an incremental cost between

- $0.23 an d $0.52 per ounce. Please see EPA’s economic analysis finalized for today’s permit for further discussion. EPA is unaware of, and the commenter did not provide, the basis for commenter ’ s more inflated cost estimate. For more information on EPA’s analysis, see Section 5.2.3 of the sVGP Economic and Benefit Analysis, available in the docket at http://w ww.regulations.gov

.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 374 Regarding availability of EALs in the U.S. market, based on this and other comments, EPA has cla rified the definition of technically infeasible for purposes of oil

- to

- sea interfaces. Among other things, that definition clarifies that technically infeasib l e includes the absence of EALs ’ availability within any port in which the vessel calls.

Commenter Name: Paul Belforti, President, Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Commenter Affiliation: Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0395

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: PVA believes that the imp act on small business has been underestimated, and urges EPA to reassess its Small Business Impact estimates

. At the same time , we urge EPA to take into consideration the multitude of rule makings that the Federal Government is currently drafting that affe cts these same small businesses. The cost of the cumulative impact of regulation on small businesses is staggering. The Small Business Administration estimates that for small businesses

- those that hire fewer than 20 employees

- the annual cost of complia nce with regulations is $10,585 per employee. Even within the EPA there are multiple rules moving forward that all impact these businesses such as those dealing with clean air and diesel emissions. Crews on passenger vessels are small in number, and the cr ew members already have many responsibilities in operating the vessels safely. EPA must adjust its management expectations for the 2013 VGP to be more realistic and much less prescriptive. Response: The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, requires federal agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory proposals on small entities, to analyze alternatives that minimize those impacts, and to make their analyses a vailable for public comment. EPA notes that today’s action is a permit, not a regulation. However, the Agency has performed an analysis of the impact of the sVGP requirements on small entities that own vessels covered under the sVGP. This analysis was cond ucted to examin e the economic achievability of complying with the technology

- based effluent limitations embodied in the permit, and included consideration of the potential costs for small businesses to comply with sVGP requirements. EPA used ratios of comp liance costs to entity revenue as indicators of impacts on small entities and to determine whether a substantial number of small entities would incur significant costs. EPA notes that this is the same approach and methodology the A gency has used in many of its RFA analyses for proposing and finalizing federal regulations.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 375 The test calculates annualized pre

- tax compliance cost as a percentage of total revenues and uses a threshold of 1 and 3 percent to identify facilities that would be significantly impact ed as a result of this permit. Because the impact of sVGP compliance is likely to be most significant for firms at the lower end of the firm

- size spectrum, the analysis focused on firms in the smallest revenue category in each industry. The results of this test provide estimated compliance cost thresholds that range between $331 and $680 per year (1 percent ) and between $994 and $2,040 per year (3 percent ), depending on the industry. The estimated sVGP compliance costs ($17 to $133 per year) are well below these thresholds. Based on this firm

- level analysis using the average characteristics of firms in the lowest revenue category, EPA concludes that the sVGP will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities based on inform ation showing that firms would have lower compliance costs than would exceed the 1 percent cost

- to

- revenue threshold under high

- end cost assumptions. Please see the Economic and Benefits Analysis of the Final 2014 Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) availab le in the docket for today’s permit, for the underlying analysis that informed EPA’s conclusion that there would not be a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Commenter Name: Paul Belforti, President, Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Commenter Affiliation: Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0395

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 17

Comment:
EPA has not performed the required Regulatory Flexibility Act economic analysis as to how its pr oposed graywater treatment provisions would affect U .S.

- flagged " small ship" cruise vessels , all of whom are operated by small businesses under federal government criteria. This discriminates against companies that have subjected themselves fully to all U. S. laws and standards, including tax and labor laws. PVA urges EPA to consult with the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration to ensure that it is compliance with its obligations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Response: The sVGP does not contain specific graywater requirements for “small ship” cruise vessels. EPA believes this comment is in regards to a requirement in the VGP and is outside the scope of this action.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 376 Commenter Name: Paul Belforti, President, Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Commenter Affiliation: Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0396

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: PVA believes that the impact on small business has been underestimated, and urg es EPA to reassess its Small Business Impact estimates. At the same time, we urge EPA to take into consideration the multitude of rulemakings that the Federal Government is currently drafting that affects these same small businesses. The cost of the cumula tive impact of regulation on small businesses is staggering. The Small Business Administration estimates that for small businesses

- those that hire fewer than 20 employees

- the annual cost of compliance with regulations is $10,585 per employee. Even with in the EPA there are multiple rules moving forward that all impact these businesses such as those dealing with clean air and diesel emissions. Crews on passenger vessels are small in number , and the crew members already have many responsibilities in operat ing the vessels safely. EPA must adjust its management expectations for the sVGP to be more realistic and much less prescriptive. Response:
Please s ee EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0395

- A1, excerpt 11.

Commenter Name: Kathy Hans en, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Commenter Affiliation: Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 20
Comment: Economic Analysis: We briefly reviewed the economic analysis provided and find it very sparse and difficult to read but can state that the costs estimated for Alaska (Region 10) are significantly underestimated for the populated areas not to mention the increased costs for remo te communities. For example the economic analysis estimates the price for OIL PADS range from $0.15 to $0.48, the cost in Southeast Alaska is approximately $0.75 to $1.25.
sVGP Fact Sheet: Page 7

– We believe that the economic analysis underestimates the cost of compliance and paperwork burden. For example just to perform the quarterly inspections for some vessel operators will be thousands of dollars each trip just to travel to the vessel to perform the inspection and a boat watcher is not qualified as t he PARI form is currently written. See comments on Economic analysis section for additional information.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 377 Response: EPA thanks the commenter for the information provided on the price of oil pads. To reflect potentially higher regional costs, EPA used $0.7 5 per pad as its higher bound unit cost estimate. For additional discussion, please see S ection 5.2.2 of the sVGP Economic Analysis, available in the docket. EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that performing the quarterly inspections will cost thousands of dollars each trip just to travel to the vessel as a boat watcher is not qualified to sign and certify the PARI form as that form is currently written. Part 3.1(b) of the permit specifies that the person in charge (e.g., the Master) or his or her duly authorized representative may certify the PARI form. Thus, as written, the permit gives the person in charge (e.g., the Master) the ability to authorize some other individual to sign and certify the PARI form. Additionally, EPA included inspectio n provisions that i f a vessel is being maintained on land for a full quarter, it need not be inspected. Instead the owner/operator must document that the vessel was not in the water for that quarter on their PARI form before placing the vessel back into th e water.

Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment:
Small vessels wit h greater than 8 cubic meters of ballast water capacity, will face difficulties to install a BWTS due to space and stability issues. Further, EPA has estimated the cost of installing and operating a BWTS as between $300,000 to more than $2.5 million depend ing upon vessel characteristics and treatment system. Economic and Benefits Analysis of the Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit , at p. 64 (Nov. 30, 2011). This expense range would constitute a prohibitive expense for fishing vessels, particularly smaller v essels. It is unclear if EPA’s estimate includes the cost of retrofits and structural modifications that may be necessary to install BWTS , given existing vessel space and stability concerns. We request that EPA maintain the ballast water management requir ements of the 2008 VGP in lieu of the BWTS requirement if vessels can demonstrate, with appropriate documentation, that installation of BWTS would be cost prohibitive or structurally impossible. Response: The sVGP does not include a requirement to install ballast water treatment systems. EPA believes this comment is in regards to a requirement in the VGP and is outside the scope of this action.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 378 Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15

Comment: Economic Analysis: We briefly reviewed the economic analysis provided and find it very sparse and difficult to read but can state that the costs estimated for Alaska (Region 10) are significantly underestimated for the populated areas, not to mention the increased costs for remote communities. For example the economic analysis estimates the range for OIL PADS from $0.15 to $0.48, the cost in Southeast Alaska ranges more like $0.75 to $1.25. Response:
Please s ee EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1, excerpt 20.

Commenter Name: Craig Urness, General Counsel, Pacific Seafood Group and Pacific Fishing, LLC Commenter Affiliation: Pacific Seafood Group and Pacific Fishing, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0407

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: We believe that the issues that will face vessel owners under the proposed permit requiremen ts, even as may be modified by public comment, will be overly burdensome and may potentially force people out of business because of the practical inability to comply with the permit requirements. The economic implications to vessel owners and the complexi ty of the permit need to be seriously reviewed and considered in this new permit requirement. Response : Please s ee EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0395

- A1, excerpt 11.

Commenter Name: Dale Kelley, Executive Director, Alaska Trolle rs Association (ATA) Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Trollers Association (ATA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0409

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 379 Comment: While EPA itself notes that these permits are a 'significant regulatory action', it concludes that the sVGP will not significantly impact our members, because it does not exceed the 'cost

- to

revenue' threshold. First, we question EPA's assumption regarding cost per vessel and also whether or not the gross revenue calculation is appropriat e for small, unincorporated businesses. Second, even a cursory review of the draft permit suggests that the costs could, in fact, be substantial for small boat fishermen. At minimum, costs to comply with these regulations could include structural changes t o vessels (if even possible); fishing time lost by individuals and small crews to fulfill such requirements as documentation and reporting; fishing time lost and expense incurred running great distances to communities large enough to provide services and a ccept discharges; and even disruption of basic daily operations (e.g. vessel sanitation, cooking, cleaning, and showering). Response : Please s ee EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0395

- A1, excerpt 11.

Commenter Name: Dale Kelley, Exe cutive Director, Alaska Trollers Association (ATA) Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Trollers Association (ATA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0409

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: Unnecessary Cost to the Nation Discharge regulations f

or our fleet would do nothing more than further burden state and federal agencies, thousands of small businesses, local communities, and American families. Cost to the troll fleet, and other small vessel/business owners, stemming from increased regulation of vessel discharges under these permits is likely to be substantial. The rules seem impractical and cost prohibitive for both industry and the United States. In short, regulation of small boat commercial fishing discharges would be premature based on the data gathered thus far, and is likely to be unnecessary, as there would be no substantial gain realized. If these permits are put in place, EPA would be faced with the administrative, monitoring, enforcement and fiscal burdens of an additional 140,000 new permits nationally, at time when federal budgets are being significantly cut. Again, and importantly, we do not believe that the benefits from new regulations would outweigh the negative impacts to the fleet and nation. We anticipate the nation would be be tter served if congress and the administration allowed EPA to focus on solving real problems that could lead to significant improvements in water quality. Simply focusing on the discharges of 70,000 small commercial fishing vessels would be off the mark, m issing the point of regulating an activity to provide human and environmental benefit.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 380 Response : EPA issued the sVGP in the event that Congress does not extend the P.L. 110

- 299 moratorium. EPA does not have the authority to grant or extend a moratorium. Absent a valid general permit, if Congress does not extend the moratorium, small vessel owner s /operators would not be able to legally discharge (and therefore operate) in U.S. waters. EPA believes that it is good government to provide these vessel owner s /operators with a viable permitting mechanism if it should be needed at the end of 201 4

. EPA believes that the sVGP is straightforward and provides common
- sense management requirements, while meeting our regulatory requirements. Also, please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0395

- A1, excerpt 11.

Commenter Name: Thomas M. McLaughlin, President/CEO, Seafood Producers Cooperative Commenter Affiliation: Seafood Producers Cooperative Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0 427

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: It is somewhat troubling that the proposal regulations appear to be excessive. SPC has processed fish hold ice, but in fact, the ice and the effluent is very clean. The majority of our fish are eviscerated before being placed in the fish hold. The cost of the treatment and disposal costs cited in Section 6, page 14, are underestimated f or Alaska. In our case the labor costs associated with what we do would add at least 10

- 15% to the cost. Response: EPA is unclear what document the commenter is referencing when citing Section 6, page 14; however, based on a firm

- level analysis using the average characteristics of firms in the lowest revenue category, EPA concludes that the sVGP will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities based on information showing that firms would have lower compliance costs tha n would exceed the 1 percent cost

- to

- revenue threshold under high

- end cost assumptions. For practices involving additional labor, EPA used industry average labor rates, updated to 2010 dollars using the Employment Cost Index (ECI), or $33.72/hour. For purp oses of evaluating labor costs associate d with inspections, EPA separates the cost for fishing vessels and other commercial vessels to perform these inspections, because the average labor rate for an employee on a fishing vessel is lower than in other indu stries. As mentioned above, EPA assumes there are no additional costs associate d with this provision, and thus the labor rates were not adjusted per the commenter’s recommendation.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 381 Commenter Name: Brian D. Hughes, Vice President Operations, Regulatory Compliance, Hughes Bros. Inc. Commenter Affiliation: Hughes Bros. Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0429

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: The current weekly VGP inspections, recordkeeping and reporting requirements have been bur densome for our employees. We have 10

- 30 barges berthed at our dock at any time. We only have a crew of 5 working at our facility. A weekly inspection takes one crew member 4

- 6 hours each week, including use of a tugboat to access vessels moored at the cen ter of our basin. After making a visual inspection, this employee must spend at least 30 minutes filling out paperwork, emailing the paperwork to our office and filing the paperwork in our yard office. The loss of this crew member for 4

- 6 hours one day a w eek creates an undue burden on the rest of our staff. Due to the difficult economic times, we are unable to hire additional staff to handle these duties. We respectfully request that, if the sVGP is not finalized, a sVGP approach should be added to the VGP for barges that incorporates best management practices, quarterly visual inspection requirements, and recordkeeping and reporting via the PARI form. Response: Comments regarding requirements in the VGP are outside the scope of this action.

