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-2011-0150
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 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 EPAHQ-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 final 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 number).....................................................................................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 ...................................................................................................217

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........................................................................................................................341
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 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)..........................................399
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 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.)

Doc. Control No. 

(EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150) Commenter Name Commenter Affiliation

0295 Dwight Morrison, Co-Chair Wheels On Trails Organization

0355 Barbara Salzman and Phil Peterson, CoChairs, Conservation CommitteeMarin Audubon Society

0365 Pete Worthington, 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

Doc. Control No. 

(EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150) Commenter Name Commenter Affiliation

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 Director 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 Diego

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 Chimes
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 7

Doc. Control No. 

(EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150) Commenter Name Commenter Affiliation

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 8
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 9

Issue Category:

GEN. 1 General Stakeholder 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 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 sign 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 moratorium. Absent a valid 

general permit, if Congress does not extend the moratorium, small vessel owners/operators 

would not be able to legally discharge (and therefore operate) in U.S. waters unless they obtained 

coverage under an NPDES individual permit, 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 owners/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 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 proposing 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 fishing 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 fact 

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 minimizes 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 NonRecreational Vessels less than 79 feet" in 2010 to better 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 permit 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-OW-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 public has been given 83 days to 

comment on the permits. EPA believes that the 75-day comment period provided sufficient time 

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

significantly longer than most comment periods 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 available 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 articles 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 during 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 Affiliation: 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 commenter’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 Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0390-A1

Comment Excerpt Number: 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 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 

we 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 Harbor 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 concerned 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 requires 

incidental discharges of non-recreational, non-military vessels greater than 79 feet to be covered 

under an NPDES permit. Additionally, please see EPA’s response to comment number EPAHQ-OW-2011-0150-0365, excerpt 1.

Commenter Name: Captain Les Bolton, 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: 2
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 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 with 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.

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: 1

Comment: 

The Passenger Vessel Association (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 possible, 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 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 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 permits.

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 Affiliation: Passenger Vessel Association (PVA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0396-A1

Comment Excerpt Number: 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 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 the 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. PVA 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 recognize the efforts of the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to find a workable solution for U.S.-flag vessels in its 

development of the sVGP. Hopefully, Congress will extend the statutory exemption for 

smaller commercial vessels. EPA has proposed the draft Small Vessel 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 scheduled 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

Response: 

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 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 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 Web page at 

water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/vessels/index.cfm. Additional information on the development of 

the sVGP and its supporting documentation can be found in the docket for the permit (EPA-HQOW-2011-0150) at http://www.regulations.gov.

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: 1

Comment: 

We are disappointed that the court has ordered 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 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 19

make work 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 

understanding 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, and 

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 registered 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 Enforcement (MISLE)

database to determine numbers of vessels and we have added information to Section 3.2 of 

the sVGP Fact Sheet. EPA also developed an economic analysis to evaluate the economic 

impacts of the sVGP requirements. This information is further explained in Section 2.5 of the 

sVGP Fact Sheet and the full economic analysis can be found in the docket for this permit (EPAHQ-OW-2011-0150) on http://www.regulations.gov.

EPA conducted two Public Meetings in Washington 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 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: 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 Seafood 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 this 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 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 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 Vessels 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 implementing 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 certain 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 the 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 

water.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 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 proposed 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 

vessels is a big enough universe that a permit for the commercial fishing industry sector would 
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 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 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 involvement. 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.

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-2011-0150-0400-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 Fishermen 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 addition, 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 also 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 EPAHQ-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 Web

page and via periodic vessel 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 industry 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 vessel 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 responsible 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 requirements, 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 

practicability 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 Number: 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 proposed 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 General 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: 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 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 possible 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 federal 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 of 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 the 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 communities. 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 coast.

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 Trollers 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. Additionally, 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 owners/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 owners/operators with a viable permitting 
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 27

mechanism if it should be needed at the end of 2014. 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 EPAHQ-OW-2011-0150-0381, excerpt 1.

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: 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 Permit 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 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: 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 supports 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-2011-0150-0414-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 that 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: 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 29

Comment: 

Western Fishboat Owners Association (WFOA) which represents about 400 albacore 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 incidental 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 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: 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, 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: 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 effect 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, excerpt 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), Division 

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 environment and are described in the attached enclosure.

The EPA notes that vessels that are not able to meet the terms of the permit must apply for 

individual vessel permits. We assume that EPA Region 10 will issue these individual permits for 

vessels discharging in Alaska.

For these reasons, we encourage the EPA to refrain from opposing any potential extension 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 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 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 and 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 Number: 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 commenter’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 

characteristics 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 litigators 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 process 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 have 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 

information 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 discharge 

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 about 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 environmental 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, 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: 1

Comment: 

The Washington 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 (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: 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 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 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 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 majority 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 legislation 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 from (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 (July 31, 2008)). The statute’s NPDES permitting moratorium ran for a 

two-year period beginning on its July 31, 2008, enactment date, during which time EPA studied 

the relevant discharges and submitted a report to Congress. 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 follow-up pieces of legislation.

In order to provide permit coverage for discharges incidental to the normal operation of nonrecreational, 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 Web 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 response, 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, see 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 Affiliation: 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 by 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 Seaport 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 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 comment number EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0377, excerpt 1.

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: 21

Comment: 

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 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 

made 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 moratorium 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 therefore 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, 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: 2

Comment: 

Alaska commercial fishing fleet is extremely diverse as are the 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 will 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 vessels. 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 see EPA’s response 

to comment number EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0390-A2, excerpt 9, for discussion regarding 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 (UFA)

Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0406-A1

Comment Excerpt Number: 17
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 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 these 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 of 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 

(see 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 incidental 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 commenter 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 already a very 

difficult profession. We believe a further continuance of the existing exemption is appropriate 

under the circumstances.

Response: 

Please see 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 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 

proposed 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, and, very occasionally, ballast water. Tank barges typically produce deck runoff and, in 

some cases, ballast water.

Response: 

EPA disagrees with this commenter that unmanned 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. The economic analysis for the VGP, including an assessment of barges, can be found 

on EPA's vessel Web 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 streamlined approach proposed in the sVGP. The sVGP addresses 

each of the discharges described above with best management practices to reduce their impacts 
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 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)

Commenter 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 Water 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 agency 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 Association (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 recreational 

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 70,000 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 of 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 available 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 Affiliation: 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 inform 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” approach 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 all” 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 sVGP, which can 

be found on EPA's Vessel Web 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 vessels.

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 pervessel sVGP incremental compliance costs average between $17 and $133 per year. A copy of 

the economic analysis for the sVGP can be found on EPA's Vessel Web page at 

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/vessels/ and in the docket for 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: 1

Comment: 

The EPA estimates that between 118,000 and 138,000 vessels may be eligible for coverage under 

the sVGP. We consider that to be a conservative 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, 

administered by the EPA regions, 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 Commission

Commenter Affiliation: Oregon Salmon Commission

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0418-A2

Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: 

COMMENTS ON 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 47

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 fish 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 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. 

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: 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 Commission, 

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 COVERAGE
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 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 from 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 responsibility 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 form 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, Director, 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 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 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 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 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 Chimes

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 Windjammer 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 subjects 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 vessels 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 effect 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 every 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 shores. 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 requirements will not impose an 
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 50

unreasonable burden on vessel owners/operators. For information on the economic cost of the 

permit, see the Economic Analysis for this permit.

EPA does not have a record on which to base a de minimis exclusion from the CWA NPDES 

permitting 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 statutory 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 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: 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. 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 vessel(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 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.

