Proposed VGP:
EPA’s Response to Public Comments
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Water Permits Division
Office of Wastewater Management
Office of Water
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20460
December 19, 2008
FOREWORD
This document provides responses to all comments submitted on EPA’s Proposed Vessel
General Permit (VGP). EPA’s Notice of Proposed Permit Issuance was published in the Federal
Register on June 17, 2008 (73 FR 34296). Submitted comments are available electronically
through http://www.regulations.gov by searching Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055 and
in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room. The telephone number for the
Water Docket is (202) 566-2426 and the telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744. The Water Docket assigned a unique Document Control Number (DCN) to each
comment submittal.
To organize the comments and to facilitate EPA’s responses, EPA classified comment
submittals received by general topic. The Table of Contents provides the complete list of topics
covered by the comments. If a specific comment submittal addressed multiple general topics,
EPA subdivided the submittal by general topic. Comments or portions of comments assigned to
general topics are referred to as comment excerpts. All of the individual comment excerpts
classified to a specific general topic are reproduced within the chapter or subchapter
corresponding to that topic, ordered by DCN and comment except number. EPA’s response to
each comment excerpt is provided immediately following the comment excerpt. While EPA
endeavored to be accurate and consistent in assigning comment excerpts to general topics, some
excerpts may have been misclassified and some have content which overlaps multiple general
topics. Accordingly, readers may need to read this entire document to obtain EPA’s complete
response regarding a given general topic.
EPA has provided a Comment Response Index in this document to assist commenters in
locating EPA’s responses their comments. The Comment Response Index includes three parts.
The first part lists the comment submittals ordered by Affiliate Name, providing a cross
reference to the DCN(s) associated with that commenter. The second part lists comment
submittals ordered by DCN, identifying the comment excerpts and their assigned general topics.
The third part lists comment submittals that were not included in this comment response
document because (1) the submittal was a cover letter, reference document, or other materials
such as photos that did not contain any comments, (2) the submittal was a duplicate submittal, or
(3) the submittal was a copyrighted document.
EPA notes that many commenters raised similar or related issues. In order to assist
commenters, EPA’s comment responses often indicates where in this document or elsewhere in
the record (e.g., fact sheet or economic analysis) the commenter may find additional information
or related responses to the specific issue raised by that comment. Notwithstanding these selective
cross-references, EPA notes that the full record and response to comments for this permit
consists of all relevant information found throughout the response to comment document, permit,
fact sheet, and other supporting documentation. EPA thus cautions commenters to read all of
these materials to ensure that they are viewing the full Agency response to the issue raised.
i
The primary contacts regarding questions or comments on this document are:
Ryan Albert
Juhi Saxena
John Lishman
(202) 564-0763 (telephone)
(202) 564-0719 (telephone)
(202) 566-1037 (telephone)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Wastewater Management
Mail Code 4203M
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
CommercialVesselPermit@EPA.gov
ii
CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................... i
Comment Submittal Index Part 1, Comment Submittals Ordered by Affiliate Name..................I-1
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN .................................I-9
Comment Submittal Index Part 3, Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment
Response Document, Ordered by DCN .....................................................................................I-47
1.
STAKEHOLDER GENERAL ..................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Support Federal Action ............................................................................................1-31
1.2 Oppose Federal Action ............................................................................................1-48
1.3 Other ........................................................................................................................ 1-57
2.
RECREATIONAL VESSEL COMMENTS/MISFILED COMMENT ................................................. 2-1
3.
APPLICABILITY/REQUESTING EXEMPTION OF ANY CLASS OF VESSELS ............................... 3-1
4.
AUTHORIZATION/TERMINATION/NOI/NOT......................................................................... 4-1
5.
IMPLEMENTATION/COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE ..................................................................... 5-1
6.
EFFLUENT LIMITS ................................................................................................................ 6-1
6.1 Technology-Based Effluent Limits for All Vessels.................................................6-58
6.1.1 Material Storage........................................................................................... 6-61
6.1.2 Toxic and Hazardous Materials ...................................................................6-70
6.1.3 Fuel Spills/Overflow.................................................................................... 6-74
6.1.4 Discharge of Oil Including Oily Mixtures ................................................... 6-78
6.1.5 Compliance with other Statutes and Regulations ........................................ 6-91
6.2 Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Specific Discharges ................................. 6-104
6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff ..................................................................... 6-126
6.2.2 Bilgewater .................................................................................................. 6-159
6.2.3 Ballast Water.............................................................................................. 6-184
6.2.3.1 Absence/Presence of numerical standard/specific treatment
technologies ................................................................................ 6-205
6.2.3.2 On-Shore Treatment of Ballast Water Ocean going vessel
requirements including Ballast Water Exchange and
Saltwater Flushing ...................................................................... 6-237
6.2.3.3 Pacific Near Shore Voyages requirements ................................. 6-255
6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments ............................................... 6-268
6.2.4 Anti-fouling Hull Coatings ........................................................................ 6-319
6.2.5 Aqueous Film Forming Foam.................................................................... 6-344
6.2.6 Boiler/Economizer Blowdown...................................................................6-351
6.2.7 Cathodic Protection....................................................................................6-356
6.2.8 Chain Locker Effluent................................................................................ 6-370
6.2.9 Controllable Pitch Propeller Hydraulic Fluid ............................................ 6-379
6.2.10 Distillation and Reverse Osmosis Brine .................................................... 6-383
iii
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
6.2.11 Elevator Pit Effluent .................................................................................. 6-385
6.2.12 Firemain Systems....................................................................................... 6-393
6.2.13 Freshwater Layup....................................................................................... 6-411
6.2.14 Gas Turbine Wash Water...........................................................................6-413
6.2.15 Graywater................................................................................................... 6-415
6.2.16 Motor Gasoline and Compensating Discharge ..........................................6-437
6.2.17 Non-Oily Machinery Wastewater .............................................................. 6-439
6.2.18 Refrigeration and Air Condensate Discharge ............................................ 6-443
6.2.19 Rudder Bearing Lubrication Discharge ..................................................... 6-445
6.2.20 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge.................................................... 6-448
6.2.21 Seawater Piping Biofouling Prevention..................................................... 6-461
6.2.22 Small Boat Engine Wet Exhaust................................................................ 6-466
6.2.23 Sonar Dome Discharge .............................................................................. 6-472
6.2.24 Stern Tube Oily Discharge......................................................................... 6-472
6.2.25 Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharge..................................................... 6-476
6.2.26 Welldeck Discharges .................................................................................6-486
6.2.27 Graywater Mixed with Sewage.................................................................. 6-487
6.2.28 Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater Discharge............................................ 6-491
6.3 Water Quality Based Effluent Limits ....................................................................6-493
6.4 Discharges Not Included in Proposed Permit ........................................................ 6-528
7.
CORRECTIVE ACTION ........................................................................................................... 7-1
8.
ENFORCEMENT ISSUES ......................................................................................................... 8-1
9.
INSPECTIONS/MONITORING/REPORTING/RECORDKEEPING .................................................. 9-1
10.
VESSEL CLASS SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................... 10-1
10.1 Cruise Ships ............................................................................................................. 10-6
10.1.1 Large Cruise Ship ......................................................................................10-17
10.1.2 Medium Cruise Ship .................................................................................. 10-49
10.2 Ferries .................................................................................................................... 10-56
10.3 Barges .................................................................................................................... 10-67
10.4 Oil/Petroleum Tankers ........................................................................................... 10-74
10.5 Research Vessels....................................................................................................10-76
10.6 Rescue Boats.......................................................................................................... 10-79
10.7 Vessels Employing Experimental Ballast Water Treatment Systems ................... 10-80
11.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................................................................ 11-1
12.
ECONOMICS ....................................................................................................................... 12-1
13.
OTHER PERMITTING ISSUES ............................................................................................... 13-1
14.
401 CERTIFICATION/STATE ISSUES .................................................................................... 14-1
15.
LEGAL AUTHORITY/LAWSUIT COMMENTS ......................................................................... 15-1
iv
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
16.
BAT/BPT/BCT ................................................................................................................. 16-1
17.
RESPONSIBILITY OF OWNERS VERSUS OPERATORS............................................................ 17-1
18.
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE .................................................................................................. 18-1
v
Comment Submittal Index Part 1, Comment Submittals Ordered by Affiliate Name
Affiliate Name
Commenter Name
Document Control Number
I-1
A.P. Moller - Maersk Group
William R. Williams, Captain U.S. Navy (Retired), Vice President
Health, Safety, Environment and Quality
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0395.1
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC),
Division of Water
Lynn J. Tomich Kent, Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0324.1
American Canadian Caribbean Line, Inc. (ACCL)
Peter DiMarco, Port Captain/CSO
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0353.1
American Cruise Lines
Captain John B. Ayer, Marine Operations Manager
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0429.1
American Cruise Lines
Captain John B. Ayer, Marine Operations Manager
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0429.2
American Petroleum Institute (API)
Kendra L. Martin, Director, Maritime and Corporate Affairs
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0354.1
American Sail Training Association (ASTA)
Bert Rogers, Executive Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0431.1
American Shipbuilding Association (ASA)
Cynthia L. Brown, President
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0392.2
Argosy Cruises
Captain Duran Larsen, Human Resources Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0289
Atlantic Marine Alabama, LLC
Teresa Preston, Environmental, Health and Safety Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0296.1
Atlantic Marine Florida, LLC (AMF) and Atlantic Marine Mayport, Wayne S. Holt, Environmental & Safety Director
LLC (AMM)
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0370.1
Atlantis Adventures Hawaii
Timothy P. McKeague, Safety and Training Supervisor, Company
Security Officer
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0369.1
BAE Systems Ship Repair Inc.
Shaun Halvax
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0274.1
Bath Iron Works (BIW)
Vince Dickinson, P.E., Manager, Environmental Operations
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0305.1
Beaver Island Boat Company (BIBCO)
Margo S. Marks, President
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0356
Block Island Ferry Services, LLC (BIFS)
Adam Wronowski, Owner and Managing Member
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0368.1
Boat Company
Captain Joel Hanson
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0282.1
Bouchard Transportation
Stanley F. Chelluck
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0283
California Environmental Protection Agency
Darrin Polhemus, Deputy Director, Division of Water Quality, State EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0408.1
Water Resources Control Board
California Environmental Protection Agency
Darrin Polhemus, Deputy Director, Division of Water Quality, State EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0408.2
Water Resources Control Board
Comment Submittal Index Part 1, Comment Submittals Ordered by Affiliate Name
Affiliate Name
Commenter Name
Document Control Number
I-2
California Marine Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities
Division (MFD), California State Lands Commission
Maurya B. Falkner
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0292.1
California State Lands Commission
Paul D. Thayer, Executive Officer
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0430
California State Lands Commission
Paul D. Thayer, Executive Officer
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0430.1
Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA)
Don Morrison, President
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0367.1
Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Thomas O. Lind, General Counsel and Secretary
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0355.1
Casco Bay Island Transit District (CBITD)
Captain R. S. Horr, Assistant Operations Manager
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0358.1
Chamber of Shipping of America and INTERTANKO
Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs and Joseph J. Angelo,
Deputy Managing Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1
City of Los Angeles Harbor Department (LAHD)
Dr. Ralph G. Appy, Ph.D., Director of Environmental Management
Division
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0301.1
Clean Oceans Technology Coalition and Nutech 03, Inc
Joel C. Mandelman, Chairman and Vice President & General
Counsel
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0330.1
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Amey W. Marrella, Deputy Commissioner
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0326.1
Counsel for Lake Michigan Carferry, Inc .SS/Badger
Barry M. Hartman
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0432.1
Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.
John P. Wronowski, Owner and President
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0322.1
Crowley Maritime Corporation
Charles F. Nalen, Vice President, Environmental, Safety and
Quality Assurance
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0319.1
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Steve Collins, CHMM (Certified Hazardous Materials Manager),
Director Environmental and Health Programs
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0337.1
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Steve Collins, CHMM (Certified Hazardous Materials Manager),
Director Environmental and Health Programs
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0337.2
Daggett Law Firm
Thomas W. Daggett
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0360.1
Department of Environmental Protection, State of Connecticut
Amey W. Marrella, Deputy Commissioner
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0303.1
Dialysis At Sea Cruises (DASC)
Karen Yeates MD, FRCP (C). MPH, Medical Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0284.1
E.N. Bisso & Son, Inc.
Michael F. Vitt, General Counsel
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0331.1
Comment Submittal Index Part 1, Comment Submittals Ordered by Affiliate Name
Affiliate Name
Commenter Name
Document Control Number
I-3
Erie Pennsylvania Sport Fishing Association
Pete Alex, President
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0263
Excell Marine Corporation
Gordon Putzke, Operations Manager
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0299.1
Fednav International Ltd. (FIL)
Philippe Roderbourg, Manager, Operations
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0374.1
Foss Maritime Company
Susan Hayman, Vice President, Environmental and Corporate
Development
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0376.1
Four Seasons Marine Services
Loren Gerhard, Vice President - Marine Operations
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0279.1
Friends of the Earth
Marcie Keever, Clean Vessels Campaign Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0332.1
Great Lakes Commission (Commission)
Tim A. Eder, Executive Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0316.1
Great Lakes Office, National Wildlife Federation et al.
Andy Buchsbaum, Regional Executive Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0311
Great Lakes Office, National Wildlife Federation et al.
Andy Buchsbaum, Regional Executive Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0311.1
Holland America Line
William J. Morani Jr., Vice President, Environmental Management
Systems
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0377.1
Ingram Barge Company (Ingram Barge)
David Sehrt, Senior Vice President, Chief Operations Officer
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0378.1
International Association of Drilling Contractors
John Pertgen, Assistant Director, Offshore Technical and
Regulatory Affairs
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0277.1
Interstate Navigation Company (The Block Island Ferry)
Christian Myers, Vessel Operations Manager/Port Captain
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0393.1
ITT Corporation
Jon A. Anderson, Vice President, Washington Operations
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0421.1
Jacksonville Area Ship Repair Association (JASRA)
Robert P. Birtalan, President
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0300.1
Kiewit Corportaion and General Construction Company
Connie A. Determan, Vice President and Michael C. Shaw, District
Environmental Manager
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0339.1
Kirby Corporation
Gerald A. Gallion, Corporate Counsel
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0361.1
Lake Carriers' Association (LCA)
James H. I. Weakley, President
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0362.1
Liberty Maritime Corporation (Liberty)
Lawrence I. Kiern, Winston & Strawn, LLP
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0363.1
Lindblad Expeditions
Captain Michael O. Jones, Director of Marine Operations
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0372.1
Living Classrooms Foundation
Captain Peter Bolster, Director of Shipboard Operations
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0364.1
Comment Submittal Index Part 1, Comment Submittals Ordered by Affiliate Name
I-4
Affiliate Name
Commenter Name
Document Control Number
Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA)
Henry Eby, Manager, Environmental Affairs
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0285.1
Madeline Island Ferry Line, Inc.
Gary Russell, President, Robin Trinko-Russell, VP Finance and
Mike Radtke, Marine Manager
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0302
Madison Coal & Supply Company, Inc.
William R. Barr
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0390.1
Majestic America Line and Windstar Cruises
Captain Nico Corbijn, Executive Vice President - Operations
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0308
Majestic America Line and Windstar Cruises
Captain Nico Corbijn, Executive Vice President - Operations
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0308.1
Marathon Oil Company
David Daly
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0287.1
Marine Resources Group (MRG)
Arthur J. Volkle, Jr., Vice President & General Counsel
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0379.1
Marine Retailers Association of America (MRAA)
Phil Keeter, President and Robert Soucy, Chairman
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0265.1
Marine Spill Response Corporation
Chris Muzzy
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0271
Marine Technical, Overseas Shipholding Group (OSG)
Chris Flanagan, Vice President
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0344.1
Matson Navigation Company
Ronald J. Forest, Senior Vice President, Operations
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0340.1
McDonough Marine Service
David C. Hanby, Jr., President & Chief Operating Officer (COO)
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0317
McGinnis, Inc.
Dwaine Stephens, Vice President, Marine Operations,
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0416.1
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
Frank J. Baldwin, Acting Chief, Water Bureau
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0273.1
Mid America Fuels, Inc.
Dwaine Stephens, Vice President of Marine Operations
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0426.1
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
Paul Eger, Assistant Commissioner
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0380.1
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
James Leatherwood, Director, Environmental Management Division EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0381.1
National Association of Charterboat Operators (NACO)
Captain Robert F. Zales II, President
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0428.1
National Maintenance and Repair of Kentucky, Inc
Dylan Hesley, Environmental Manager
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0280.1
National Maintenance and Repair of Kentucky, Inc.
Dwaine Stephens, Vice President, Marine Operations,
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0417.1
National Maintenance and Repair, Inc.
Kenny Spiers, Safety & Environmental Manager
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0418.1
National Maintenance and Repair, Inc.
Ryan W. Ball, Environmental Manager
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0352.1
Comment Submittal Index Part 1, Comment Submittals Ordered by Affiliate Name
Affiliate Name
Commenter Name
Document Control Number
I-5
National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA)
Cindy L. Squires, Esq., Chief Counsel for Public Affairs and
Director of Regulatory Affairs
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0329.1
National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA)
Scott Gudes, Vice President Government Relations
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0295.1
National Paint and Coatings Association Marine Antifouling
Working Group (NPCA AFWG)
John Kelly, Chairman
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0396.1
National Paint and Coatings Association Marine Antifouling
Working Group (NPCA AFWG)
John Kelly, Chairman
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0396.2
National Paint and Coatings Association Marine Antifouling
Working Group (NPCA AFWG)
John Kelly, Chairman
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0396.3
National Park Service
Herbert C. Frost, Associate Director, Natural Resource Stewardship EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0413
and Science
National Shipbuilding Research Program (NSRP)
John L. Wittenborn, Counsel, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0310.1
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES)
Harry T. Stewart, P.E., Director, Water Division
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0382.1
New York State Department of Conservation
Francis Zagorski, Environmental Engineer III
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0419.1
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC)
James G. DeZolt, P.E., Director, Division of Water, for Alexander
B. Grannis, Commissioner
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0400.1
None
A. Jenkins
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0264
None
Anonymous
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0256
None
Anonymous
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0258
None
Anonymous
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0261
None
Anonymous
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0304.1
None
Anonymous
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0346
None
B. Sachau
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0257
None
D. Stephenson
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0260
None
D.A. Zehe II
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0259
None
K. Wyman
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0266
Comment Submittal Index Part 1, Comment Submittals Ordered by Affiliate Name
Affiliate Name
Commenter Name
Document Control Number
I-6
None
M. Stumph
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0262
Northwest Environmental Advocates, et al
Nina Bell, J.D., Executive Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0309.1
Ocean Shipholdings, Inc.
Robert T. Miller, Counsel
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0420.1
Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA)
Kenneth R. Wells, President
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0323
Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA)
Kenneth R. Wells, President
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0323.1
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Sean D. Logan, Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0281.1
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA)
John Berge, Vice President
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0345.1
Pacific Seafood Processors Association (PSPA)
Dennis J. Phelan, Vice President
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0312
Padelford Packet Boat Company, Padelford Riverboats
Captain Gus Gaspardo, General Manager
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0422.1
Passenger Vessel Association (PVA)
Michael Borgstrom, President
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0297
Passenger Vessel Association (PVA)
Michael Borgstrom, President
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0334.1
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Andrew C. Zemba, Assistant Director, Water Planning Office
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0386.1
Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission
W. P. Rybka, Erie Maritime Museum Administrator &
Senior Captain U.S. Brig NIAGARA
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0278
Pierre Area Chamber of Commerce
John H. Hight
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0276
Polska Zegluga Morska (POLSTEAM)
Christine A. Fazio, Counsel, Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0349.1
Pride of Baltimore, Inc.
Linda Christenson, Executive Director, and Captain Jan Miles,
Professional Mariner
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0398.1
Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd.
George F. Wright, Senior Vice President, Marine Operations
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0391.1
Professional Mariner, Pride of Baltimore, Inc.
Jan C. Miles
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0412
Red and White Fleet
Joe Burgard, Vice President of Operations
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0338
Reinauer Transportation Companies, LLC
Alan L. Bish, Port Captain
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0313.1
River Cruises
Kevin and Carrie Stier, Owner/Operators
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0404.1
Rock the Earth
Marc A. Ross, President & Executive Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0405
Comment Submittal Index Part 1, Comment Submittals Ordered by Affiliate Name
Affiliate Name
Commenter Name
Document Control Number
I-7
Rowan Companies, Inc
Barbara A. Carroll PE, Vice President, Health, Safety and
Environmental Affairs
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0314.1
San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation
Authority (WETA)
Speaker Pelosi
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0325.1
Sause Bros., Inc.
Tim Young
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0307.1
Severn Trent De Nora, LLC
Randy Fernandez, Vice President
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0407.1
Shaver Transportation Company
Robert D. Rich, Director of Administration
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0424.1
Shipbuilders Council of America (SCA)
John L. Wittenborn, Outside Council
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0406.1
Shipping Federation of Canada
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0327.1
Southeast Alaska Fishermen's Alliance (SEAFA)
Kathy Hansen, Executive Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0414.1
Southold Citizens for Safe Roads (SCSR), the Group for the East
End (GEE) and North Fork Environmental Council (NFEC)
Keri A. Christ
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0433.1
State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA)
Laura Powell, Assistant Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0348.1
State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology)
Bill Moore, P.E., Manager, Program Development Services, Water
Quality Program
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0410.1
State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Russell Rasmussen, Director, Bureau of Watershed Management
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0411.1
SunQuest Cruises
James Murray II, General Manager
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0286.1
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
Anda A. Ray, Vice President, Environmental Stewardship and
Policy
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0389.1
Thames Towboat Company, Inc. (TTB)
John P. Wronowski, Owner and President
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0371.1
The American Waterways Operators
Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President - National Advocacy
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0343.1
The City of New York Law Department
Ramin Pejan, Assistant Corporation Counsel, Environmental Law
Division
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0383.1
The City of New York Law Department
Ramin Pejan, Assistant Corporation Counsel, Environmental Law
Division
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0383.2
Tidewater Marine, LLC
Mark Sales, Regulatory and Systems Engineer
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0387.1
Comment Submittal Index Part 1, Comment Submittals Ordered by Affiliate Name
Affiliate Name
Commenter Name
Document Control Number
I-8
Transportation Institute (TI)
James L. Henry, President
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0388.1
United Fisherman of Alaska (UFA)
Mark Vinsel, Executive Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0333.1
United States Great Lakes Shipping Association (USGLSA)
Stuart H. Theis, Executive Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0306.1
Utility Water Act Group (UWAG)
James N. Christman, Hunton & Williams
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0342.1
V. Ships Leisure S.A.M.
Stanislav Kozhuharov, Marine Superintendent (Environmental)
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0409.1
Various
Public Hearing Comments
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0365
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ)
Ellen Gilinsky, Ph.D., Director, Water Division
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0347
Washington Island Ferry Line Inc.