Commenter N ame: Beth Kerttula, Representative, House District 3, Alaska State Legislature et al. Commenter Affiliation: Alaska State Legislature, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0439

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: Thank you for allowing us to comment. We are writing to urgently request that you do not adopt the small Vessels General Permit ( sVGP ). The regulatory burden on small boat operators is already tremendous and the implementation of these changes will be costly, time consu ming and have a negligible benefit in Alaska.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 382 Response : Please s ee EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0409

- A1, excerpt 9.

Commenter Name: Bobbi M. Walker, Executive Director, National Association of Charterboat Operators (NACO) Com menter Affiliation: National Association of Charterboat Operators (NACO) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0441

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment:
The economic ana l ysis used to make decisions is not ba se d on any peer reviewed public stu dy that would provide the negative economic and social impacts on charter boat s. We do not see that your baseline analysis details cumulative impacts from other federal and state regulations. Thus, we wish to formerly request that E PA seek an economic and social impact st udy performed by the Small Business Administration that outlines the true impacts to our industry including the additional paperwork burden, liability exposure and financia l burden on these small bu s inesse s . We would ar gue these burden s will cause some in our industry to fold up their businesses because they are coup l ed with many other new regulations and that will adversely affect an already weak national economy and will not enhance significantly any possible pollution to our water ways. Your findings that sVGP requirements could result in total annual incremental costs for domestic vessels ranging between $7 million and $12.1 million (2010$), in the aggregate needs to include cumulative cost burdens to our industry. If your cost

- to revenue test to evaluate the potential severity of econom i c impact on vessels and facilities owned by small entities did not include all cost burdens to this industry you have grossly under estimated the actual cost to our indu s tr y associated with federal and state regulations

. There comes a point where cumulative costs of regulations can out distance profits to small businesses

. Response: EPA estimates that sVGP requirements could result in total annual incremental costs for dome stic vessels ranging between $7.1 million and $16.9 million (2010$), in the aggregate. This includes the paperwork burden costs and the sum of all practices for applicable discharge categories. Per vessel incremental compliance costs average between $17 an d $133 per year, depending on the number of applicable discharge categories and baseline practices. EPA’s analysis evaluates potential compliance costs to vessels associated with each of the practices and discharge categories identified in the sVGP, and wi th the inspection and recordkeeping requirements. The baseline for this analysis is full industry compliance with existing federal and state regulations and with current industry practices or standards that exceedResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 383 current regulations to the extent that the y can be empirically observed. EPA’s analysis does not evaluate the cumulative economic cost burden to these industries related to other federal and state regulations. EPA’s responsibility for assessing costs relates to the action being promulgated, and co sts associated with other requirements are outside the scope of this action. Finally, for additional discussion regarding EPA’s responsibilities under the RFA of 1980, as amended by SBREFA of 1996, please s ee EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

2011

- 0150

- 0395

- A1, excerpt 11.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 384 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 385 

# Issue Category: USCG. 11 General C onsistency with I nternational or

USCG R egulationsResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 386 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 387 USCG. 11 General C onsistency with I nternational or USCG R egulations
Commenter Name: Bruno Pigott, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Water Quality, Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) Commenter Affiliation: Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0393

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment:
IDEM advocates that the USCG approval process for ballast water treatment systems should be finalized and in place before the USEPA establishes installation and compliance d ates for new and old ships. A timeframe should be established for how long it will take the USCG to review and approve new systems submitted by manufacturers. Once final USCG approval has been received, manufacturers will need to put the new systems into m ass production

- develop manufacturing facilities, make equipment, develop service capabilities, and install equipment on ships. We ask that the EPA carefully consider these important factors when establishing a deadline by when ships will need to comply w ith the new Vessel General Permit. Response: This comment is beyond the scope of the sVGP. Similar comments were addressed in EPA’s issuance of the final VGP.

Commenter Name: Thomas M. Gemmell, Executive Director, United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Commenter Affiliation: United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0400

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment:
6. sVGP Section 2.4. This seems to duplicate Coast Guard regulations derived from MARPOL

/3 3 U.S.C. 1901

- 1915. Is this necessary? Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1, excerpt 24.

Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) Commenter Affiliation: United Fishe rmen of AlaskaResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 388 Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18
Comment: Vessel Discharges Not Eligible for Coverage on page 1 section 1.5 : The U.S. Coast Guard, Dept of Commerce and Regional Fishery Management Councils defines “seafood processing” as the commercial preparation of fish or fish products other than by gutting, decapitating, gilling, skinning, shucking, icing, freezing or brine chilling. Section 1.5 states that discharges described in 40 CFR 122.3 include but are not limited to, discharges from industrial operations (e.g. seafood processing . . . are not covered by this permit). The draft permit needs to contain the definition o f seafood processing and should use the already accepted definition provided above and include allowances for the discharges not already covered created by gutting, decapitating, gilling, skinning, shucking, icing, freezing or brine chilling as normal inci dental operation of a commercial fishing vessel. Annex V of Marpol excludes “fresh fish and parts thereof, generated during the normal operation of the ship and liable to be disposed of continuously or periodically” . . . again bringing us back to the assu mption that these operations should be covered under this permit. Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0 379

- A1, excerpt 6, regarding adding a definition of “seafood processing” to the permit.

Commenter Name: Mark Vi nsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 20
Comment: General Requirements on page 3 section 2.1 : (b) Annex 5 of Marpol regulates garbage. This is unnecessary and duplicative language. Response: EPA disagrees with this commenter’s suggestion to remove the prohibition against discharges of garbage since that provision is duplicative of Annex 5 of MARPOL. EPA acknowledges that garbage is currently regulated by MARPOL; however, EPA has included requ irements from such other regulations in the sVGP, when found to be consistent with the best available technology economically achievable (BAT) and to ensure that these requirements are also enforceable under the CWA.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 389 In developing the permit, EPA evaluat ed existing mechanisms provided under international agreements and other f

ederal law to identify opportunities to eliminate or minimize redundant, inconsistent, or overlapping regulatory requirements. However, for example, USCG requirements were developed based upon the requirements of Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act/National Invasive Species Act ( NANPCA/NISA ) , and not the CWA so while it has drawn heavily on those existing USCG requirements, the Agency has included additional pro visions necessary to satisfy its legal obligations under the CWA. Also, EPA disagrees that merely including gar b age in Part 2.1 of the sVGP is unnecessary and duplicative language. T o comply with the sVGP, a vessel owner/operator must comply with any requirements of those other statutes and regulations for discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels, including, for example, any prohibitions on those discharges pursuant to the implementing regulations of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. Compliance with permit terms, in some instances, establishes an expectation that o perators will comply with other laws as a component of being able to demonstrate compliance with this pe rmit. For example, the permit requires o perators to use “best marine practices” to “minimize” discharges. As these terms are defined in Part 5 of the permit, o perators must use practices that comply with, among other things, “relevant legal requirements” t o reduce and/or eliminate discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel to w aters of the United States. The term “minimize” is used to provide a reasonable approach by which EPA, permittees, and the public can determine or evaluate appropriate control measures for vessels to control specific discharges. See Section 4.12.3 of the sVGP fact sheet for a discussion of the use of “minimize” and how its use comports with CWA requirements to meet the applicable levels of control. Part 4.11 of the sVGP fact sheet provides additional detail on EPA’s rationale for determining that inclu ding additional federal regulations in fact is reasonable. These effluent limits contain the requirement to comply with other applicable statutes and regulations dealing wit h vessel discharges. Reliance on other statutes and regulations to develop the permit requirements is reasonable because these statutes and regulations have gone through an extensive process of evaluation and analysis by federal agencies that have conside rable expertise in vessel management.

Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 24
Comment: Solid and Liquid Waste Management on page 5, section 2.4: This section should be deleted since Annex V of Marpol regulations cover all these situations and is referenced in section 2.11 Compliance with other Statues and Regulations.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 390 Response:
E PA disagrees with this commenter’s suggestion to delete S ection 2.4 since that provision is duplicative of Annex 5 of MARPOL and is referenced in S ection 2.11 of the sVGP. EPA acknowledges that garbage is currently regulated by MARPOL; however, EPA has in cluded requirements from such other re gulations in the sVGP, when found to be consistent with the BAT and to ensure that these requirements are also enforceable under the CWA. In addition, EPA has provided clarifying language in S ection 2.4 of the permit to better define the expectations for manag ing solid and liquid waste. See also EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1, excerpt 20

.

Commenter Name: Charles V. Darr, Director of Environmental and Health Programs, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) Commenter Affiliation: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0411

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: First, via this permit, or its associated Fact Sheet, EPA pro poses or considers several initiatives that diverge from the current regulatory framework established by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Specifically this includes the timetable for installation of ballast water treatment equipment, the pote ntial for ballast water treatment limits more stringent than the "D

2" standards considered by IMO, effluent limitations for exhaust gas scrubber systems, and the possibility of a 5 ppm effluent limit for bilge water. As a general statement CLIA members st rongly encourage EPA to remain consistent with the IMO established framework. The international nature of the shipping industry is such that it is all the more appropriate to migrate towards the international standard rather than to introduce additional re quirements, absent adequate technological solutions or sound scientific rationale. The United States can, and has, engaged with the IMO process successfully in the past, and we encourage this approach in the future. Response:
As the sVGP establishes no nu meric limits for ballast water or exhaust gas scrubber effluent, this comment is outside the scope of the sVGP. Furthermore, the majority of vessels covered by the sVGP are not “international vessels” and are instead U.S. flagged.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 391 Commenter Name: G regory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Commenter Affiliation: Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0426

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment:
The U.S. Coast Guard uses standards found in 46 U.S.C. 12113 to determine whether a vessel is eligible for a fishery endorsement. We suggest that the sVGP permit apply to vessels eligible for a fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 12113 and that vessels les s than 5 net tons, as described in 46 U.S.C. 11203(a), be provided a general exemption. Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1, excerpt 3.

Commenter Name: Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden Stat e Seafood Association (GSSA) Commenter Affiliation: Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0426

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment:
The above definition is familiar to the U.S. Coast Guard and has been u sed as the basis of definitions found in federal fishery management plans and regulations issued by the Department of Commerce to implement those plans. The following wording might be appropriate: “Seafood Processing” means the commercial preparation of fi sh or fish products other than by gutting, decapitating, gilling, skinning, shucking, icing, freezing, or brine chilling. Response: Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0 379

- A1, excerpt 6 , regarding adding a definition of “seafoo d processing” to the permit.

Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager, Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA) Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0444

- A1 Comment Excerpt Nu mber: 2
Comment:Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 392 3. Vessel discharges not eligible for coverage on page 1 section 1.5. All of the vessels we represent head and gut and bleed their fish at sea. We recommend the UFA recommendations to you regarding this. Response: Please see EPA’s respo nse to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 379

- A1, excerpt 6 , regarding adding a definition of “seafood processing” to the permit.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 393 

# Issue Category: OOS

. 12 Out of Scope (0 comments)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 394 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 395 

# Issue Category: MIS

. 13 Miscellaneous/OtherResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 396 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 397 MIS. 13 Miscellaneous/Other
Commenter Name: Dwight Morrison, Co

- Chair, Wheels On Trails Organization Commenter Affiliation: Wheels On Trails Organization Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 201 1

- 0150

- 0295 Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: We would also like to request a copy of the final EPA Ballast Standards for our review and possible further comments? We would also like a copy of the 'Permit' form to see the actual details, and also an id ea of the penalties that would be charged if the ships do not deal with the discharge issue? Are there any studies to show how effective the EPA rule would be? Response: The Vessel General Permit and accompanying documents are available for download at http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/vessels/ . Ballast water limits for the sVGP are contained in Part 2 of that permit. Though beyond the scope of this permit action, please see Part 4.4.3 of the VGP f act s heet for a description of the information EPA used to formulate the VGP and to establish the ballast water treatment limits. Please see the sVGP fact sheet for a discuss ion of the BMPs contained in the sVGP for ballast water.