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: 2
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 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. 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 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. We 

believe that providing this exemption 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, 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 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 Subject to 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 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 Subject to this Permit

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 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 comment number EPA-HQ-2011-0150-0426-A2, excerpt 4.

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: 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 comment number 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

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: 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 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 exempt 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 small vessels that operate 

seaward of the territorial sea baseline to seek permit coverage under the sVGP. These small nonrecreational 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 expires. Hence, EPA believes 

the Agency must finalize today’s permit to provide an option for vessel owners/operators subject 

to NPDES permit requirements to seek permit coverage. EPA does not have the authority to 

exempt certain types of discharges or facilities (vessel types) from NPDES permitting 

requirements, unless the CWA 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 Vessels and 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 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-2011-0150-0379-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 fish 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 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.

 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: 

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 sVGP, 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 vessels 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 Affiliation: 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 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: 

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 better 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

Comment 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. Coast 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.

Response: 

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 economic 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: 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 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, but 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 operator 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 effluent 

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 the 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 

approach 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 response 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 Number: 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 fittings 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: 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 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 that 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 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 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: 

See response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-0150-0377, excerpt 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 Number: 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 use 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-2011-0150-0404-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 vessels. 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 Commercial fishing vessels are permitted under the NPDES Permit AKG52-0000 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 noticed 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 to 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 by 
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 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 

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. 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 the 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 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-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 comments 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. Cardone, 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 Number: 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 EPA 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 category 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 venturing 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. In 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 deck 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 business 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 comment 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, shucking, 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: 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 69

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 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-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: 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 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 
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 70

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-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 as 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-0150-0379-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

Comment Excerpt Number: 2
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 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 be 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 with 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 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”. 

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 consideration 
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 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 definition 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

Comment 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 operating 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 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 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

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: 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 effluent 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 

significantly 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 records 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 (NASBLA)
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 enforcement, 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 reason, 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. While 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 specialty 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 manufactured 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 clearly 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 members 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 does 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 

water 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 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 75

EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0390-A2, excerpt 9 for discussion 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 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 memorials 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 vessels.” 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 clarified in Part 1.1 of the sVGP fact 

sheet that the permit applies to non-military, non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet, and that 
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 76

"non-military" vessels means those vessels that are not of the Armed Forces as defined in section 

312(a)(14) of the Clean Water 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 information.

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 the 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 students, 

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 importance 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 district, 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 inspected 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 

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.

We support any 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 our 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 administrative 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 Vessels 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 America (formerly known as the American Sail Training 

Association), an organization dedicated to youth education, leadership development and 
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 78

preservation of the maritime heritage of the United States, and organizer of the TALL SHIPS 

CHALLENGE® series races in 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 students 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 member 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 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 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 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 

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 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 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, 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: 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 79

Comment: 

1.1 Eligibility (p.1)

CWPA members 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 recordkeeping, 

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 comment 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: EPA-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 vessels do not have a ballast 

water 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 assess 

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 or 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 expected benefits of the permits in dollar terms due to data 

limitations. The only gain EPA expects to benefit society is;

1) Enhanced 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 introduction
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 80

In July of 2008 we understood from 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 normal operation of nonrecreational, 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 Congressional 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 impact 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 responsibility 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. Nationwide 

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 thousands 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 included 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 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 PRIDE OF BALTIMORE II 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 impact. On our vessel, 

we have for decades practiced and taught/trained "best practices" of maritime environment 

stewardship. 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 administrative 

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 insignificant 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 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: 

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 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 83

Issue Category:

BKG. 3 Permit Background
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 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 current 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 obtaining 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 means 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 effluent 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 discharge 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 vessel 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 believes 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 

document 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 Regulates Vessels (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 Moratorium
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 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 18th, 2013, exempting commercial 

fisheries vessels less than 79 feet in length. Our letter addresses the problems we see with the 

proposed sVGP and 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 

accordingly. 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 

owners/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 owners/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 requirements 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 Enforcement
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 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 comments 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 levied. 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 vessels 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 Conservation 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 violations 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: 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 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 response 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 Association (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 the 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 person 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 reference 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 enforcement of the sVGP, a Clean Water 

Act permit, is an enforcement of a federal law and an inherently governmental function. The 
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 97

commenter errs when he says that “inspection” of a vessel is an inherently governmental 

function. Section 308 of the Clean Water 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 actions 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 (USAG)

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 correct? 

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 establishes 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 amount 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 maximum 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 administrative 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 penalties, 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. 

However, 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 Alaska 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 vessels as a vessel type permittees can select on the annual noncompliance 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 approximately 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 noncompliance, as required 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 matters 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 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: 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 Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Division 

of Water, Water Quality Section

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0417-A2

Comment Excerpt Number: 2
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 100

Comment: 

However, the potential exists for this permit to be either a small additional duty or a tremendous 

burden for Alaska boat owners or operators. EPA had stated unofficially in teleconferences that 

the agency does not currently have an enforcement strategy. The State of Alaska does not know 

what direction the EPA will pursue with compliance enforcement. Who and how the unclear 

terms contained in the 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 terms 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 copy 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, 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: 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: 

Enforcement 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 other 

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 help 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 noncompliance 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 their 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 noncompliance that may endanger health or the environment 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 reporting 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 

identifies 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 Council
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 102

Document 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 enforcement 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 

the 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 December 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 compliance.

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 section 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 permit 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 basis 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 Excerpt 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

event 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 constitutes 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/operators 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 considered 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-HQOW-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 Definitions
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 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 definitions)

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. Based 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 finalized 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 comment in other responses to comments in this document on the same topics

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 Free
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 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, 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:

EPA disagrees with the 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 Acceptable Lubricants
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 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 Acceptable Lubricants

Commenter Name: Angus P. Kennedy, President, VapCor Inc.

Commenter Affiliation: VapCor Inc.

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0389-A1

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, winches, 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 identified lubricant.

“Environmentally acceptable lubricants” means lubricants that are “biodegradable” and “nontoxic” 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 sVGP. 

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, 

vessels use these lubricants in all machinery and equipment where discharges of oil to 
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 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 taken 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 these 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. The permit 

does prohibit vessel owners/operators from discharging oil in quantities that 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 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: 1

Comment: 

Draft 2013 Small Vessel General Permit – Docket 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 aspects 

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, 

bioaccumulation 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 voluntary 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 product 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, Swedish 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 available 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 acceptable 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 aquatic 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 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 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 grease 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 

Test 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 “Bioaccumulative” should be defined thus:

“Bioaccumulative” means the partition coefficients in the marine 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 substance, 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 and 

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, particularly 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 that it is economically practicable and achievable for new 

build vessels and most existing vessels to use these products. The technical infeasibility 

provisions are tied to availability and compatibility of the products for use in all vessel oil-to-sea 

interfaces. 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 term “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 prelubricated (e.g., wire ropes) have no available alternatives 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 programs 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 Ecolabel lubricants approval 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 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) 

toxicity. 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 evaluated 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. Constituents 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 with 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/operators 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 other 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 clarify 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 Swedish 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 testing 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. To assist vessel operators in implementing the permit, EPA continues to 

explicitly state that products meeting the permit’s definitions of being an “environmentally 

acceptable lubricant” include, for purposes of implementing the sVGP, those labeled by the 

following third-party labeling programs: Blue Angel, European Ecolabel, Nordic Swan, the 

Swedish Standard SS 155434 and SS 155470, Convention 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 permit. 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 to 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 follows:

“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 lubricants 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 and 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 limits:

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 THESE 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 155470 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 inclusion 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 increasing the 

numbers of existing lubricants that meet the highest environmental standards and avoids 
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 125

unnecessary test costs where products are already accredited to one of the schemes. However, 

from a formulation perspective, meeting these environmental standards 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 therefore 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 2013 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: Benjn. 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. This 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 biodegradability, 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 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: 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 Biodegradability in Seawater by 

OECD 306. However, it has been reportedi 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 not 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 currently 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 definition 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 biodegradability 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 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 grease formulation may contain a constituent 

substance or constituent substances that are either inherently biodegradable or nonbiodegradable up to a combined total of 25% (w/w). Acceptable test methods to 

demonstrate inherent biodegradability include: OECD Test Guidelines 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 any 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 Affiliation: 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 in 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 other 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 bioaccumulation 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 typically exhibit log KOW >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 performance 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 KOW ≥4. This would be in line with the Globally Harmonized System of 

Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). Additionally we recommend that criteria other 

than Log KOW 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 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%.
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: 

Aquatic 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 sometimes 

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 sVGP. We assume that the 

definition 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 intended 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 defined 
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 130

(see table below). In general fish are the least sensitive of the three aquatic tropic levels. 