Richard Purinton, President
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0335.1
Washington State Ferries, Washington State Department of
Transportation
Scott Davis, Safety Systems Manager
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0321
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association
(WWEMA)
Thomas Mills, Chairman of the Board
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0336.1
West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA)
Rod Moore
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0298
Wildlife Management Division, Arizona Game and Fish
Department
Bob Broscheid, Assistant Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0275.1
World Shipping Council
Charles Diorio
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0328.1
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0256
AFFILIATE:
None
COMMENTER
Anonymous
Date Submitted:
6/17/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0257
AFFILIATE:
None
COMMENTER
B. Sachau
Date Submitted:
6/17/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0258
AFFILIATE:
None
COMMENTER
Anonymous
Date Submitted:
6/18/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 2
Recreational Vessel Comments/Misfiled Comments
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0259
AFFILIATE:
None
COMMENTER
D.A. Zehe II
Date Submitted:
6/23/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 2
Recreational Vessel Comments/Misfiled Comments
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0260
AFFILIATE:
None
COMMENTER
D. Stephenson
Date Submitted:
7/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 2
Recreational Vessel Comments/Misfiled Comments
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0261
AFFILIATE:
None
COMMENTER
Anonymous
Date Submitted:
7/7/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 2
Recreational Vessel Comments/Misfiled Comments
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0262
AFFILIATE:
None
COMMENTER
M. Stumph
Date Submitted:
7/13/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 2
Recreational Vessel Comments/Misfiled Comments
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0263
AFFILIATE:
Erie Pennsylvania Sport Fishing Association
COMMENTER
Pete Alex, President
Date Submitted:
7/17/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 2
Recreational Vessel Comments/Misfiled Comments
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0264
AFFILIATE:
None
COMMENTER
A. Jenkins
Date Submitted:
7/18/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 2
Recreational Vessel Comments/Misfiled Comments
I-9
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0265.1
AFFILIATE:
Marine Retailers Association of America (MRAA)
COMMENTER
Phil Keeter, President and Robert Soucy, Chairman
Date Submitted:
7/21/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 2
Recreational Vessel Comments/Misfiled Comments
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0266
AFFILIATE:
None
COMMENTER
K. Wyman
Date Submitted:
7/21/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 2
Recreational Vessel Comments/Misfiled Comments
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0271
AFFILIATE:
Marine Spill Response Corporation
COMMENTER
Chris Muzzy
Date Submitted:
7/24/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0273.1
AFFILIATE:
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
COMMENTER
Frank J. Baldwin, Acting Chief, Water Bureau
Date Submitted:
7/29/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 10
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 6.3
Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6.2
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Specific Discharges
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6.2.3.1 Absence/Presence of Numerical Standard/Specific Treatment Technologies
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 2
Recreational Vessel Comments/Misfiled Comments
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.2
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Specific Discharges
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.4
Discharges Not Included in Proposed Permit
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 6.2.3 Ballast Water
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0274.1
AFFILIATE:
BAE Systems Ship Repair Inc.
COMMENTER
Shaun Halvax
Date Submitted:
7/29/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 2
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0275.1
AFFILIATE:
Wildlife Management Division, Arizona Game and Fish Department
COMMENTER
Bob Broscheid, Assistant Director
Date Submitted:
7/29/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 3
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 2
Recreational Vessel Comments/Misfiled Comments
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 6.2.3 Ballast Water
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 2
Recreational Vessel Comments/Misfiled Comments
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0276
AFFILIATE:
Pierre Area Chamber of Commerce
COMMENTER
John H. Hight
Date Submitted:
7/30/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 7
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6.2.3 Ballast Water
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6.2.7 Cathodic Protection
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
I-10
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0277.1
AFFILIATE:
International Association of Drilling Contractors
COMMENTER
John Pertgen, Assistant Director, Offshore Technical and Regulatory Affairs
Date Submitted:
7/30/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 37
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 6.4
Discharges Not Included in Proposed Permit
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.2.5 Aqueous Film Forming Foam
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.2.22 Small Boat Engine Wet Exhaust
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 6.4
Discharges Not Included in Proposed Permit
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 16
BAT/BPT/BCT
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 15
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 16
CHAPTER 6.2.3.3 Pacific Near Shore Voyages requirements
EXCERPT 17
CHAPTER 6.2.7 Cathodic Protection
EXCERPT 18
CHAPTER 6.2.19 Rudder Bearing Lubrication Discharge
EXCERPT 19
CHAPTER 7
Corrective Action
EXCERPT 20
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 21
CHAPTER 6.4
Discharges Not Included in Proposed Permit
EXCERPT 22
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 23
CHAPTER 8
Enforcement Issues
EXCERPT 24
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 25
CHAPTER 6.1.4 Discharge of Oil Including Oily Mixtures
EXCERPT 26
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 27
CHAPTER 6.2.7 Cathodic Protection
EXCERPT 28
CHAPTER 6.2.12 Firemain Systems
EXCERPT 29
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
EXCERPT 30
CHAPTER 6.2.19 Rudder Bearing Lubrication Discharge
EXCERPT 31
CHAPTER 6.2.22 Small Boat Engine Wet Exhaust
EXCERPT 32
CHAPTER 6.4
Discharges Not Included in Proposed Permit
EXCERPT 33
CHAPTER 7
Corrective Action
EXCERPT 34
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 35
CHAPTER 10
Vessel Class Specific Requirements
EXCERPT 36
CHAPTER 6.2.17 Non-Oily Machinery Wastewater
EXCERPT 37
CHAPTER 6.1.5 Compliance with other Statutes and Regulations
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0278
AFFILIATE:
Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission
COMMENTER
W. P. Rybka, Erie Maritime Museum Administrator &Senior Captain U.S. Brig NIAGARA
Date Submitted:
7/30/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0279.1
AFFILIATE:
Four Seasons Marine Services
COMMENTER
Loren Gerhard, Vice President - Marine Operations
Date Submitted:
7/30/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 11
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6.1.4 Discharge of Oil Including Oily Mixtures
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.2.7 Cathodic Protection
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6.2.12 Firemain Systems
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.2.20 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 10.1.2 Medium Cruise Ships
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 12
Economics
I-11
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0280.1
AFFILIATE:
National Maintenance and Repair of Kentucky, Inc
COMMENTER
Dylan Hesley, Environmental Manager
Date Submitted:
7/31/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.2
Oppose Federal action
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0281.1
AFFILIATE:
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
COMMENTER
Sean D. Logan, Director
Date Submitted:
7/31/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 4
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 2
Recreational Vessel Comments/Misfiled Comments
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0282.1
AFFILIATE:
Boat Company
COMMENTER
Captain Joel Hanson
Date Submitted:
7/31/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 9
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6.1.4 Discharge of Oil Including Oily Mixtures
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6.2.8 Chain Locker Effluent
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.2.12 Firemain Systems
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0283
AFFILIATE:
Bouchard Transportation
COMMENTER
Stanley F. Chelluck
Date Submitted:
7/31/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 6
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.2.7 Cathodic Protection
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0284.1
AFFILIATE:
Dialysis At Sea Cruises (DASC)
COMMENTER
Karen Yeates MD, FRCP (C). MPH, Medical Director
Date Submitted:
7/31/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 6.4
Discharges Not Included in Proposed Permit
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0285.1
AFFILIATE:
Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA)
COMMENTER
Henry Eby, Manager, Environmental Affairs
Date Submitted:
7/31/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 2
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0286.1
AFFILIATE:
SunQuest Cruises
COMMENTER
James Murray II, General Manager
Date Submitted:
7/31/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
I-12
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0287.1
AFFILIATE:
Marathon Oil Company
COMMENTER
David Daly
Date Submitted:
7/31/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 26
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.2.11 Elevator Pit Effluent
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.2.12 Firemain Systems
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 6.2.17 Non-Oily Machinery Wastewater
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 6.4
Discharges Not Included in Proposed Permit
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 15
CHAPTER 6.1.3 Fuel Spills/Overflow
EXCERPT 16
CHAPTER 6.1.4 Discharge of Oil Including Oily Mixtures
EXCERPT 17
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 18
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
EXCERPT 19
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 20
CHAPTER 6.2.7 Cathodic Protection
EXCERPT 21
CHAPTER 6.2.11 Elevator Pit Effluent
EXCERPT 22
CHAPTER 6.2.17 Non-Oily Machinery Wastewater
EXCERPT 23
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 24
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 25
CHAPTER 6.2.3.3 Pacific Near Shore Voyages requirements
EXCERPT 26
CHAPTER 6.4
Discharges Not Included in Proposed Permit
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0289
AFFILIATE:
Argosy Cruises
COMMENTER
Captain Duran Larsen, Human Resources Director
Date Submitted:
7/31/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 7
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.2.20 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0292.1
AFFILIATE:
California Marine Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities Division (MFD), California State Lands
COMMENTER
Maurya B. Falkner
Date Submitted:
7/31/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 57
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6.2.4 Anti-fouling Hull Coatings
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 8
Enforcement Issues
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.1.1 Material Storage
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 6.1.3 Fuel Spills/Overflow
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 6.2.3.2 On-Shore Treatment of Ballast Water Ocean-Going Vessel Req'ts incl. Ballast Water
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 6.2.3.3 Pacific Near Shore Voyages requirements
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 15
CHAPTER 6.2.4 Anti-fouling Hull Coatings
EXCERPT 16
CHAPTER 6.2.7 Cathodic Protection
EXCERPT 17
CHAPTER 6.2.10 Distillation and Reverse Osmosis Brine
I-13
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
EXCERPT 18
EXCERPT 19
EXCERPT 20
EXCERPT 21
EXCERPT 22
EXCERPT 23
EXCERPT 24
EXCERPT 25
EXCERPT 26
EXCERPT 27
EXCERPT 28
EXCERPT 29
EXCERPT 30
EXCERPT 31
EXCERPT 32
EXCERPT 33
EXCERPT 34
EXCERPT 35
EXCERPT 36
EXCERPT 37
EXCERPT 38
EXCERPT 39
EXCERPT 40
EXCERPT 41
EXCERPT 42
EXCERPT 43
EXCERPT 44
EXCERPT 45
EXCERPT 46
EXCERPT 47
EXCERPT 48
EXCERPT 49
EXCERPT 50
EXCERPT 51
EXCERPT 52
EXCERPT 53
EXCERPT 54
EXCERPT 55
EXCERPT 56
EXCERPT 57
CHAPTER 6.2.13 Freshwater Layup
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
CHAPTER 6.2.16 Motor Gasoline and Compensating Discharge
CHAPTER 6.2.17 Non-Oily Machinery Wastewater
CHAPTER 6.2.21 Seawater Piping Biofouling Prevention
CHAPTER 6.2.25 Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharge
CHAPTER 6.2.26 Welldeck Discharges
CHAPTER 6.2.27 Graywater Mixed with Sewage
CHAPTER 6.3
Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
CHAPTER 7
Corrective Action
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
CHAPTER 10.1.1 Large Cruise Ships
CHAPTER 10.3 Barges
CHAPTER 10.7 Vessels Employing Experimental Ballast Water Treatment Systems
CHAPTER 6.2.3 Ballast Water
CHAPTER 6.2.4 Anti-fouling Hull Coatings
CHAPTER 6.2.3 Ballast Water
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
CHAPTER 6.2.3 Ballast Water
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
CHAPTER 6.2.4 Anti-fouling Hull Coatings
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
CHAPTER 6.2.4 Anti-fouling Hull Coatings
CHAPTER 6.2.25 Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharge
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
CHAPTER 12
Economics
CHAPTER 6.2.4 Anti-fouling Hull Coatings
CHAPTER 12
Economics
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
CHAPTER 6.2.3.3 Pacific Near Shore Voyages requirements
CHAPTER 6.2.3.2 On-Shore Treatment of Ballast Water Ocean-Going Vessel Req'ts incl. Ballast Water
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
CHAPTER 6.2.4 Anti-fouling Hull Coatings
CHAPTER 6.2.21 Seawater Piping Biofouling Prevention
CHAPTER 6.2.25 Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharge
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
CHAPTER 6.2.3 Ballast Water
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0295.1
AFFILIATE:
National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA)
COMMENTER
Scott Gudes, Vice President Government Relations
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 2
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 2
Recreational Vessel Comments/Misfiled Comments
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0296.1
AFFILIATE:
Atlantic Marine Alabama, LLC
COMMENTER
Teresa Preston, Environmental, Health and Safety Director
Date Submitted:
7/30/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 2
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1
Stakeholder General
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0297
AFFILIATE:
Passenger Vessel Association (PVA)
COMMENTER
Michael Borgstrom, President
Date Submitted:
7/30/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 14
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
I-14
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
EXCERPT 7
EXCERPT 8
EXCERPT 9
EXCERPT 10
EXCERPT 11
EXCERPT 12
EXCERPT 13
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 6.2
CHAPTER 4
CHAPTER 9
CHAPTER 6.1.4
CHAPTER 9
CHAPTER 6
CHAPTER 14
CHAPTER 3
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Specific Discharges
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
Discharge of Oil Including Oily Mixtures
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
Effluent Limits
401 Certification/State Issues
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0298
AFFILIATE:
West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA)
COMMENTER
Rod Moore
Date Submitted:
7/30/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 15
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 10
Vessel Class Specific Requirements
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6.1.1 Material Storage
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.1.4 Discharge of Oil Including Oily Mixtures
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.4
Discharges Not Included in Proposed Permit
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 6.2.4 Anti-fouling Hull Coatings
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 6.2.8 Chain Locker Effluent
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 7
Corrective Action
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 15
CHAPTER 10.5 Research Vessels
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0299.1
AFFILIATE:
Excell Marine Corporation
COMMENTER
Gordon Putzke, Operations Manager
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0300.1
AFFILIATE:
Jacksonville Area Ship Repair Association (JASRA)
COMMENTER
Robert P. Birtalan, President
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 2
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1
Stakeholder General
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0301.1
AFFILIATE:
City of Los Angeles Harbor Department (LAHD)
COMMENTER
Dr. Ralph G. Appy, Ph.D., Director of Environmental Management Division
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 25
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6.2.4 Anti-fouling Hull Coatings
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 2
Recreational Vessel Comments/Misfiled Comments
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 6.1
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for All Vessels
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 6.2.4 Anti-fouling Hull Coatings
EXCERPT 15
CHAPTER 6.2.5 Aqueous Film Forming Foam
EXCERPT 16
CHAPTER 6.2.6 Boiler/Economizer Blowdown
EXCERPT 17
CHAPTER 6.2
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Specific Discharges
EXCERPT 18
CHAPTER 6.2.8 Chain Locker Effluent
I-15
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
EXCERPT 19
EXCERPT 20
EXCERPT 21
EXCERPT 22
EXCERPT 23
EXCERPT 24
EXCERPT 25
CHAPTER 6.2
CHAPTER 6.2.15
CHAPTER 13
CHAPTER 10
CHAPTER 3
CHAPTER 5
CHAPTER 9
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Specific Discharges
Graywater
Other Permitting Issues
Vessel Class Specific Requirements
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0302
AFFILIATE:
Madeline Island Ferry Line, Inc.
COMMENTER
Gary Russell, President, Robin Trinko-Russell, VP Finance and Mike Radtke, Marine Manager
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 12
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.1.4 Discharge of Oil Including Oily Mixtures
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.2.7 Cathodic Protection
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 6.2.11 Elevator Pit Effluent
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 6.2.12 Firemain Systems
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0303.1
AFFILIATE:
Department of Environmental Protection, State of Connecticut
COMMENTER
Amey W. Marrella, Deputy Commissioner
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 6.2.25 Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharge
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0304.1
AFFILIATE:
None
COMMENTER
Anonymous
Date Submitted:
7/31/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0305.1
AFFILIATE:
Bath Iron Works (BIW)
COMMENTER
Vince Dickinson, P.E., Manager, Environmental Operations
Date Submitted:
7/31/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 4
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6.2.16 Motor Gasoline and Compensating Discharge
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0306.1
AFFILIATE:
United States Great Lakes Shipping Association (USGLSA)
COMMENTER
Stuart H. Theis, Executive Director
Date Submitted:
7/31/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 5
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 6.2.3.2 On-Shore Treatment of Ballast Water Ocean-Going Vessel Req'ts incl. Ballast Water
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6.2.3 Ballast Water
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
I-16
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0307.1
AFFILIATE:
Sause Bros., Inc.
COMMENTER
Tim Young
Date Submitted:
7/31/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 4
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 1.3
Other
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 8
Enforcement Issues
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0308
AFFILIATE:
Majestic America Line and Windstar Cruises
COMMENTER
Captain Nico Corbijn, Executive Vice President - Operations
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 2
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1
Stakeholder General
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 10
Vessel Class Specific Requirements
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0308.1
AFFILIATE:
Majestic America Line and Windstar Cruises
COMMENTER
Captain Nico Corbijn, Executive Vice President - Operations
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 5
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 10.1.2 Medium Cruise Ships
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6.4
Discharges Not Included in Proposed Permit
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0309.1
AFFILIATE:
Northwest Environmental Advocates, et al
COMMENTER
Nina Bell, J.D., Executive Director
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 57
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 6.2.3.1 Absence/Presence of Numerical Standard/Specific Treatment Technologies
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6.3
Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 18
Tetrachloroethylene
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 6.2.4 Anti-fouling Hull Coatings
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 6.2.3.1 Absence/Presence of Numerical Standard/Specific Treatment Technologies
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 6.2.3.2 On-Shore Treatment of Ballast Water Ocean-Going Vessel Req'ts incl. Ballast Water
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 6.2.3.3 Pacific Near Shore Voyages requirements
EXCERPT 15
CHAPTER 10.1.1 Large Cruise Ships
EXCERPT 16
CHAPTER 10.2 Ferries
EXCERPT 17
CHAPTER 6.2.3.1 Absence/Presence of Numerical Standard/Specific Treatment Technologies
EXCERPT 18
CHAPTER 6.3
Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 19
CHAPTER 6.2.3.1 Absence/Presence of Numerical Standard/Specific Treatment Technologies
EXCERPT 20
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 21
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 22
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 23
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
EXCERPT 24
CHAPTER 6.1.1 Material Storage
EXCERPT 25
CHAPTER 6.1.2 Toxic and Hazardous Materials
EXCERPT 26
CHAPTER 6.1.3 Fuel Spills/Overflow
EXCERPT 27
CHAPTER 6.1.4 Discharge of Oil Including Oily Mixtures
EXCERPT 28
CHAPTER 6.1.5 Compliance with other Statutes and Regulations
EXCERPT 29
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 30
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
EXCERPT 31
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 32
CHAPTER 6.2.3.2 On-Shore Treatment of Ballast Water Ocean-Going Vessel Req'ts incl. Ballast Water
EXCERPT 33
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
I-17
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
EXCERPT 34
EXCERPT 35
EXCERPT 36
EXCERPT 37
EXCERPT 38
EXCERPT 39
EXCERPT 40
EXCERPT 41
EXCERPT 42
EXCERPT 43
EXCERPT 44
EXCERPT 45
EXCERPT 46
EXCERPT 47
EXCERPT 48
EXCERPT 49
EXCERPT 50
EXCERPT 51
EXCERPT 52
EXCERPT 53
EXCERPT 54
EXCERPT 55
EXCERPT 56
EXCERPT 57
CHAPTER 6.2.3.3 Pacific Near Shore Voyages requirements
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
CHAPTER 6.2.3.3 Pacific Near Shore Voyages requirements
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
CHAPTER 6.2.4 Anti-fouling Hull Coatings
CHAPTER 6.2.5 Aqueous Film Forming Foam
CHAPTER 6.2.6 Boiler/Economizer Blowdown
CHAPTER 6.2.7 Cathodic Protection
CHAPTER 6.2.8 Chain Locker Effluent
CHAPTER 6.2.9 Controllable Pitch Propeller Hydraulic Fluid
CHAPTER 6.2.14 Gas Turbine Wash Water
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
CHAPTER 6.3
Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
CHAPTER 7
Corrective Action
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
CHAPTER 10.1.1 Large Cruise Ships
CHAPTER 10.1.2 Medium Cruise Ships
CHAPTER 10.2 Ferries
CHAPTER 10.3 Barges
CHAPTER 10.4 Oil/Petroleum Tankers
CHAPTER 10.7 Vessels Employing Experimental Ballast Water Treatment Systems
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
CHAPTER 11
Environmental Impacts
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0310.1
AFFILIATE:
National Shipbuilding Research Program (NSRP)
COMMENTER
John L. Wittenborn, Counsel, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 4
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0311
AFFILIATE:
Great Lakes Office, National Wildlife Federation et al.
COMMENTER
Andy Buchsbaum, Regional Executive Director
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 6.2.3.1 Absence/Presence of Numerical Standard/Specific Treatment Technologies
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0311.1
AFFILIATE:
Great Lakes Office, National Wildlife Federation et al.