Commenter Name: Bruno Pigott, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Water Quality, Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) Commenter Affiliation: Indiana Department of Environmental Man agement (IDEM) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0393

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: Additionally, IDEM recommends that the EPA develop and implement a training and certification program to educate the various industries regulated und er the VGP and especially the sVGP . Education on the specific regulations and compliance with those regulations is essential for the success of any permitting program. Response: EPA agrees that educating permittees and other stakeholders results in a mor e effective program. Like with the 2008 VGP , EPA plans to devote appropriate resources to an education and outreach campaign to improve compliance with today's permit. However, anyResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 398 specific actions by EPA on future education and outreach are beyond the s cope of this permitting action.

Commenter Name: Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Commenter Affiliation: Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0436

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment:

 For alternative permits, particularly the individual permit, the EPA needs to ensure an appropriate public process for comment is available. (page 10) Response:
EPA has an established public notice process for all permits, both general and individual permits. Please see 40 CFR § 124.10.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 399 

# Issue Category: MFC. 14 Misfiled Comment (Misfiled in sVGP but A pplicable to VGP)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 400 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 401 MFC

– 14 Misfiled Comment
Commenter Name: Paul Belforti, President, Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Commenter Affiliation: Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0395

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: Retain the proposed definition of "minimize." In many parts of the draft 2013 VGP , the vessel operator is told to "minimize" various discharges. In Appendix A

- the definitions section of the proposed VGP the term "minimize" means "reduce and / or eliminate to the extent achievable using control measures (including best management practices) that are technologically available and economically practicable and achievable in light of best marine practice. " By the phrase "to the extent achievable ," it acknowledg es that many discharges are likely to continue to some extent. By qualifying the term "control measures' with the phrase "technologically available and economically practicable and achievable," it takes into account the fact that effective technological "f ixes" are not always available at a reasonable cost. By acknowledging the use of "best management practices," it demonstrates awareness that an operational measure may be the best or most effective method of minimizing a discharge. This definition of "mini mize" is appropriate, and it is important to retain it in the 2013 VGP. Response: The commenter is referring to requirements in the draft 2013 VGP. This comment is beyond the scope of the sVGP. The VGP is a separate permit from the sVGP. For information on the 2013 VGP including the 2013 VGP Response to Comments, please see docket number EPA

- HQ

- OW

2011

- 0141 at http://www.regulations.gov

.

Commenter Name: Paul Belforti, President, Passenger Vessel Association ( PVA) Commenter Affiliation: Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0395

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: The exemption from ballast water management measures for vessels engaged in short
- term voyages should be preserved but clarified. The whole purpose of having ballast water management measures is to prevent the transfer of nuisance aquatic invasive species to waters which are currently free from them. If a vessel does not present a possibility of suc h a transfer, there is no need for ballast water managementResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 402 measures. The "Short

- Term Voyage" exemption in the proposed revised VGP recognizes this fact. This provision should be retained. However, there are discreet bodies of water (certain rivers or lakes) in which there are more than one Captain

- of

- the

- Port zones. For example, each Great Lake (other than Lake Ontario) is divided between two Captain

- of

- the

- Port zones

. The aquatic invasive species can move throughout such a waterbody on its own; it ha s no need of transfer by vessel ballast water. The "Short

- Term Voyage" exemption should be altered to include a vessel operating in a physically discrete body of water , even if there is more than one Captain

- of

- the

- Port zone

. Also, with regard to a vessel that operates between two Captain

- of

- the

- Port zones, the "10

- mile limitation in the proposed VGP is too restrictive. This distance should be increased to at least 50 miles. Any numeric standard for the level of ballast water treatment should be a single na tional standard. The one proposed by EPA is appropriate. Only a minority of PVA vessels has ballast water discharges , and some of them will likely be able to take advantage of the "Short

- Term Voyage" provision in the proposed revised VGP. Nonetheless, some PVA vessels will have to adhere to a ballast water numeric standard in the permit. Therefore , it is essential that there be a single national standard for a vessel that operates across state lines and that the standard be measurable and achievable. The st andard proposed by EPA is appropriate , as it conforms to an international standard developed by the International Maritime Organization

. Furthermore, two expert panels have recently concluded that this standard can be attained in the real world, whereas mo re aggressive standards (for instance, the ones imposed by the states of New York and California) cannot be attained given the state of technology that exists now or that can be realistically expected to be developed anytime soon. Response:
Please see EP A’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0395

- A1, excerpt 4.

Commenter Name: Paul Belforti, President, Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Commenter Affiliation: Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 015 0

- 0395

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: EPA should reduce administrative burdens on operators as much as possible and should not impose any additional administrative burdens. Adherence to the proposed 2013 VGP will continue yet one more regulatory mandate on thousands of small businesses that operate commercial passenger vessels. Consequently, EPA should make compliance as simple as possible and impose no more administrative requirements than absolutely necessary.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 403 Response:
Please see EPA’s respon se to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0395

- A1, excerpt 4.

Commenter Name: Paul Belforti, President, Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Commenter Affiliation: Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0395

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment: The requirement that a Notice of Intent for vessels that meet the criteria be submitted again in 2013 for vessels that already submitted a Notice of Intent to comply with the 2008 VGP is a needless redundancy. Submitting the same form again for the same fleet of vessels is another burden on vessel owners. PV A appreciates EPA's effort to enable operators of covered vessels to file required reports electronically and PYA will encourage this mode of communication. However, EPA should preserve the ability for an operator to file by paper, and there should be no need for the operator to request a waiver from the government before choosing this option

. The draft VGP should "come down on the side" of making the process most convenient for the citizen

- operator , not what is most convenient for the government. Response:
Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0395

- A1, excerpt 4.

Commenter Name: Paul Belforti, President, Passenger Vessel Assoc iation (PVA) Commenter Affiliation: Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0395

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment: Training should be allowed to take place in
- house. PVA urges EPA to preserve that part of t he draft VGP (2.1.6) that states any expected training in permit compliance can be done "in

- house" within a company and that attending an outside course or a certified institution is neither required nor expected.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 404 Response:
Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0395

- A1, excerpt 4.

Commenter Name: Paul Belforti, President, Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Commenter Affiliation: Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 03 95

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13
Comment: EPA should highlight several of the "Additional Notes." There are several points listed in section 1.15 Additional Notes that should be moved and prominently displayed earlier in the 2013 VGP . Regarding how owne rs and operators should interpret the language of the Permit, EPA should highlight point #3: "Provisions stating that 'EPA recommends' certain actions, or that you 'should' take certain actions, constitute recommendations by the Agency and thus are not man datory requirements of this pe rmit ." Additionally point #5 listed in Additional No t es is critical to safe compliance and should be highlighted at the foremost part of the 2013 VGP . Point #5 states: "EPA notes that vessel masters have the responsibility to ensure the safety and stability of the vessel and the safety of the crew and passengers, and nothing in this permit is intended to interfere with their fulfillment of that respons ibility ... " Response:
Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0395

- A1, excerpt 4.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 405 

# Issue Category: MFC2. 14 Misfiled Comment 2 (Misfiled in

VGP but A pplicable to s VGP)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 406 (This page intentionally left blank.)Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 407 MFC2. 17 Misfiled Comment
Commenter Name: January 11, 2012 Public Hearing Oral Comments by PVA's Jennifer Wilk and Ed Welch Commenter Affiliation: Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0141

- 0443 Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment:
Draft SVGP

- Don't impose needless administrative burdens. Adherence to the SVGP will constitute yet one more regulatory mandate on thousands of small businesses that operate commercial passenger vessels of less than 79 feet in length. Consequently, EPA sh ould make compliance as simple as possible and impose no more administrative requirements than absolutely necessary. PVA acknowledges that the Permit Authorization and Notice of Inspection (PARI) need not be submitted to the EPA under normal circumstances. Nevertheless, EPA should alter the conditions for the PARI. There is no justification for requiring that this document be retained on board the small vessel; the permit should allow for it to be kept on shore at the company's office. Furthermore, why is t here a need for it to be filled out quarterly? This amounts to a paperwork exercise that will not benefit anyone. At most, there should be a yearly attestation of compliance entered on the PARI. Finally, many commercial passenger vessels operate seasonally , not year

round. Going to a once

- a
- year attestation on the PARI will accommodate their real

- world operating situation. Response: EPA performed an economic analysis of the sVGP and based on the firm

- level analysis, EPA concluded that the sVGP will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities based on information showing that few firms have revenue below those where the compliance costs would exceed the 1 percent cost

- to

- revenue threshold under high

- end cost assumption s. Per

- vessel incremental compliance costs average between $17 and $133 per year, depending on the number of applicable discharge categories and baseline practices. A copy of the economic analysis prepared for this permit is available in the administrati ve record for this permit. Regarding the commenter’s request , EPA has not provided an exemption for recordkeeping for vessels under the sVGP or taken the commenter's recommendation to limit "on board" records. However, based on this and other comments, EPA has clarified that the sVGP allows for electronic recordkeeping. Please see EPA's discussion of electronic recordkeeping in the response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 5

. EPA believes that the PARI form requires a reasonable freque ncy of inspections (i.e., quarterly) to ensure that the vessel does not pose an environmental risk and that also is not an unreasonable burden for permittees to implement. Please s ee EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

-Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 408 OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0378 , excerpt 2, for discussion of inspections for vessels in extended lay

- up (e.g., operate seasonally).

Commenter Name: January 11, 2012 Public Hearing Oral Comments by PVA's Jennifer Wilk and Ed Welch Commenter Affiliation: Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0141

- 0443 Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment:
Draft SVGP Retain the proposed definition of "minimize." In many parts of the draft SVGP , the vessel operator is told to "minimize" various discharges. Part 2 says that the term "minimize" means "reduce and/or el iminate to the extent achievable using control measures (including best management practices) that are technologically available and economically practicable and achievable in light of best marine practice." By the phrase "to the extent achievable," it ack nowledges that many discharges are likely to continue to some extent. By qualifying the term "control measures' with the phrase "technologically available and economically practicable and achievable," it takes into account the fact that effective technolog ical "fixes" are not always available at a reasonable cost. By acknowledging the use of :"best management practices," it demonstrates awareness that an operational measure may be the best or most effective method of minimizing a discharge.
This definition of "minimize" is appropriate, and it is important to retain it in the SVGP . It may be desirable to include "minimize" as a defined term in part 6. Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and for clarity, EPA added the definition of "minimize" to Part 6 of the final sVGP

.

Commenter Name: David Connor, Water Quality Specialist, Alyeska Pipeline Service Company Commenter Affiliation: Alyeska Pipeline Service Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0141

- 0489

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: As the operator of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System, Alyeska Pipeline Service Company owns and operates multiple small vessels that would be affected by this rulemaking. A review of the proposed sVGP determined that there are a variety of condit ions that if implemented in the finalResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 409 rule, would create onerous and complex issues with very little tangible environmental benefit. It appears that EPA has proposed overly broad and prescriptive requirements that will apply to all small vessels regardless of whether any of the preventative measures would actually be protective of waters of the U.S. By using a blanket "one size fits all" solution to address specific regional problems or watershed concerns constitutes an unreasonable burden to those operate outside those particular areas. The proposed sVGP also creates a potential compliance quandary by requiring the operator to certify that overly broad, onerous and prescriptive inspection requirements have been performed when in fact they would be difficult to perform or ascertain whether they were done correctly. EPA should consider establishing regional priorities for Invasive Species management rather than requiring the implementation of preventative measures nationwide for a small percentage of waters th at are impacted. In addition, consideration should be given to the establishment of a regulatory exemption for certain small vessels that are either very low risk of contributing to water quality degradation or are sufficiently small to be considered a low risk. Section 1.1. EPA should consider the establishment of a minimum length of vessel that does not require coverage under the sVGP in order to exclude all manner of vessels that otherwise would be covered, such as, row boats, canoes, kayaks, paddle boar ds or any other small non

recreational use vessel. Small vessels (14 feet or less) should be conditionally exempt due to the low likelihood that they would require the same Permit conditions than much larger and more complex vessels. EPA should also exclud e single passenger vessels and non

- motorized vessels as these are generally of the type that would not be appropriate to require coverage under a sVGP

. Section 2.3.(d). The requirement to dispose of used oil absorbent materials in containers designed for o ily waste disposal is outside the regulatory context of the Clean Water Act and should not be a requirement of the sVGP