Therefore, where acute aquatic testing 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 

animal 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 word "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 of 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 reportedii 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 freshwater 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 or 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 

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 limits:

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 Lubricants

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) 

lubricants 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 be 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 Harmless 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 meet the EAL specifications given in 
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 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 determined 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 biodegradability, 

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, including 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 that 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 or 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” labeling 

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 “environmentally 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 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 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 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 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 

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: 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: 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 achievable 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 defined 
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 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 “minimize” 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 specific discharges.

EPA believes the key to a clearer understanding of the term minimize is to further clarify the 

term “Best Marine Practices” 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 

that 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 an 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 the fact sheet provides examples of Best Marine 

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 implementing 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 collection, 

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 believes 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, treatment 
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 137

systems that are reliable and approved for use 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 Marine 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 owners/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 owners/operators to minimize the transport of any 

visible living aquatic organisms from one waterbody to another by regularly cleaning and 

maintaining the hull.

EPA disagrees 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 compliance 

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 Practices operators must implement to meet the 

limitations. This is analogous to an industrial situation where discharges to waters 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 limitations 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 respect 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 further defining that 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 activities.

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: 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 138

Comment: 

For example, the permit lacks specificity about who will ultimately interpret terms such as 

"minimize", "reduce", and "to the extent achievable". Generally, we are concerned 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 NonCompliance Form. Operators will be in a predicament where best judgment drastically differs 

from an EPA employee's interpretation during compliance enforcement.

Attempts to define these terms in the permit introduce additional ambiguous terms. We are 

concerned that commercial boat operators attempting to minimize their discharges to the extent 

achievable under the sVGP will not clearly understand what constitutes compliance. Further, the 

uncertainty could result in over reporting minor incidences resulting in an overly burdensome 

paperwork process for the vessel operators 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 Control 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 submitted 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 practicable", 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 and Related Requirements

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 term "minimize" without using the 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 Legislature 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 "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 
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 140

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 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 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 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 Vessel

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 open 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 acknowledges the comment and has modified the final permit and Fact Sheet 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 Fact Sheet includes illustrative 

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 activity (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 Number: 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. 12’ 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: 

This is Jonathan Friedman with the US Army Corps of Engineers ‐ after reading the sVGP Fact 

Sheet, 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 to 
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 145

all participants was, "No, 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 define 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, 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: 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 design 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 Specific Definitions Other than 

Those Listed 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 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 Specific Definitions Other than Those Listed Above

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 safe 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 

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: 

Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0390-A2, excerpt 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 Control 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 recommends 
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 150

the definition of "In Port" 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 comply 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 met 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 other 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 not 
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 151

address a vessel leaving one dock and returning 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 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)(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 sVGP. Please go to http://www.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 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 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 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: 

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-2011-0150-0404-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."

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: 18

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? 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)

Commenter Affiliation: United Fishermen of Alaska

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0406-A1

Comment Excerpt Number: 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 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 side. 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."

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: 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 remain 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, excerpt 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 Number: 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 Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0417-A2

Comment Excerpt Number: 15
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 155

Comment: 

6. Definitions

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 

interpretation of the term is problematic since it covers a large geographical area, including most 

of the Alexander Archipelago, and limits operational capabilities over an area that is subject to 

strong wind and tidal action. We recommend the definition of "In Port" be when a vessel is 

anchored, 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."

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: 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 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: 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: 16
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 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 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: 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

Reference: 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 bilgewater 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 bilgewater from machinery and non-machinery spaces as would a large ship, and Part 

2.3 of the permit states that any discharge of bilgewater may not contain oil and may not produce 
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 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 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. We recommend the 

definition of "In Port" be when a vessel is anchored, 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."

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: 6

Comment: 

6. Definitions (p. 16)

The definition of “In Port” now 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. 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 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 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 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 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 those 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 piece 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 TERMINATING 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 and 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 vessel, 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 their 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 Fact Sheet to provide a clearer 

explanation of transferring 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 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: 

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 related 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 Petroleum Institute 

(API)

Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute (API)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0391-A1

Comment Excerpt Number: 2
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 163

Comment: 

Furthermore, page 9, Section 3 of the draft sVGP details Quarterly Visual Inspection 

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). Unnecessary 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 owners/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 see 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 Affiliation: 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 owners/operators. EPA believes that compliance with the

administrative requirements in the sVGP would cause very little burden on vessel 

owners/operators. Permittees are required only to complete a PARI form (one page, front and 

back) certifying that they have read and understood the terms of the permit and completed the 

required quarterly visual inspections. Owners/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 the 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 substantial 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 that represent current Best Marine Practices.

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 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 vessel 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 & another on April 1st 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-2011-0150-0406-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 frequency of quarterly inspections, EPA reiterates 

here that the term "quarterly" means calendar quarter, with those four quarters being JanuaryMarch, 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 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 provisions. SEAFA strongly recommends that data 

be kept confidential.

Response: 

The 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 for 
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 166

any documents held by EPA on a case-by-case basis, 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 federal laws. Nothing in the sVGP requires disclosure of 

information (required under other federal 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 permittees 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 the 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 that 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 Number: 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 request 

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: 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 167

Comment: 

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 multiple 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 custodians 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 barges. 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 to 

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 burden 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 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: 6

Comment: 

VI. Vessels Requesting 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 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 little value at this time." In the realm 
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 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 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 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 115,000-138,000 vessels that may be 

covered under the sVGP to submit a NOI 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 vessels 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.

To 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 discharges containing conventional and toxic pollutants, and the volume 

and nature of those discharges. The volume of the discharges incidental to the normal operation 

of the vessel is expected to vary proportionately to the size of the vessel. Larger vessels will each 

individually have a greater volume of discharge and are more likely to have greater volume of 

discharges of concern (i.e., graywater and anti-foulant leachate). The expected volume of 

discharges for large vessels (e.g., those larger than eligible for 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 bilgewater. 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

Based 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 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: 7

Comment: 

Finally, the sVGP should require an NOI and a PARI, as both are 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 Excerpt 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 for 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 proper 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 see 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 Control 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 keeping 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 overboard 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, annual 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 notices 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 points out here that neither the proposed nor final permit contains 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 OBTAINING COVERAGE
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 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 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: 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: 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 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 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 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: 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: 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 172

Comment: 

• Monitoring and Record Keeping (Section 3.1-3.2):

1. The 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 owners/operators to provide documentation of quarterly inspections 

in an annual report or other periodic submittal. EPA 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.

EPA 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 document 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: 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 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 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 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 Seafood 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 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 storage is available on board the vessel. 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 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. 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 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 from operating while new coverage is obtained. We believe that these are 

issues that need to be clarified.