COMMENTER
Andy Buchsbaum, Regional Executive Director
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 8
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 6.2.3 Ballast Water
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 6.3
Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6.2.3.2 On-Shore Treatment of Ballast Water Ocean-Going Vessel Req'ts incl. Ballast Water
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6.3
Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.3
Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.2.3.1 Absence/Presence of Numerical Standard/Specific Treatment Technologies
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0312
AFFILIATE:
Pacific Seafood Processors Association (PSPA)
COMMENTER
Dennis J. Phelan, Vice President
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
I-18
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0313.1
AFFILIATE:
Reinauer Transportation Companies, LLC
COMMENTER
Alan L. Bish, Port Captain
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 6
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1
Stakeholder General
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 8
Enforcement Issues
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0314.1
AFFILIATE:
Rowan Companies, Inc
COMMENTER
Barbara A. Carroll PE, Vice President, Health, Safety and Environmental Affairs
Date Submitted:
7/31/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 21
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6.4
Discharges Not Included in Proposed Permit
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 16
BAT/BPT/BCT
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 6.2.3.3 Pacific Near Shore Voyages requirements
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 7
Corrective Action
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 6.4
Discharges Not Included in Proposed Permit
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 15
CHAPTER 6.1.4 Discharge of Oil Including Oily Mixtures
EXCERPT 16
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 17
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
EXCERPT 18
CHAPTER 6.4
Discharges Not Included in Proposed Permit
EXCERPT 19
CHAPTER 7
Corrective Action
EXCERPT 20
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 21
CHAPTER 6.1.5 Compliance with other Statutes and Regulations
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0316.1
AFFILIATE:
Great Lakes Commission (Commission)
COMMENTER
Tim A. Eder, Executive Director
Date Submitted:
7/31/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 5
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 6.2.3.1 Absence/Presence of Numerical Standard/Specific Treatment Technologies
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 8
Enforcement Issues
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.2.3 Ballast Water
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0317
AFFILIATE:
McDonough Marine Service
COMMENTER
David C. Hanby, Jr., President & Chief Operating Officer (COO)
Date Submitted:
7/31/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 3
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 17
Responsibility of Owners Versus Operators [e.g., lease vs. own]
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0319.1
AFFILIATE:
Crowley Maritime Corporation
COMMENTER
Charles F. Nalen, Vice President, Environmental, Safety and Quality Assurance
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 9
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6.2
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Specific Discharges
I-19
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 7
EXCERPT 8
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 6.1.1
CHAPTER 6
CHAPTER 9
CHAPTER 4
CHAPTER 9
Material Storage
Effluent Limits
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1
AFFILIATE:
Chamber of Shipping of America and INTERTANKO
COMMENTER
Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs and Joseph J. Angelo, Deputy Managing Director
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 76
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 16
BAT/BPT/BCT
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 15
CHAPTER 8
Enforcement Issues
EXCERPT 16
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 17
CHAPTER 6.2
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Specific Discharges
EXCERPT 18
CHAPTER 6.4
Discharges Not Included in Proposed Permit
EXCERPT 19
CHAPTER 6.2
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Specific Discharges
EXCERPT 20
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 21
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
EXCERPT 22
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
EXCERPT 23
CHAPTER 6.2.3.3 Pacific Near Shore Voyages requirements
EXCERPT 24
CHAPTER 6.2.3 Ballast Water
EXCERPT 25
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
EXCERPT 26
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 27
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 28
CHAPTER 6.1.5 Compliance with other Statutes and Regulations
EXCERPT 29
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 30
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 31
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 32
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 33
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 34
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 35
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 36
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 37
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 38
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 39
CHAPTER 11
Environmental Impacts
EXCERPT 40
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 41
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 42
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 43
CHAPTER 7
Corrective Action
EXCERPT 44
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 45
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
EXCERPT 46
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 47
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 48
CHAPTER 6.1.1 Material Storage
EXCERPT 49
CHAPTER 6.1.3 Fuel Spills/Overflow
EXCERPT 50
CHAPTER 6.1
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for All Vessels
EXCERPT 51
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 52
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
EXCERPT 53
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 54
CHAPTER 6.2.4 Anti-fouling Hull Coatings
EXCERPT 55
CHAPTER 6.2.5 Aqueous Film Forming Foam
EXCERPT 56
CHAPTER 6.2.6 Boiler/Economizer Blowdown
EXCERPT 57
CHAPTER 6.2.7 Cathodic Protection
EXCERPT 58
CHAPTER 6.2.8 Chain Locker Effluent
I-20
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
EXCERPT 59
EXCERPT 60
EXCERPT 61
EXCERPT 62
EXCERPT 63
EXCERPT 64
EXCERPT 65
EXCERPT 66
EXCERPT 67
EXCERPT 68
EXCERPT 69
EXCERPT 70
EXCERPT 71
EXCERPT 72
EXCERPT 73
EXCERPT 74
EXCERPT 75
EXCERPT 76
CHAPTER 6.2.9
CHAPTER 6.2.11
CHAPTER 6.2.12
CHAPTER 6.2.15
CHAPTER 6.2.17
CHAPTER 6.2.18
CHAPTER 6.2.19
CHAPTER 6.2.20
CHAPTER 6.2.21
CHAPTER 6.2.22
CHAPTER 6.2.24
CHAPTER 6.2.25
CHAPTER 6.2.27
CHAPTER 6.2.28
CHAPTER 6.3
CHAPTER 7
CHAPTER 9
CHAPTER 10
Controllable Pitch Propeller Hydraulic Fluid
Elevator Pit Effluent
Firemain Systems
Graywater
Non-Oily Machinery Wastewater
Refrigeration and Air Condensate Discharge
Rudder Bearing Lubrication Discharge
Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge
Seawater Piping Biofouling Prevention
Small Boat Engine Wet Exhaust
Stern Tube Oily Discharge
Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharge
Graywater Mixed with Sewage
Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater Discharge
Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
Corrective Action
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
Vessel Class Specific Requirements
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0321
AFFILIATE:
Washington State Ferries, Washington State Department of Transportation
COMMENTER
Scott Davis, Safety Systems Manager
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 11
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6.2.3 Ballast Water
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6.1.4 Discharge of Oil Including Oily Mixtures
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.2.12 Firemain Systems
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 6.2.20 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 10.2 Ferries
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0322.1
AFFILIATE:
Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.
COMMENTER
John P. Wronowski, Owner and President
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 21
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.1.5 Compliance with other Statutes and Regulations
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.1
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for All Vessels
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 6.2.3 Ballast Water
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 6.2.7 Cathodic Protection
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 6.2.8 Chain Locker Effluent
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 6.2.11 Elevator Pit Effluent
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 6.2.12 Firemain Systems
EXCERPT 15
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
EXCERPT 16
CHAPTER 6.2.20 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge
EXCERPT 17
CHAPTER 6.2.21 Seawater Piping Biofouling Prevention
EXCERPT 18
CHAPTER 6.2.25 Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharge
EXCERPT 19
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 20
CHAPTER 10.2 Ferries
EXCERPT 21
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
I-21
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0323
AFFILIATE:
Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA)
COMMENTER
Kenneth R. Wells, President
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0323.1
AFFILIATE:
Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA)
COMMENTER
Kenneth R. Wells, President
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 26
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1
Stakeholder General
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 10
Vessel Class Specific Requirements
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 6.1.1 Material Storage
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 6.1.2 Toxic and Hazardous Materials
EXCERPT 15
CHAPTER 6.1.3 Fuel Spills/Overflow
EXCERPT 16
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 17
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 18
CHAPTER 6.2.3.2 On-Shore Treatment of Ballast Water Ocean-Going Vessel Req'ts incl. Ballast Water
EXCERPT 19
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 20
CHAPTER 6.2.8 Chain Locker Effluent
EXCERPT 21
CHAPTER 6.2.12 Firemain Systems
EXCERPT 22
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
EXCERPT 23
CHAPTER 6.2.17 Non-Oily Machinery Wastewater
EXCERPT 24
CHAPTER 6.2.20 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge
EXCERPT 25
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 26
CHAPTER 10.6 Rescue Boats
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0324.1
AFFILIATE:
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Division of Water
COMMENTER
Lynn J. Tomich Kent, Director
Date Submitted:
7/31/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 19
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.2
Oppose Federal action
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 6.2.4 Anti-fouling Hull Coatings
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 6.2.5 Aqueous Film Forming Foam
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 6.2.22 Small Boat Engine Wet Exhaust
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 6.2.27 Graywater Mixed with Sewage
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 6.4
Discharges Not Included in Proposed Permit
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 15
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 16
CHAPTER 6.3
Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 17
CHAPTER 7
Corrective Action
EXCERPT 18
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 19
CHAPTER 10.1.1 Large Cruise Ships
I-22
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0325.1
AFFILIATE:
San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA)
COMMENTER
Speaker Pelosi
Date Submitted:
7/31/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 12
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.1.4 Discharge of Oil Including Oily Mixtures
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.2.7 Cathodic Protection
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 6.2.12 Firemain Systems
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 6.2.20 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0326.1
AFFILIATE:
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
COMMENTER
Amey W. Marrella, Deputy Commissioner
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 2
Recreational Vessel Comments/Misfiled Comments
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0327.1
AFFILIATE:
Shipping Federation of Canada
COMMENTER
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 31
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 8
Enforcement Issues
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 6.1.1 Material Storage
EXCERPT 15
CHAPTER 6.1.2 Toxic and Hazardous Materials
EXCERPT 16
CHAPTER 6.1.3 Fuel Spills/Overflow
EXCERPT 17
CHAPTER 6.1.4 Discharge of Oil Including Oily Mixtures
EXCERPT 18
CHAPTER 6.1.5 Compliance with other Statutes and Regulations
EXCERPT 19
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 20
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
EXCERPT 21
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 22
CHAPTER 6.2.3.2 On-Shore Treatment of Ballast Water Ocean-Going Vessel Req'ts incl. Ballast Water
EXCERPT 23
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 24
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 25
CHAPTER 7
Corrective Action
EXCERPT 26
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 27
CHAPTER 10
Vessel Class Specific Requirements
EXCERPT 28
CHAPTER 10.1.1 Large Cruise Ships
EXCERPT 29
CHAPTER 10.4 Oil/Petroleum Tankers
EXCERPT 30
CHAPTER 10.7 Vessels Employing Experimental Ballast Water Treatment Systems
EXCERPT 31
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
I-23
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0328.1
AFFILIATE:
World Shipping Council
COMMENTER
Charles Diorio
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 11
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 6.2.3.1 Absence/Presence of Numerical Standard/Specific Treatment Technologies
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.2.3.3 Pacific Near Shore Voyages requirements
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.4
Discharges Not Included in Proposed Permit
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 6.1.5 Compliance with other Statutes and Regulations
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0329.1
AFFILIATE:
National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA)
COMMENTER
Cindy L. Squires, Esq., Chief Counsel for Public Affairs and Director of Regulatory Affairs
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 3
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 2
Recreational Vessel Comments/Misfiled Comments
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 6.2.20 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6.2.22 Small Boat Engine Wet Exhaust
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0330.1
AFFILIATE:
Clean Oceans Technology Coalition and Nutech 03, Inc
COMMENTER
Joel C. Mandelman, Chairman and Vice President & General Counsel
Date Submitted:
7/31/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 3
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 6.2.3.1 Absence/Presence of Numerical Standard/Specific Treatment Technologies
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6.2.3.1 Absence/Presence of Numerical Standard/Specific Treatment Technologies
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0331.1
AFFILIATE:
E.N. Bisso & Son, Inc.
COMMENTER
Michael F. Vitt, General Counsel
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 14
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 6.2.12 Firemain Systems
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 11
Environmental Impacts
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 6.2.12 Firemain Systems
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 1
Stakeholder General
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0332.1
AFFILIATE:
Friends of the Earth
COMMENTER
Marcie Keever, Clean Vessels Campaign Director
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 39
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 10.1 Cruise Ships
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 10.1 Cruise Ships
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 10.1 Cruise Ships
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 10.1 Cruise Ships
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 10.1.1 Large Cruise Ships
I-24
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
EXCERPT 9
EXCERPT 10
EXCERPT 11
EXCERPT 12
EXCERPT 13
EXCERPT 14
EXCERPT 15
EXCERPT 16
EXCERPT 17
EXCERPT 18
EXCERPT 19
EXCERPT 20
EXCERPT 21
EXCERPT 22
EXCERPT 23
EXCERPT 24
EXCERPT 25
EXCERPT 26
EXCERPT 27
EXCERPT 28
EXCERPT 29
EXCERPT 30
EXCERPT 31
EXCERPT 32
EXCERPT 33
EXCERPT 34
EXCERPT 35
EXCERPT 36
EXCERPT 37
EXCERPT 38
EXCERPT 39
CHAPTER 10.1.1 Large Cruise Ships
CHAPTER 10.1.1 Large Cruise Ships
CHAPTER 10.1.2 Medium Cruise Ships
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
CHAPTER 8
Enforcement Issues
CHAPTER 18
Tetrachloroethylene
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
CHAPTER 10.2 Ferries
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
CHAPTER 6.1.1 Material Storage
CHAPTER 6.1.2 Toxic and Hazardous Materials
CHAPTER 6.1.3 Fuel Spills/Overflow
CHAPTER 6.1.4 Discharge of Oil Including Oily Mixtures
CHAPTER 6.1.5 Compliance with other Statutes and Regulations
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
CHAPTER 6.2.4 Anti-fouling Hull Coatings
CHAPTER 6.2.6 Boiler/Economizer Blowdown
CHAPTER 6.2.8 Chain Locker Effluent
CHAPTER 6.2.9 Controllable Pitch Propeller Hydraulic Fluid
CHAPTER 6.2.14 Gas Turbine Wash Water
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
CHAPTER 6.3
Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
CHAPTER 7
Corrective Action
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
CHAPTER 10.2 Ferries
CHAPTER 10.3 Barges
CHAPTER 10.5 Research Vessels
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0333.1
AFFILIATE:
United Fisherman of Alaska (UFA)
COMMENTER
Mark Vinsel, Executive Director
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 3
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 6.2
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Specific Discharges
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0334.1
AFFILIATE:
Passenger Vessel Association (PVA)
COMMENTER
Michael Borgstrom, President
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 31
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1
Stakeholder General
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.2
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Specific Discharges
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 6.1.4 Discharge of Oil Including Oily Mixtures
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 6.2.3 Ballast Water
EXCERPT 15
CHAPTER 11
Environmental Impacts
EXCERPT 16
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 17
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 18
CHAPTER 10.2 Ferries
EXCERPT 19
CHAPTER 10.1 Cruise Ships
EXCERPT 20
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 21
CHAPTER 6.1.4 Discharge of Oil Including Oily Mixtures
EXCERPT 22
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 23
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
I-25
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
EXCERPT 24
EXCERPT 25
EXCERPT 26
EXCERPT 27
EXCERPT 28
EXCERPT 29
EXCERPT 30
EXCERPT 31
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
CHAPTER 6.2.4 Anti-fouling Hull Coatings
CHAPTER 6.2.11 Elevator Pit Effluent
CHAPTER 6.2.12 Firemain Systems
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
CHAPTER 6.2.20 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
CHAPTER 12
Economics
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0335.1
AFFILIATE:
Washington Island Ferry Line Inc.
COMMENTER
Richard Purinton, President
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 9
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.2
Oppose Federal action
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 10.2 Ferries
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.2.12 Firemain Systems
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.2.20 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 1.3
Other
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0336.1
AFFILIATE:
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association (WWEMA)
COMMENTER
Thomas Mills, Chairman of the Board
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 3
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 6.2.3.1 Absence/Presence of Numerical Standard/Specific Treatment Technologies
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6.2.3.1 Absence/Presence of Numerical Standard/Specific Treatment Technologies
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0337.1
AFFILIATE:
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
COMMENTER
Steve Collins, CHMM (Certified Hazardous Materials Manager), Director Environmental and Health
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 82
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 10.1 Cruise Ships
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 1.3
Other
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6.4
Discharges Not Included in Proposed Permit
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.2.4 Anti-fouling Hull Coatings
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 8
Enforcement Issues
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 10.1.1 Large Cruise Ships
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 15
CHAPTER 6.2
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Specific Discharges
EXCERPT 16
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 17
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 18
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 19
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 20
CHAPTER 8
Enforcement Issues
EXCERPT 21
CHAPTER 10.1 Cruise Ships
EXCERPT 22
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 23
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 24
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
EXCERPT 25
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 26
CHAPTER 6.2
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Specific Discharges
EXCERPT 27
CHAPTER 6.2.27 Graywater Mixed with Sewage
EXCERPT 28
CHAPTER 6.4
Discharges Not Included in Proposed Permit
EXCERPT 29
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 30
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 31
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
I-26
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
EXCERPT 32
EXCERPT 33
EXCERPT 34
EXCERPT 35
EXCERPT 36
EXCERPT 37
EXCERPT 38
EXCERPT 39
EXCERPT 40
EXCERPT 41
EXCERPT 42
EXCERPT 43
EXCERPT 44
EXCERPT 45
EXCERPT 46
EXCERPT 47
EXCERPT 48
EXCERPT 49
EXCERPT 50
EXCERPT 51
EXCERPT 52
EXCERPT 53
EXCERPT 54
EXCERPT 55
EXCERPT 56
EXCERPT 57
EXCERPT 58
EXCERPT 59
EXCERPT 60
EXCERPT 61
EXCERPT 62
EXCERPT 63
EXCERPT 64
EXCERPT 65
EXCERPT 66
EXCERPT 67
EXCERPT 68
EXCERPT 69
EXCERPT 70
EXCERPT 71
EXCERPT 72
EXCERPT 73
EXCERPT 74
EXCERPT 75
EXCERPT 76
EXCERPT 77
EXCERPT 78
EXCERPT 79
EXCERPT 80
EXCERPT 81
EXCERPT 82
CHAPTER 6.3
Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
CHAPTER 6.1.1 Material Storage
CHAPTER 6.1.3 Fuel Spills/Overflow
CHAPTER 6.1.4 Discharge of Oil Including Oily Mixtures
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
CHAPTER 6.2.3.3 Pacific Near Shore Voyages requirements
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
CHAPTER 6.2.3.3 Pacific Near Shore Voyages requirements
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
CHAPTER 6.2.4 Anti-fouling Hull Coatings
CHAPTER 6.2.5 Aqueous Film Forming Foam
CHAPTER 6.2.6 Boiler/Economizer Blowdown
CHAPTER 6.2.7 Cathodic Protection
CHAPTER 6.2.8 Chain Locker Effluent
CHAPTER 6.2.9 Controllable Pitch Propeller Hydraulic Fluid
CHAPTER 6.2.10 Distillation and Reverse Osmosis Brine
CHAPTER 6.2.11 Elevator Pit Effluent
CHAPTER 6.2.12 Firemain Systems
CHAPTER 6.2.14 Gas Turbine Wash Water
CHAPTER 10.1.1 Large Cruise Ships
CHAPTER 6.2.17 Non-Oily Machinery Wastewater
CHAPTER 6.2.18 Refrigeration and Air Condensate Discharge
CHAPTER 6.2.19 Rudder Bearing Lubrication Discharge
CHAPTER 6.2.21 Seawater Piping Biofouling Prevention
CHAPTER 6.2.24 Stern Tube Oily Discharge
CHAPTER 6.2.25 Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharge
CHAPTER 6.2.27 Graywater Mixed with Sewage
CHAPTER 6.2.28 Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater Discharge
CHAPTER 6.4
Discharges Not Included in Proposed Permit
CHAPTER 6.3
Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
CHAPTER 7
Corrective Action
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
CHAPTER 10.1.1 Large Cruise Ships
CHAPTER 10.1.2 Medium Cruise Ships
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
CHAPTER 6.4
Discharges Not Included in Proposed Permit
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
CHAPTER 6.2
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Specific Discharges
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
CHAPTER 11
Environmental Impacts
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
CHAPTER 12
Economics
CHAPTER 6.1.1 Material Storage
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
CHAPTER 6.3
Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0337.2
AFFILIATE:
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
COMMENTER
Steve Collins, CHMM (Certified Hazardous Materials Manager), Director Environmental and Health
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 8
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 10.1 Cruise Ships
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 10.1 Cruise Ships
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.2
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Specific Discharges
I-27
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0338
AFFILIATE:
Red and White Fleet
COMMENTER
Joe Burgard, Vice President of Operations
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 4
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0339.1
AFFILIATE:
Kiewit Corportaion and General Construction Company
COMMENTER
Connie A. Determan, Vice President and Michael C. Shaw, District Environmental Manager
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 15
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6.1.1 Material Storage
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.1.2 Toxic and Hazardous Materials
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.2.4 Anti-fouling Hull Coatings
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 6.2.25 Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharge
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 6.3
Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 7
Corrective Action
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 15
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0340.1
AFFILIATE:
Matson Navigation Company
COMMENTER
Ronald J. Forest, Senior Vice President, Operations
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 7
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1
Stakeholder General
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6.2.6 Boiler/Economizer Blowdown
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 10.7 Vessels Employing Experimental Ballast Water Treatment Systems
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0342.1
AFFILIATE:
Utility Water Act Group (UWAG)
COMMENTER
James N. Christman, Hunton & Williams
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 11
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1
Stakeholder General
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 17
Responsibility of Owners Versus Operators [e.g., lease vs. own]
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 6.2.7 Cathodic Protection
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 6.1.5 Compliance with other Statutes and Regulations
I-28
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0343.1
AFFILIATE:
The American Waterways Operators
COMMENTER
Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President - National Advocacy
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 20
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.2
Oppose Federal action
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 6.1.5 Compliance with other Statutes and Regulations
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 1
Stakeholder General
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.2
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Specific Discharges
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 10.3 Barges
EXCERPT 15
CHAPTER 6.2.7 Cathodic Protection
EXCERPT 16
CHAPTER 6.2
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Specific Discharges
EXCERPT 17
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
EXCERPT 18
CHAPTER 6.4
Discharges Not Included in Proposed Permit
EXCERPT 19
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 20
CHAPTER 1
Stakeholder General
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0344.1
AFFILIATE:
Marine Technical, Overseas Shipholding Group (OSG)
COMMENTER
Chris Flanagan, Vice President
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 19
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1
Stakeholder General
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 1.2
Oppose Federal action
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 6.2.4 Anti-fouling Hull Coatings
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 6.2.5 Aqueous Film Forming Foam
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 6.2.7 Cathodic Protection
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 6.2.9 Controllable Pitch Propeller Hydraulic Fluid
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 6.2.12 Firemain Systems
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
EXCERPT 15
CHAPTER 6.2.20 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge
EXCERPT 16
CHAPTER 6.2.28 Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater Discharge
EXCERPT 17
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 18
CHAPTER 1
Stakeholder General
EXCERPT 19
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0345.1
AFFILIATE:
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA)
COMMENTER
John Berge, Vice President
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 15
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 6.1.5 Compliance with other Statutes and Regulations
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 11
Environmental Impacts
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 16
BAT/BPT/BCT
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
I-29
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
EXCERPT 14
EXCERPT 15
CHAPTER 1
CHAPTER 1.2
Stakeholder General
Oppose Federal action
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0346
AFFILIATE:
None
COMMENTER
Anonymous
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 2
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1
Stakeholder General
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 1
Stakeholder General
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0347
AFFILIATE:
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ)
COMMENTER
Ellen Gilinsky, Ph.D., Director, Water Division
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 4
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0348.1
AFFILIATE:
State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA)
COMMENTER
Laura Powell, Assistant Director
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 6
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 6.2.3.1 Absence/Presence of Numerical Standard/Specific Treatment Technologies
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 10.7 Vessels Employing Experimental Ballast Water Treatment Systems
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 10.5 Research Vessels
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6.2
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Specific Discharges
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0349.1
AFFILIATE:
Polska Zegluga Morska (POLSTEAM)
COMMENTER
Christine A. Fazio, Counsel, Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 6
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 6.2.3.1 Absence/Presence of Numerical Standard/Specific Treatment Technologies
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 16
BAT/BPT/BCT
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0352.1
AFFILIATE:
National Maintenance and Repair, Inc.