. Disposal of oily wastes should be in accordance with appropriate regulations that cover solid wastes and not mandated by provisions of the Clean Water Act such as General Permits. Section 2.3(h). Use of the term "technically infeasible" is not defined so it is improper to assume that there is a common understanding of the term. EPA should define the term and include the provision that the use of environmentally acceptable lubricants should not be required if it would void manufacturer's warranties or has not been approved for the specific use by the appropriate trade standards or are not readily available (a common issue in remote Alaska). Section 2.30(j). The prohibition to adding "chemicals" to bilge is overly broad. "Chemical" is not a defined term and could be construed to mean any substance that requires a Material Safety Data Sheet which is virtually all liquid substances. Also the in tent of the sequence of words in this provision is not clear. If the intent of this provision is to prevent the addition of any substance that removes the appearance of sheen then the sentence should be restructured to say "Substances that remove the appea rance of a sheen, such as ..., should not be added to the bilge". Section 2.4(b). This provision requires that vessels have an appropriate trash receptacle on board. EPA should not regulate waste handling as part of a Clean Water Act General Permit unless it is directly tied to a discharge to waters of the US. Vessels should be required to prevent trash from entering waters of the U.S. but not prescribed how it must be accomplished or by what meansResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 410 trash must be managed. The nature and design of some vessel s that would require coverage under the sVGP do not accommodate provisions for having appropriate trash receptacles but would none
- the

- less be required to comply. Again, EPA should restrain from issuing overly broad requirements that have no basis in disch arges to waters of the U.S. such as requiring "appropriate receptacles" for retaining trash for all manner of vessels regardless of size, complexity or design. Section 2.6 (f& g). The requirement to perform periodic inspections of vessel hulls is so overly general as to be useless as an enforceable action. Additionally, this requirement does not recognize the fact that many vessels never leave a specific watershed and therefore inspecting and cleaning a hull is meaningless as a strategy to prevent the sprea d of invasive species. EPA should focus on refining the requirements to address meaningful actions that can be easily implemented to address an actual problem and not create obligations that are unreasonable and ineffective. EPA should consider making thes e types of provisions a voluntary activity rather than an enforceable requirement.
Section 2.7(h). The requirement to inspect and remove any living organisms when transporting a vessel from one waterbody to another is not necessary in the majority of the n ation's waters and would be better served if it was directed to occur only in areas where a problem exists. Furthermore, many water bodies are hydraulically interconnected and this practice would serve no purpose other than creating onerous burdens in all waters of the U.S. in order to protect a small percentage of affected water bodies. Section 2.8(a). This section uses the term "economically achievable", which is not defined, and makes for uncertainty on how to apply this criteria.
Section 3.1 and 3.2. Th ese sections require quarterly inspections but does not make it clear whether the inspections are required if the vessel is stored out of the water. Many vessels are used seasonally and should be exempted from these requirements if they are stored out of t he water. Additionally, these prescriptive inspection requirements are onerous, overly broad and unnecessary to protect waters of the U.S. These inspection requirements should be represented as voluntary best management practices rather than enforceable pr ovisions of a General Permit. Requirements that specify that "all discharges and all applicable areas ... " or "all areas are clear of garbage ... ", or "all equipment on board ... ", or "all protective seals ..." cannot possibly be realistically accomplis hed let alone be correctly or consistently interpreted. Is it really the intent of EPA that vessel owners inspect each and every protective seal despite the time it would take, the complexity of the system or the likelihood that the particular seal could c ause a discharge to waters of the U.S.? Statements like "minimize", "when feasible", "should", "consider", "to the extent practicable and feasible" leave the permittee open to circumventing the intent of the permit. EPA needs to consider alternative realis tic inspection requirements that are not overly prescriptive yet serve to protect waters of the U.S. A more appropriate inspection requirement would be a general outline of the types of pollutants that need to be managed to ensure the vessel is not dischar ging these pollutants unnecessarily. The current language contained in the last sentence of the first bullet under section 3.2 would suffice as a general statement. EPA should omit bullets 2, 3,& 4 under section 3.2 as they are unrealistic, prescriptive, o nerous, and by themselves do not constitute a water quality concern. EPA should recognize that prescribingResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 411 these types of requirements as enforceable provisions under the Clean Water Act will lead to enforcement inconsistency, compliance uncertainty, reluc tance to certify the inspection report, and general confusion regarding how these requirements are construed to be protective of water quality. As EPA is aware many small vessels use underwater engine exhaust discharge systems and routinely cause changes t o the receiving water that contacts the exhaust. Having inspection and certification requirements that appear to be at cross purposes to the normal operation of vessels with submerged exhaust creates unrealistic expectations and unachievable criteria. In m any parts of the country there are seasonal considerations that should be recognized by EPA that make the quarterly inspection requirements problematic. Many vessels overwinter in icelocked harbors, marinas, lakes, ponds and rivers and become incapable of operating. It would be virtually impossible for the vessel owners/operators to comply with the inspection requirements and to knowingly certify the inspection. EPA needs to consider modifying the form to include an option that defers the inspection require ments when a vessel is either out of the water or is otherwise not capable of being inspected. In summary, EPA should change sections 3.1 and 3.2 to reflect achievable and realistic goals, make the inspection criteria voluntary, and not create enforcement and certification pitfalls. The owners/operators of small volunteer vessels that Alyeska relies on for assistance in responding to future oil spill incidents in Prince William Sound might find it challenging to comply with the proposed sVGP substantive permitting requirements. Many of these vessels routinely operate as fishing boats, but also may be recruited by Alyeska for future spill response work, including laying booms, skimming, towing, recovery and storage. EPA identifies "oil recover y vessels" as a subcategory of "utility vessels" in the Fact Sheet supporting the proposed sVGP ( pp . 10

- 11). EPA further explains in its November 30, 2011 Economic and Benefits Analysis o/the Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (p. 24), that vessels addre ssed by the sVSP include vessels that are involved in spill response and oil recovery operations. Thus, each of these small volunteer vessels technically may be subject to the sVGP permitting requirements as both a commercial fishing vessel and a utility v essel. The distinct and unique functions, operations, and incidental discharges related to fishing vessels and oil recovery vessels may complicate compliance with multiple and possibly inconsistent best management practices and pollution prevention measure s imposed under the sVGP

. In addition, there are temporal considerations with respect to compliance with the sVGP by these volunteer vessels. Some of these volunteer vessels might not ordinarily qualify as any vessel type covered by the sVGP , but may later become subject to the permit when placed into service as oil recovery vessels for spill responses. In these situations, it is unclear if, first, such vessels would need to comply with the sVGP permit conditions starting December 19, 2013 or only later whe n used for spill response, and second, if such a vessels would lose permit coverage upon decommissioning from an oil spill incident or remain subject to the permit. EPA requested comments on its proposal to incorporate by reference requirements from other statutes and regulations, as well as comments on its proposal to incorporate those other requirements as they are in effect on the date of issuance of the final sVGP instead of the proposed sVGP . EPA states that it has relied on these other statutes and re gulations to develop the sVGP terms and conditions, and that these other statutes and regulations will be legally binding permit conditions. However, while EPA generally identifies the statutes and regulationsResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 412 in the permit and supporting Fact Sheet, in ma ny instances it does not cite or explain the precise applicable requirements, especially the applicable best management practices and pollution control measures. In general, Alyeska has concerns over EPA's incorporating by reference a host of other, unspec ified requirements from international and federal laws into the permit as legally binding conditions, and over EPA's expectation that permittees (e.g., owners/operators of small volunteer vessels) must comply with versions of such requirements that are in effect at some point in the future when the final sVGP is adopted. Incorporating other potentially changing statutory and regulatory requirements merely by reference prevents effective participation in the comment process and complicates compliance with th e permit. This approach by EPA makes it difficult to discern whether the best management practices and other requirements contained in these other statutes and regulations apply to and are appropriate for certain types of vessels and incidental discharges that will be covered by the sVGP . Also, depending on when EPA issues the final version of the sVGP , many of these requirements may change in the interim without the knowledge of the stakeholders or permittees who will be covered by the final version of the permit. Thus, stakeholders and permittees are forced to speculate as to those other requirements for purposes of submitting comments and for complying with the permit. In considering whether to impose unspecified and potentially changing permit requiremen ts as legally binding conditions, EPA should take into consideration the types of owners/operators to which the proposed sVGP permit requirements will apply, and the onerous and unfair burden placed on such vessel owners/operators by such an approach. In m any cases, these are small boats with independent, unsophisticated owners/operators having limited resources and knowledge of the underlying statutory and regulatory requirements with which they will be obligated to comply. That these legally binding permi t conditions simply will be incorporated by reference magnifies the risk of such owners and operators being in non

- compliance with the permit and the accompanying exposure to penalties. Accordingly, EPA should set forth in the permit with specificity each of the requirements applicable to the vessels to be covered by the sVGP . Further, consistent with the approach taken by EPA for the 2008 proposed VGP , EPA should incorporate any such requirements as they exist on the date of the sVGP proposal, not the date of the final sVGP

. Under the excessively broad scope of sVGP coverage, EPA potentially imposes on numerous and different types of small vessels, certain requirements derived from some statutes or regulations that appear to apply only to certain kinds of vessels and operations. For example, EPA cites the Internation al Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships ( MARPOL 73178) and the related Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, 33 U.S.C. 1901 e t seq . and Coast Guard regulations. Many of the provisions contained in these authorities apply to large, open

- sea vessels, not small vessels. Similar concerns can be raised about application of standards and requirements under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act ( F1FRA ), 7 U.S.C. 2136 et seq ., and the Federal Noxious Weed Act, 7 U.S.C. 2801 et seq . Perm it terms and conditions that are grounded on these other laws and regulations may be unnecessary and overly burdensome in light of the function, operation and nature of incidental discharges related to small transportation

- related vessels under 79 feet in length. Moreover, such other requirements may be duplicative or inconsistent with each other or with other maritime regulations that alsoResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 413 apply to small vessels subject to the sVGP . The arduous responsibility for small vessel owners/operators covered by th e sVGP will be to remain fully cognizant of and to comply with each and every such requirement at the risk of a minor or inadvertent oversight that leads to permit noncompliance. EPA also requested comments concerning incorporation by reference of other st atutory and regulatory requirements as they are in affect at the time the incidental discharges covered by the sVGP actually occur. This concept of rolling compliance with unspecified and potentially changing legally binding permit terms and conditions als o would impose an unfair and undue burden, as many of these owners/operators may not be aware of and certainly will not receive notice of any changes to these other statutory and regulatory requirements with which they will be expected to comply. Moreover, this approach results in an impermissible and inappropriate modification of an issued final permit without notice and an opportunity for hearing. EPA should decline to take this rolling compliance approach. Alyeska agrees with EPA's approach of requiring non
- numeric effluent limitations under the sVGP . EPA is correct that deriving numeric effluent limitations for the types of incidental discharges subject to the sVGP is simply not feasible. The pollution control measures and best management practices set f orth in the sVGP are more than sufficient for protecting water quality standards. However, there are concerns about EPA's potential future imposition of water

- quality based effluent limitations ( WQBEL's ) where receiving waters have been listed as "impaired " under § 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (or future imposition of WQBEL's even where such discharges occur to receiving waters not listed as impaired under 303(d)). 33 U.S. C . § I3I3 (d). Under § 4.12 of the sVGP , EPA has reserved the right to impose more str ingent requirements in the general permit or individual permits covering incidental discharges from small vessels. In the context of 303(d) impaired waters, that might result in imposition on small vessels of numeric effluent limitations in order to meet T otal Maximum Daily Loads ( TMDLs ) and respective Waste Load Allocations adopted for the "impaired" receiving waters. This approach could lead to overly excessive and unwarranted responsibilities on permittees in some circumstances. For example, EPA recently has taken the position that coastal states like Alaska should list coastal waters as impaired on their 2012 303(d) lists and ultimately adopt related TMDLs to address pH levels allegedly affected by ocean acidification. See EPA's November 15,2010 Memorand um re: Integration Reporting and Listing Decisions Related to Ocean Acidification. Imposing resulting numeric effluent limitations under the sVGP would place additional severe hardships on the owners/operators of small vessels operating in Alaska's extensi ve coastal water areas. Given the nature of the small vessels and incidental discharges covered by the proposed sVGP , and the demonstrated success of the types of best management practices incorporated into the sVGP , EPA should impose only non

- numeric effl uent limitations under the permit. Response: EPA issued the sVGP because of 2006 and 2008 court decisions vacating the regulatory exclusion at 40 CFR 122.3(a) exempting discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel from NPDES permitting. That exclusion covers any discharges incidental to normal vessel operation. If today’s sVGP were not issued, vessels with discharges incidental to their normal operation would either have to seek coverage under the VGP (which is more resource intensiveResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 414 than the sVGP and contains conditions developed with larger vessels in mind), obtain coverage under an individual permit, or be subject to fines and citizen suits for violating the CWA’s prohibition against discharging into waters of the United States without an N PDES permit. EPA must meet the mandates of the CWA when developing permit limits. EPA disagrees with commenter that the permit is onerous and complex with little environmental benefit and that it is as a one