Response: 

For discussion of transfer of ownership between vessel owners/operators, please see EPA’s 

response to comment number EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0379-A1, excerpt 17.

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: 3

Comment: 

We ask the EPA to reduce the annual reporting requirements 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 reports. 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, especially 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 decreasing 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 when the 

commenter was referring to the annual report system, he was talking about the one-time report 
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 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 annual report including only identified permit 

violations. An annual report form is included in Appendix B of the sVGP for owners/operators 

to use to submit such information.

Also, 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: 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 owners/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, 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: 9

Comment: 

Availability of Individual 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 information 

(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 go 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, permit 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

Comment 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 quarterly 

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, oversee compliance with 

applicable requirements; however, the frequency and methods of those inspections are outside 

the scope of today’s action. EPA agrees that vessel owners/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 see EPA’s response to comment number EPAHQ-OW-2011-0150-0378, excerpt 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-OW-2011-0150-0444-A1

Comment Excerpt Number: 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 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 

fish 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 date, 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 permit 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 Form
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 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 Form

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 simply 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 with the sVGP in the circumstances described below.

Part 3.1 of the draft sVGP requires vessel owners/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 electronically 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,” for 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 maintained 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 signatures, certifications, and alterations, can be: (i) 

displayed to EPA, including its authorized representatives, in a format that can be read in 

a manner similar to a paper record and that associates data with field names or other 

labels that give the data contained in the record meaning and context (not solely in a 

computer code or data string), (ii) easily copied for EPA, including its authorized 

representatives, to review and access at EPA staff computers using non-proprietary 

software, and (iii) can easily be printed to paper form.

b. Associated metadata in their native format 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 changes to an electronic record are 

automatically and indelibly recorded in a logically associated (i.e., cryptographically 

bound) audit trail that records each change made without obscuring the data to which the 

modification is made or its antecedents.

d. The electronic recordkeeping system automatically identifies any person who creates, 

certifies, or modifies an electronic record using electronic signatures that meet the same 

signature, authentication, and identity-proofing standards set forth at 40 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, or 

modifier of the electronic records. The original electronic record is secured in a fashion 

that protects it from tampering or destruction.

f. The electronic recordkeeping system automatically identifies: 1) the name, address, 

telephone number, and email address for the custodian of records described in “d” above,

and 2) the address and owner of the location where the original electronic record is 

located. The electronic records and their associated metadata remain available and the 

discharger/permittee can demonstrate that the records have not been changed in any 

modification of the 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 unambiguously 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 electronic records to be accessible enough to be considered to be 

stored “on the vessel” when the vessel operator is able to, immediately upon request, provide to 

government officials or authorized representatives:

a. Paper or electronic copies of requested records required to be maintained pursuant to the 

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 an 
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 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 Excerpt 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, 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 

practices” on all regulations and internal policies and we feel that is a better approach to these 

types of barges.

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 barges. 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 discussion 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: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0390-A2

Comment Excerpt Number: 7
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 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 for 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 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-OW2011-0150-0379-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-A1

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 of 

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: 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 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 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 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.

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. Please see 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 Number: 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 practices” 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 requirements 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)

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.

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 referring 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 federal government. The 

PARI form, which is located in Appendix A of the sVGP, does not contain any references to the 

CFR. The form requires owners/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 and 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: 13
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 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 Section

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 board the vessel at all times. We recommend the EPA provide an 

exemption that allows vessels without cabins to retain their permit documentation on land and 

provide the form to the EPA upon request and in a reasonable amount of time. Many commercial 

vessels in Alaska are open skiffs of varying size, and the vessel operation, size, and weather 

conditions make 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 Number: 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 see 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 City 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 Authorization 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, 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: 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 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 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-OW2011-0150-0379-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 Inspection
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 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 agrees 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 may 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 owners/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 talks about 

―daily‖ checks of packing gland drips. 

Response: 

Please see 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 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 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: 

Please see 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 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 inspections would be costly and possibly infeasible if the 

boats were buried under snow.

Response: 

Please see 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-2011-0150-0436-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 this 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 inspections 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

Commenter 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 vessels 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 vessel. 

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 Actions (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 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 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 Processors 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 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 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 minimize 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 limits 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) 

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 floating 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.

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: 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 bacteria) 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 required 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 including 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 states ―Any soaps, detergents or cleaners used must be nontoxic, 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 compliance 

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 products 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 outside 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 their 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 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.

(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 fishermen 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 number 
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 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 change “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”. 

Similarly, 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.”

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: 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 possible 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 soaps, 

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

 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 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: 

See EPA response to comment number EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0379-A1, excerpt number 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 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 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 substances.

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 this 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 using 

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 dispersants 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 circumventing 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 solids 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 Albacore 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 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: 

See response to EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0379-A1, excerpt 7 for more information 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 Jersey 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 refrigerated 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 was 
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 208

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 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 unnecessary 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: 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: 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 done 
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 209

while the vessel is out of the water or in drydock.” The term “When feasible” is 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

Comment 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 flexibility 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 

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

pollutants. EPA is establishing effluent limitations to control these materials because such 

materials are, depending on the particular vessel, constituents in the industrial waste, chemical 

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

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

Constituents of concern include ANS.

“Industrial waste,” “chemical waste” and “garbage” are expressly included in the CWA’s definition 

of “pollutant,” which governs, among other things, which discharges are properly subject to CWA 

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

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

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

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

biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar 

dirt and industrial, municipal and agricultural waste discharged into water” [emphasis added]). The 

discharge from vessels addressed in today’s permit – a worthless or useless flow discharged during a 

vessel’s normal operations – falls within those broad pollutant categories. See, e.g., Webster’s II New 

Riverside University Dictionary (1988) (defining “waste” as “a worthless or useless by-product” or 

“something, such as steam, that escapes without being used”; “industrial” as “of, relating to, or 

derived from industry” and “industry as “the commercial production and sale of goods and services”; 

“chemical” as “of or relating to the action of chemicals”; and “garbage” as “worthless matter, trash”).

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

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

such ANS are one constituent of concern in the waste stream that constitutes the “pollutant” subject 

to today’s permit. See CWA § 402(a)(1)(A) and 301(b)(1) (requiring permits to include “effluent 

limitations”) and CWA §502(11) (defining “effluent limitations” to include “restrictions established 

by ... the Administrator on ... chemical, physical, biological, and other constituents which are 

discharged from point sources ...” [emphasis added]). Under these circumstances, there is no need to 

address the question of whether ANS in and of themselves may be considered “pollutants” under 

CWA section 502(6). In addition, EPA’s conclusion that ANS are properly controlled in today’s 

permit does not speak as to how ANS are regulated 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 the 
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 211

“discharge” of constituents 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 Management
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 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 motorized vessels constructed on or after December 19, 2013 must have a functioning fuelair separator or a fuel tank vent to prevent a fuel spill" This appears to be a required boating 

industry 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 use 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 requirement 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 spilling 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 vessels. 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 Final 2014 Small Vessel 

General Permit (sVGP).

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 General Permit (sVGP), Section 2.2 – Fuel Management, Part (e) 

Discussion: Part (e) states “Unless impracticable, fill portable tanks onshore, instead of on your 
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 216

dock or on your vessel.” The term “Unless impracticable” is opened ended and can be interpreted 

differently 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 adding 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 Control
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 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 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 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 profitability 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 ports.

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 requirement 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 

"technically 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) have no available 

alternatives manufactured with EALs; or products meeting a manufacturers specifications are not 
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 220

available within any port in which the vessel calls or changes over, and use of an EAL must wait 

until the vessel’s next drydocking.” In developing 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 sVGP, a copy of which is available on EPA’s 

NPDES vessels homepage at http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/vessels/.