COMMENTER
Ryan W. Ball, Environmental Manager
Date Submitted:
8/4/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0353.1
AFFILIATE:
American Canadian Caribbean Line, Inc. (ACCL)
COMMENTER
Peter DiMarco, Port Captain/CSO
Date Submitted:
8/5/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 8
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6.2.3 Ballast Water
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.2.12 Firemain Systems
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.2.20 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
I-30
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0354.1
AFFILIATE:
American Petroleum Institute (API)
COMMENTER
Kendra L. Martin, Director, Maritime and Corporate Affairs
Date Submitted:
8/5/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 20
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.1.5 Compliance with other Statutes and Regulations
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 6.2.3.3 Pacific Near Shore Voyages requirements
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 6.4
Discharges Not Included in Proposed Permit
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 6.2.7 Cathodic Protection
EXCERPT 15
CHAPTER 6.2.8 Chain Locker Effluent
EXCERPT 16
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 17
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 18
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 19
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 20
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0355.1
AFFILIATE:
Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
COMMENTER
Thomas O. Lind, General Counsel and Secretary
Date Submitted:
8/5/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 7
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.2
Oppose Federal action
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 10.3 Barges
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6.2
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Specific Discharges
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.2.7 Cathodic Protection
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 1
Stakeholder General
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0356
AFFILIATE:
Beaver Island Boat Company (BIBCO)
COMMENTER
Margo S. Marks, President
Date Submitted:
8/5/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 11
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.1.4 Discharge of Oil Including Oily Mixtures
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.2.7 Cathodic Protection
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.2.11 Elevator Pit Effluent
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 6.2.12 Firemain Systems
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0358.1
AFFILIATE:
Casco Bay Island Transit District (CBITD)
COMMENTER
Captain R. S. Horr, Assistant Operations Manager
Date Submitted:
8/5/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 14
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.1.4 Discharge of Oil Including Oily Mixtures
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
I-31
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
EXCERPT 8
EXCERPT 9
EXCERPT 10
EXCERPT 11
EXCERPT 12
EXCERPT 13
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 6.2.7
CHAPTER 6.2.11
CHAPTER 6.2.12
CHAPTER 6.2.15
CHAPTER 6.2.20
CHAPTER 9
CHAPTER 10.2
Cathodic Protection
Elevator Pit Effluent
Firemain Systems
Graywater
Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
Ferries
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0360.1
AFFILIATE:
Daggett Law Firm
COMMENTER
Thomas W. Daggett
Date Submitted:
8/5/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 3
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 6.2.3.1 Absence/Presence of Numerical Standard/Specific Treatment Technologies
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0361.1
AFFILIATE:
Kirby Corporation
COMMENTER
Gerald A. Gallion, Corporate Counsel
Date Submitted:
8/5/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 8
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.2
Oppose Federal action
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 10.3 Barges
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6.2.7 Cathodic Protection
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 10.3 Barges
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0362.1
AFFILIATE:
Lake Carriers' Association (LCA)
COMMENTER
James H. I. Weakley, President
Date Submitted:
8/5/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 38
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.2
Oppose Federal action
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.1.5 Compliance with other Statutes and Regulations
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 6.2.4 Anti-fouling Hull Coatings
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 6.2.5 Aqueous Film Forming Foam
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 15
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
EXCERPT 16
CHAPTER 6.2.3 Ballast Water
EXCERPT 17
CHAPTER 6.2.6 Boiler/Economizer Blowdown
EXCERPT 18
CHAPTER 6.2.8 Chain Locker Effluent
EXCERPT 19
CHAPTER 6.2.9 Controllable Pitch Propeller Hydraulic Fluid
EXCERPT 20
CHAPTER 6.2.10 Distillation and Reverse Osmosis Brine
EXCERPT 21
CHAPTER 6.2.11 Elevator Pit Effluent
EXCERPT 22
CHAPTER 6.2.12 Firemain Systems
EXCERPT 23
CHAPTER 6.2.19 Rudder Bearing Lubrication Discharge
EXCERPT 24
CHAPTER 6.2.13 Freshwater Layup
EXCERPT 25
CHAPTER 6.2.17 Non-Oily Machinery Wastewater
EXCERPT 26
CHAPTER 6.2.18 Refrigeration and Air Condensate Discharge
EXCERPT 27
CHAPTER 6.2.20 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge
EXCERPT 28
CHAPTER 6.2.21 Seawater Piping Biofouling Prevention
EXCERPT 29
CHAPTER 6.2.22 Small Boat Engine Wet Exhaust
EXCERPT 30
CHAPTER 6.2.24 Stern Tube Oily Discharge
EXCERPT 31
CHAPTER 1.2
Oppose Federal action
EXCERPT 32
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 33
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
I-32
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
EXCERPT 34
EXCERPT 35
EXCERPT 36
EXCERPT 37
EXCERPT 38
CHAPTER 13
CHAPTER 6
CHAPTER 7
CHAPTER 4
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
Effluent Limits
Corrective Action
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
Other Permitting Issues
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0363.1
AFFILIATE:
Liberty Maritime Corporation (Liberty)
COMMENTER
Lawrence I. Kiern, Winston & Strawn, LLP
Date Submitted:
8/5/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 17
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 11
Environmental Impacts
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 15
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 16
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 17
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0364.1
AFFILIATE:
Living Classrooms Foundation
COMMENTER
Captain Peter Bolster, Director of Shipboard Operations
Date Submitted:
8/5/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 5
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 8
Enforcement Issues
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6.2.12 Firemain Systems
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0365
AFFILIATE:
Various
COMMENTER
Public Hearing Comments
Date Submitted:
8/5/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 37
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 8
Enforcement Issues
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 2
Recreational Vessel Comments/Misfiled Comments
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 1.2
Oppose Federal action
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 10.3 Barges
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 2
Recreational Vessel Comments/Misfiled Comments
EXCERPT 15
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 16
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 17
CHAPTER 6.1.5 Compliance with other Statutes and Regulations
EXCERPT 18
CHAPTER 6.2
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Specific Discharges
EXCERPT 19
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 20
CHAPTER 6.2.25 Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharge
EXCERPT 21
CHAPTER 2
Recreational Vessel Comments/Misfiled Comments
EXCERPT 22
CHAPTER 6.2.25 Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharge
EXCERPT 23
CHAPTER 1.3
Other
EXCERPT 24
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
I-33
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
EXCERPT 25
EXCERPT 26
EXCERPT 27
EXCERPT 28
EXCERPT 29
EXCERPT 30
EXCERPT 31
EXCERPT 32
EXCERPT 33
EXCERPT 34
EXCERPT 35
EXCERPT 36
EXCERPT 37
CHAPTER 6.1.5
CHAPTER 10.1
CHAPTER 1.1
CHAPTER 3
CHAPTER 6.4
CHAPTER 7
CHAPTER 9
CHAPTER 1
CHAPTER 9
CHAPTER 6.1.4
CHAPTER 9
CHAPTER 6.2
CHAPTER 14
Compliance with other Statutes and Regulations
Cruise Ships
Support Federal action
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
Discharges Not Included in Proposed Permit
Corrective Action
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
Stakeholder General
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
Discharge of Oil Including Oily Mixtures
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Specific Discharges
401 Certification/State Issues
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0367.1
AFFILIATE:
Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA)
COMMENTER
Don Morrison, President
Date Submitted:
8/5/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 9
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.2.24 Stern Tube Oily Discharge
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0368.1
AFFILIATE:
Block Island Ferry Services, LLC (BIFS)
COMMENTER
Adam Wronowski, Owner and Managing Member
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 21
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.1.5 Compliance with other Statutes and Regulations
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.1
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for All Vessels
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 6.2.3 Ballast Water
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 6.2.7 Cathodic Protection
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 6.2.8 Chain Locker Effluent
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 6.2.11 Elevator Pit Effluent
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 6.2.12 Firemain Systems
EXCERPT 15
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
EXCERPT 16
CHAPTER 6.2.20 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge
EXCERPT 17
CHAPTER 6.2.21 Seawater Piping Biofouling Prevention
EXCERPT 18
CHAPTER 6.2.25 Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharge
EXCERPT 19
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 20
CHAPTER 10.2 Ferries
EXCERPT 21
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0369.1
AFFILIATE:
Atlantis Adventures Hawaii
COMMENTER
Timothy P. McKeague, Safety and Training Supervisor, Company Security Officer
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 8
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 6.1.4 Discharge of Oil Including Oily Mixtures
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6.2.12 Firemain Systems
I-34
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
EXCERPT 7
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.2.20 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0370.1
AFFILIATE:
Atlantic Marine Florida, LLC (AMF) and Atlantic Marine Mayport, LLC (AMM)
COMMENTER
Wayne S. Holt, Environmental & Safety Director
Date Submitted:
8/5/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 2
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1
Stakeholder General
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0371.1
AFFILIATE:
Thames Towboat Company, Inc. (TTB)
COMMENTER
John P. Wronowski, Owner and President
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 20
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.1.5 Compliance with other Statutes and Regulations
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.1
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for All Vessels
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 6.2.3 Ballast Water
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 6.2.7 Cathodic Protection
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 6.2.8 Chain Locker Effluent
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 6.2.12 Firemain Systems
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
EXCERPT 15
CHAPTER 6.2.20 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge
EXCERPT 16
CHAPTER 6.2.21 Seawater Piping Biofouling Prevention
EXCERPT 17
CHAPTER 6.2.25 Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharge
EXCERPT 18
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 19
CHAPTER 10.2 Ferries
EXCERPT 20
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0372.1
AFFILIATE:
Lindblad Expeditions
COMMENTER
Captain Michael O. Jones, Director of Marine Operations
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 11
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.2
Oppose Federal action
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 1
Stakeholder General
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6.1.4 Discharge of Oil Including Oily Mixtures
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.2.20 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 10.1.2 Medium Cruise Ships
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0374.1
AFFILIATE:
Fednav International Ltd. (FIL)
COMMENTER
Philippe Roderbourg, Manager, Operations
Date Submitted:
8/5/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0376.1
AFFILIATE:
Foss Maritime Company
COMMENTER
Susan Hayman, Vice President, Environmental and Corporate Development
Date Submitted:
8/5/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 9
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.2
Oppose Federal action
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
I-35
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
EXCERPT 3
EXCERPT 4
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 7
EXCERPT 8
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 9
CHAPTER 6.2.7
CHAPTER 6.2.12
CHAPTER 6.2.15
CHAPTER 4
CHAPTER 5
CHAPTER 1
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
Cathodic Protection
Firemain Systems
Graywater
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
Stakeholder General
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0377.1
AFFILIATE:
Holland America Line
COMMENTER
William J. Morani Jr., Vice President, Environmental Management Systems
Date Submitted:
8/5/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0378.1
AFFILIATE:
Ingram Barge Company (Ingram Barge)
COMMENTER
David Sehrt, Senior Vice President, Chief Operations Officer
Date Submitted:
8/5/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 18
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 6.1.1 Material Storage
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 6.2.12 Firemain Systems
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 6.3
Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 15
CHAPTER 7
Corrective Action
EXCERPT 16
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 17
CHAPTER 10.3 Barges
EXCERPT 18
CHAPTER 12
Economics
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0379.1
AFFILIATE:
Marine Resources Group (MRG)
COMMENTER
Arthur J. Volkle, Jr., Vice President & General Counsel
Date Submitted:
8/6/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 12
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.2.12 Firemain Systems
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 6.4
Discharges Not Included in Proposed Permit
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0380.1
AFFILIATE:
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
COMMENTER
Paul Eger, Assistant Commissioner
Date Submitted:
8/6/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 11
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 6.2.3 Ballast Water
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6.2.3.2 On-Shore Treatment of Ballast Water Ocean-Going Vessel Req'ts incl. Ballast Water
I-36
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
EXCERPT 7
EXCERPT 8
EXCERPT 9
EXCERPT 10
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 6.2.25 Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharge
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
CHAPTER 10.5 Research Vessels
CHAPTER 10.7 Vessels Employing Experimental Ballast Water Treatment Systems
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0381.1
AFFILIATE:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
COMMENTER
James Leatherwood, Director, Environmental Management Division
Date Submitted:
8/6/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0382.1
AFFILIATE:
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES)
COMMENTER
Harry T. Stewart, P.E., Director, Water Division
Date Submitted:
8/6/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 10
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 10.1.2 Medium Cruise Ships
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 10.6 Rescue Boats
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.2.11 Elevator Pit Effluent
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.2.22 Small Boat Engine Wet Exhaust
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 10.1.1 Large Cruise Ships
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 10.5 Research Vessels
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0383.1
AFFILIATE:
The City of New York Law Department
COMMENTER
Ramin Pejan, Assistant Corporation Counsel, Environmental Law Division
Date Submitted:
8/6/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0383.2
AFFILIATE:
The City of New York Law Department
COMMENTER
Ramin Pejan, Assistant Corporation Counsel, Environmental Law Division
Date Submitted:
8/6/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 7
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.2.12 Firemain Systems
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0386.1
AFFILIATE:
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
COMMENTER
Andrew C. Zemba, Assistant Director, Water Planning Office
Date Submitted:
8/7/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0387.1
AFFILIATE:
Tidewater Marine, LLC
COMMENTER
Mark Sales, Regulatory and Systems Engineer
Date Submitted:
8/7/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 33
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1
Stakeholder General
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 8
Enforcement Issues
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
I-37
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
EXCERPT 8
EXCERPT 9
EXCERPT 10
EXCERPT 11
EXCERPT 12
EXCERPT 13
EXCERPT 14
EXCERPT 15
EXCERPT 16
EXCERPT 17
EXCERPT 18
EXCERPT 19
EXCERPT 20
EXCERPT 21
EXCERPT 22
EXCERPT 23
EXCERPT 24
EXCERPT 25
EXCERPT 26
EXCERPT 27
EXCERPT 28
EXCERPT 29
EXCERPT 30
EXCERPT 31
EXCERPT 32
EXCERPT 33
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
CHAPTER 6.2.3.2 On-Shore Treatment of Ballast Water Ocean-Going Vessel Req'ts incl. Ballast Water
CHAPTER 6.2.3.3 Pacific Near Shore Voyages requirements
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
CHAPTER 2
Recreational Vessel Comments/Misfiled Comments
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
CHAPTER 6.2.5 Aqueous Film Forming Foam
CHAPTER 6.2.24 Stern Tube Oily Discharge
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
CHAPTER 6.1.1 Material Storage
CHAPTER 6.1.2 Toxic and Hazardous Materials
CHAPTER 6.1.5 Compliance with other Statutes and Regulations
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
CHAPTER 6.2.3 Ballast Water
CHAPTER 6.2.8 Chain Locker Effluent
CHAPTER 6.2.17 Non-Oily Machinery Wastewater
CHAPTER 6.2.20 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge
CHAPTER 6.2.25 Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharge
CHAPTER 7
Corrective Action
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
CHAPTER 10
Vessel Class Specific Requirements
CHAPTER 10.5 Research Vessels
CHAPTER 10.6 Rescue Boats
CHAPTER 1
Stakeholder General
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0388.1
AFFILIATE:
Transportation Institute (TI)
COMMENTER
James L. Henry, President
Date Submitted:
8/7/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 6
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 11
Environmental Impacts
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0389.1
AFFILIATE:
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
COMMENTER
Anda A. Ray, Vice President, Environmental Stewardship and Policy
Date Submitted:
8/7/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 7
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6.2.4 Anti-fouling Hull Coatings
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.2.22 Small Boat Engine Wet Exhaust
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6.3
Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0390.1
AFFILIATE:
Madison Coal & Supply Company, Inc.
COMMENTER
William R. Barr
Date Submitted:
8/8/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 2
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 1.2
Oppose Federal action
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0391.1
AFFILIATE:
Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd.
COMMENTER
George F. Wright, Senior Vice President, Marine Operations
Date Submitted:
8/8/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
I-38
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0392.2
AFFILIATE:
American Shipbuilding Association (ASA)
COMMENTER
Cynthia L. Brown, President
Date Submitted:
8/1/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 4
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0393.1
AFFILIATE:
Interstate Navigation Company (The Block Island Ferry)
COMMENTER
Christian Myers, Vessel Operations Manager/Port Captain
Date Submitted:
8/5/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 20
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.2
Oppose Federal action
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 6.1.4 Discharge of Oil Including Oily Mixtures
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 6.2.7 Cathodic Protection
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 6.2.11 Elevator Pit Effluent
EXCERPT 15
CHAPTER 6.2.12 Firemain Systems
EXCERPT 16
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
EXCERPT 17
CHAPTER 6.2.20 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge
EXCERPT 18
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 19
CHAPTER 10.2 Ferries
EXCERPT 20
CHAPTER 1.2
Oppose Federal action
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0395.1
AFFILIATE:
A.P. Moller - Maersk Group
COMMENTER
William R. Williams, Captain U.S. Navy (Retired), Vice President Health, Safety, Environment and Quality
Date Submitted:
8/6/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 43
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1
Stakeholder General
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6.1.1 Material Storage
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 17
Responsibility of Owners Versus Operators [e.g., lease vs. own]
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 6.2
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Specific Discharges
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 6.4
Discharges Not Included in Proposed Permit
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 15
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 16
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 17
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
EXCERPT 18
CHAPTER 6.2.3 Ballast Water
EXCERPT 19
CHAPTER 6.2.4 Anti-fouling Hull Coatings
EXCERPT 20
CHAPTER 6.2.5 Aqueous Film Forming Foam
EXCERPT 21
CHAPTER 6.2.6 Boiler/Economizer Blowdown
EXCERPT 22
CHAPTER 6.2.7 Cathodic Protection
EXCERPT 23
CHAPTER 6.2.8 Chain Locker Effluent
EXCERPT 24
CHAPTER 6.2.9 Controllable Pitch Propeller Hydraulic Fluid
EXCERPT 25
CHAPTER 6.2.10 Distillation and Reverse Osmosis Brine
EXCERPT 26
CHAPTER 6.2.11 Elevator Pit Effluent
EXCERPT 27
CHAPTER 6.2.12 Firemain Systems
EXCERPT 28
CHAPTER 6.2.13 Freshwater Layup
I-39
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
EXCERPT 29
EXCERPT 30
EXCERPT 31
EXCERPT 32
EXCERPT 33
EXCERPT 34
EXCERPT 35
EXCERPT 36
EXCERPT 37
EXCERPT 38
EXCERPT 39
EXCERPT 40
EXCERPT 41
EXCERPT 42
EXCERPT 43
CHAPTER 6.2.14
CHAPTER 6.2.15
CHAPTER 6.2.16
CHAPTER 6.2.17
CHAPTER 6.2.18
CHAPTER 6.2.19
CHAPTER 6.2.20
CHAPTER 6.2.21
CHAPTER 6.2.22
CHAPTER 6.2.24
CHAPTER 6.2.23
CHAPTER 6.2.25
CHAPTER 6.2.26
CHAPTER 6.2.27
CHAPTER 6.2.28
Gas Turbine Wash Water
Graywater
Motor Gasoline and Compensating Discharge
Non-Oily Machinery Wastewater
Refrigeration and Air Condensate Discharge
Rudder Bearing Lubrication Discharge
Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge
Seawater Piping Biofouling Prevention
Small Boat Engine Wet Exhaust
Stern Tube Oily Discharge
Sonar Dome Discharge
Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharge
Welldeck Discharges
Graywater Mixed with Sewage
Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater Discharge
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0396.1
AFFILIATE:
National Paint and Coatings Association Marine Antifouling Working Group (NPCA AFWG)
COMMENTER
John Kelly, Chairman
Date Submitted:
8/7/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 6.2.4 Anti-fouling Hull Coatings
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0396.2
AFFILIATE:
National Paint and Coatings Association Marine Antifouling Working Group (NPCA AFWG)
COMMENTER
John Kelly, Chairman
Date Submitted:
8/7/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 6.2.4 Anti-fouling Hull Coatings
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0396.3
AFFILIATE:
National Paint and Coatings Association Marine Antifouling Working Group (NPCA AFWG)
COMMENTER
John Kelly, Chairman
Date Submitted:
8/7/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 2
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 6.2.4 Anti-fouling Hull Coatings
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0398.1
AFFILIATE:
Pride of Baltimore, Inc.
COMMENTER
Linda Christenson, Executive Director, and Captain Jan Miles, Professional Mariner
Date Submitted:
8/7/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0400.1
AFFILIATE:
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
COMMENTER
James G. DeZolt, P.E., Director, Division of Water, for Alexander B. Grannis, Commissioner
Date Submitted:
8/6/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 2
Recreational Vessel Comments/Misfiled Comments
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0404.1
AFFILIATE:
River Cruises
COMMENTER
Kevin and Carrie Stier, Owner/Operators
Date Submitted:
8/7/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 14
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.1.4 Discharge of Oil Including Oily Mixtures
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 6.2.7 Cathodic Protection
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 6.2.11 Elevator Pit Effluent
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 6.2.12 Firemain Systems
I-40
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
EXCERPT 12
EXCERPT 13
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
CHAPTER 1.3
Other
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0405
AFFILIATE:
Rock the Earth
COMMENTER
Marc A. Ross, President & Executive Director
Date Submitted:
8/7/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 7
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 18
Tetrachloroethylene
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.2.3.2 On-Shore Treatment of Ballast Water Ocean-Going Vessel Req'ts incl. Ballast Water
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6.2.3.3 Pacific Near Shore Voyages requirements
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 10.1 Cruise Ships
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0406.1
AFFILIATE:
Shipbuilders Council of America (SCA)
COMMENTER
John L. Wittenborn, Outside Council
Date Submitted:
8/7/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 2
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1
Stakeholder General
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0407.1
AFFILIATE:
Severn Trent De Nora, LLC
COMMENTER
Randy Fernandez, Vice President
Date Submitted:
8/7/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 3
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 6.2.3.1 Absence/Presence of Numerical Standard/Specific Treatment Technologies
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6.2.3.1 Absence/Presence of Numerical Standard/Specific Treatment Technologies
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0408.1
AFFILIATE:
California Environmental Protection Agency
COMMENTER
Darrin Polhemus, Deputy Director, Division of Water Quality, State Water Resources Control Board
Date Submitted:
8/7/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 2
Recreational Vessel Comments/Misfiled Comments
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0408.2
AFFILIATE:
California Environmental Protection Agency
COMMENTER
Darrin Polhemus, Deputy Director, Division of Water Quality, State Water Resources Control Board
Date Submitted:
8/7/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 4
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6.2
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Specific Discharges
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0409.1
AFFILIATE:
V. Ships Leisure S.A.M.
COMMENTER
Stanislav Kozhuharov, Marine Superintendent (Environmental)
Date Submitted:
8/7/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 5
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 6.4
Discharges Not Included in Proposed Permit
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 10
Vessel Class Specific Requirements
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
I-41
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0410.1
AFFILIATE:
State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology)
COMMENTER
Bill Moore, P.E., Manager, Program Development Services, Water Quality Program
Date Submitted:
8/7/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 15
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6.4
Discharges Not Included in Proposed Permit
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 7
Corrective Action
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 10.1.1 Large Cruise Ships
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 10.1.2 Medium Cruise Ships
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 10.1.1 Large Cruise Ships
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 10.1.2 Medium Cruise Ships
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 10.2 Ferries
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 6.2.3.2 On-Shore Treatment of Ballast Water Ocean-Going Vessel Req'ts incl. Ballast Water
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 6.2.3.3 Pacific Near Shore Voyages requirements
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 15
CHAPTER 10.7 Vessels Employing Experimental Ballast Water Treatment Systems
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0411.1
AFFILIATE:
State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
COMMENTER
Russell Rasmussen, Director, Bureau of Watershed Management
Date Submitted:
8/7/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 10
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 6.2.3 Ballast Water
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6.2.3.1 Absence/Presence of Numerical Standard/Specific Treatment Technologies
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 8
Enforcement Issues
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 8
Enforcement Issues
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.2.3.3 Pacific Near Shore Voyages requirements
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0412
AFFILIATE:
Professional Mariner, Pride of Baltimore, Inc.
COMMENTER
Jan C. Miles
Date Submitted:
8/7/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 16
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 11
Environmental Impacts
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.2.4 Anti-fouling Hull Coatings
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 6.2.25 Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharge
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 6.2.7 Cathodic Protection
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 6.2.8 Chain Locker Effluent
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 6.2.10 Distillation and Reverse Osmosis Brine
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 6.2.13 Freshwater Layup
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 6.2
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Specific Discharges
EXCERPT 15
CHAPTER 8
Enforcement Issues
EXCERPT 16
CHAPTER 10
Vessel Class Specific Requirements
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0413
AFFILIATE:
National Park Service
COMMENTER
Herbert C. Frost, Associate Director, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science
Date Submitted:
8/7/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 13
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 6.2.3 Ballast Water
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 6.2.3.1 Absence/Presence of Numerical Standard/Specific Treatment Technologies
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6.2.3.1 Absence/Presence of Numerical Standard/Specific Treatment Technologies
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
I-42
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
EXCERPT 7
EXCERPT 8
EXCERPT 9
EXCERPT 10
EXCERPT 11
EXCERPT 12
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 8
Enforcement Issues
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
CHAPTER 6.2.3.2 On-Shore Treatment of Ballast Water Ocean-Going Vessel Req'ts incl. Ballast Water
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
CHAPTER 6.2.8 Chain Locker Effluent
CHAPTER 10.7 Vessels Employing Experimental Ballast Water Treatment Systems
CHAPTER 6.2.3 Ballast Water
CHAPTER 10.7 Vessels Employing Experimental Ballast Water Treatment Systems
CHAPTER 2
Recreational Vessel Comments/Misfiled Comments
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0414.1
AFFILIATE:
Southeast Alaska Fishermen's Alliance (SEAFA)
COMMENTER
Kathy Hansen, Executive Director
Date Submitted:
8/8/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 7
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0416.1
AFFILIATE:
McGinnis, Inc.