- size

- fits

- all solution to address specific regio nal problems or watershed concerns. The Agency developed a permit that minimizes the impact on small vessel owners while providing appropriate environmental controls. EPA conducted the "Study of Discharges Incidental to Normal Operation of Commercial Fis hing Vessels and Other Non

Recreational Vessels less than 79 feet" in 2010 to better understand the discharges associated with smaller vessels and used the information contained in the study regarding pollutant concentrations and vessel practices to help d evelop the permit language as appropriate. Based on public comment , we have provided additional clarity as to applicability of the permit terms and conditions. Part 5 of the permit also contains location

- specific requirements added through the CWA section 401 certification process that provide location

- specific requireme nts as appropriate to address localized water quality issues. Also, as shown in its Economic and Benefits Analysis of the final 2013 sVGP, EPA concluded that the sVGP is unlikely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small enti ties given the preponderance of evidence showing that relatively few firms have revenue below those where the compliance costs would exceed the one percent cost

- to

- revenue threshold under high

- end cost assumptions. EPA disagrees that it will be difficult f or operators to certify to the adequacy of their inspection activities because the requirements are overly broad, onerous, and prescriptive and instead should be voluntary BMPs. EPA believes the sVGP inspection requirements are clear and realistic while s till providing the flexibility to address vessel

- specific operations yet not hinder the ability of the vessel to perform its intended purpose. EPA expects operators to be familiar with their vessels to the extent that their inspection of the vessel is abl e to identify problems, such as improper operation or maintenance. EPA does not believe it is unreasonable for operator s to inspect their vessel s quarterly for the areas identified in the permit (e.g., all discharges and areas that impact those discharges , visible portions of the hull, equipment affecting discharges, and protective seals). EPA views this inspection requirement as also providing a useful reminder and opportunity to complete maintenance activities for onboard equipment. It also focuses on the inspection of areas (e.g., protective seals, machinery), which if not properly maintained or if damaged, are more likely to result in environmental degradation. EPA also disagrees with commenter that some of the inspection requirements are for areas t hat are not water quality concerns. In fact, the areas required to be inspected are all areas that EPA has determined have the potential to discharge pollutants of concern. Regarding the commenter’s suggestion to exempt certain small vessels, EPA acknowl edges this comment; however, the Agency does not have authority to decide which types of vessels to exempt from NPDES permit requirements. The Agency exempts activities from permitting only to the extent granted by Congress through law.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 415 EPA disagrees wi th commenter that the Agency should consider establishing a minimum length of vessel that does not require coverage under the sVGP to exclude certain small vessels, single passenger vessels, and non

- motorized vessels. The Agency exempts activities from pe rmitting only to the extent granted by Congress through law. Unless Congress extends the moratorium for the types of vessels described by the commenter, discharges from these types of vessels will be required to obtain NPDES permit coverage (and for which the sVGP will provide such a mechanism for that coverage ). The sVGP was developed to cover non

- recreational, non

- military vessels less than 79 feet and commercial fishing vessels regardless of length, except for ballast water discharges. Currently, a Con gressional moratorium (initiated by Public Law 110

- 299 and subsequently extended by Public Law 111

- 215 and Public Law 112

- 213) exempts all incidental discharges, with the exception of ballast water, from commercial fishing vessels and non

recreational, non

- military vessels less than 79 feet in length from having to obtain a CWA permit until December 18, 2014. EPA points out that the definition of “recreational vessel” as used in the sVGP means any “vessel” that is manufactured or operated primarily for ple asure or leased, rented, or chartered to another for the pleasure of that person. This term does not include a vessel that is subject to USCG inspection and that is engaged in commercial use or carries paying passengers [source: 33 U.S.C. 1362(25)]

. EPA e xpects that most of the vessels described by the commenter would likely meet this definition of “recreational vessel” and as such are exempt from permit requirements. EPA agrees with the commenter about manag ing used oil

- absorbent materials and has revised the permit requirement to state that used oil

- absorbent materials must be disposed of onshore consistent with applicable solid waste regulations, which could include disposing of used oil absorbent materials in containers designed for oily waste disposal. EPA agrees with the commenter that further clarification of the term “technically infeasible” is warranted when discussing EALs . Please see EPA's response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0379

- A1 , excerpt 8 , for additional discussion of this term. Also, u sing a product that voids a manufacturer’s warranty, has not been approved for the specific use by the appropriate trade standards, or is not readily available at any port in which the vessel calls, would not be technically feasible and would not be required. Part 2.3(h) has been revised to clarify that point. EPA acknowledges the commenter’s concern with the statement regarding addition of chemicals to the bilge. The intent of this provision is to prevent the addition of any substance that removes the appeara nce of sheen , and this sentence has been modified slightly to clarify this intent. The provision now specifies that operators must not add to the bilge any substance, including dispersants, detergents, emulsifiers, chemicals , or other substances that remo ve the appearance of a visible sheen. As used in this way, EPA does not believe the term “chemicals” warrants a specific definition in the permit. EPA acknowledges the commenter’s concern that the proposed permit requires vessels to have appropriate tras h receptacles onboard the vessel. EPA disagrees with commenter that this requirement is not tied directly to a discharge to waters of the U nited S tates . While Part 2.4(a) requires the permittee to prevent trash or garbage from being discharged, Part 2.4( b) further clarifies that the vessel must have appropriate trash receptacles for handling such wastes (with the alternative being that this waste is inappropriately managed such that it ends up in aResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 416 discharge). The goal of this BMP is to eliminate the rel ease of these materials by preventing their entry into any permitted waste stream. These requirements are common

- sense approaches to preventing these wastes from entering any waste stream and are consistent with the existing prohibitions for many of these wastes being discharged and, as demonstrated by the economic analysis conducted for this permit, are practicable and economically achievable. Note that EPA is providing flexibility to the operator to determine what type, location, and quantity of receptac les are “appropriate.” EPA has modified the permit requirement to periodically inspect vessel hulls by clarifying in the final permit that “periodic” means at least quarterly. EPA disagrees with the commenter that inspecting and cleaning a hull is meaning less for many vessels that never leave a specific watershed. Even for a vessel that does not leave a specific watershed, cleaning hulls helps to slow the spread of invasive species within that specific watershed. EPA disagrees with the commenter that ins pecting and removing any living organisms from vessel hulls is not necessary in the majority of the nation’s waters. The Agency does not believe it is practicable to identify every waterbody where the transfer of species to or from that waterbody, and for which species, may be problematic. Rather, the Agency believes its approach of requiring the inspection and removal of any living organisms any time a vessel move s from one waterbody to another is a common
- sense and straightforward BMP approach. Additio nally, overland transport of vessels between watersheds have been cited as a major source of spreading invasive species throughout U.S. waters. Regarding EPA’s use of the term “economically achievable” when discussing control of fish hold effluent, please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0417

- A2, excerpt 12. EPA acknowledges the commenter’s concern about the applicability of quarterly inspections when the vessel is out of the water. In Part 2.3 of the sVGP, EPA has clarified that ve ssels are not required to conduct quarterly visual inspections while in extended lay

- ups. Additionally, EPA has revised the PARI form located in Appendix B to reflect these changes. Regarding the commenter ’ s concern that vessels may be subject to the sVGP as both a utility vessel and a commercial fishing vessel, EPA does not agree with commenter that this poses challenges. The requirements are the sVGP must be implemented when applicable to a given vessel. For instance, a requirement that applies to fish hold effluent clearly do es not apply to vessels not producing this discharge. The majority of requirements in the sVGP would be BMPs applicable to a vessel irrespective of whether it operates as a fishing vessel or utility vessel. When requirements are not applicable, they need not be implemented. Regarding whether a vessel must meet the requirements of the sVGP at times when the vess el would be considered a recreational vessel under the Clean Boating Act (CBA) , the answer is no. When a vessel is not a recreational vessel or otherwise exempt from section 402 of the CWA , it must have valid NPDES permit coverage to discharge legally. F or the vast majority of small vessels, the sVGP would be the most administratively feasible option for obtaining permit coverage. However, small vessel operators could also elect to seek coverage under the VGP or individual permit coverage as appropriate. When a vessel is considered a recreational vessel orResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 417 otherwise exempt from Section 402 of the CWA , then it need not have NPDES permit coverage (including coverage under the sVGP). EPA also notes that, pursuant to 40 CFR 122.3(d), discharges in complian ce with the instructions of an o n
- s cene coordinator pursuant to 40 CFR part 300 and 33 CFR 153.10(e) are exempt from NPDES permit requirements. In cases of a catastrophic spill, the vessels described as oil recovery vessels may be under the direction of an on
- scene coordinator. Regarding EPA’s approach to incorporate other statutes and regulations by reference, EPA disagrees and finds unsupported the statement that the sVGP’s approach with regards to other statutes and regulations may result in inconsistent requirements, increase the burden on regulated vessels, and generally complicate compliance with the sVGP. As described above, EPA developed the VGP with input from many other federal agencies and stakeholders to attempt to eliminate inconsistent or confl icting requirements. Also, while EPA acknowledges a burden associated with permit compliance, the approach of coordinating the various other statutes and regulations in fact reduces the burden and simplifies compliance versus an approach that did not consi der those other statutes and regulations. EPA acknowledges the commenter’s support for non

- numeric effluent limitations. EPA disagrees with commenter’s assertion that the Agency might impose overly excessive and unwarranted responsibilities on permittees in some instances to meet the terms of an applicable TMDL. Any modifications to permit requirements, including both numeric and non

- numeric effluent limitations, would first go through public notice and comment and be fully vetted before EPA finalized new permit terms to address any newly approved TMDLs. Conversely, EPA may decide that a certain operator would be better regulated under an individual NPDES permit , in which case, a similar public notice and comment period would be followed for issuance of such permit.

Commenter Name: Marie Hobson, Counsel, Governme nt Affairs and John Hopewell, Assistant Director, Environmental Affairs, American Coatings Association (ACA) Commenter Affiliation: The American Coatings Association (ACA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0141

- 0490

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Co mment: Recommended Changes The Small Vessel General Permit should begin with a warning about invasive species, and proceed to detail the proper management of the coating to minimize its impact. We believe that beginning the sVGP (Section 2.6 Vessel Hull Maintenance) with a warning about hull coatings does more harm than good in terms of limiting the invasion of non

- indigenous species. We suggest the following wording:Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 418 2.6 Vessel Maintenance (a) If the vessel use pattern requires the use of anti

- foulant sy stem you should use the most effective antifouling coating necessary to prevent biofouling on your vessel and to prevent the transport of organisms from one area to another. (b) Vessel hulls must be periodically inspected, and if necessary, cleaned to prev ent the spread or dispersal of potentially invasive species. (c) Minimize the transport of any visible living aquatic organisms from one water body to another by regularly cleaning and maintaining the hull. (d) Prior to transporting the vessel from one wat er body to another overland, you must inspect the visible areas of the vessel for any attached or visible stowaway living organisms. If organisms are found, they must be removed and appropriately discarded onshore. Removed organisms may not be discharged i nto waters subject to this permit. (e) If the vessel is equipped with an anti

- foulant system, you must minimize the impact of that system or the discharges resulting from anti

- foulant paints on the aquatic environment. • Where drying or hull cleaning at haul

- out is adequate for managing fouling (e.g., for vessels that are hauled frequently or for over

- winter storage), do not use anti

fouling coatings if not needed. • Discharges of tributyltin ( TBT ) are prohibited (zero

- discharge standard). Two potential w ays to meet this standard are to:
1. Have no TBT coatings; or 2. Have an effective overcoating that completely eliminates TBT discharges. (f) Do not clean anti

- fouling paint, which releases biocides, for the first 90 days after application. (g) If the ant i

- foulant paint requires cleaning, gently clean hulls on a regular basis (this minimizes the need for stronger cleaners and more abrasive brushes). (h) When cleaning hulls coated with anti

- fouling paint while the vessel is in the water, use only soft spong es. You must examine the water while cleaning to assure that you are not causing a plume of paint to form. Stop immediately if any visible plume of paint appears in the water. Consider hiring a qualified, professional hull cleaner to do the work, and ensur e that they follow environmental guidelines. (i) When cleaning hulls coated with anti

- fouling paint while the vessel is out of the water, always work away from the water in a location where paint chips and dust will not beResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 419 washed into the water. Place a t arp under the area to catch loose particles, and properly dispose of paint chips, dust, and other particles. If you are working in an area that is covered by an NPDES permit (e.g. marina or drydock ), you must follow the cleaning requirements of that permit

. Response: Duplicate comment to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0415

- A2 , excerpt 2 . See EPA ’s response to that comment.