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-compliance 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 accommodate 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 surrounding 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 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 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, excerpt 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, costs, and availability of EALs.

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: 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 operate vessels on navigable waters, three 

specific applications have been discussed that in the event of oil leakage, cause issue and put the 
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 222

environment in harms way. These applications include propulsion systems (for example 

Controllable Pitch Propellers, Thrusters, 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 Standard (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 Engine 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 propulsion 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 waterways.

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: 2
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 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 water, 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 currently 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 or 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

reference 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 differentiated 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 the proposed VGP and sVGP, there is no specific 

reference to this criterion. We realize that the test was drafted initially for oil-based drilling 
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 224

fluids, but felt that it was an applicable test method already in place that could be utilized for this 

purpose.

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 this standard for years in implementing the CWA § 311 

program, and thus is a well-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 sheen 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 that 

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 regulations, 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 included 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 visual inspections. 

The sVGP defines “visible sheen” to mean a “silvery” or “metallic” sheen, 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 appearance 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 NonCompliance Form for the sVGP.

Regarding 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 environmental impacts, though these 

impacts from EALs are potentially less severe than those caused from petroleum-based oils. 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 or adjoining 
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 225

shorelines or 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 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 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 response on 

the requirements, costs, 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: EPA-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 

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 remain 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.
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-2011-0150-0379-A1, excerpt 15, regarding 

the definitions of "oil" and oily mixtures."

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 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 response on 

the requirements, costs, and availability of EALs.

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: 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 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 profitability of fishing operations. Small 
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 227

ports 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 

the requirements, costs, and availability of EALs.

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: 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 oily mixtures."

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 requirements 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 presence 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 quickly 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

Response: 

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 Number: 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 response on 

the requirements, costs, and availability of EALs.

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: 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 installed 
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 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 practices to minimize oil entering the bilgewater".

Response: 

Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0418-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-2011-0150-0417-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 estimate 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 

contingency.

Response: 

Please see the response to EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0379-A1, excerpt 8, for EPA’s response on 

the requirements, costs, and availability 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 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 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.

Response: 

EPA disagrees that the requirements for using and storing oil-absorbent material or other spill 

response 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. The 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 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 231

Response: 

See the response to comment number EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0379-A1, excerpt 15, regarding 

the definitions of "oil" and oily mixtures."

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: 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 

limited 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 

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 to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit 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, regarding 

the definitions of "oil" and oily mixtures."

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: 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, costs, and availability of EALs.

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: 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 regarding 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 Hydraulic 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 see EPA’s response to comment number EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0403-A1, excerpt 2, 

regarding visible sheens and EPA’s response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0379-A1, 

excerpt 8, regarding EALs.

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: 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 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 storage 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 vessel 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, biodegradable 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 points 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-HQOW-2011-0150-0418-A2, excerpt 8. For EALs, please see EPA's response to EPA-HQ-OW2011-0150-0379-A1, excerpt 8.

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: 7
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 235

Comment: 

The term “Oil’ should be modified to exclude fish oil or 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: 

See the response to comment number EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0379-A1, excerpt 15, regarding 

the definitions of "oil" and oily mixtures."

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. Change 

"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 Management
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 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 Control 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 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?

 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 management 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 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 into waters of the United 

States. Also, 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 Affiliation: Southeast Alaska Fishermens Alliance (SEAFA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0404-A1

Comment Excerpt Number: 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 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 discharge 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 

maintain 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-OW-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 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: 

Please see EPA's response to comment number EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0379-A1, excerpt 9, 

with regard to solid and liquid 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 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 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: 

Please see EPA's response to comment number EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0379-A1, excerpt 9, 

with regard to solid and liquid waste management requirements.

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: 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 by 
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 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, excerpt 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 unnecessary and duplicative language. 

Garbage is covered under MARPOL

Response: 

Please see EPA's response to comment number EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0404-A1, excerpt 6, 

with regard to the discharge of garbage under this permit.

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: 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 suggestion, 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 and Runoff and Above Water 

Line Hull Cleaning
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 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 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: 

EPA disagrees with the commenter that vessels are unable to comply with the deck washdown

and runoff requirements in Part 2.5 of the permit. The requirements in this 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 representative 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 runoff 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 represent 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: 

The 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)

Document 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 washdown 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 
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 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, 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: 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. DEFINITIONS
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 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 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-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0379-A1, excerpt 14,

regarding the term "deck runoff."

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 

barges, 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,”3distinguishing deck runoff from deck washdown, which involves the 

intentional removal of dirt, grit, or other material 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, and 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, 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: 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 

permit 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 bait. 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, Oregon 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 RUNOFF
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 252

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 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 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 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, 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: 11

Comment: 

2.5 DECK WASHDOWN AND RUNOFF
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 253

Under the draft 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 being introduced into runoff discharges (the nature of these residue and spills 

are 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. McLaughlin, 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 disinfectants 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: 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: 1

Comment: 

We appreciate the EPA allowing Hughes Bros. 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 petroleum 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 voids 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 sVGP

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 discharges. 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 to 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 Department 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 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 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 into 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 biological 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 moves 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 ORIGINAL DOCUMENT

Response: 

EPA notes that the commenter submitted additional information that he believes 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: 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 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 

BLM 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 believes represents the 

mode of action and bioavailability of copper released from anti-fouling coatings. See also EPAHQ-OW-2011-0150-0415-A2, excerpt 1, for a discussion of copper toxicity generally and the 

Shelter Island Yacht Basin specifically. 

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: 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 term “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 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 effective 

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 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 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 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 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 economic loss, the quaggas are the worst threat facing Las Vegas."(5) 

We are concerned that the sVGP 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 

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 effective 

antifouling coatings available 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 invasive 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 would 

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 recognizes that the chemicals that leach from these coatings can impact 

the environment, especially in waterbodies impaired by chemicals that are also used in antifoulant coatings. EPA asks that vessel operators make considerations to minimize the impacts of 

these coatings in conjunction with their antifouling properties. For example, Part 2.6 of the 

permit specifies required management practices for anti-fouling coatings and hull cleaning 

activities to minimize the impact of copper from vessels. As another example, EPA’s 

justification for prohibiting the use of tributyltin (TBT) or any other organotin compound is 

described in Section 4.6 of the sVGP fact sheet.

EPA notes that the Agency believes copper anti-foulant hull coatings may be appropriate for use 

in some 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 NonRecreational Vessels Less than 79 Feet and the Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharges

technical development document developed for the 2013 VGP issuance.

Regarding copper toxicity, a study of anti-fouling biocides in California marinas found dissolved 

copper concentrations ranging from 0.1–18.4 μg/L in the water (Singhasemanon, 20081). 

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 ecological 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., 20092). 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 confirm 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., 20033also 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. (20124)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 adjacent 

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 are 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, 20125). 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 

research 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 waters 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, Part 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 Antifouling 

Paint Pollution in California Marinas. EH08-05. California Environmental Protection Agency, 

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 Copper 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., 2012. 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 galloprovincialis 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 must 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 maintaining 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. If 
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 265

organisms are found, they must be removed and appropriately 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 tributyltin (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 visible 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 area 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 commenters for the comment, but disagrees with their suggested revisions to 

Part 2.6 of the permit. EPA recognizes the threat of invasive species and seeks to minimize those 

impacts through the management of multiple discharges throughout the permit. 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 revised 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-2011-0150-0415-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’ 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 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. However, 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 use 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 

those in the VGP. Consistent 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 

clearly 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 notes 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 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 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 effective 

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 DOCUMENT

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 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 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 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 economic 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 San 
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 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 effective 

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: 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: 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 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: 2

Comment: 

Vessel Hull 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) and proposed 2013 Federal NPDES Vessel General Permit 

prohibit the presence of a visible plume 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 cleaning 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 proposed 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.