COMMENTER
Dwaine Stephens, Vice President, Marine Operations,
Date Submitted:
8/11/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0417.1
AFFILIATE:
National Maintenance and Repair of Kentucky, Inc.
COMMENTER
Dwaine Stephens, Vice President, Marine Operations,
Date Submitted:
8/11/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0418.1
AFFILIATE:
National Maintenance and Repair, Inc.
COMMENTER
Kenny Spiers, Safety & Environmental Manager
Date Submitted:
8/4/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0419.1
AFFILIATE:
New York State Department of Conservation
COMMENTER
Francis Zagorski, Environmental Engineer III
Date Submitted:
8/7/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 18
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 6.2.3.1 Absence/Presence of Numerical Standard/Specific Treatment Technologies
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 11
Environmental Impacts
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6.3
Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.2.3.1 Absence/Presence of Numerical Standard/Specific Treatment Technologies
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6.2.3.3 Pacific Near Shore Voyages requirements
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 8
Enforcement Issues
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 18
Tetrachloroethylene
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 6.2.4 Anti-fouling Hull Coatings
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 6.2.3.1 Absence/Presence of Numerical Standard/Specific Treatment Technologies
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
EXCERPT 15
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 16
CHAPTER 6.2.3.3 Pacific Near Shore Voyages requirements
EXCERPT 17
CHAPTER 10.1.1 Large Cruise Ships
EXCERPT 18
CHAPTER 10.2 Ferries
I-43
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0420.1
AFFILIATE:
Ocean Shipholdings, Inc.
COMMENTER
Robert T. Miller, Counsel
Date Submitted:
8/7/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 13
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6.2.12 Firemain Systems
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.2.20 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 10.4 Oil/Petroleum Tankers
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0421.1
AFFILIATE:
ITT Corporation
COMMENTER
Jon A. Anderson, Vice President, Washington Operations
Date Submitted:
8/11/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 6.2.3.1 Absence/Presence of Numerical Standard/Specific Treatment Technologies
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0422.1
AFFILIATE:
Padelford Packet Boat Company, Padelford Riverboats
COMMENTER
Captain Gus Gaspardo, General Manager
Date Submitted:
8/7/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 7
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6.1.4 Discharge of Oil Including Oily Mixtures
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6.2
Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Specific Discharges
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0424.1
AFFILIATE:
Shaver Transportation Company
COMMENTER
Robert D. Rich, Director of Administration
Date Submitted:
8/11/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.2
Oppose Federal action
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0426.1
AFFILIATE:
Mid America Fuels, Inc.
COMMENTER
Dwaine Stephens, Vice President of Marine Operations
Date Submitted:
8/14/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0428.1
AFFILIATE:
National Association of Charterboat Operators (NACO)
COMMENTER
Captain Robert F. Zales II, President
Date Submitted:
8/14/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 4
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1
Stakeholder General
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 13
Other Permitting Issues
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
I-44
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0429.1
AFFILIATE:
American Cruise Lines
COMMENTER
Captain John B. Ayer, Marine Operations Manager
Date Submitted:
8/18/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 10.1.2 Medium Cruise Ships
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0429.2
AFFILIATE:
American Cruise Lines
COMMENTER
Captain John B. Ayer, Marine Operations Manager
Date Submitted:
8/18/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 12
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 1.1
Support Federal action
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 6.1.4 Discharge of Oil Including Oily Mixtures
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.2.1 Desk Washdown and Runoff
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.2.7 Cathodic Protection
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.2.11 Elevator Pit Effluent
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 6.2.12 Firemain Systems
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 6.2.15 Graywater
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 6.2.20 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0430
AFFILIATE:
California State Lands Commission
COMMENTER
Paul D. Thayer, Executive Officer
Date Submitted:
8/13/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0430.1
AFFILIATE:
California State Lands Commission
COMMENTER
Paul D. Thayer, Executive Officer
Date Submitted:
8/13/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 1
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 6.2.3.4 All other ballast water comments
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0431.1
AFFILIATE:
American Sail Training Association (ASTA)
COMMENTER
Bert Rogers, Executive Director
Date Submitted:
8/20/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 14
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6.2.4 Anti-fouling Hull Coatings
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 6.2.12 Firemain Systems
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.2.20 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 7
Corrective Action
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 12
Economics
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 9
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 14
401 Certification/State Issues
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0432.1
AFFILIATE:
Counsel for Lake Michigan Carferry, Inc .SS/Badger
COMMENTER
Barry M. Hartman
Date Submitted:
10/10/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 6
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 6.4
Discharges Not Included in Proposed Permit
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 5
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6.4
Discharges Not Included in Proposed Permit
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 11
Environmental Impacts
I-45
Comment Submittal Index Part 2, Comment Submittals Ordered by DCN
EXCERPT 5
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 6.4
CHAPTER 5
Discharges Not Included in Proposed Permit
Implementation/Compliance Assistance
DCN: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0433.1
AFFILIATE:
Southold Citizens for Safe Roads (SCSR), the Group for the East End (GEE) and North Fork
COMMENTER
Keri A. Christ
Date Submitted:
10/28/2008
Number of Comment Excerpts: 18
EXCERPT 1
CHAPTER 10.2 Ferries
EXCERPT 2
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 3
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 4
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 5
CHAPTER 6.2.3 Ballast Water
EXCERPT 6
CHAPTER 18
Tetrachloroethylene
EXCERPT 7
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 8
CHAPTER 6.3
Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 9
CHAPTER 10.2 Ferries
EXCERPT 10
CHAPTER 3
Applicability/Requesting Exemption of Any Class of Vessels
EXCERPT 11
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 12
CHAPTER 15
Legal Authority/Lawsuit Comments
EXCERPT 13
CHAPTER 6.2.3 Ballast Water
EXCERPT 14
CHAPTER 18
Tetrachloroethylene
EXCERPT 15
CHAPTER 4
Authorization/Termination/NOI/NOT
EXCERPT 16
CHAPTER 6
Effluent Limits
EXCERPT 17
CHAPTER 6.2.2 Bilgewater
EXCERPT 18
CHAPTER 10.2 Ferries
I-46
Comment Submittal Index Part 3, Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document,
Ordered by DCN
Document Control Number
Affiliate Name
Commenter Name
NOTES
I-47
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0265
Marine Retailers Association of America
(MRAA)
Phil Keeter, President and Robert Soucy, Chairman
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0270
Erie Pennsylvania Sport Fishing Association
Pete Alex, President
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0270.1
Erie Pennsylvania Sport Fishing Association
Pete Alex, President
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 263
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0272
Marine Spill Response Corporation
Chris Muzzy
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 271
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0273
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ)
Frank J. Baldwin, Acting Chief, Water Bureau
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0274
BAE Systems Ship Repair Inc.
Shaun Halvax
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0275
Wildlife Management Division, Arizona Game
and Fish Department
Bob Broscheid, Assistant Director
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0277
International Association of Drilling Contractors
John Pertgen, Assistant Director, Offshore Technical and
Regulatory Affairs
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0279
Four Seasons Marine Services
Loren Gerhard, Vice President - Marine Operations
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0280
National Maintenance and Repair of Kentucky,
Inc
Dylan Hesley, Environmental Manager
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0281
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Sean D. Logan, Director
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0282
Boat Company
Captain Joel Hanson
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0284
Dialysis At Sea Cruises (DASC)
Karen Yeates MD, FRCP (C). MPH, Medical Director
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0285
Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA)
Henry Eby, Manager, Environmental Affairs
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0286
SunQuest Cruises
James Murray II, General Manager
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0287
Marathon Oil Company
David Daly
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 287.1
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0288
Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission
W. P. Rybka, Erie Maritime Museum Administrator &
Senior Captain U.S. Brig NIAGARA
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0288.1
Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission
W. P. Rybka, Erie Maritime Museum Administrator &
Senior Captain U.S. Brig NIAGARA
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 278
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0290
Wildlife Management Division, Arizona Game
and Fish Department
Bob Broscheid, Assistant Director
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 275
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0290.1
Wildlife Management Division, Arizona Game
and Fish Department
Bob Broscheid, Assistant Director
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 275
Comment Submittal Index Part 3, Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document,
Ordered by DCN
Document Control Number
Affiliate Name
Commenter Name
NOTES
I-48
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0291
BAE Systems
Shaun Halvax
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 274
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0291.1
BAE Systems
Shaun Halvax
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 274
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0292
California Marine Invasive Species Program,
Marine Facilities Division (MFD), California
State Lands Commission
Maurya B. Falkner
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0293
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association (WWEMA)
Thomas Mills, Chairman of the Board
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 336
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0294
American Cruise Lines
Captain John B. Ayer, Marine Operations Manager
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0295
National Marine Manufacturers Association
(NMMA)
Scott Gudes, Vice President Government Relations
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0296
Atlantic Marine Alabama, LLC
Teresa Preston, Environmental, Health and Safety
Director
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0299
Excell Marine Corporation
Gordon Putzke, Operations Manager
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 299.1
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0300
Jacksonville Area Ship Repair Association
(JASRA)
Robert P. Birtalan, President
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0301
City of Los Angeles Harbor Department (LAHD)
Dr. Ralph G. Appy, Ph.D., Director of Environmental
Management Division
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0303
Department of Environmental Protection, State of Amey W. Marrella, Deputy Commissioner
Connecticut
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0304
None
Anonymous
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0305
Bath Iron Works (BIW)
Vince Dickinson, P.E., Manager, Environmental
Operations
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0306
United States Great Lakes Shipping Association
(USGLSA)
Stuart H. Theis, Executive Director
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0307
Sause Bros., Inc.
Tim Young
No Comments - Cover Page
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0309
Northwest Environmental Advocates, et al
Nina Bell, J.D., Executive Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0310
National Shipbuilding Research Program (NSRP)
John L. Wittenborn, Counsel, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0311.2
Great Lakes Office, National Wildlife Federation
et al.
Andy Buchsbaum, Regional Executive Director
No Comments Copyrighted
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0311.3
Great Lakes Office, National Wildlife Federation
et al.
Andy Buchsbaum, Regional Executive Director
No Comments Copyrighted
Comment Submittal Index Part 3, Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document,
Ordered by DCN
Document Control Number
Affiliate Name
Commenter Name
NOTES
I-49
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0311.4
Great Lakes Office, National Wildlife Federation
et al.
Andy Buchsbaum, Regional Executive Director
No Comments Copyrighted
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0311.5
Great Lakes Office, National Wildlife Federation
et al.
Andy Buchsbaum, Regional Executive Director
No Comments - Reference
Doc
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0313
Reinauer Transportation Companies, LLC
Alan L. Bish, Port Captain
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0314
Rowan Companies, Inc
Barbara A. Carroll PE, Vice President, Health, Safety and No Comments - Cover Page
Environmental Affairs
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0315
Rowan Companies, Inc
Barbara A. Carroll PE, Vice President, Health, Safety and No Comments - Duplicate
Environmental Affairs
of DCN 314
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0315.1
Rowan Companies, Inc
Barbara A. Carroll PE, Vice President, Health, Safety and No Comments - Duplicate
Environmental Affairs
of DCN 314
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0316
Great Lakes Commission (Commission)
Tim A. Eder, Executive Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0318
Rowan Companies, Inc
Barbara A. Carroll PE, Vice President, Health, Safety and No Comments - Cover Page
Environmental Affairs
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0318.1
Rowan Companies, Inc
Barbara A. Carroll PE, Vice President, Health, Safety and No Comments - Duplicate
Environmental Affairs
of DCN 314
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0319
Crowley Maritime Corporation
Charles F. Nalen, Vice President, Environmental, Safety
and Quality Assurance
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320
Chamber of Shipping of America and
INTERTANKO
Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs and Joseph J. No Comments - Cover Page
Angelo, Deputy Managing Director
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0322
Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.
John P. Wronowski, Owner and President
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0324
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC)
Lynn J. Tomich Kent, Director
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0325
San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency
Transportation Authority (WETA)
Speaker Pelosi
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0326
Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection
Amey W. Marrella, Deputy Commissioner
No Comments - Cover Page
No Comments - Cover Page
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0327
Shipping Federation of Canada
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0328
World Shipping Council
Charles Diorio
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0329
National Marine Manufacturers Association
(NMMA)
Cindy L. Squires, Esq., Chief Counsel for Public Affairs
and Director of Regulatory Affairs
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0330
Clean Oceans Technology Coalition and Nutech
03, Inc
Joel C. Mandelman, Chairman and Vice President &
General Counsel
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0331
E.N. Bisso & Son, Inc.
Michael F. Vitt, General Counsel
No Comments - Cover Page
Comment Submittal Index Part 3, Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document,
Ordered by DCN
Document Control Number
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0332
Affiliate Name
Friends of the Earth
Commenter Name
Marcie Keever, Clean Vessels Campaign Director
NOTES
No Comments - Cover Page
I-50
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0333
United Fisherman of Alaska (UFA)
Mark Vinsel, Executive Director
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0334
Passenger Vessel Association (PVA)
Michael Borgstrom, President
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0335
Washington Island Ferry Line Inc.
Richard Purinton, President
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0336
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association (WWEMA)
Thomas Mills, Chairman of the Board
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0337
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Steve Collins, CHMM (Certified Hazardous Materials
Manager), Director Environmental and Health Programs
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0339
Kiewit Corporation and General Construction
Company
Connie A. Determan, Vice President and Michael C.
Shaw, District Environmental Manager
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0339.2
Kiewit Corportaion and General Construction
Company
Connie A. Determan, Vice President and Michael C.
Shaw, District Environmental Manager
No Comments - Photos
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0340
Matson Navigation Company
Ronald J. Forest, Senior Vice President, Operations
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0341
Passenger Vessel Association (PVA)
Michael Borgstrom, President
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 334
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0341.1
Passenger Vessel Association (PVA)
Michael Borgstrom, President
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 334
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0342
Utility Water Act Group (UWAG)
James N. Christman, Hunton & Williams
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0343
The American Waterways Operators
Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President - National
Advocacy
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0344
Marine Technical, Overseas Shipholding Group
(OSG)
Chris Flanagan, Vice President
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0345
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA)
John Berge, Vice President
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0348
State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(Ohio EPA)
Laura Powell, Assistant Director
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0349
Polska Zegluga Morska (POLSTEAM)
Christine A. Fazio, Counsel, Carter Ledyard & Milburn
LLP
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0350
Water Emergency Transportation Authority
(WETA)
Mary Frances Culnane, Manager, Marine Engineering
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 325
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0350.1
Water Emergency Transportation Authority
(WETA)
Mary Frances Culnane, Manager, Marine Engineering
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 325
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0351
Shipbuilders Council of America (SCA)
John L. Wittenborn, Outside Counsel
No Comments - Cover Page
Comment Submittal Index Part 3, Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document,
Ordered by DCN
Document Control Number
Affiliate Name
Commenter Name
NOTES
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0351.1
Shipbuilders Council of America (SCA)
John L. Wittenborn, Outside Counsel
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 406.1
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0352
National Maintenance and Repair, Inc.
Ryan W. Ball, Environmental Manager
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0353
American Canadian Caribbean Line, Inc. (ACCL) Peter DiMarco, Port Captain/CSO
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0354
American Petroleum Institute (API)
Kendra L. Martin, Director, Maritime and Corporate
Affairs
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0354.2
American Petroleum Institute (API)
Kendra L. Martin, Director, Maritime and Corporate
Affairs
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 320, misfiled
No Comments - Cover Page
Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Thomas O. Lind, General Counsel and Secretary
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0357
Chamber of Shipping of America and
International Association of Independent Tanker
Owners (INTERTANKO)
Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs and Joseph J. No Comments - Duplicate
Angelo, Deputy Managing Director
of DCN 320
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0357.1
Chamber of Shipping of America and
International Association of Independent Tanker
Owners (INTERTANKO)
Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs and Joseph J. No Comments - Duplicate
Angelo, Deputy Managing Director
of DCN 320
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0358
Casco Bay Island Transit District (CBITD)
Captain R. S. Horr, Assistant Operations Manager
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0359
Cruise Line International Association (CLIA)
Steve Collins, Certified Hazardous Materials Manager
(CHMM), Director, Environmental and Health Programs
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 337
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0359.1
Cruise Line International Association (CLIA)
Steve Collins, Certified Hazardous Materials Manager
(CHMM), Director, Environmental and Health Programs
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 337
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0360
Daggett Law Firm
Thomas W. Daggett
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0361
Kirby Corporation
Gerald A. Gallion, Corporate Counsel
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0362
Lake Carriers' Association (LCA)
James H. I. Weakley, President
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0363
Liberty Maritime Corporation (Liberty)
Lawrence I. Kiern, Winston & Strawn, LLP
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0364
Living Classrooms Foundation
Captain Peter Bolster, Director of Shipboard Operations
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0366
Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.
John P. Wronowski, Owner and President
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 322
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0366.1
Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.
John P. Wronowski, Owner and President
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 322
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0367
Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA)
Don Morrison, President
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0368
Block Island Ferry Services, LLC (BIFS)
Adam Wronowski, Owner and Managing Member
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0369
Atlantis Adventures Hawaii
Timothy P. McKeague, Safety and Training Supervisor,
Company Security Officer
No Comments - Cover Page
I-51
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0355
Comment Submittal Index Part 3, Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document,
Ordered by DCN
Document Control Number
Affiliate Name
Commenter Name
NOTES
I-52
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0370
Atlantic Marine Florida, LLC (AMF) and Atlantic Wayne S. Holt, Environmental & Safety Director
Marine Mayport, LLC (AMM)
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0370.2
Atlantic Marine Florida, LLC (AMF) and Atlantic Wayne S. Holt, Environmental & Safety Director
Marine Mayport, LLC (AMM)
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 370.1
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0371
Thames Towboat Company, Inc. (TTB)
John P. Wronowski, Owner and President
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0372
Lindblad Expeditions
Captain Michael O. Jones, Director of Marine Operations
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0373
E.N. Bisso and Son, Inc.
Michael F. Vitt, General Counsel
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 331
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0373.1
E.N. Bisso and Son, Inc.
Michael F. Vitt, General Counsel
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 331
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0374
Fednav International Ltd. (FIL)
Philippe Roderbourg, Manager, Operations
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0375
Friends of the Earth
Marcie Keever, Clean Vessels Campaign Director
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 332
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0375.1
Friends of the Earth
Marcie Keever, Clean Vessels Campaign Director
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 332
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0376
Foss Maritime Company
Susan Hayman, Vice President, Environmental and
Corporate Development
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0377
Holland America Line
William J. Morani Jr., Vice President, Environmental
Management Systems
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0378
Ingram Barge Company (Ingram Barge)
David Sehrt, Senior Vice President, Chief Operations
Officer
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0379
Marine Resources Group (MRG)
Arthur J. Volkle, Jr., Vice President & General Counsel
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0380
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
Paul Eger, Assistant Commissioner
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0381
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA)
James Leatherwood, Director, Environmental
Management Division
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0382
New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services (NHDES)
Harry T. Stewart, P.E., Director, Water Division
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0383
The City of New York Law Department
Ramin Pejan, Assistant Corporation Counsel,
Environmental Law Division
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0384
Northwest Environmental Advocates et al.
Nina Bell, J.D., Executive Director
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0384.1
Northwest Environmental Advocates et al.
Nina Bell, J.D., Executive Director
No Comments - Report
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0384.2
Northwest Environmental Advocates et al.
Nina Bell, J.D., Executive Director
No Comments - Report
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0384.3
Northwest Environmental Advocates et al.
Nina Bell, J.D., Executive Director
No Comments - Permit
Comment Submittal Index Part 3, Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document,
Ordered by DCN
Document Control Number
Affiliate Name
Commenter Name
NOTES
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0384.4
Northwest Environmental Advocates et al.
Nina Bell, J.D., Executive Director
No Comments - Report
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0384.5
Northwest Environmental Advocates et al.
Nina Bell, J.D., Executive Director
No Comments - Permit
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0384.6
Northwest Environmental Advocates et al.
Nina Bell, J.D., Executive Director
No Comments - Report
I-53
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0384.7
Northwest Environmental Advocates et al.
Nina Bell, J.D., Executive Director
No Comments - Report
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0384.8
Northwest Environmental Advocates et al.
Nina Bell, J.D., Executive Director
No Comments Copyrighted
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0384.9
Northwest Environmental Advocates et al.
Nina Bell, J.D., Executive Director
No Comments Copyrighted
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0385
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
Francis Zagorski, Environmental Engineer III
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0385.1
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
Francis Zagorski, Environmental Engineer III
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 419
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0386
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection
Andrew C. Zemba, Assistant Director, Water Planning
Office
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0387
Tidewater Marine, LLC
Mark Sales, Regulatory and Systems Engineer
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0388
Transportation Institute (TI)
James L. Henry, President
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0389
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
Anda A. Ray, Vice President, Environmental Stewardship No Comments - Cover Page
and Policy
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0390
Madison Coal & Supply Company, Inc.
William R. Barr
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0391
Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd.
George F. Wright, Senior Vice President, Marine
Operations
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0392
American Shipbuilding Association (ASA)
Cynthia L. Brown, President
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0392.1
American Shipbuilding Association (ASA)
Cynthia L. Brown, President
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0393
Interstate Navigation Company (The Block Island Christian Myers, Vessel Operations Manager/Port Captain No Comments - Cover Page
Ferry)
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0394
Kiewit Corporation and General Construction
Company
Connie A. Determan, Vice President and Michael C.
Shaw, District Environment Manager
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 339
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0394.1
Kiewit Corporation and General Construction
Company
Connie A. Determan, Vice President and Michael C.
Shaw, District Environment Manager
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 339
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0394.2
Kiewit Corporation and General Construction
Company
Connie A. Determan, Vice President and Michael C.
Shaw, District Environment Manager
No Comments - All Photos
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0395
A.P. Moller - Maersk Group
William R. Williams, Captain U.S. Navy (Retired), Vice
President Health, Safety, Environment and Quality
No Comments - Cover Page
Comment Submittal Index Part 3, Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document,
Ordered by DCN
Document Control Number
Affiliate Name
Commenter Name
NOTES
I-54
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0396
National Paint and Coatings Association Marine
Antifouling Working Group (NPCA AFWG)
John Kelly, Chairman
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0397
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC)
James G. DeZolt, P.E., Director, Division of Water
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 419
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0398
Pride of Baltimore, Inc.