Commenter Name: Marie Hobson, Counsel, Government Affairs and John Hopewell, Assistant Director, Environmental Affairs, American Coatings Association (ACA) Commenter Affiliation: The American Coatings Association (ACA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0141

- 0490

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment:
Visible Plume and Prohibition on TBT
The language on ‘visible plume’ and the prohibition on TBT in the sVGP should match the language in the VGP

. ACA sought and received clarification on ‘visible plume’ and the prohibition on TBT under the VGP , and we believe this should be consistent in the sVGP . As it is written now, the explanation of visible plume in the sVGP is undeveloped and could lead to confusion whether an individual is creating a plume or not (because a visible plume or sheen on the surface of the water is a normal occurrence during hul l cleaning). The VGP describes a ‘visible plume’ as follows, “Production of a plume or cloud of sediment or hull growth is normal in some cases during vessel hull cleaning, but this plume or cloud must be substantially paint free (e.g., paint should not be clearly identifiable in the plume or cloud).” We suggest the sVGP incorporate this language. Response: Duplicate comment to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0415

- A2 , excerpt 3 . See EPA ’s response to that comment.

Commenter Name: Mark Vinsel, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0141

- 0505

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 16Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 420 Comment:
Small VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT EPA
- HQ
- OW
- 2011
- 0150 ( sVGP ) First we request that in the final draft permit, the PARI form be simplified and written in language eliminating the need to look up references in the Code of Federal Register. Most fishermen will find it difficult to look up the references provided in the draft sVGP permit unless a link to the exact spot in the federal register is provided. Discharges Currently or Previously Covered by Another NPDES Permit on page 2: This draft sVGP states that a vessel is not covered under this permit if covered by another NPDES permit. Some Commercial fishing vessels are permi tted under the NPDES Permit AK

- G52

- 0000 for Alaska Seafood Processors or the AK

- G52

- 4000 Offshore Alaska Seafood Processors permit yet these permits do not cover all the same discharges that are covered under the sVGP permit for the incidental to the norma l operation of vessels. How does a vessel reconcile the permit applicable to their operation since neither permit covers the full scope of their operations? Vessel Discharges Not Eligible for Coverage on page 1 section 1.5 : The U.S. Coast Guard, Dept of Co mmerce and Regional Fishery Management Councils defines “seafood processing” as the commercial preparation of fish or fish products other than by gutting, decapitating, gilling, skinning, shucking, icing, freezing or brine chilling. Section 1.5 states that discharges described in 40 CFR 122.3 include but are not limited to, discharges from industrial operations (e.g. seafood processing . . . are not covered by this permit). The draft permit needs to contain the definition of seafood processing and should us e the already accepted definition provided above and include allowances for the discharges not already covered created by gutting, decapitating, gilling, skinning, shucking, icing, freezing or brine chilling as normal incidental operation of a commercial f

ishing vessel. Annex V of Marpol excludes “fresh fish and parts thereof, generated during the normal operation of the ship and liable to be disposed of continuously or periodically” . . . again bringing us back to the assumption that these operations shoul d be covered under this permit. Effluent Limits and Related Requirements on page 2: The draft sVGP states “ In the limits below and throughout this permit, the term “minimize” means reduce and/or eliminate to the extent achievable using control measures (in cluding best management practices) that are technologically available and economically practicable and achievable in light of best marine practice”. The section on definitions should contain the word “minimize” and contain this definition, and should provi de more guidance on when technologically available and/ or economically practicable is the standard that takes precedence. The term “minimize” as defined does not clarify the point between compliance and non

- compliance and what must be recorded and submitt ed on the Annual Non

- compliance form. General Requirements on page 3 section 2.1 : (b) Annex 5 of Marpol regulates garbage. This is unnecessary and duplicative language.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 421 (d) Minimize foam or floating solids. See previous comment above about seafood processi ng and the guts, gills, shells etc would be solids disposed of that might at times float for short intervals. Foam can be created by circulating seawater for keeping shellfish species alive. (h) EPA should develop a list of approved soaps, detergents or cl eaners that meet the requirements for non

- toxic, phosphate

- free and biodegradable to prevent unnecessary burden on the commercial fishermen and unnecessary enforcement actions. Engine and Oil Control page 4, section 2.3: UFA is concerned about the requirem ent in the draft permit for environmentally acceptable lubricants being accessible in Alaska especially in the more remote communities and the cost. The Aleutians East Borough ( AEB ) found one environmentally acceptable hydraulic oil, sold in Anchorage, was more than double the cost of a standard petroleum 5 gallon bucket. Has EPA considered the cost of switching lubricants and oils since you generally can’t just switch over and start using a synthetic product? Solid and Liquid Waste Management on page 5, se ction 2.4: This section should be deleted since Annex V of Marpol regulations cover all these situations and is referenced in section 2.11 Compliance with other Statues and Regulations. Quarterly Visual Inspection Requirements on page 9 section 3.2 also in the Overview page 1, section 1.3 : The quarterly visual inspection requirement is overly burdensome particularly in short lived fisheries lasting about a month and then pulled out of the water such as Bristol Bay. A more practical and less encumbered metho d would be a pre

- season inspection, a quarterly inspection during active fishing seasons and post

- season inspection. Requiring a vessel owner to go to remote locations for quarterly inspections would be costly and possibly infeasible if the boats were buri ed under snow. Definitions on page 14
- 18: The following definitions should be added to this section Seafood Processing, ballast water, ballast tank, and fishing hold Fish Hold Effluent and Fish Hold Cleaning Wastewater Discharge Report (Supporting Document s) : This report contains false and misleading information. The descriptions of types of vessels, discharges, and practices should be re

- examined. It is obvious that this was written by individuals with no knowledge of commercial fishing. Response: Duplica te comment to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 , excerpt s 16 through 27 . See EPA ’s response s to th ose comment s
.

Commenter Name: Dale Kelley, Executive Director, Alaska Trollers Association (ATA) Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Trollers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0141

- 0509

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 422 Comment: While EPA itself notes that these permits are a 'significant regulatory action', it concludes that the sVGP will not significantly impact our members, because it does not exceed the 'cost

- to

revenue' threshold. First, we question EPA's assumption regarding cost per vessel and also whether or not the gross revenue calculation is appropriate for small, unincorpor ated businesses. Second, even a cursory review of the draft permit suggests that the costs could, in fact, be substantial for small boat fishermen. At minimum, costs to comply with these regulations could include structural changes to vessels (if even poss ible); fishing time lost by individuals and small crews to fulfill such requirements as documentation and reporting; fishing time lost and expense incurred running great distances to communities large enough to provide services and accept discharges; and e ven disruption of basic daily operations (e.g. vessel sanitation, cooking, cleaning, and showering). Response: Duplicate comment to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0409

- A1 , excerpt 6 . See EPA ’s response to that comment.

Co mmenter Name: Nick Schroeck, Executive Director, Great Lakes Environmental Law Center Commenter Affiliation: Great Lakes Environmental Law Center Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0141

- 0535

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment: VI. Vessels Req uesting a Small Vessel General Permit (" sVGP’ ) should be required to submit a Notice of Intent (" NOI ") in addition to a Permit Authorization and Record of Inspection ("PARI")
An NOI provides permitting authorities with useful information to assist in oversight and enforcement of permittees, such as specific location of the vessel and its discharge. When determining whether vessels eligible for coverage under the sVGP should be requir ed to submit NOIs, the EPA found that the volume of discharges incidental to the normal operation of these smaller vessels are limited. Furthermore, the EPA noted the discharge from small vessels "reduced the likelihood for the introduction of significant quantities of toxic and conventional pollutants make requiring an NOI for these vessels to be of little value at this time." In the realm of ballast water, the actual quantity of water being released, and its relation to the spread of aquatic invasive spec ies is not the concern. The concern should be focused on the fact that ballast water is being released. The NOI puts the EPA on notice that a particular vessel will be discharging ballast water. Furthermore, the administrative aspect of an NOI is relativel y simple, with great benefits.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 423 Though the purpose of the PARI is to certify that the owner/operator has read and agreed to comply with the terms of the permit, it limits the ability of the EPA to manage the oversight of potential ballast water disposal. T he purposes of the PARI and the NOI are different, and it would be useful for the EPA to revisit the underlying needs for these two procedural requirements. The NOI is a procedural tool for the EPA to maintain oversight on the issues of ballast water, and moreover, is potentially useful towards the development of future ballast water technology. Response: Duplicate comment to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0412

- A2 , excerpt 6 . See EPA ’s response to that comment.

Commenter N ame: William Creal, Chief Water Resources Division, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Commenter Affiliation: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0141

- 0536

- A2 Comment Excerpt Numbe r: 4
Comment:
sVGP
1. Graywater

- Michigan requests Section 2.7 of the draft sVGP be revised to clarify that Section 312 of the federal Clean Water Act prohibits "commercial" vessels from discharging graywater when operating on the Great Lakes.
2. No tification

- Michigan requests Section 4.11 of the draft sVGP be revised to require vessel owners/operators to immediately notify the relevant state authority (in addition to the USEPA ) when they become aware that a discharge from their vessel causes or contributes to an exceedance of an applicable water quality standard. Response: Duplicate comment to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0413

- A2 , excerpt s 4 and 5 . See EPA ’s response s to those commen t s
.

Commenter Name: Beth Moore, General Permit Coordinator, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Commenter Affiliation: Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0141

- 0537

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 424 Comment:
COMMENTS REGARDING THE DRAFT NPDES SMALL VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT (Docket ID
No. EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150 for the DRAFT sVGP ) 2.8 FISH HOLD EFFLUENT requires the following (a) If you are unloading your catch at a shore

- based seafood processor or other pier and a shore

based discharge facility is available and economically achievable, you must discharge your effluent (including dirty ice) to that shore

- based facility instead of discharging to surrounding waters. DEQ's Comment: Part 2.8 refers to two shore

- based facilities. Is shore

- based the same as land

based? Please clarify what is meant by "that" shore

- based facility in (a) above. Response: Duplicate comment to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0401

- A1 , excerpt 3 . See EPA ’s response to that comment.

Commenter Name: Dr. Guy Kaulukukui, Acting Administrator, State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) Commenter Affiliation: State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0141

- 0572

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment:
DLNR supports the introduction of a new vessel general permit for small vessels ( sVGP ) and in section 2.9, the requirement that ballast wa ter (BW) management occurs for all commercial vessels, irrespective of BW capacity. As mentioned earlier, DLNR is also in support of the minimization of AIS spread through vessel biofouling . We are encouraged by the new requirement in section 2.6 that vess els being moved overland to new water bodies be inspected for visible organisms and where found, removed and disposed of on land. Response: Duplicate comment to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0425

- A2 , excerpt s 2 and 3 . See EPA ’s response s to th ose comment s
.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 425 Commenter Name: Amy McCamphill, Environmental Law Division, New York City Law Department Commenter Affiliation: New York City Law Department Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0141

- 0598

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment:
Draft 2012 Small Vessel General Permit Comments: 3.1 Recordkeeping Requirements , pg . 9 The City requests that the requirement that all vessel owner/operators maintain a PARI form on board at all times be modified to allow for the use of a launch log in lieu of the PARI . Many vessels already maintain launch logs to record vessel activity, including discharges and other incidents related to the vessel. Allowing vessels to use t heir launch logs in lieu of the PARI will reduce administrative efforts and costs. 3.2 Quarterly Visual Inspection Requirements , pg . 9 The City requests clarification on the following question: If vessels are moored on a boat lift out of the water for ex tended time periods, are quarterly visual inspections still required? Appendix A
- Permit Authorization and Record of Inspection ( PARI ) Form , pg . 20. The City requests that EPA define who can sign the Permit Authorization and Record of Inspection Form ( P ARI ). Appendix B
- Annual Non
- Compliance Form , pg . 22 As above, the City requests that EPA define who can sign this form. Response: Duplicate comment to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0437

- A2 , excerpt 2 through 5 . See EPA’s response s to th ose comment s
.