Response: 

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 “plume 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 sponges.”
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/pestsdiseasesweeds/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 

biofouling. 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)

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: 5

Comment: 

In regards to managing AIS risks from biofouling, DLNR is encouraged by the insertion 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 is 
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 271

supported by DLNR. Equally, DLNR supports 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 Corps 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 transporting 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 another 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 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: 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 air 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 result 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 states 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 Management
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 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

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: 

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 minimal 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. federal 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 owners/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 graywater 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 term 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 oceangoing 

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 Web 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: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0395-A1

Comment Excerpt Number: 16

Comment: 

Furthermore, requiring best management practices for graywater (as the current VGP does) is an 

effective way to ensure that a "medium cruise ship" 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://www.regulations.gov, and 
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 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‐2011‐0466), 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 financial 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 sections 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 provisions; 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-OW2011-0141.

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: 9
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 278
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 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 national wildlife refuges that include 

waters subject to the sVGP. For instance, Lake Woodruff in Florida contains over 1,000 acres of 

lakes, streams, and canals. There are 548 national wildlife refuges in 50 states, and others also 

include navigable waters. A complete list of refugees can be found at http://www.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-2011-0150-0404-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 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. 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 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 operator 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 suggestions 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 many 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 minimizing 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 this 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 Excerpt Number: 22

Comment: 

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 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

Comment Excerpt Number: 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 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 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 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. Crewmembers 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 Control 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 definition 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 excursion 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 toilets 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 is 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 in 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 artificial 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 include 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 

beings. 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 authorized 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 receptacles 

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 galley, 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 sVGP 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 the 
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 284

Great Lakes. If a vessel operating 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 an "sVGP covered" vessel, then it must meet the limits found 

in the sVGP for its graywater discharges into the Great Lakes. 

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: 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 the 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 Section 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 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: 11

Comment: 

2.7 GRAYWATER
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 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 wilderness areas. If the vessel has the capacity to store gray water in these 

waters, it should be stored and later discharged in other 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 has 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 

discharge 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 Appendix 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 minimizing 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 this 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: 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, 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: 12

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: 

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 greywater 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 recommends 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

Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: 

Graywater

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 areas. 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 Department 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 other 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 Management
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 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 

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 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 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 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. 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 predict 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 consistent for all areas covered under this permit. Frozen bait is not live so the 
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 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 fish 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 

removing 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, 

unless 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 bait 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 regulation, 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 live 
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 293

bait purchased from a bait shop or dealer to be discharged overboard, 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 has 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 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 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 following: (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 fish 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 Control 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 simply 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 ice 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 underway 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 EPA-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 unnecessary 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 threat 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 residual 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 Moore, 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

Comment: 

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 shorebased 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 landbased? 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 to 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 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 from the local area/waterbody 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 

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 problematic particularly with the definition of “inport”. 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, 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. Please 

see also EPA’s response to comment number EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0379-A1, excerpt 
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 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 facility. 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 that facility either has a valid NPDES permit or discharges to an NPDESpermitted 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 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 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 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: 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 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 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, 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 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 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 Trollers, 

followed by longliners 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 (Alaska 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 permit 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 Sitka Sound Co-op – name is actually 

Seafood Producers Cooperative (SPC) it states in the third paragraph that, “Salmon and Black 
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 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 salmon 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 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 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 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: 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 shorebased 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 discharged 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 could 
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 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 number 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

Document 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 Coalition, 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 feasibility 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 alive.

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 contained 
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 301

in the fish hold effluent (e.g., fish heads and internal organs) the fish hold effluent may not be 

discharged while the vessel 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 Control 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 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: 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 knowledge 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: Pacific 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 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. Second, 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. 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 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. 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: 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: 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 support.

Response: 

Vessels 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 

required 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 determining whether transfer of fish 

hold effluent to a shore-based facility is economically achievable include: whether the shorebased facility has been designed to receive fish hold effluent; whether the vessel and the shorebased facility currently have the infrastructure to transfer the effluent from the vessel to shorebased 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.

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: 3

Comment: 

Fish Hold Effluent: The entire article is impractical to uphold. Most processors shore based or 

otherwise are not equipped to receive the volume 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, unused bait, 

solids, oils, nutrients, bacteria, and viruses. Fish hold effluent may create scum and foam, 

produce a visible slick or sheen on surface waters, generate odors, and exert oxygen demand in 

receiving waters. This discharge also has the potential to introduce ANS into receiving waters. 

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: 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, some criteria that 

EPA considers relevant in determining 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 

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.

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: 13
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 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 fishing 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 while 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 offloading 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 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

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 discharge 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 bait) 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 

vessels 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 that 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 remove 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 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: 12

Comment: 

2.8 FISH HOLD EFFLUENT
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 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 considered 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. Second, 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 harvesting 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 Jersey 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 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 
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 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 that 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 pelagic 

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 mixture, 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: Seafood 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) regarding 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.

Response: 

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-2011-0150-0427-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 text 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 Discharge 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 reviewing 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, vessels 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 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)

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 following: (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 Producers 

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 pier--‐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 

established 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 provides 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 Effluent 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 pierside 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 crabbers 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 live 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 that 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 unnecessary 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 floating 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 practices) 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 floating solids. See also EPA’s response to comment number EPAHQ-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 hazard 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 

product 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 restricts 
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 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 Management
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 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 obvious 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 applies 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 extensive 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 in 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, Co-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: 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 318

Comment: 

We are writing 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 West 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 estuary.

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 address 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 was 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 range 

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) and 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 AVMA recognizes the pressing 

need 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 for 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 each day in ballast water, allowing new 
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 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 animals 

and animal health, AVMA 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 ecosystems 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 prevent the entry of foreign disease vectors and invasive species into the 

United States.

While the AVMA recognizes potential risks associated with ballast water and other discharges of 

vessels, it also acknowledges that the development, utilization, and regulation 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 the 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 discharges 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.

Response: 

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 address 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 the 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 enforcement 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 with 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 brackish ballast water (VGP 

section 2.2.3.7). Further, like the VGP, 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 sensible 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 discharges 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 States 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 partners to establish cooperation and coordination between 

the agencies for implementing and enforcing 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 Alaska 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 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 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 see 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 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 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 or 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), are 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 the 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 consistency between its programs and those of the Coast 
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 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 would 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 no 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 previously 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 believed 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 sensible 
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 324

ways to minimize the risk of invasions, while being flexible enough 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 Excerpt 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 commenter 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 Affiliation: 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 Great 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 Michigan’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/economic 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 from 
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 325

AIS once they are established highlights the importance of having prevention as a top priority. 

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 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 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 VGP 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 Excerpt 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 from 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. 

Pursuant 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 the 

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 review of the 

draft VGP2 reveals the overall fruitlessness of those three meetings. It is imperative for the 
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 326

VGP2 to be issued with a single set of numeric concentration-based limitations for live 

organisms (applicable to ballast water discharges from oceangoing vessels) that are protective of 

water quality in the entire Great Lakes basin. It is also imperative that this set of water qualitybased effluent limits for live organisms in ballast water be accompanied in the draft VGP2 with a 

reasonable schedule of 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, and 

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, industrial, 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 such 
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 327

waters;. . . (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 port 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 state’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 establishes 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) industrial 

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 permit 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 quality 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: 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 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 holds 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 expected 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 Recordkeeping
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 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 the 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 

operators 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 deballasting activities. EPA believes that the Agency's approach for the sVGP, that covers much 

smaller 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 and 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. 