Linda Christenson, Executive Director, and Captain Jan
Miles, Professional Mariner
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0399
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC)
James G. DeZolt, P.E., Director, Division of Water, for
Alexander B. Grannis, Commissioner
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0399.1
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC)
James G. DeZolt, P.E., Director, Division of Water, for
Alexander B. Grannis, Commissioner
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 419
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0400
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC)
James G. DeZolt, P.E., Director, Division of Water, for
Alexander B. Grannis, Commissioner
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0401
California Environmental Protection Agency
Darrin Polhemus, Deputy Director, Division of Water
Quality, State Water Resources Control Board
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 408
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0401.1
California Environmental Protection Agency
Darrin Polhemus, Deputy Director, Division of Water
Quality, State Water Resources Control Board
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 408.2
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0401.2
California Environmental Protection Agency
Darrin Polhemus, Deputy Director, Division of Water
Quality, State Water Resources Control Board
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 408.1
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0402
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA)
John Berge, Vice President
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 345
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0402.1
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA)
John Berge, Vice President
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 345
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0403
Passenger Vessel Association (PVA)
Michael Borgstrom, President
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 334
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0403.1
Passenger Vessel Association (PVA)
Michael Borgstrom, President
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 334
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0404
River Cruises
Kevin and Carrie Stier, Owner/Operators
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0405.1
Rock the Earth
Marc A. Ross, President & Executive Director
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 405
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0406
Shipbuilders Council of America (SCA)
John L. Wittenborn, Outside Council
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0407
Severn Trent De Nora, LLC
Randy Fernandez, Vice President
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0408
California Environmental Protection Agency
Darrin Polhemus, Deputy Director, Division of Water
Quality, State Water Resources Control Board
No Comments - Cover Page
Comment Submittal Index Part 3, Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document,
Ordered by DCN
Document Control Number
Affiliate Name
Commenter Name
NOTES
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0409
V. Ships Leisure S.A.M.
Stanislav Kozhuharov, Marine Superintendent
(Environmental)
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0410
State of Washington Department of Ecology
(Ecology)
Bill Moore, P.E., Manager, Program Development
Services, Water Quality Program
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0411
State of Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (DNR)
Russell Rasmussen, Director, Bureau of Watershed
Management
No Comments - Cover Page
I-55
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0414
Southeast Alaska Fishermen's Alliance (SEAFA)
Kathy Hansen, Executive Director
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0415
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC)
James G. DeZolt, P.E., Director, Division of Water, for
Alexander B. Grannis, Commissioner
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 419
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0415.1
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC)
James G. DeZolt, P.E., Director, Division of Water, for
Alexander B. Grannis, Commissioner
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 419
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0416
McGinnis, Inc.
Dwaine Stephens, Vice President, Marine Operations,
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0417
National Maintenance and Repair of Kentucky,
Inc.
Dwaine Stephens, Vice President, Marine Operations,
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0418
National Maintenance and Repair, Inc.
Kenny Spiers, Safety & Environmental Manager
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0419
New York State Department of Conservation
Francis Zagorski, Environmental Engineer III
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0420
Ocean Shipholdings, Inc.
Robert T. Miller, Counsel
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0421
ITT Corporation
Jon A. Anderson, Vice President, Washington Operations
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0422
Padelford Packet Boat Company, Padelford
Riverboats
Captain Gus Gaspardo, General Manager
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0423
Southern States Offshore, Inc.
Philip Miranda
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0423.1
Southern States Offshore, Inc.
Philip Miranda
No Comments - NOI
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0423.2
Southern States Offshore, Inc.
Philip Miranda
No Comments - NOI
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0423.3
Southern States Offshore, Inc.
Philip Miranda
No Comments - NOI
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0423.4
Southern States Offshore, Inc.
Philip Miranda
No Comments - NOI
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0423.5
Southern States Offshore, Inc.
Philip Miranda
No Comments - NOI
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0424
Shaver Transportation Company
Robert D. Rich, Director of Administration
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0425
Living Classrooms Foundation
Peter Bolster, Director of Shipboard Operations
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 364
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0425.1
Living Classrooms Foundation
Peter Bolster, Director of Shipboard Operations
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 364
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0426
Mid America Fuels, Inc.
Dwaine Stephens, Vice President of Marine Operations
No Comments - Cover Page
Comment Submittal Index Part 3, Comment Submittals Not Included in the Comment Response Document,
Ordered by DCN
Document Control Number
Affiliate Name
Commenter Name
NOTES
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0427
Shipbuilders Council of America
John Wittenborn, Outside Counsel
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 406
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0427.1
Shipbuilders Council of America
John Wittenborn, Outside Counsel
No Comments - Duplicate
of DCN 406
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0428
National Association of Charterboat Operators
(NACO)
Captain Robert F. Zales II, President
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0429
American Cruise Lines
Captain John B. Ayer, Marine Operations Manager
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0431
American Sail Training Association (ASTA)
Bert Rogers, Executive Director
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0432
Counsel for Lake Michigan Carferry, Inc
.SS/Badger
Barry M. Hartman
No Comments - Cover Page
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0433
Southold Citizens for Safe Roads (SCSR), the
Group for the East End (GEE) and North Fork
Environmental Council (NFEC)
Keri A. Christ
No Comments - Cover Page
I-56
1.
STAKEHOLDER GENERAL
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Teresa Preston, Environmental, Health and Safety Director
Atlantic Marine Alabama, LLC
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0296.1
1
No
Comment: AMA strongly disagrees with EPA’s decision to vacate the national pollutant
discharge elimination system (NPDES) permitting exclusion in 40 C.F.R. § 122.3(a) for
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. However, since the recent ruling by the
U.S. District Court for the northern district of California (“District Court”) invalidates the
NPDES exemption, AMA recognizes that EPA is under order to institute some form of
permitting mechanism for these incidental discharges. AMA supports the EPA’s utilization of
the uniform national discharge standards for vessels of the armed forces (“unds”) rule as a
template for the proposed VGP.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. While EPA did use information about vessel
discharges from the UNDS rulemaking and related documents to aid in development of the VGP,
EPA did not use UNDS as a template for the VGP, as CWA Section 312 does not govern
NPDES permits.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Robert P. Birtalan, President
Jacksonville Area Ship Repair Association (JASRA)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0300.1
1
No
Comment: JASRA strongly disagrees with EPA’s decision to vacate the national pollutant
discharge elimination system (NPDES) permitting exclusion in 40 C.F.R. 5 122.3(a) for
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. However, since the recent ruling by the
us. District court for the northern district of California ("District Court") that invalidates the
NPDES exemption, JASRA recognizes that EPA must institute some form of discharge
permitting mechanism for these incidental discharges. JASRA supports the EPA’s utilization of
the uniform national discharge standards for vessels of the armed forces ("unds") rule as a
template for the proposed VGP.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. While EPA did use information about vessel
discharges from the UNDS rulemaking and related documents to aid in development of the VGP,
EPA did not use UNDS as a template for the VGP, as CWA Section 312 does not govern
NPDES permits.
1-1
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Captain Nico Corbijn, Executive Vice President - Operations
Majestic America Line and Windstar Cruises
Commerical Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0308
1
No
Comment: Please find included comments by Majestic America Line – a small US business
company headquartered in Seattle, WA, operating five large river cruise boats on the Mississippi,
Ohio, Columbia, and Snake Rivers – on the commercial vessel general permit (docket EPA-HQQW- 2008-0055).we respectfully, but urgently ask the EPA to review our comments and
remarks, as well as our proposals to move forward on the enormous task at hand to create an
NPDES permitting regime that fits the entire maritime industry.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Alan L. Bish, Port Captain
Reinauer Transportation Companies, LLC
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0313.1
1
No
Comment: As you can see, Reinauer Transportation feels that the tugboat and barge industry is
a very important contributor to the economy of the nation and feels that this commercial
enterprise is committed to doing the right thing, to be part of the solution in environmental
challenges instead of part of the problem. We would like to convey to you our comments. We
believe strongly that: * The NPDES is the wrong vehicle for regulating discharges incidental to
operating vessels in a constantly changing marine environment. * The regulations as proposed do
not reflect the realities of our industry, * We do recognize the need for the EPA to move forward
regarding these rules due to impending court rulings, but do so in a realistic manner. * It was
never the intent of the EPA to regulate discharges from mobile sources that travel thousands of
miles from one area of the country to another, * The marine industry has worked with EPA on
compiling vessel discharge data including volumes, best management practices (BMP), and
types of discharge, but this information was collected quickly and remains incomplete especially
in regard to the quantitative data provided relative to vessel types.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. EPA recognizes the difficulty of regulating
mobile sources under the NPDES program and has worked undertaken efforts, including
working with stakeholders, to ensure implementation of the VGP is compatible with shipboard
operations. Specific concerns with the provisions imposed by today’s permit are addressed
through this response to comment document. Additional information about the history of the
vessel exclusion and the court decision can be found in Section 2 of the Fact Sheet. For a
response to general concerns regarding the quality of information used in this permitting action,
see response to EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0337.1, Comment Excerpt Number: 2 (CC3).
1-2
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kenneth R. Wells, President
Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA)
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0323.1
1
No
Comment: Our association appreciates having the opportunity to comment on this vessel permit
rulemaking. It is an important one deserving of careful analysis and detailed response. The
offshore support vessel sector wants to comply with discharge requirements and it is important
that those requirements be drafted with a simplicity that encourages the broadest spectrum of
vessels to comply rather than be so complex that they wind up discouraging compliance. With
that in mind, we would offer the some broad recommendations before identifying some specific
and more detailed concerns.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. EPA has, among things, worked with
stakeholders to ensure implementation of the VGP is compatible with shipboard operations.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Michael F. Vitt, General Counsel
E.N. Bisso & Son, Inc.
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0331.1
14
No
Comment: While our comments do not identify all of the challenges associated with
compliance, it is clear that the vessel general permit, in its current form, is unrealistic and is
effectively impossible for several reasons. Compliance is more than an administrative burden.
Not only will compliance present a very real and significant economic and operational burden, it
will threaten the safety of the vessel, its crew and the environment. The science does not exist to
support this type of permitting - no one can quantify the benefit of compliance. And, if the VGP
does not fully consider the myriad of current and forthcoming regulations specific to vessels,
then owners and operators will be forced to comply with competing regulations, which is
impossible. Our company supports the efforts of all to minimize negative impacts to the
environment. As a responsible steward, we make every effort, every day, to provide our services
in an environmentally benign way. We agree with and adopt by reference many of the points
offered in the comments of the offshore marine service association and the American waterways
operators as they relate to the significant administrative burdens associated with compliance.
However, we respectfully request that all due attention be given to the points detailed in this
submission and that any attempt to regulate incidental discharges through a permitting regime be
done so with a keen eye toward meeting the economic and operational challenges associated with
compliance. In order to do this, EPA must comply with the congressional mandate to evaluate
the impacts of discharges incidental to the normal operations of all vessels, including the impacts
on our vessel types.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. EPA has worked with stakeholders and other
regulatory agencies to compile the best available data regarding vessel discharges and shipboard
1-3
operations. In addition, EPA has worked closely with the U.S. Coast Guard to ensure the permit
does not conflict with existing requirements and does not compromise vessel safety and has
expressly addressed safety, for example, by including appropriate safety exceptions to permit
requirements. Today’s permits were imposed under the CWA and its implementing regulations,
including those governing technology-based effluent limitations, which require that technologies
imposed be available and economically practicable and achievable, and thus protects against
imposition of unrealistic requirements.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Michael Borgstrom, President
Passenger Vessel Association (PVA)
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0334.1
1
No
Comment: Every passenger vessel, including those used for transportation purposes, relies on
the beauty of our waterways on which Americans want to vacation, travel and visit. Every
operator of a passenger vessel believes in contributing to the national effort to maintain and
improve water quality. We stand ready to comply with discharge requirements as required by
that act. At the same time, we ask that this permit, if required, be drafted with simplicity and
recognition of the differences between EPA’s reference work, the armed forces uniform national
standards and the domestic commercial fleet described above. That recognition and simplicity
would give the vessel owner a path to compliance, rather than being so complex that they cannot
comply.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Ronald J. Forest, Senior Vice President, Operations
Matson Navigation Company
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0340.1
1
No
Comment: As an ISO 14001 certified company, we fully support the need to minimize the
discharge of pollutants from our vessels and achieve this through the annual development of
environmental objectives and targets. Since 2002, it has been Matson policy to voluntarily
prohibit discharges through a vessel's oil/water separator or operation of incinerators while a
vessel is within 50 miles of land. This is known as the Matson environmental protection zone.
One of the biggest challenges in bilge water treatment is processing of emulsions. To address this
challenge, Matson installed a marinfloc ab emulsion breaking bilge water cleaning system on our
newest vessel Mv Maunalei in 2006. The unit performed so well that marinfloc units are being
installed throughout the fleet. Discharge and gps data are recorded and stored by tamperproof
monitoring system which provides verification of the accuracy of oil record book entries. Matson
has also been on the cutting edge of ballast water treatment technology having participated in
two demonstration projects. Our most recent project was installation of ecochlor's chlorine
1-4
dioxide ballast treatment system on the Itb Moku Pahu. Matson hopes to be one of the first
companies to obtain approval under the USCG's shipboard technology evaluation program
(step).
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
James N. Christman, Hunton & Williams
Utility Water Act Group (UWAG)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0342.1
1
No
Comment: UWAG is concerned primarily about tugboats, barges carrying coal, and small work
boats at hydroelectric and fossil generating facilities. There are many such vessels, of different
vintages and manufacturers and with many different operating companies.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President - National
Advocacy
The American Waterways Operators
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0343.1
3
No
Comment: In the wake of the appellate court decision (with which we respectfully disagree as a
matter of both law and public policy), it is essential that EPA proceed with extreme care to
develop a VGP that complies with the statutory requirements governing the NPDES program,
has practical application to vessel operations and truly results in enhanced environmental
protection. The proposed general permit as drafted requires significant modification on each of
these counts. Our comments are aimed at providing practical suggestions to EPA on needed
revisions to the proposed VGP (and the process by which it was produced) to meet these criteria
and avoid serious negative impacts on a vital segment of the U.S. transportation system.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. EPA has worked with stakeholders and other
regulatory agencies to compile the best available data regarding vessel discharges and shipboard
operations. In addition, EPA has worked closely with the U.S. Coast Guard to ensure the permit
does not conflict with existing requirements and does not compromise vessel safety.
1-5
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President - National
Advocacy
The American Waterways Operators
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0343.1
20
No
Comment: While the inclusion of these modifications will not change our view that the NPDES
program is the wrong vehicle for regulating vessel discharges, this action is critical to reducing
unnecessary administrative, economic and operational impacts that the permit will have on the
largest segment of the U.S. commercial vessel fleet.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. EPA has considered the commenter’s comments
and responded to them throughout this document. EPA has worked with stakeholders and other
regulatory agencies to compile the best available data regarding vessel discharges and shipboard
operations. In addition, EPA has worked closely with the U.S. Coast Guard to ensure the permit
does not conflict with existing requirements and does not compromise vessel safety. EPA
acknowledges that the commenter believes that NPDES is the wrong regulatory mechanism for
regulating vessel discharges.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Chris Flanagan, Vice President
Marine Technical, Overseas Shipholding Group (OSG)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0344.1
1
No
Comment: I appreciate the opportunity to provide vessel owner input regarding the EPA
proposed regulations regarding NPDES permits. OSG acknowledges and fully supports the need
for environmental stewardship and reducing pollution from ships. This effort requires a
commitment from both the public and private sectors in partnership for the development of
appropriate protection and compliance programs. The result will be programs that ensure the
protection of the environment but also take into consideration current maritime industry
practices, operational activities and costs. Coordination will greatly facilitate compliance efforts.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. EPA took into account all of the factors
identified, as appropriate. Additional information on the history of the vessel exclusion, the court
decision, and Congressional action can be found in Section 2 of the Fact Sheet.
1-6
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Chris Flanagan, Vice President
Marine Technical, Overseas Shipholding Group (OSG)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0344.1
18
No
Comment: In summary, OSG believes the EPA properly exempted these discharges by
regulation 35 years ago. Commercial vessels should be expressly exempted by statute from the
NPDES program as it is not the appropriate method to regulate discharges incidental to the
normal operation of vessels. OSG supports a single, Federal standard to govern vessel discharges
and prevent a patchwork of overlapping and conflicting Federal and state programs.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. Additional information on the history of the
vessel exclusion, the court decision, and Congressional action can be found in Section 2 of the
Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John Berge, Vice President
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0345.1
14
No
Comment: Conclusion PMSA’s member companies are committed to continuous improvement
regarding our operations and impacts on the environment. The industry has worked closely with
EPA in the development of an industry survey to assist in the collection of discharge information
including volumes, best management practices, and distributions of discharges. However, more
work is required to accurately and more comprehensively assess discharges and best practices
from individual ships, classes of ships, and the geographic distribution and differences of those
discharges over time. We will continue to work with EPA and other agencies to make sure policy
decisions are based on science, operational realities, risk management and safety.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment and for your commitment to working
cooperatively with EPA on environmental issues.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Anonymous
None
Private Citizen
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0346
1
No
Comment: General comment comments regarding vessel general permit for discharges
incidental to the normal operation of commercial vessels and large recreational vessels (VGP)
general comment #1 this permit is significantly flawed and significant corrections are necessary.
1-7
General comment #2 since significant changes are necessary to fix the flaws, this permit must be
re- proposed. General comment #3 many if not most of the effluent limits are too vague to
constitute effluent limits. It is almost impossible to determine compliance with the limits because
they are open to considerable interpretation. This means 3rd parties will not be able to assess
permittee compliance. General comment #4 40 CFR part 122.28(a)(1)(i-vii) provides direction
on the scope of area to be covered by a general permit. This permit covers an area far exceeding
anything described in the regulation, and therefore does not comply with the regulation. General
comment #5 the lack of detailed explanation in the fact sheet means it is impossible to assess the
adequacy of the limits and other requirements in the permit. The permit must be re-drafted and
re-proposed with an adequate fact sheet as required by 40 CFR 124.8 and 124.56. Below i have
included close to 30 comments directed at the fact sheet demonstrating it is inadequate. General
comment #6 since this permit was so significantly flawed, no review was done of the smaller
recreational vessel permit.
Response: At the outset, we note the commenter’s later specific comments are addressed in
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0346, excerpt 2, and will not be repeated here.
With respect to comment 1 (“permit is significantly flawed and significant corrections are
necessary”), we note this is a general assertion regarding the proposed VGP, without supporting
analysis or reasons, and with which we do not agree. We further note that we received a wide
variety of specific comments and recommendations on the proposed VGP and Fact Sheet, both
positive and negative, and based on all the comments received, we have made appropriate
revisions to the final VGP and Fact Sheet.
With respect to comment 2 (“since significant changes are necessary to fix the flaws, this permit
must be re-proposed”), as noted above we do not agree the proposed VGP was “significantly
flawed.”
With respect to comment 3 (effluent limits too vague to constitute effluent limits; impossible to
determine compliance because limits open to considerable interpretation; 3rd parties will not be
able to assess permittee compliance), we acknowledge the VGP employs non-numeric BMPs,
and note that the use of non-numeric BMPs for the types of discharges they address is allowable
under the CWA (see e.g., VGP Fact Sheet Part 4.1.2 discussion of non-numeric limits) In
addition, as explained in other responses to comments (e.g., responses to comments EPA-HQOW-2008-0055-0367.1, excerpt 4, EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0319.1, excerpt 4, and EPA-HQOW-2008-0055-0320.1, excerpts 14 and 16), we do not agree the BMPs prevent 3d parties from
assessing compliance.
With respect to comment 4 (“permit covers an area far exceeding anything described in [40 CFR
122.28(a)(1)(i-vii)], and therefore does not comply with the regulation”), we note that this is the
commenter’s unsupported opinion and is contradicted by the plain text of the regulation referred
to. 40 CFR 122.28(a)(1) provides general permits shall be written to cover one or more
categories or facilities “within a geographic area,” that “should” correspond to “existing
geographic or political boundaries”. The examples provided in subsections (i) – (vi) are part of
an open-ended list, which further provides in subsection (vii) for use of “any” other appropriate
division or combination of boundaries. The VGP has a clearly stated area of geographic
applicability that is directly relevant to the universe of facilities it regulates (vessels operating in
a capacity as a means of transportation): inland waters of the US and the 3 mile US territorial
1-8
sea. This is a defined area corresponding to existing geographic or political boundaries as
provided in 40 CFR 122.28(a)(1), and moreover, plainly falls within the example provided in
subsection (vii) as an “appropriate division or combination of boundaries.”
With respect to comment 5 (“lack of detailed explanation in the Fact Sheet”), we note that the
Fact Sheet is over 100 pages long, and provides a thorough discussion of the principal facts and
significant factual, legal, methodological and policy questions considered in preparing the draft
VGP, including an explanation of the derivation of its specific effluent limitations. We further
note the VGP (and the VGP docket) include an extensive list of references and scientific
literature and studies relief upon in preparation of the VGP. See also, response to comment 2
immediately above. The commenter’s “close to 30 comments directed at the Fact Sheet” are
addressed in response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0346, excerpt 2.
With respect to comment 6, we note the commenter did not review the RGP and further note the
RGP is not being finalized for the reasons set out in VGP Fact Sheet Part 2.6.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Anonymous
None
Private Citizen
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0346
2
No
Comment: #1 page 1 this paragraph indicates there are 6 Sections in the appendices but only
names 3. The appendices, listed here as parts 7 through 12, contain definitions, the notice of
intent form, and the notice of termination form.
Response: EPA has changed the permit provision cited from “contain” to “include” in order to
clarify that the named appendices are part of the appendices numbered 7 through 12.
Comment: #2 page 1 -- these first 2 bullets are not very clear. For the first bullet, it seems
outside the authority of an NPDES permit to require compliance with statutes and regulations
outside the scope of the CWA. For the second bullet, are the regulations also provided? -all
requirements in this permit to comply with statutes and regulations, other than Clean Water Act
Section 402 and its implementing regulations, refer to those authorities as codified as of the date
of Federal register notice announcing availability of draft permit. All requirements to comply
with specified statutes include the requirement to comply with any applicable implementing
regulations.
Response: EPA disagrees that it is outside of the authority of an NPDES Permit to require
compliance with other statutes and regulations, and explains the rationale for including the listed
statutes and regulations and relying on them to develop the permit requirements. See Part 2.1.5
of the VGP and 4.3.1.5 of the Fact Sheet. Section 4.3.1.5 also provides summaries of the statutes
and lists their implementing regulations, where appropriate. EPA notes commenter’s reiteration
of Part 1.1 of the VGP in the latter part of this comment excerpt.
1-9
Comment: #3 Section 1.4 permit compliance this covers the same material that is in NPDES
permit standard conditions 40 CFR 122.41 and permit Section 1.13. This is confusing as well as
potentially conflicting.
Response: While Part 1.4, titled “permit compliance,” has some overlap with NPDES standard
conditions, it does not cover “the same material that is in NPDES permit standard conditions 40
CFR 122.41 and Permit Section 1.13.” Commenter does not explain how this provision may be
seen as “potentially conflicting” with the VGP, and EPA disagrees that these two parts of the
VGP are confusing or conflicting. “Permit Compliance” clearly articulates the ramifications of
noncompliance with the permit, and also contains the requirements 40 C.F.R. 122.41(a), which is
a standard permit condition. However, Part 1.13 of the permit incorporates by reference the
entirety of 40 CFR 122.41, which has 13 subsections following (a), continuing through
122.41(n). Placing emphasis on an important aspect of the VGP, permit compliance, by
providing a separate section for it, is neither confusing, nor does it contradict the requirements of
the 1st standard permit condition, 122.41(a).
Comment: #4 Section 1.5.1 provides authority for vessels to discharge without permit coverage
for at least 6 months under what authority? CWA Section 301 prohibits discharge without a
permit. This is a significant abuse of EPA’s authority. The permit must clearly provide a
statutory or regulatory citation showing EPA’s authority or this must be removed from the
permit.