Commenter Name: Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Commenter Affiliation: Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0141

- 0752

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 18
Comment:
Small Vessel General Permit Comments:Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 426  All vessels should be required to maintain a copy of a letter/documentation granting coverage. This will ensure that any enforcement actions via through boarding vessels is easier. (page 1)

 State that discharges from vessels must meet all other state and federal applicable laws. In particular, many states have separate ballast water regulations that still must be met. (page 2)

 Require zero graywater discharges in marine sanctuaries, national wildlife r efuges, national wild and scenic rivers, and national wilderness areas. There is no reason a vessel should discharge in such sensitive and pristine areas designated due to their ecological importance. (page 6)

 Under compliance with other statues and regul ations, state that discharges from vessels must meet all other state and federal applicable laws. In particular, many states have separate ballast water regulations that still must be met. (page 8)

 Quarterly inspections are not sufficient. Visual inspect ions need to be conducted at a minimum monthly, in not more frequently. Responsible vessel operators should be doing this on a regular basis anyway so this should not be an additional burden. (page 9)

 For alternative permits, particularly the individual permit, the EPA needs to ensure an appropriate public process for comment is available. (page 10)

 What constitutes “reasonable time” under Section 4.4? This should be more definitive or have some parameters or deadlines to guide staff and the permittees

. (page 11)

 The definition of “Phosphate Free” should include “and containing compounds which would readily be converted to phosphate in the aquatic environment.” Additionally, it could help to identify what term such as “phosphate encompasses phosphoric acid, phosphonates , organophosphates , any salt of a hydrogen phosphate, and any salt of a phosphate” and “Derivatives of phosphate include polyphosphates such as sodium tripolyphosphate , pyrophosphate, and phosphorus oxoacids.” (page 17) Response: Duplic ate comment to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0436

- A2 , excerpts 4 through 11 . See EPA ’s response s to th ose comment s
.

Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (F VOA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0141

- 0819

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 21
Comment:
Small VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT EPA
- HQ
- OW
- 2011
- 01 5 0 ( sVGP ) First we request that in the final draft permit, the PARI form be simplified and written in language eliminating the need to look up references in the Code of Federal Register. MostResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 427 fishermen will find it difficult to look up the references provided in the draft s VGP permit unless a link to the exact spot in th e federal register is provided. Discharges Currently or Previously Covered by Another NPDES Permit on page 2: This drafts VGP states that a vessel is not covered under this permit if covered by another NPDES permit. Some Commercial fishing vessels are perm itted under the NPDES Permit AK

- G52

- 0000 for Alaska Seafood Processors or the AK

- G52

- 4000 offshore Alaska Seafood Processors permit yet these permits do not cover all the same discharges that are covered under the sVGP permit for the incidental to the norm al operation of vessels. How does a vessel reconcile the permit applicable to their operation since neither permit covers the full scope of their operations? Vessel Discharges Not Eligible for Coverage on page 1 section 1.5: The U.S. Coast Guard, Dept of C ommerce and Regional Fishery Management Councils defines "seafood processing" as the commercial preparation of fish or fish products other than by gutting, decapitating, gilling, skinning, shucking, icing, freezing or brine chilling. Section 1.5 states tha t discharges described in 40 CFR 122.3 include but are not limited to, discharges from industrial operations (e.g. seafood processing ... are not covered by this permit). The draft permit needs to contain the definition of seafood processing and should use the already accepted definition provided above and include allowances for the discharges not already covered created by gutting, decapitating, gilling, skinning, shucking, icing, freezing or brine chilling as normal incidental operation of a commercial fi shing vessel. Annex V of Marpol excludes "fresh fish and parts thereof, generated during the normal operation of the ship and liable to be disposed of continuously or periodically" ... again bringing us back to the assumption that these operations should b e covered under this permit. Effluent Limits and Related Requirements on page 2: The draft sVGP states "In the limits below and throughout this permit, the term "minimize" means reduce and/or eliminate to the extent achievable using control measures (inclu ding best management practices) that are technologically available and economically practicable and achievable in light o/best marine practice". The section on definitions should contain the word "minimize" and contain this definition, and should provide m ore guidance on when technologically available and/ or economically practicable is the standard that takes precedence. The term "minimize" as defined does not clarify the point between compliance and non

compliance and what must be recorded and submitted o n the Annual Non

- compliance form. General Requirements on page 3 section 2.1: (b) Annex 5 of Marpol regulates garbage. This is unnecessary and duplicative language. (d) Minimize foam or floating solids. See previous comment above about seafood processing and the guts, gills, shells etc would be solids disposed of that might at times float for short intervals. Foam can be created by circulating seawater for keeping shellfish species alive.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 428 (h) EPA should develop a list of approved soaps, detergents or clean ers that meet the requirements for non

- toxic, phosphate

- free and biodegradable to prevent unnecessary burden on the commercial fishermen and unnecessary enforcement actions. Engine and Oil Control page 4, section 2.3: UF A is concerned about the requiremen t in the draft permit for environmentally acceptable lubricants being accessible in Alaska especially in the more remote communities and the cost. The Aleutians East Borough (AEB) found one environmentally acceptable hydraulic oil, sold in Anchorage, was m ore than double the cost of a standard petroleum 5 gallon bucket. Has EPA considered the cost of switching lubricants and oils since you generally can't just switch over and start using a synthetic product? Solid and Liquid Waste Management on page 5, sect ion 2.4: This section should be deleted since Annex V of Marpol regulations cover all these situations and is referenced in section 2.11 Compliance with other Statues and Regulations. Quarterly Visual Inspection Requirements on page 9 section 3.2 also in the Overview page 1, section 1.3: The quarterly visual inspection requirement is overly burdensome particularly in short lived fisheries lasting about a month and then pulled out of the water such as Bristol Bay. A more practical and less encumbered method would be a pre

- season inspection, a quarterly inspection during active fishing seasons and post

- season inspection. Requiring a vessel owner to go to remote locations for quarterly insp ections would be costly and possibly infeasible if the boats were buried under snow. Definitions on page 14
- 18: The following definitions should be added to this section Seafood Processing, ballast water, ballast tank, and fishing hold
Fish Hold Effluent a nd Fish Hold Cleaning Wastewater Discharge Report (Supporting Documents): This report contains false and misleading information. The descriptions of types of vessels, discharges, and practices should be re

- examined. It is obvious that this was written by i ndividuals with no knowledge of commercial fishing. Response: Duplicate comment to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0406

- A1 , excerpts 16 through 27

. See EPA’s response s to th ose comment s
.

Commenter Name: Robert D. Alverson, Manager Commenter Affiliation: Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0141

- 0819

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 29Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 429 Comment:
Small VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT EPA
- HQ
- OW
- 2011
- 0150 ( sVGP ) First we request that in the final draft permit that the PARI form be simplified and written in non
- regulatory language (simple) eliminating the need to look up references in the Code of Federal Register. Most fishermen find it difficult to look up the references provided in the draft sVGP permit unless a link to the exact spot in the federal register is provided. Second we would request that the PARI , form only require quarterly inspections in quarters that active fishing occurred. It is easy for enforcement to prove or disapprove if a ves sel participated in a commercial fishery by fish tickets. We request that the quarterly inspection whether it is every quarter or only in quarters where active fishing takes place how compliance will consider quarterly reporting

- do you determine the year and what is a quarter

- is it exactly 90 days from the date of the last inspections, can you assume a calendar year and perform an inspection on March 31 & a n other on April 1 st and cover the first two quarters of the year? Eligibility on page 1. Section 1.1: An outstanding issue is it is not clear that uninspected charter vessels carrying passengers are covered by this permit or the exemption provided for recreational vessels. This permit should clarify this issue. Discharges Currently or Previously Cover ed by Another NPDES Permit on page2. section 1.4: The draft sVGP states that a vessel is not covered under this permit if covered by another NPDES permit. Some commercial fishing vessels are permitted under the NPDES Permit AK

G52

- 0000 for Alaska Seafood P rocessors or the AK

- G52

- 4000 Offshore Alaska Seafood Processors permit yet these permits do not cover all the same discharges that are covered under the sVGP permit for the incidental discharge to the normal operation of vessels. How does a vessel reconcil e the permit applicable to their operation since neither permit covers all of the operations or incidental discharges for the vessel? In addition, we noticed that the Seafood Processors permits show more knowledge and understanding of the seafood fishing/p rocessing industry than EPA has shown in the draft sVGP & VGP permits, but it is still a permit burdensome with unrealistic expectation for the fishermen to comply with. Vessel Discharges Not Eligible for Coverage on page 1 section 1.5:
The U.S. Coast Guar d, Dept of Commerce and Regional Fishery Management Councils defines "seafood processing" means the commercial preparation of fish or fish products other than by gutting, decapitating, gilling, skinning, shucking, icing, freezing or brine chilling. Section 1.5 states that discharges described in 40.CFR 122.3 and include but are not limited to, discharges from industrial operations (e.g. seafood processing ... are not covered by this permit. The draft permit needs to contain the definition of seafood process ing and should use the already accepted definition provided above and most importantly provide for allowing the discharges not already covered created by gutting, decapitating, gilling, skinning, shucking, icing, freezing or brine chilling normal incidenta l operation of a commercial fishing vessel. Annex V of MARPOL excludes "fresh fish and parts thereof, generated during the normal operation of the ship andResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 430 liable to be disposed of continuously or periodically" ... again bringing us back to the assumption that these operations should be covered under this permit. General Requirements on page 3 section 2.1: (b) Annex5 of MARPOL regulates garbage. This is unnecessary and duplicative language. (d) Minimize foam or floating solids. See previous comment above a bout seafood processing and the guts, gills, shells etc would be solids disposed of that might at times float for short intervals. Foam can be created by circulating seawater for keeping shellfish species alive. (h) EPA should develop a list of approved s oaps, detergents, cleaners and sanitizers that meet the requirements for non

- toxic, phosphate

- free and biodegradable to prevent an unnecessary burden on the commercial fishermen or unnecessary enforcement actions. Engine and Oil Control page 4, section 2.3 : SEAFA is concerned about the requirement in the draft permit for environmentally acceptable lubricants being accessible in Alaska especially in the more remote communities and the cost. The Aleutians East Borough (AEB) found one environmentally acceptabl e hydraulic oil sold in Anchorage that was more than double the cost for a 5 gallon bucket. Has EPA considered the cost of switching lubricants and oils since you generally can't just switch over and start using a synthetic product? Solid and Liquid Waste Management on page 5, section 2.4: This section should be deleted since Annex V of MARPOL regulations cover all these situations and is referenced in section 2.11 Compliance with other Statues and Regulations.
Deck Washdown and Runoff and Above Water Line Hull Cleaning on page 5,
section 2.5: The AK

- G52

- 4000 Offshore Alaska Seafood Processors permit addresses the deck wash

- down issue in this section much simpler. The AK

- G52

- 4000 permit states "Wash

- down water, which includes EPA

- approved disinfectants added to the wash down water to facilitate the removal of wastes and to maintain sanitary standards during processing or to sanitize seafood processing areas." You could use this language and end. afer ... sanitary standards. In addition this language acknowledg es that we are in the food production

- industry and that, sanitation is a priority. Run off of rain and seawater from waves is an act of nature and should not be required to be permitted nor treated to meet standards. , Graywater on page 6, section 2.7: The draft permit stipulates that excess oils used during cooking not be discharged. How is a small commercial fishing vessel with minimal galley space going to meet a zero discharge of cooking oils when washing dishes? This sentence should be deleted as ot her federal regulations make it clear that dumping a pan of cooking oil overboard is illegal.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 431 The EPA proposed that all vessels must minimize graywater discharges in port. (Again the definition of "in port" would mean any place the vessel is anchored even in remote locations taking refuge from weather and not a port as in a harbor with many vessels and likely not much flushing action.) Most commercial fishing vessels don't have the capacity or ability to store graywater so there is no choice but to discharg e some amount of graywater when tied up in the harbor. Vessel owners and crewmembers at times live on the vessel during the fishing' season while in ports thus complicating the requirement to minimize graywater discharge and production. EPA has not provide d any guidance or standard of "minimize" discharge vis a vis, compliance. SEAFA recommends that EPA strike the word "must" from this section and encourage an operator to minimize graywater discharge as reasonably able to do so. Fish Hold Effluent on page 7 , section 2.8: The prohibition on the discharge of unused bait is ridiculous. The bait used during the course of fishing whether on hooks or in pots would have already introduced to the waters being fished. What makes the unused bait different? You would a lready have introduced invasive species to the waterway. This section needs to be deleted and bait that is from the local waters, been frozen or cured is exempted from any discharge prohibitions. In other words prohibit the use of live bait that is not fro m the local areal water body to prevent the spread of invasive species. The requirements to off load fish hold effluent at a shoreside facility should be deleted and instead a simple best management practice be recommended instead that states "fish hold ef fluent pumps will be screened to prevent particles larger than a 1/2" from being pumped overboard. Larger particles separated from the effluent must be disposed of as garbage per Marpol Annex 5 regulations or at a shoreside facility disposal site. The rest rictions of pumping fish hold effluent and ice in port is problematic particularly with the definition of "in