Invasive 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 majority 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 years - 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 bodies 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, thus 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 stable 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 aquatic 

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 should 

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 permit-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 oceangoing 

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 these 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 

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 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 impermissible here. 

Further, EPA notes that any comments expressing disagreement with that regulation are outside 
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 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 further 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 Affiliation: 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 Lakes, 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 eliminate 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 will 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 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 333

Issue Category:

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

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 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 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, 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:

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. EPA 

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 ballast 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 flow 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 

seawater used to keep shellfish catch alive, EPA revised the sVGP 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 sole purpose of keeping the catch 

alive are not subject to the requirement to discharge 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 alternative 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 reassessed 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 development, the record at proposal did not support the conclusion that 

numeric ballast water treatment limits for small inland and seagoing vessels represents BAT at 

this time or over the life of the permit. For example, most ballast water treatment systems have 

been designed for larger vessels and/or vessels which only uptake or discharge ballast water on 

either end of longer voyages. Supplemental analysis by the Agency confirmed the conclusion 

that the ballast water numeric limits did not reflect BAT for this class 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 under 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 BMPs similar to the VGP that require vessel 

owner/operators to minimize or avoid uptake of ballast water in certain areas and situations, to 

discharge 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 limitation 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, 

regarding 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 Resources (DLNR)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0425-A2

Comment Excerpt Number: 2
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 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) management 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 changes 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 under 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 Maintain Coverage for 

Non-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 BMPs
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 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 may 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 they are 

feasible and economically practicable and achievable. These requirements are common-sense

measures that reduce the risk of vessels transporting potentially harmful pollution and aquatic 

nuisance species from one 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 certain 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 interpreted 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: 8
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 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 comply 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 measures 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 clearance 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 exercise 

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 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 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 comment 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 including 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 information 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

Comment: 

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) 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 to Public Comments: Final U.S. EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit 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 onboard vessels and of the limited capabilities of 

many ports. As such, these management practices described in Part 2.10 of this permit are 

recommendations with the permit providing specific exclusions if the shore-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.

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: 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 water. 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 2.10 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 coolant water from the waterbody on 
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 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 standard 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, excerpt 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 Gillnetters (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 discharge 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-2011-0150-0390-

A2, excerpt 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 cooled 
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 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 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.

Response: 

EPA acknowledges the comment. Please see EPA's response to EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0390-

A2, excerpt 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: EPA-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 discharge 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 acknowledges the comment. Please see EPA's response to EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0390-

A2, excerpt 6, for more information on overboard cooling water discharges.

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: 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 351

Comment: 

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 (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, excerpt 6, for more 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 Number: 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 seawater 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, excerpt 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 352

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 presumption that one who complies with the technologybased 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://www.regulations.gov and see 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 

receives 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 presumption that one who complies with the technologybased 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.

Response: 

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

Comment 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 consolidated 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 quality 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 requires operators to take action to bring such a discharge 

back into compliance and report such exceedances on the next annual non-compliance report. 

Additionally, consistent with 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) as referenced in Part 4.10 of the permit, noncompliance that may endanger health or the environment must be reported to the EPA region 

within 24 hours. Further, states, territories, and tribes may have established such requirements 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-2011-0150-0422-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 discharge 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 tribes, 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 

applicable 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 agrees 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, they 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 instances 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 agrees 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 Excerpt 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 strengthened. 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 at 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 requirements 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 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 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 discussing 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://www.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 

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 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 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 New 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 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 has a policy 

that the regulation 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 environmental 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 "adding 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 devised 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 

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 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 "add-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 New 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 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 has a policy 

that the regulation 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 environmental 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 "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 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 devised 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 
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 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 

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:

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 state authority to issue more 

stringent requirements than the federal 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 accordance 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 the 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 

Representatives 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 congressional 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 burdensome 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 on 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 and 

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 resolve 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: 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 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 

state 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 waterway or coastline to 

resolve any conflicts or inconsistencies among their proposed conditions before certifying the 

permit.

Response:

Please see 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 Florida 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. respectfully 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 coastline 

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 states, 

tribes, and territories, EPA acted in accordance with Section 401 and its implementing 

regulations when prescribing timeframes for responses to requests for certification. EPA 

provided states with more than 9 months to grant, grant with condition, deny, or waive 
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 368

certification 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 

Section 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 Section 

401 certifications. Also, EPA posted all certifications received in the docket 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 separate 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, supersede, or 

relieve the vessel owner or operator of any otherwise applicable federal or state regulations, 

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 Affiliation: 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 and federal applicable laws. In particular, many states have separate ballast 

water regulations that still must be met. (page 8)

Response:

Please see 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-2011-0150-0443-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 see 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 Economics
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 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 oils 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 

Sand 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 

communities.

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 counterparts, respectively, but engine oils and lubricants for 

general application were less expensive (by 28 and 24 percent, respectively).

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 and $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://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 374

Regarding availability of EALs in the U.S. market, based on this and other comments, EPA has 

clarified the definition of technically infeasible for purposes of oil-to-sea interfaces. Among 

other things, that definition clarifies that technically infeasible 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 impact 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 affects 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 compliance 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 crew 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 available 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 conducted to examine 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 compliance 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 Agency 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 impacted 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 

information 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) available 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 

proposed 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 urges 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 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 compliance 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 crew members already have many responsibilities 

in operating the vessels safely. EPA must adjust its management expectations for the sVGP to be 

more realistic and much less prescriptive.

Response:

Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0395-A1, excerpt 11. 

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: 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 

remote 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 the 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 $0.75 per pad as its higher bound unit cost estimate. 

For additional discussion, please see Section 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 inspection provisions that if 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 the 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 with 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 depending 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 vessels. 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 requirements 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 see 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 requirements, 

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 complexity of the permit need 

to be seriously reviewed and considered in this new permit requirement.

Response: 

Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0395-A1, excerpt 11. 

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: 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 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-torevenue' threshold. First, we question EPA's assumption regarding cost per vessel and also 

whether or not the gross revenue calculation is appropriate 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 to 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 accept 

discharges; and even disruption of basic daily operations (e.g. vessel sanitation, cooking, 

cleaning, and showering).

Response: 

Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0395-A1, excerpt 11. 

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: 9

Comment: 

Unnecessary Cost to the Nation

Discharge regulations for 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 better 

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, missing 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 owners/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 owners/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 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-2011-0150-0427-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 for 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 than 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 purposes of evaluating 

labor costs associated 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 industries. As mentioned above, EPA assumes there are 

no additional costs associated 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 

burdensome 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 center 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 week 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 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: 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 consuming 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 see 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)

Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Charterboat Operators (NACO)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0441-A2

Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: 

The economic analysis used to make decisions is not based on any peer reviewed public study 

that would provide the negative economic and social impacts on charter boats. We do not see 

that your baseline analysis details cumulative impacts from other federal and state regulations. 

Thus, we wish to formerly request that EPA seek an economic and social impact study

performed by the Small Business Administration that outlines the true impacts to our industry 

including the additional paperwork burden, liability exposure and financial burden on these small 

businesses. We would argue these burdens will cause some in our industry to fold up their 

businesses because they are coupled 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 economic 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 industry 

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 

domestic 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 and $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 with 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 exceed 
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 383

current regulations to the extent that they 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 costs 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 see EPA’s response to comment number EPA-HQ-OW2011-0150-0395-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 Consistency with International or 

USCG 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 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 Consistency with International or USCG Regulations 

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 dates 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 mass 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 with 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/33 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 Fishermen of 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 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 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 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:

Please see EPA’s response to comment number EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0379-A1, excerpt 6, 

regarding adding a definition of “seafood processing” to the permit. 