Response: Commenter is incorrect in stating that VGP Part “1.5.1 provides authority for vessels
to discharge without permit coverage.” The VGP does not authorize discharges without an
NPDES permit. The VGP, as an NPDES permit, authorizes discharges that comply with the
terms and conditions of the permit without submission of an NOI for the first six to nine months
after permit issuance. As the Fact Sheet notes, “prior to submitting NOIs, these vessels will still
be required to comply with all of the applicable terms and conditions of the permit.” Section
3.7.1 of the Fact Sheet. The commenter does not explain why for the permit must provide a
statutory or regulatory citation “showing EPA’s authority.” See Section 3.7.1 of the Fact Sheet,
which discusses the EPA’s authority to exercise its discretion and authorize discharges under a
general permit without submission of an NOI, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 122.28(b)(2)(v). In
accordance with this regulation, this discussion was part of the public notice of the proposed
VGP and Fact Sheet. EPA further notes that is specifically sought comment on this approach of
not requiring NOIs for all eligible dischargers in the Federal Register notice announcing the
availability of the proposed VGP for public comment.
Comment: #5 Section 1.5.2 should explain what happens to new discharges when the permit
expires and is not reissued similar to what is in the fact sheet.
Response: There is no requirement for the VGP to contain a discussion of what happens to new
dischargers after the VGP expires. As commenter notes, the VGP Fact Sheet provides an
explanation of this scenario, and this is consistent with CWA requirements and the NPDES
regulations.
Comment: #6 Section 1.7 this contains language that is not in the regulation at 122.22 (d).
Regulation Section 122.41 requires certification found at 122.22(d). Neither 122.22 or 122.41
1-10
provide for changing the language of the certification. This constitutes a regulatory change
without appropriate notice and comment and is a significant error.
Response: As commenter notes and EPA acknowledges, the certification language in Part 1.7 of
the VGP contains an additional sentence. As discussed in Section 3.9 of the Fact Sheet, EPA
believes this additional sentence is necessary because of a recent Court of Appeals decision.
Notice and comment is not required for the addition because it does not change the existing
regulatory certification language, but instead, merely adds a clarifying statement to address the
Court’s ruling. Moreover, EPA does not read its regulations to prohibit the Agency – or states
authorized to issue NPDES permits – from requiring of a prospective permittee certifications that
add to the text provided for in 40 CFR 122.22.
Comment: #7 Section 1.9.3 this section provides for changing the permit without following the
regulations at 122.62(a)(3)(i)(c). Modifying the permit based on effluent guidelines requires
agreement of the permittee. Further any changes to bpj limits would also require notice and
agreement by the permittee if done through a permit modification.
Response: Commenter is incorrect in stating that Part 1.9.3 of the VGP allows the VGP to be
modified without complying with the applicable regulations. Part 1.9.3 of the VGP is entitled
“timing of permit modification.” Part 1.9.1 discusses procedures for modification and explicitly
states that permit modification will be conducted in accordance with applicable listed
regulations, including 40 C.F.R. 122.62. EPA agrees that public notice and comment would be
required prior to making major modifications to the permit, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 122.62.
Comment: #8 Section 2.1.1 this section includes effluent limits. One of the limits states, "run
the water through an oily water separator or other appropriate technology so that the discharge
will not contain oil in quantities that may be harmful." this is too vague to be considered an
effluent limitation. A specific numeric value must be provided to establish the appropriate level
of control or the permit and fact sheet must include an explanation of the process the permit
writer used to determine numeric limits were not feasible. Given both no measurable oil and
grease and no visible sheen are potential limits and can be designated through numeric limits, it
is unlikely the permit writer can demonstrate numeric limits are not feasible.
Response: EPA disagrees that the cited permit provision is “too vague to be an effluent
limitation.” As the Fact Sheet explains in detail, “EPA has determined that it is not feasible for
the Agency to calculate numeric, technology-based limits for most of the discharges covered
under this permit, and, based on the authority of 40 CFR 122.44(k)(3), has chosen to adopt nonnumeric effluent limits.” See Section 4 of the Fact Sheet for an articulation of “EPA’s Decision
to Include Non-Numeric Technology-Based Effluent Limits in This Permit and Rationale for
Why the Limits Represent the Appropriate (BPT, BCT, or BAT) level of control.” Commenter
provides no basis for the assertion that numeric effluent limits for oil and grease are required for
discharges resulting from materials storage on a vessel, and commenter does not explain how it
is feasible to measure oil and grease in such discharges. EPA notes that deck runoff can be
generated from numerous portions of the vessel, and that the constituents in that runoff can vary
substantially dependent upon activities on deck. It is infeasible and innappropriate to establish
numeric limits at this time due to EPA’s inability to establish sampling points, sampling
frequency, or lack of vessels easy access to laboratories.
1-11
Comment: #9 Section 2.1.2 states, you must locate toxic and hazardous materials in protected
areas of the vessel unless the master determines... What is the definition of toxic and hazardous?
Again, too vague to be a limit.
Response: Based on this and other comments, the VGP now contains a definition of toxic and
hazardous materials in Part 7 of the VGP. EPA disagrees that Part 2.1.2 of the VGP is “too vague
to be a limit,” as commenter contends. See response to #8 above, which discusses the use of nonnumeric effluent limits in the VGP, and the consistency of those limits with the CWA and
implementing regulations. See also Section 4.3.1.2 of the Fact Sheet, which provides a detailed
explanation of the requirements for toxic and hazardous materials contained in Part 2.1.2,
including the statement that “these provisions effectively amount to a zero-discharge standard for
these toxic and hazardous materials from storage, spills, and containment.”
Comment: #10 Section 2.1.3 states, operators must not overfill fuel tanks. This is an effluent
limit, a BMP. However, it is not clear how this is to be reported on an annual basis as required by
40 CFR 122.44(i)(2).
Response: EPA is unsure of the meaning of this comment, but notes that overfilling fuel tanks
would be a violation of the VGP, and thus would be reported annually as an instance of
noncompliance, as required by the Permit. Commenter cites to 40 CFR 122.44(i)(2), which
requires the reporting of monitoring results on a case-by-case basis depending upon the nature
and effect of the discharge in question, and those results must be reported no less than once per
year. However, the regulation goes on to state, in 40 CFR 122.44(i)(5), that “permits which do
not require submittal of monitoring result reports at least annually shall require that the permittee
report all instances of noncompliance not reported under 122.41(l)(1), (4), (5), and (6) at least
annually.” Pursuant to this regulation, EPA notes that Part 4.4.1 of the VGP contains this
requirement to report all instances of noncompliance at least once per year.
Comment: #11 Section 2.1.3 requires training, but does not provide any direction concerning
how training should be done. Same is true for Section 2.2.3.1.
Response: For discussion of training requirements, please see response to comment EPA-HQOW-2008-0055-0323.1, excerpt 16 (EFL2CD).
Comment: #12 Section 2.2.3.4 states, if onshore treatment for ballast water is available and
economically practicable and achievable, all vessel owner/operators must use this treatment how
is economically practicable and achievable defined? This must be provided clearly and concisely
so 3rd parties can determine compliance with this effluent limitation.
Response: See response to comments: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0292.1, excerpt 11, other
comments contained within this response to comment document, and newly added language to
Part 4.4.3 of the fact sheet for an explanation of the onshore ballast water treatment requirements
and further articulation of the meaning of economically practicable and achievable.
Comment: #13 Sections 2.2.3 and on through 2.2.28 contain numerous vague narrative limits
and BMPs. These must be re-written to provide clear and specific requirements, including
monitoring and reporting so that 3rd parties can assess compliance with the permit. For instance,
Section 2.2.17 states, the discharge must be free from oils and any additives that are toxic or
1-12
bioaccumulative in nature. How is this to be measured? What is the definition of toxic or
bioaccumulative?
Response: Aside from 2.2.17, this comment does not explain why the permit requirements
might be seen as ambiguous. For an explanation of why the provisions cited to are not vague and
are consistent with the CWA and its implementing regulations, see #8 above. EPA notes that the
technology-based effluent limits have required monitoring and reporting requirements associated
with them, found in Part 4 of the VGP. The requirement in Part 2.2.17 of the VGP has been
clarified to state that when discharged overboard, non-oily machinery wastewater must be free
from oils and any additives that are toxic or bioaccumulative in nature. This means that such
discharges must not have any additives which contain those pollutants or constituents of concern.
See response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0277.1, excerpt 36 that discusses the
clarifications made to Part 2.2.17. See also response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-00550292.1, excerpt 21, which provides a discussion of additives which are toxic or bioaccumulative.
Comment: #14 Section 2.3.1 states, your discharge must be controlled as necessary to meet
applicable water quality standards. What does this mean? How will 3rd parties be able to judge
compliance? How will this be measured and reported so that 3rd parties can judge compliance?
The section also states, additionally, EPA may impose additional water quality-based limitations
on a site-specific basis, or require you to obtain coverage under an individual permit, if
information in your NOI (if applicable), required reports, or from other sources indicates that,
after meeting the water quality-based limitations in this section, your discharges are not
controlled as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards, either in the receiving
waterbody or another waterbody impacted by your discharges. EPA or an authorized
representative of EPA may inform vessel owner/operators of specific requirements via dock side
postings at marinas and ports or by specifically contacting the owner/operator of a vessel. 40
CFR 122.28 clearly requires all general permits to include the same water quality-based limits,
therefore this is contrary to regulatory requirements for general permits. also, this violates the
requirement to public notice permit modifications. this entire section must be re-written and clear
limits provided.
Response: See, e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0311.1, excerpt 4 for an
explanation of the VGP’s narrative water quality-based effluent limit (WQBEL). EPA
acknowedges that 40 C.F.R. 122.28(a) states that general permits must be issued in accordance
with certain requirements, including the requirement that “[w]here sources within a specific
category or subcategory [of discharges] are subject to water quality-based effluent limits
imposed pursuant to 122.44, the sources in that specific category or subcategory shall be subject
to the same water quality-based effluent limits.” EPA notes that Part 2.3 of the VGP provides
the same narrative water quality based effluent limitation for all permittees, and thus is not
“contrary to the regulatory requirements for general permits,” as commenter contends. In the
case of EPA informing permittees of specific requirements, there is no specific process in the
permit; EPA will follow any applicable procedural requirements.
Comment: #15 Section 3 this entire section is redundant and potentially conflicting with 40
CFR 122.41 requirements to mitigate.
Response: EPA disagrees that Part 3 of the VGP, which contains provisions for corrective
actions, is redundant, and commenter provides neither a basis for its claim of redundancy, nor an
1-13
explanation of what in the permit makes Part 3 redundant. EPA disagrees with the suggestion
that Part 3 conflicts with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. 122.41(d), “duty to mitigate,” which
requires that “the permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any
discharge…in violation of this permit which has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting
human health or the environment.” This regulatory provision addresses a subset of violations
that may adversely affect human health or the environment, and says nothing about what
happens if the permittee does in fact commit a violation. The corrective actions section explains
the process for coming into compliance when violations are discovered and clearly states that
“the initial occurrence of the problem in Part 3.1 [e.g., violation of an effluent limit], constitutes
a violation of the permit. Conducting the Part 3.2 assessment and correcting the problem
according to Part 3.3 does not absolve you of liability for this original violation.” See Part 3.4 of
the Permit.
Comment: #16 Section 4 it is not clear what is the purpose of the visual inspections. How is
noncompliance identified, documented and reported? What is the authority that allows visual
inspections to be required in the permit?
Response: In the VGP, routine visual inspections constitute the monitoring provisions for many
of the permit’s requirements, consistent with 40 C.F.R. 122.48(b), which specifies required
monitoring provisions in NPDES permits. Part 4.1.1.1 of the VGP outlines the requirements to
document the results of the inspections. Self-inspection requirements, including routine visual
inspections, have requirements to document findings, and that documentation contributes to the
required reporting. All of these provisions have been included in the permit pursuant to CWA
Sections 308 and 402(a)(2), 40 CFR 122.43(a), and other applicable implementing regulations
Comment: #17 Section 5.1.1 are these limits technology or water quality-based?
Response: Part 5.1.1 provides technology-based effluent limits for graywater discharges from
large cruise ships. See Section 7 of the Fact Sheet for further information about those limits.
Comment: #18 Section 5.1.1.1.1 this section includes the phrase, if reasonably available. Again,
this is too vague to be included in an effluent limitation. The limit must be changed to include
specific, detailed requirements that allow assessment by 3rd parties.
Response: EPA disagrees that the phrase “reasonably available” is too vague. See responses to
other comments in this document, including comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1, Excerpt
14, that discuss why the permit’s provisions are not vague.
Comment: #19 -- Section 5.1.1.1.1 states, if your vessel's holding capacity for graywater is
exceeded, treat such excess graywater (above the vessel holding capacity) by a device meeting
the standards in part 5.1.1.1.2 prior to discharge into nutrient impaired waters subject to this
permit or this is suppose to be for nutrient control. These limits have no relationship to nutrients
and therefore have no basis for being included in the permit as a nutrient control. This is another
significant error.
Response: Commenter provides no basis for its statement that inclusion of provisions of Part
5.1.1.1.1 constitute a “significant error.” The VGP contains the requirements of Part 5.1.1.1.1 as
technology-based effluent limits for large cruise ships, and the provisions cited by commenter
1-14
represent the BPT and BAT levels of technology-based control. See Section 7.1.1.3 of the Fact
Sheet. Furthermore, please see response following #F26 within this comment excerpt.
Comment: #20 Section 5.1.1.1.2 cites 133.102 should include the actual limits instead of just
the citation.
Response: Commenter provides no basis for concluding that the “actual limits” should be
included for graywater treatment standards, instead of the cited reference. EPA notes that
122.43(c) allows for a specific regulatory reference to be incorporated and constitute a permit
condition.
Comment: #21 Section 5 includes numerous examples of vague narrative limits, for instance
from Section 5.5.2, vessel operators must minimize the discharge of effluent produced from inert
gas scrubbers if feasible for their vessel design. Again, this is too vague to be included in an
effluent limitation. The limit must be changed to include specific, detailed requirements that
allow assessment by 3rd parties.
Response: EPA disagrees that the cited permit provisions are “vague narrative limits.” See
response to other comments in this document for a discussion of why the narrative limits in this
permit are not vague. As noted in response to #8 above, the CWA allows for the use of narrative
effluent limits. Furthermore, EPA notes that the requirement for owner/operators of oil tankers or
petroleum tankers “must minimize the discharge of the effluent produced from inert gas
scrubbers if feasible for their vessel design” is a valid technology-based effluent limitation. See
Part 2 of the VGP for the definition of minimize, and Part 4 of the Fact Sheet for a detailed
explanation of how effluent limitations in the VGP have been calculated to represent the
applicable levels of technology-based control. Furthermore, see response to comment EPA-HQ2008-0055-0319.1, excerpt 5 and other comments in this document for other discussion
regarding the use of minimize in this permit.
Comment: #22 Section 5.8.1.1 in order to be protective, the limits should be based on chronic
criteria rather than acute.
Response: EPA disagrees that, at this time, limits should be based on chronic criteria for these
discharges for analytical monitoring because they are intermittent in nature. EPA believes that
providing limits for which there are water quality criteria as acute criteria will be adequately
protective of water quality without unduly impeding the development of effective ballast water
treatment technologies that eliminate the threat posed by the potential introduction of aquatic
nuisance species from ballast water.
Comment: Fact sheet #f1 -- Section 3.1 fact sheet does not provide adequate discussion of how
the area covered by the permit meets the regulation at 122.28(a)(1)(i-vii). At a minimum, the fact
sheet must provide an explanation for the unusual size of the area covered by the general permit.
I do not have access to old Federal register notices, but would be surprised if the preamble for
this regulation provided support for an area this large. The fact sheet must include documentation
such as the preamble to the regulation demonstrating an area this large is allowed by the
regulation. The EPA should be trying to protect water quality by making the area covered by
general permits smaller, not ridiculously large.
1-15
Response: EPA disagrees that the Fact Sheet does not provide adequate discussion of how the
VGP meets the requirements for general permits outlined in 40 C.F.R. 122.28(a)(i) – (iv). As the
Fact Sheet states “under 40 C.F.R. 122.28, general permits may be written to cover categories of
point sources having common elements, such as facilities that involve the same or substantially
similar types of operations, that discharges the same types of wastes, or that are more
appropriately regulated by a general permit.” See Section 2.6 of the Fact Sheet. These
regulations provide no absolute size limitation for the area that can be covered by a general
permit. Rather, the regulations state that the area “should correspond to existing geographic or
political boundaries,” including “any…appropriate division or combination of boundaries.” 40
C.F.R. 122.28(a)(1)(vii). The VGP defines the scope of the permit in Part 1.1, and defines the
waters subject to the permit as “waters of the U.S. as defined in 40 CFR 122.2, [which] “defines
waters of the U.S. as certain inland waters and the territorial sea, which extends three miles from
the baseline (as used in this document, mile means nautical mile, i.e., 6076 feet.”
EPA notes that the Fact Sheet is not required to “include documentation such as the preamble to
the regulation demonstrating that an area this large is allowed by the regulation.” See 40 C.F.R.
124.8 and 124.56, which provide the requirements for the contents of a Fact Sheet. The Fact
Sheet contains “a detailed description of the location of the discharge or regulated activity,”
pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 124.56(c), in Section 3.1, entitled “geographic scope of the permit.”
Furthermore, commenter provides no basis for its assumption that the general permit regulations
at 40 C.F.R. 122.28 does not provide “support for [a general permit that covers] an area this
large.”
Comment: #F2 -- Section 3.1 includes discussion of why EPA is issuing the permit in
authorized states. The discussion does not address situations where states did not include the 40
CFR 122.3 exclusion in their state statutes or regulations. If a state did not include the exclusion,
why would it be appropriate for the EPA to issue the permit in that state. Seems that in this
situation, the state would have been following the CWA (unlike EPA) and would have clear
authority to issue vessel permits the CWA provides the authority, the state did not limit their
authority. The assumption here seems to be because EPA made a huge mistake, all states did
also. If a state did not include the exclusion in their statutes and regulations and EPA delegated
the program, then the state has the authority. There is no CWA bar to the state issuing the
permits. The only bar is to EPA because EPA wrote a bad regulation 30 years ago.
Response: Commenter is incorrect in stating that 3.1 of the Fact Sheet “does not address
situations where the state did not include the 40 C.F.R 122.3 exclusion in their state statutes or
regulations.” Section 3.1 states “the discharges at issue are not considered a part of any currently
authorized state NPDES program.” This is true regardless of whether or not the state has laws
that correspond to the 122.3(a) exclusion.
Comment: #F3 Section 3.1 the discussion of partial permit programs is not at all clear. Why
would vessel permitting constitute a partial permit? The CWA does not identify vessel
permitting as a separate program vessels are point sources plain and simple. Following this type
of logic, it would seem that every new effluent guideline could be considered to provide the
opportunity for another partial program. Also, why aren't states being required to change their
state statutes and regulations? The EPA and states have been on notice for close to 2 years now
1-16
Response: EPA disagrees that the Fact Sheet discussion about partial programs is unclear.
Vessel permitting may constitute a partial program under CWA Section 402(n), which allows the
Administrator to approve a partial program under certain conditions. See Section 3.1 of the Fact
Sheet. Commenter’s suggestion that vessels permitting might not be an appropriate category for
a partial program is not really relevant to the terms of the VGP. EPA does not understand
commenter’s assertion that “every new effluent guideline could be considered to provide the
opportunity for another partial program” if vessel permitting qualified as a partial permit
program, and commenter has not explained the reasoning behind this assertion. In the case of
discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels, that category of discharges was
specifically excluded from NPDES permitting for over 35 years, and may be considered a new
permit program that encompasses a major category of discharges. The CWA allows EPA to
approve a partial program under CWA Section 402(n) where a program represents a complete
permit program and covers all of the discharges under the jurisdiction of a department or agency
of the State and the Administrator determines that the partial program represents a significant
and identifiable part of the State program. Therefore, EPA has discretion in determining what
constitutes a partial program.
Comment: #F4 Section 3.4 most of the section seems completely useless and unnecessary
academic-type background filler.
Response: EPA disagrees with commenter’s statement. Section 3.4 of the Fact Sheet provides
useful information regarding the VGP’s regulation of constituents in the discharges incidental to
the normal operation of vessels.
Comment: #F5 Section 3.4 states, most conventional pollutants (biochemical oxygen demand,
oil and grease, pH, total suspended solids), uses the word most and then lists all of the
conventionals, including fecal later on.
Response: EPA acknowledges this comment.
Comment: #F6 Section3.10 as stated earlier, the certification is different than required by the
regulation and creates a conflict within the permit. 40 CFR 122.41 requires a very specific
certification to be used, the permit then spells out a different certification. The fact sheet
provides an explanation that seems to address the fact the new certification is being inserted to
simply make EPA happy and provides no explanation how the new certification meets the very
clear regulatory requirements. This yet another significant error. Note, the regulation at 122.22
uses the term shall not the terminology shall or something close to this. Further, this seems to be
a clear example of EPA exceeding its authority and conducting rulemaking without proper notice
and comment.
Response: See response to number 6 above, which addresses this comment.
Comment: #F7 Section 3.12 Section discusses changing limitations in the permit as new
technology is developed. The ballast water limits in the permit are not clear, as noted above and
seemed to include WQBEL. So, the fact sheet needs to discuss how a change in treatment
technology can be used to change to a water quality based limit. The two are not linked. If the
limit is a technology-based limit, then the fact sheet must explain how the permit writer has
authority to change the bpj limit (which is based on BAT/BCT) during the term of the permit.
1-17
Response: Commenter appears to misunderstand the discussion of ballast water discharge limits
in the context of the permit reopener clause found in Fact Sheet Section 3.11. This section of the
Fact Sheet explains the permit reopener clause, and notes that, pursuant to the applicable
regulations for modifying NPDES permits, EPA may, in the future, modify the technology-based
limits for ballast water discharges – not the water quality based limits – to reflect the availability
of new treatment technology. Any such permit modification would be conducted under the
authority of, and consistent with, 40 C.F.R. 122.62, 122.63, 122.64 and 124.5.
Comment: #F8 Section 3.13 states, the discharges that would be authorized by the proposed
permit are limited to those discharges incidental to the normal operation the vessel, and except
for ballast water and graywater from cruise ships, typically will be of limited volumes. In
addition, because vessels in the territorial seas are likely to be underway as part of their voyage,
any discharges incidental to their normal operation would typically be well-mixed upon
discharge before they are subject to further dispersal and transport beyond the area of the vessel's
operation. EPA must provide much more specific information to support these very vague
statements. EPA believes that these provisions would prevent unreasonable degradation of the
marine environment. EPA must provide much more specific information to support these very
vague statements. EPA believes that these controls would prevent unreasonable degradation of
the marine environment. EPA must provide much more specific information to support these
very vague statements.
Response: EPA disagrees that more information is required in Section 3.12 of the Fact Sheet,
which discusses Ocean Discharge Criteria and contains a detailed rationale for the determination
that the VGP will prevent unreasonable degradation of the marine environment. Commenter
provides no specifics regarding the information it asserts “must” be provided.