- port". Requiring processors to handle all fish hold effluent is an economic hardship, causes backup in the plants because it ties up the unloading facilities. Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge on page 8. section 2.10: The EPA requirement to discharge seawater cooling overboard when the vessel is underway and run on shore power when in port is technologically infeasible. Some vessels are seawater cooled and must be run in port in order to move, another use is refrigeration condensers and freezer plates which run continuously while products are on board, requiring the generator/engine to circulate ambient seawater as necessary to maintain efficient cooling. There is no way to capture this discharge so it should not be a requirement to do so. In Alaska, adequate shore based power. is not readily or economically available since many remote communities run on diesel generators anyways, thus there is no alternative for vessels but to run auxiliary engines for power generation in port and out. Quarterly Visual Inspection Requirements on page 9 section 3.2 also in the Overview page 1. section 1.3: The quarterly visual inspection requirement is overly burdens ome particularly in short lived fisheries lasting about a month and then pulled out of the water such as Bristol Bay. A more practical and less burdensome method would be a quarterly inspection during active fishing seasons. Requiring a vessel owner to go to remote locations for quarterly inspections would be costly and possible infeasible if the boats were buried under snow.Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 432 Permit Compliance on page 11. Section 4.3: Asking for self

- reporting of non

- compliance which generally tends to be an accident and no t on purpose and then levying extremely high fines tends to minimize cooperation with self

- reporting requirements and the regulations themselves. Definitions on page 14
- 18. section 6: Definitions of "Fish Hold", "Ballast water" and "Ballast Tank" should be included in these draft permits. The criteria for whether a vessel needs a VGP or sVGP is related to length (greater or less than 79 feet) as well as capacity of ballast water (greater or less than 8 cubic meters). While the draft permit makes the distinc tion in categories between "fish hold effluent" and "ballast water", no definitions are provided. The USCG defines ballast water in 33 CFR 151.1504 in relation to vessel stability. The definition refers to "water and suspended matter taken on board a vesse l to control or maintain, trim, draught, stability, or stresses of the vessel" Additional clarity can be found in USCG NVIC Circular 07

- 04 Change 1 (Oct 29, 2004) which states that ballast tanks filled with fresh water from municipal or commercial water su pplies do not count as ballast water. Nor do tanks .that are permanently ballasted (with the exception of being emptied for dry docking or hauling out). NVIC 07

- 04 reiterates that ballast water is related to water taken on board for trim or stability.
We r ecommend that EPA make it explicitly clear that water taken onboard a commercial fishing vessel in a fish hold for purposes of fishing and tendering (fish and shellfish) is not defined as ballast water. It should be made clear that a fish hold is not a bal last tank

- regardless of whether the fish hold is greater than 8 cubic meters or not. Additionally, that vessels with continuous circulating ambient seawater to keep shellfish species alive is exempted from fish hold effluent, discharge prohibitions and f rom considerations of being ballast water Additionally, the threshold of 8 cubic' meters is not the handiest unit of measure for commercial fishing vessels. That translates to 2113 gallons = 283 cu ft = or a ballast tank that measures slightly over 6.5' X 6.5' feet X 6.5' feet. EPA should provide units of measure more commonly used on vessels than cubic meters.
"Oil" (sVGP section 6 page 16) The draft permit defines "oil" as "oil of any kind or in any form, including but not limited to petroleum, fuel oil, s ludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil." Through the course of normal fishing operations, the fish which contain naturally occurring oils both internally and externally may be released, either by contact with fishing gear, co mpression in the nets, heading/gutting or other means. Depending upon the vessel and fishing gear, fish oil residue may remain on the vessel surfaces and fishing gear" and may, be subsequently washed overboard by precipitation, water spray, runoff, wash

- do wns, gear deployment etc. We recommend that EPA revise the definition of Oil in the Draft VGP& sVGP to explicitly exclude fish oils and fish oil residue or to adopt a definition of "oil" that does not include animal based oil.
"In Port” is currently defined in the draft permit as "for the purposes of this permit, anchored, moored, or otherwise secured while located in waters subject to this permit which are inside the baseline of the U.S. territorial sea. A more appropriate definition would be "moored or otherwise secured at a pier or dock".Response to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 433 "Seafood Processing” should be defined as the commercial preparation of fish or fish products other than by gutting, decapitating, gilling, skinning, shucking, icing, freezing or brine chilling. See comm ents below in the sVGP section of comments.
"Vessel Length” One of the main differences between the sVGP and VGP is the 79 foot vessel length. Length of vessel is not defined, is it overall, documented/registered length, or keel length? SEAFA recommends th at vessel length be defined. Recordkeeping Confidentiality: EPA does not address whether the logbooks and reports required will be considered and kept confidential or will be provided on request under the Freedom of Information Act and citizen suit provisi ons. SEAFA strongly recommends that data be kept confidential. Economic Analysis: We briefly reviewed the economic analysis provided and find it very sparse and difficult to read but can state that the costs estimated for Alaska (Region 10) are significant ly underestimated· for the populated areas not to mention the increased costs for rem6fe~unities. For example the economic analysis estimates the price for OIL PADS range from $0.15 to $0.48, the cost in Southeast Alaska is approximately $0.75 to $1.25.
sV GP Fact Sheet: Page 7

- We believe that the economic analysis underestimates the cost of compliance and paperwork burden. For example just to perform the quarterly inspections for some vessel operators will be thousands of dollars each trip just to travel to the vessel to perform the inspection and a boat watcher is not qualified as the PARI form is currently written. See comments on Economic analysis section for additional information. Page 16

- section 3.7.1 (2nd paragraph and footnote 6) states "Vessels that are not being operated in the capacity of a means of transportation include vessels. .. or vessels that are secured to a storage facility or a seafood processing facility ... " is not covered under the permit. How does this work

- how can a vessel by tying up to the processor, the vessel is no longer be covered by the sVGP and the incidental discharges be prohibited and immediately stopped? What is happening if it is raining when you tie up to the dock

- do you have to suddenly prevent any deck runoff? Who is responsible for the incidental discharges of the vessel, the seafood processor? This makes no sense as written in the different sections and needs to be revised and made consistent. Page 29

- Graywater 4.7 (2nd paragraph) The fact sheet "prohibits the addition of cooking oils to graywater systems" while the sVGP permit states "excess oils, must not be added to the graywater system or into any other discharge covered by this permit. This section should be deleted in both areas or at least consistent with each other taking out the word "must".
EPA Fish Hold Effluent and Fish Hold Cleaning Wastewater Discharge ReportResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 434 (Supporting Document): This report contains false and misleading information. The descriptions of types of vessels, discharges, and practi ces should be reexamined. It is obvious that this was written by individuals with no knowledge of commercial fishing. Page 3

- 3rd paragraph: We believe that the statement, Almost all purse seiners, tenders and crabbing vessels have RSW systems, while hook ,and line and set net vessels use ice tanks. A vessel with an installed RSW system would not use the tanks as ice tanks even if their gear type changed." To state that most crabbing vessels have RSW tanks is not accurate. The vessels that SEAFA represent are multi

- gear and the type of refrigeration depends upon the vesse.1 and the species/fishery. There are vessels. that have RSW systems installed on board that will use the RSW for salmon, circulating seawater for crab and ice for halibut. Page 4

– 2.1 Lob ster/Crabber

– 1 st paragraph: Vessels catch Dungeness, king and snow crab are typically 50 feet and 150 feet in length and are larger than crab boats used along the East Coast and Gulf Coast for catching blue crabs. This is untrue in Southeast Alaska, Dunge ness crab boats are open skiffs to larger vessels, SE Red King Crab, Golden King Crab and Tanner crab vessels are average length of 45 foot to 80 foot, while crab vessels in the Bering Sea are probably closer to 100 to 150 feet in length. Page 4

- 2.3 Fish Tenders: Tenders participate in a variety of fisheries including but not limited to crab, salmon, groundfish, and halibut. In Southeast Alaska tenders purchase on the grounds all species of salmon not just chum, they also tender in other fisheries such as crab. Page 5

- 2.4 Gillnetter: In Alaska, most salmon caught by gillnetters are sold and delivered in the round not gutted on

- board as provided in the description. Not all fish harvested by a gillnetter are dead when pulled onboard. Whether a fish is alive or dead is dependent upon the amount of time between setting and picking the net. Fishermen are encouraged to keep their nets picked often in order to produce a better quality product (i.e. pick the net while the fish are alive). Page 5

- 2.5 Longliner: I n Alaska, longliners are quite diverse in length from skiffs to large vessels and it is impossible to put an average size to the vessels just as you can't generalize the length of a longline and the amount of soak time. In many areas in Alaska if you soake d a longline more than 6 hours you wouldn't have a fish left because of the sand fleas. Some longlines are fairly short with a hundred hooks. The fact sheet also mis

- quotes Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association that some longliners "clean their fish hold s between each off

- load while others add fresh ice. to the tanks before leaving on another fishing trip and dean their fish holds periodically". What Attachment A (page A

- 4) states is .that "long liners almost always clean their tanks between each offload"

. Page 10

- Section 4, 4th paragraph: It states that "small fishing vessels such as salmon trollers and longliners in Alaska, off

- load the catch daily and also clean the fish hold tanks daily."In the, descriptions previous, you describe trollers as skiffs to large ocean

- going vessels and Longliners as vessels typically 50 to 100 feet so how did they now get to be small vessels. We also do not believe that even the small vessels within these fleets deliver daily and clean the fish hold tanks daily. A typical trip would be five days long. Occasionally a vessel will do a short day trip for aResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 435 variety of reasons but it is ·not the standard for the majority of troll species harvested and longline trips unless the amount of quota left to harvest is that small. Page 11 ~'Table should be reevaluated completely. Since you are using the US Coast Guard database for vessels and not factoring in state registered vessels, we believe that you have not accurately reflected the fishing fleet in Alaska. (We can't speak for the rest of the Country since we are not familiar with the different fisheries.) Page 12

- Section 5, 3rd paragraph: The description of Seafood Producers Cooperative (SPC) located in Sitka, Alaska is in inaccurate. The majority of their fleet is made up of Tro llers, followed by long liners and then gillnetters. Page 14

- Section 6, 2nd paragraph: While some facilities may have the capability to accept fish hold effluent, you are not considering the economic impact on the seafood processor in terms of cost (Alas ka is high electricity costs, lost production because unloading the ice is taking the same length of time as it would for the next vessel to unload, and the workforce/labor to handle the dirty ice/fish hold effluent This is not practical. The 'draft sVGP p ermit did not consider those areas including harbors and by processing plants where there is sufficient tidal action that fish hold effluent shouldn't be an issue due to the flushing action in the area.
Attachment A

- page A

- 2: Telephone Call Record for Si tka Sound Co

- op
- name is actually Seafood Producers Cooperative (SPC) it states in the third paragraph that, "Salmon and Black Cod are sold as whole fish so require little processing at the facility itself." While this is true of black cod, the majority o f the salmon are troll dressed (Le. gutted & gilled).
Attachment A

- page A

- 7: Telephone Call Record for United Fishermen of Alaska. In the third paragraph, it states that an installed RSW system would not use the tanks as ice tanks even if their gear type changed. This is not necessarily true, some vessels with RSW capability will still use slush ice or ice depending upon the fishery they are participating in and the cost that the processors will pay for the type of chilling system used. Processors will on some species pay more for fish that are RSW chilled and therefore it is cost effective for the fishermen to run the engine for the RSW. If the processor isn't paying the extra money then the fisherman might choose to get ice from the processor and use slu sh ice instead. Processors prefer halibut to be dry iced rather than held in slush ice or RSW.
Conclusion: These proposed permits will affect 10,000 commercial fishing vessels in Alaska. Within Alaska there is a very diverse range of fishing vessels in reg ards to length; gear type and area of operation. The current draft permits attempts to impose uniform regulations across broadly diverse fleets with little consideration given to the inherent diversity as well as other types of vessels. The draft permits p roposed include duplicative, unnecessary, and unduly burdensome provisions for commercial fishing vessels in Alaska in the aggregate as well as presenting specific issues and problems for vessels participating in specific fisheries. The number of fishing v essels is a big enough universe that a permit for the commercial fishing industry sector would have been appropriate and would have provided a better fit for conditions and best managementResponse to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet (sVGP)

Docket ID #: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

August, 2014 Page 436 practices and would have made all fishing vessels participating in the same fisheries to meet the same standards. At a minimum we request that you seriously consider the recommendations provided by commercial fishing associations and processors as you proceed forward or start a process that would provide for stakeholder i nvolvement. The hearings held on this permit were held on the East Coast and none in Alaska or the West Coast where the greatest concentration of commercial fishing boats are located. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this serious issue that will have far reaching economic effects on our members. Should you have any questions or need additional information regarding these comments or other issues raised in the draft sVGP, please do not hesitate to contact us. Response: Duplicate comment t o EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0150

- 0404

- A1 , excerpts 2 through 24

. See EPA ’s response s to th ose comment s
.