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: 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 requirements 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 evaluated existing mechanisms provided under international 

agreements and other federal 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 provisions necessary to satisfy its legal obligations under the CWA.

Also, EPA disagrees that merely including garbage in Part 2.1 of the sVGP is unnecessary and 

duplicative language. To 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 operators will comply with other laws as 

a component of being able to demonstrate compliance with this permit. For example, the permit 

requires operators to use “best marine practices” to “minimize” discharges. As these terms are 

defined in Part 5 of the permit, operators must use practices that comply with, among other 

things, “relevant legal requirements” to reduce and/or eliminate discharges incidental to the 

normal operation of a vessel to waters 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 including additional federal 

regulations in fact is reasonable. These effluent limits contain the requirement to comply with 

other applicable statutes and regulations dealing with vessel discharges.

Reliance on other statutes and regulations to develop the permit requirements is reasonable 

because these statutes and regulations have gone through an extensive process of evaluation and 

analysis by federal agencies that have considerable expertise in vessel management. 

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:

EPA disagrees with this commenter’s suggestion to delete Section 2.4 since that provision is 

duplicative of Annex 5 of MARPOL and is referenced in Section 2.11 of the sVGP. EPA 

acknowledges that garbage is currently regulated by MARPOL; however, EPA has included 

requirements from such other regulations 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 Section 2.4 of the permit to better define the 

expectations for managing 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 proposes 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 potential for ballast water treatment limits more stringent than the "D2" 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 

strongly 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 requirements, 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 numeric 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: 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: 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 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: 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: 7

Comment: 

The above definition is familiar to the U.S. Coast Guard and has been used 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 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-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0379-A1, excerpt 6,

regarding adding a definition of “seafood 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 Number: 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 response 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/Other
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 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-2011-0150-0295

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 idea 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 fact sheet 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 discussion 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 Management (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 under 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 more 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, any 
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 398

specific actions by EPA on future education and outreach are beyond the scope 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 Applicable 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 

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 best or most effective method of 

minimizing a discharge. This definition of "minimize" 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-OW2011-0141 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 such a transfer, there is no need for ballast water management 
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 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 has 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 national 

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 standard 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 more 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 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-2011-0150-0395-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 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-2011-0150-0395-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 Association (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 the 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-2011-0150-0395-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 owners 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 mandatory requirements of this permit." 

Additionally point #5 listed in Additional Notes 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 

responsibility ... "

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 Applicable to 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 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 should 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 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 vessels operate seasonally, not yearround. 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 

assumptions. 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 administrative 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 frequency 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 see 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 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 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 conditions that if implemented in the final 
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 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 that 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 boards or any other small nonrecreational 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 exclude 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 oily 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 intent 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 appearance 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 means 
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 410

trash must be managed. The nature and design of some vessels 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 discharges 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 spread 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 these 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 nation'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. These 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 the 

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 provisions 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 accomplished 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 cause 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 realistic 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 discharging 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, onerous, and by 

themselves do not constitute a water quality concern. EPA should recognize that prescribing 
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 411

these types of requirements as enforceable provisions under the Clean Water Act will lead to 

enforcement inconsistency, compliance uncertainty, reluctance 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 to 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 

many 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 requirements 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 

recovery 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 addressed 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 vessel. 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 measures 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 when 

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 regulations 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 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 412

in the permit and supporting Fact Sheet, in many 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, 

unspecified 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 the 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 requirements 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 many 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 permit 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 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL

73178) and the related Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, 33 U.S.C. 1901 et 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. Permit 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 also 
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 413

apply to small vessels subject to the sVGP. The arduous responsibility for small vessel 

owners/operators covered by the 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 statutory 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 also 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 forth 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 stringent 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 Total 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 Memorandum 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 extensive 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 effluent 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 intensive 
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 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 NPDES 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 regional 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 Fishing Vessels and Other NonRecreational 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 develop 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 requirements 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 

entities 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 for 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 still 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 able to identify problems, 

such as improper operation or maintenance. EPA does not believe it is unreasonable for 

operators to inspect their vessels 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 that 

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 acknowledges 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 with 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 permitting 

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 Congressional 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 nonrecreational, 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 pleasure 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 expects 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 managing 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, using 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 appearance 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 remove 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 trash receptacles onboard the vessel. EPA disagrees with commenter that this 

requirement is not tied directly to a discharge to waters of the United States. 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 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 416

discharge). The goal of this BMP is to eliminate the release 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 receptacles 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 meaningless 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 inspecting 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 moves from one waterbody to another is a 

common-sense and straightforward BMP approach. Additionally, 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 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.

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 does 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 vessel 

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. For 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 or 
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 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 compliance with the instructions 

of an on-scene 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 conflicting 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 

consider 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, 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: 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:
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 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 must 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 maintaining 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. If organisms are found, they must be removed and appropriately 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 antifouling coatings if not needed.

• Discharges of tributyltin (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 visible 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 
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 419

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 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 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.

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: 16
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 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 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 to the normal 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 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 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 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.

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 (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 defined 

does not clarify the point between compliance and non-compliance and what must be recorded 

and submitted 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 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 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.

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 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.

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 inspections 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 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 knowledge of commercial fishing.

Response:

Duplicate comment to EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0406-A1, excerpts 16 through 27. See EPA’s

responses to those comments.

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: 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 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-torevenue' threshold. First, we question EPA's assumption regarding cost per vessel and also 

whether or not the gross revenue calculation is appropriate 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 to 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 accept 

discharges; and even 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.

Commenter Name: Nick Schroeck, Executive Director, Great Lakes Environmental Law 

Center

Commenter Affiliation: Great Lakes Environmental Law Center

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0535-A2

Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: 

VI. Vessels Requesting 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 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 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 species 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 relatively 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. 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:

Duplicate comment to EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0412-A2, excerpt 6. See EPA’s response to 

that comment.

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-2011-0141-0536-A2

Comment Excerpt Number: 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. 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) 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, excerpts 4 and 5. See EPA’s

responses to those comments.

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: 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 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 shorebased 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 landbased? 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 water (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 vessels 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, excerpts 2 and 3. See EPA’s

responses to those 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 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 their 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 extended 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 (PARI). 

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 

responses to those comments.

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 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)

 Under compliance with other statues and regulations, 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 inspections 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:

Duplicate comment to EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0436-A2, excerpts 4 through 11. See EPA’s

responses to those comments.

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: 21

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 
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 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 the 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 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 to the normal 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 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 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 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.

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 (including 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 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 noncompliance and what must be recorded and submitted 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.

(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 cleaners 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 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 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.

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 inspections 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 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 knowledge of commercial fishing.

Response: 

Duplicate comment to EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0406-A1, excerpts 16 through 27. See EPA’s 

responses to those comments.

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: 29
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 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 vessel 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 & another on April 1st 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 Covered 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 AKG52-0000 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 noticed 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 to 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 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 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 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 
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 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 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.

(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 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 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?

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 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. , 

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.
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 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 complicating 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 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 already 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 from 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 

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 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 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 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 not 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 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 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 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 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, 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, 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 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.

"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 comments 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 that 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 provisions. 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 significantly 

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.

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 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 Report
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 434

(Supporting Document): This report contains false and misleading information. The 

descriptions of types of vessels, discharges, and practices 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 Lobster/Crabber – 1

stparagraph: 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.

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: 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 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 holds 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 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 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 Trollers, 

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 (Alaska 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 permit 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 Sitka 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 of 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 slush 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 regards 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 proposed 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 

vessels 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 management 
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 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 involvement. 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 to EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150-0404-A1, excerpts 2 through 24. See EPA’s

responses to those comments.