Comment: #F9 Section 3.13 states, finally, this permit applies to discharges to the outer limit of
the three mile territorial sea. State water quality standards also apply within these waters and the
draft permit thus would contain effluent limitations as necessary to meet those applicable water
quality standards (Section 6). This seems to give the impression the limits would be different in
each state because the water quality standards are different in each state. This would be the best
and most protective approach. However, the permit is too vague to be able to make this clear
distinction. Further, the regulations at 122.28 require that the water quality-based effluent limits
to be the same for all dischargers. A ship discharging in texas would have different limits than a
ship discharging in California, and that is not allowed by the regulations. EPA must fix this in
the permit and then re- propose the permit given the fix will be a significant change.
Response: Part 6 of the VGP and Section 8 of the Fact Sheet clearly state that additional, statespecific conditions have been added to the VGP pursuant to CWA Section 401. See, e.g.,
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0337.1, excerpt 67 for a discussion of state’s
authority under the CWA to provide additional permit conditions, and the requirement for states
to provide public notice of those conditions. State 401 certification only applies to those states
waters within the state’s jurisdiction which are subject to the VGP. If state-specific permit
conditions added to the VGP include additional WQBELs, then the permittees that operate
within that state’s waters could be considered a “specific subcategory” under 40 C.F.R. 122.28 to
which the same WQBELs apply.
1-18
Comment: #F10 Section 3.13 states, accordingly, in accordance with 40 CFR 125.123 (a), the
agency has determined that issuance of the draft permit with the controls proposed would not
cause unreasonable degradation of the marine environment. It is not at all clear how EPA made
this miraculous determination given the fact that only conjecture was presented with no data.
EPA must cite extensive data and study to support this very, very broad determination.
Response: See Section 3.12 of the Fact Sheet that explains the basis for EPA’s reasoning for its
determination that discharges under this permit (and in compliance with the requirements of the
permit) will not cause an unreasonable degradation of the marine environment based on
consideration of the factors identified at 40 CFR 125.122(a) based on available information as
directed in 40 CFR 125.123(a).
Comment: #F11 Section 4.1.1 provides a very lengthy and completely unnecessary summary of
the effluent guidelines program.
Response: This comment does not question the accuracy of anything in Section 4.1.1 of the fact
sheet. EPA believes that this information is helpful.
Comment: #F12 Section 4.1.2 indicates it is not practicable to rely on numeric effluent limits.
However, the permit does include numeric limits in very sporadic and confusing fashion. The
discussion provided by this section does not provide adequate reasoning to support the statement
that numeric limits are not practicable.
Response: EPA’s regulations authorize the use of BMPs where numeric limits are infeasible.
See 122.44(k)(3). EPA determined that it was infeasible to calculate numeric effluent limits for
most discharges, and therefore established technology-based BMPs and narrative water quality
based effluent limits in this permit with respect to such discharges. EPA explained its findings of
infeasibility with respect to technology-based limits in Part 4.2.3 of the Fact Sheet and water
quality based limits in Part 4.5 of the Fact Sheet. Commenter provides no basis for its statement
that the Fact Sheet does not provide adequate reasoning for the conclusion that numeric limits
are infeasible. EPA did include numeric technology-based effluent limitations for certain
dischargers – specifically, graywater and pool and spa discharges from cruise ships, oil
discharges, including oily mixtures, and residual biocides from vessels using experimental
ballast water treatment systems – based on a finding that it was feasible to calculate numeric
effluent limitations for such discharges. See Fact Sheet Part 4.2.3. Commenter does not explain
why EPA’s findings of feasibility do not constitute adequate reasoning.
Comment: #F13 Section 4.2.3 non-numeric limits this section of the permit must include a
BMP requiring the development and implementation of an effluent monitoring plan. Also, in the
same section, states in other cases, such as establishing ballast water living organism discharge
limits where standards have been proposed by other entities, EPA could not identify technologies
that are available as of September 30, 2008, using a BAT approach to meet those limits (see
Section 4.4.3.5 for more detailed discussion). There should be a requirement for monitoring.
Response: Commenter provides no basis for its statement that Section 4.2.3 of the Fact Sheet
“must include a BMP requiring the development and implementation of an effluent monitoring
plan.” EPA is unsure what commenter means by “effluent monitoring plan,” and notes that the
Fact Sheet is not required to contain BMPs. EPA further notes that Section 4.2.3 of the Fact
1-19
Sheet discusses EPA’s rationale for including non-numeric limits in the VGP. EPA
acknowledges commenter’s reiteration of the statement regarding establishment of ballast water
living organism limits found in this section of the Fact Sheet. While commenter does not explain
what permit provision should have a “requirement for monitoring,” EPA notes that monitoring is
included in the VGP in Parts 4 and 5.
Comment: #F14 Section 4.2.3 the bpj analysis provided is cursory at best. Citing to the
economic analysis does not explain the process used to develop bpj limits. Effluent limits by
definition are to control pollutants. The bpj analysis must address pollutants and describe the
specific controls investigated to control the pollutants.
Response: EPA disagrees that the Fact Sheet fails to explain the process used to develop BPJ
limits. See Section 4.2.2 of the Fact Sheet, which discusses in detail the use of permit limits
based on BPJ. EPA agrees that merely “citing to the economic analysis does not explain the
process used to develop BPJ limits,” and notes that the Fact Sheet discusses the process for
establishing BPJ limits by discussing the use of non-numeric limits, the rationale for finding that
the limits in the VGP represent the BPT, BCT, or BAT level of control, that the requirements are
technologically available, that the requirements meet the BPT and BAT economic tests set forth
in the CWA, and that the requirements have acceptable non-water quality environmental
impacts. The Fact Sheet discussion explains how the VGP’s limits meet the 40 C.F.R. 125.3
requirements for establishing BPJ limits. Those regulatory requirements provide the framework
for conducting a BPJ analysis, not the fact that “the BPJ analysis must address pollutants and
describe the specific controls investigated to control the pollutants,” as commenter contends.
Comment: #F15 Section 4.4.1 this section begins with a discussion of the fact deck washdown
may include oil and grease. The section does not provide any explanation for why there is no
numeric limit. The permit should include a numeric limit of no measureable or no sheen (and
include the corresponding numeric value for no sheen).
Response: It is unnecessary to repeat the explanation in Section 4.2.3 of the Fact Sheet for why
the limits for deck washdown and runoff, and many other of the permit’s limits, are in nonnumeric form. That discussion, which precedes that Fact Sheet discussion noted by commenter
regarding deck washdown and runoff, discusses why effluent limitations are not feasible to
calculate for most discharges eligible for coverage under the VGP. Further, EPA notes that Part
2.1.4 of the VGP provides that “discharges of oil including oily mixtures must not contain oil in
quantities that may be harmful, pursuant to 40 CFR Part 110.”
Comment: #F16 Section 4.4.3 the end of the section discusses the fact there may be future
technological developments. That is very nice, but the permit needs to include a monitoring
requirement now.
Response: The discussion of “future technological developments” that commenter refers to is
not a justification for no monitoring, as commenter suggests, but rather an explanation of what
BAT may be in the future for ballast water discharges. EPA notes that the VGP does include
monitoring requirements for ballast water discharges. See Parts 4, 4.3, and 5.8 of the VGP.
1-20
Comment: #F17 Section 4.4.4 it is not clear what the monitoring and reporting requirements are
for these discharges. #f18 Section 4.4.5 4.4.28 not clear what any of the monitoring and reporting
is for any of these limits.
Response: Sections 4.4.4 through 4.4.26 of the Fact Sheet correspond to the technology-based
effluent limitations in Parts 2.4 through 2.26 of the VGP. EPA disagrees that the monitoring
requirements for the technology-based effluent limits contained in Parts 4 and 5 of the VGP are
unclear. For example, with respect to monitoring, the VGP requires self-inspections, including
routine visual inspections, which must take place “[a]t least once per week or per voyage,
whichever is more frequent, you must conduct a visual inspection of safely accessible deck and
cargo areas and all accessible areas where chemicals, oils, dry cargo or other materials are stored,
mixed, and used, whether or not the areas have been used since the last inspection.” Part 4.1.1 of
the VGP. Those inspections must be recorded, pursuant to Part 4.1.1.1 of the Permit, which
states “You must document the findings of each routine vessel inspection in the official ship
logbook or as a component of other recordkeeping documentation referenced in Part 4.2. You
must document the date and time of inspection, ship locations inspected, personnel conducting
the inspection, location of any visual sampling and observations, note any potential problems and
sources of contamination found, and it must be signed by the person conducting the inspection, if
not the Master.” See the corresponding Fact Sheet Sections 6 and 7, which explain the VGP’s
requirements for inspection, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping for those limits, and
additional inspections, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping for vessel class-specific
requirements.
Comment: #F19 Section 4.5 states, BMPs are likely to already be controlling their vessel
discharges to a degree that would make additional water quality-based controls unnecessary. No
data is presented to support this statement. Further, if the BMPs are adequate and they are
technology-based limits, then there is no basis for the water quality based limits that are included
in this permit. The later statement, however, to ensure that this is the case, makes it sound like
EPA has no clue if the limits are adequate. EPA by regulation is required to do an assessment to
determine the need for and then level of control necessary. No where in the regulations does it
provide EPA the latitude to just establish broad meaningless limits because EPA does not want
to make the effort to do it right.
Response: EPA disagrees that the narrative QBEL provided in Part 2.3 is a “broad meaningless
limit.” The QBEL, by requiring that dischargers control their discharges as necessary to meet
applicable water quality standards, is a narrative limit that is as stringent as necessary to achieve
water quality standards, consistent with CWA Section 301(b)(1)(C) and 40 C.F.R. 122.44(d)(1).
The Fact Sheet notes that reliance on a narrative expression of the need to control discharges as
necessary to meet applicable water quality standards is “a reasonable approach because it is
infeasible to calculate numeric water quality-based effluent limits for vessels at this time.”
Because of the mobile nature of vessels and the thousands of water bodies in which they may
discharge, it is infeasible to calculate numeric limits for each vessel for each water body. This is
particularly true in port areas, where vessels enter and exit waterbodies and may not be
simultaneously discharging.
EPA notes that it has essentially retained the language commenter refers to, but has clarified it to
state that “EPA generally expects” that the technology-based limitations in this permit will be as
1-21
stringent as necessary to meet standards. The language has been provided as explanation to
assist permittees with their meeting their obligations under the VGP, including meeting the
narrative WQBEL to control discharges as stringently as necessary to meet applicable water
quality standards. EPA does believe that, as a general matter, vessels that comply with the
technology-based limits and other conditions in the permit, such as corrective actions, are likely
to be controlling their discharges as necessary to also meet applicable WQS. However, it is
impossible to categorically state that in every water body, for every vessel, for every discharge,
that meeting the VGP’s requirements will also meet applicable water quality standards.
Therefore, Part 2.3 provides a WQBEL to ensure that discharges will be controlled as necessary
to meet applicable water quality standards. Furthermore, as the VGP and the Fact Sheet note,
EPA reserves the authority to require more stringent requirements where necessary to meet
applicable standards, or, alternatively require the permittee to apply for an individual permit.
Comment: #F20 Section 4.5 tries to explain the very broad statement, which seems to be a
limit, your discharge must be controlled as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards.
The section does not explain how this meets the requirements of the regulations. Where in the
regulations does it provide for such a broad and meaningless limit? Also, where is the reasonable
potential analysis for this permit to determine the need for water quality based limits? The
regulations require the permit writer to do a reasonable potential analysis. This is a significant
error. The permit must be re-drafted and re-proposed and must include the proper analyses and
the proper water quality limits with appropriate monitoring and reporting so 3rd parties can also
assess compliance.
Response: See response to #19 for a discussion of how EPA has set QBELs in the VGP,
pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 122.44(d)(1). EPA has not conducted an individualized reasonable
potential determination for each discharger. However, for purposes of this permit, EPA assumes
that all dischargers covered by this permit have the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to
an excursion of water quality standards, and therefore subjects all dischargers to WQBELs that
are as stringent as necessary to meet standards, as required by CWA §301(b)(1)(C) and 40 CFR
122.44(d)(1). A discharger remains free to apply for an individual permit – which would include
permit limits based on an individualized determination of reasonable potential – in lieu of
coverage under the VGP.
As stated previously, the VGP does provide necessary monitoring and reporting for the effluent
limits established.
Comment: #F21 Section 4.5 the fact sheet seems to indicate that technology-based limits were
established to protect onrws. That seems to directly conflict with the purpose for technologybased limits. Also, it states that certain vessel discharges were prohibited. Does this mean that all
vessels discharges with a potential to adversely impact onrw were prohibited? Also, given new
discharges into onrws are prohibited, shouldn't be made clear that this would include any and all
new vessels are prohibited from operating in onrws?
Response: The Fact Sheet, in Part 4.5, discusses that some of the VGP’s technology-based
limits prohibit certain discharges into Part 12.1 waters, which include ONRWs. EPA disagrees
that the imposition of these discharge location limitations “directly conflict with the purpose for
technology-based limits.” Technology-based limitations must meet the applicable levels of
technology-based control, and as discussed in Section 4.2.3 of the Fact Sheet, EPA has
1-22
determined that the requirement to limit discharges to specific waters is technologically
available, within the meaning of the CWA. That is, EPA has determined that although a vessel
could not comply with a particular limit at all times, it could comply with such limit for certain
limited durations of time. EPA therefore exercised its discretion to limit these discharges to
waters protected in whole or in part for conservation purposes. EPA has the discretion to
consider the particular importance of ONRWs in assessing the availability of technology, based
on its authority to set BPJ limits based on “the appropriate technology for the category of class of
point sources of which the applicant is a member, based on all available information” and “any
unique factors relating to the applicant.” 40 CFR §125.3(c)(2). EPA did not prohibit all
discharges to ONRWs -- rather, the VGP's technology-based limitations prohibit or limit only
those discharges for which EPA determined technology was available and economically
achievable to allow for such limitations for certain short-term durations. EPA notes that
additional limitations may be required to meet state water quality standards applicable to such
waters. See Permit Section 2.3 for water quality based effluent limitations. Commenter is
incorrect in stating that “new discharges into ONRWs are prohibited.” To the contrary, the
prohibition in ONRWs is against the lowering of water quality. “As described in the preamble to
the Water Quality Standards Regulation, ‘States may allow some limited activities which result
in the temporary and short-term changes in the water quality,’ but such changes in water should
not impact existing uses or alter the essential character of special use that makes the water an
ONRW.” Water Quality Standards Handbook Chapter 4, Section 4.2.
Comment: #F22 Section 4.5 ends with a very confusing description of anti-degradation.
Further, the very confusing discussion (like most of the rest of the permit and fact sheet)
provides no documented support for the conjecture presented. Essentially, it seems to say that
because boats move, no anti-degradation analysis is necessary. Finally, what is tier 2.5? The
regulations only include 3 tiers.
Response: See, e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0311.1, excerpt 5 for an
explanation of the antidegradation discussion in the Fact Sheet. Commenter is correct in stating
that the water quality standards regulations include three tiers. Tier 2.5 (also known as “Tier
2½”) “is an application of the antidegradation policy that has implementation requirements that
are more stringent than for ‘Tier 2’ (high-quality waters), but somewhat less stringent than the
prohibition against any lowering of water quality in ‘Tier 3’ (ONRWs). EPA accepts this
additional tier in State antidegradation policies because it is clearly a more stringent application
of the Tier 2 provisions of the antidegradation policy an, therefore, permissible under Section
510 of the CWA.” Water Quality Standards Handbook Chapter 4, Section 4.2.
Comment: #F23 Section 6 the reporting requirements must be clearer and the reporting must be
a form so that 3rd parties can assess compliance with the requirements. This is particularly true
for oily water separators.
Response: Commenter provides no basis for the assertion that the reporting requirements are
unclear or that they “must be a form.” For discussion of why the permit’s provisions are not
vague, see responses to other comments in this document.
Comment: #F24 Section 6.2 for the drydock inspection reports, since the report assumes
inspections and inspections in this case are BMPs, what and how will these be reported so that
3rd parties can determine compliance?
1-23
Response: Commenter is incorrect in stating that “inspections in this case are BMPs.” In the
VGP, the requirements to conduct routine visual, comprehensive annual, and drydock inspection
reports are requirements of the permit, but not BMPs constituting technology-based limits under
the CWA. Commenter provides no basis for its assertion that drydock inspection reports must
“be reported so that 3rd parties can determine compliance.” As stated in the Permit, vessel
owner/operators must make drydock inspection reports available to EPA or an authorized
representative. See Part 4.1.4 of the VGP.
Comment: #F25 Section 6.4 makes reference to a one-time report that is in lieu of an annual
report. Given this permit is sadly lacking in any kind of adequate limitations or reporting, what is
the annual report that is being dropped?
Response: There is no “annual report that is being dropped.” As commenter notes, the Fact
Sheet states that instead of requiring a report every year, the VGP requires a report one time
during the permit term. In addition, the VGP requires that instances of noncompliance must be
reported annually. See also response to #10, above.
Comment: #F26 Section 7 does not explain the basis for any of the limits applied or for those
that are not applied. This is especially true of nutrients. There is a whole section devoted to
nutrient impaired waters, and then no nutrient limits. Rather, secondary treatment limits are
applied and they have no connection to nutrients. Also, fecal is not part of secondary treatment
and EPA has specifically moved away from fecal as an indicator parameter, but fecal is in this
permit rather than the EPA preferred e.coli/enterococci indicators. Is fecal a technology or water
quality based limit? If it is technology, then e.coli/enterococci should be included as the water
quality limit. Clearly it is possible to calculate the limit so it should be included i the permit. The
lack of detailed explanation in the fact sheet means it is impossible to assess the adequacy of the
limits. The permit must be re- drafted and re-proposed with an adequate fact sheet as required by
40 CFR 124.8 and 124.56.
Response: EPA notes that although the VGP does not establish a numeric limit for nutrients,
there are various limits to nutrient discharges. First, the permit contains technology-based BMPs
that apply specifically in nutrient-impaired waters (see Fact Sheet Part 7.1.1.3), as well as other
BMPs that would limit nutrient discharges (see e.g., Pierside Limits in Fact Sheet Part 7.1.1.1).
As discussed in Part 7.1.1 of the fact sheet, the Advanced wastewater treatment systems used by
cruise ships have been shown to remove nutrients. For example, according to data collected by
EPA in 2004 and 2005, these systems remove between 41 to 98 percent of phosphorus, 58 to 74
percent of ammonia, and 70 to 76 percent of total Kjeldahl nitrogen. EPA encourages the
commenter to review this portion of the fact sheet and the 2007 draft EPA cruise ship report on
which it is based. As the commenter notes, there is also a numeric limit for fecal discharges (see
Fact Sheet at Part 7.1.1.4). This represents a technology-based – not a water quality based –
limit. EPA further notes that the permit contains narrative water quality based effluent limits (see
Permit Part 2.3) requiring any more stringent measures necessary to meet water quality standards
– including for nutrients. See, e.g., response to comments contained within the cruise ship and
large cruise ship sections of this document which discuss the relationship between advanced
wastewater systems (i.e., those systems that meet these limits) and nutrient removal.
1-24
Though the commenter is correct that EPA has been recommending the use of E. Coli as an
indicator versus fecal coliform in many cases, EPA believes that it is more appropriate to require
a fecal coliform limit for this first iteration of this permit to maximize overlap with existing
statutes. Namely, the fecal coliform limit is identical to that in “Title XIV—Certain Alaskan
Cruise Ship Operations” of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Bill (H.R. 5666) in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-554) (commonly referred to as Title XIV)
passed on December 12, 2000 which requires large Cruise Ship graywater discharges to meet the
same limits as finalized in this permit for their graywater discharges within 1 nm of shore. Other
than asserting that EPA should calculate an E. Coli limit in addition or in substitution for the
fecal limit, the commenter provides no support for the apparent belief that E. Coli is necessary in
this case for this permit. Furthermore, the commenter does not provide any data or other
information that would support calculating a water quality based numeric limit for E. Coli.
EPA believes that the fact sheet is more than adequate in terms of meeting the regulatory
requirements contained in 40 CFR Parts 124.8 and 124.56. Other than calling the explanations
inadequate, the commenter provides no specific discussion as to why the fact sheet or supporting
information is inadequate to explain EPA's rationale in establishing these technology based
limits. Even if EPA were inclined to redraft and re-propose this permit or fact sheet, the tight
time limitations imposed by the District Court have made this infeasible.
Comment: #F27 Section 7.1.1.4 it is not clear whether the limits are meant to be water quality
or technology. If technology, there needs to be a better (actually, there needs to be one)
assessment demonstrating it is either meeting best practicable, best achievable or best
conventional control levels. The vague statement at the end of 7.1.1.4 does not achieve this
requirement.
Response: As noted in response to #17 above, Section 7.1.1.4 discusses the technology-based
permit limits in Part 5.1.1 of the VGP.
Comment: #F28 Section 7 actually includes marginally clear monitoring and reporting
requirements. Given this is the case, this should be replicate in the other sections so it is possible
for 3rd parties to assess compliance by permittees with the permit.
Response: Commenter does not indicate which monitoring requirements in Section 7 of the Fact
Sheet it refers to, nor does commenter have a basis for its statement that those requirements
“should be replicate in the other sections.”
Comment: #F29 Section 8 without the state or tribal requirements it is impossible to fully
evaluate the permit.
Response: EPA disagrees that “it is impossible to fully evaluate the permit” without the Part 6
state-specific conditions. Pursuant to CWA Section 401 and its implementing regulations, states
are asked to certify that NPDES permits are consistent with the CWA and applicable state laws
at the permit proposal stage. See response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0273.1, excerpt
10 for a discussion of the state 401 certification process.
1-25
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Thomas O. Lind, General Counsel and Secretary
Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0355.1
7
No
Comment: Conclusion CBC considers itself a leader in marine safety and environmental
protection, having been the recipient of two U.S. Coast Guard Admiral William Beaker/
Environmental Protection Awards, and we have partnered with the Coast Guard and other
regulatory bodies in advancing these societal objectives. In keeping with those values, we must
respectfully request that the VGP be amended until such time as the traditional waiver of NPDES
requirements is put back into force.
Response: Based on the decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, effective December 19,
2008, except for those vessels exempted from NPDES permitting by Congressional legislation,
discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels currently excluded from NPDES
permitting by 40 C.F.R. 122.3(a) will be subject to the CWA Section 301’s prohibition against
discharging, unless covered under an NPDES permit. Congress acted in July 2008 to exempt all
recreational vessels from NPDES permit requirements and to place a two year moratorium on
permitting requirements for commercial vessels of less than 79ft and commercial fishing vessels
of all sizes. Further details about the court decisions and Congressional action can be found in
Sections 2.4 and 2.5 of the Fact Sheet. Vessels not affected by either bill that have discharges
incidental to the normal operation of a vessel will be required to comply with the requirements of
the VGP. Commenter’s specific suggestions for amendments to the draft VGP are addressed
elsewhere in this document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Public Hearing Comments
Various
Various
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0365
32
No
Comment: In the event that we need a permit, we would ask that you work with the commercial
fishing industry to produce the proper permit with the best available information.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. Congress acted in July 2008 to place a two year
moratorium on permitting requirements for fishing vessels. This is discussed fully in Section 2.5
of the Fact Sheet.
1-26
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Wayne S. Holt, Environmental & Safety Director
Atlantic Marine Florida, LLC (AMF) and Atlantic Marine
Mayport, LLC (AMM)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0370.1
1
No
Comment: AMF strongly disagrees with EPA’s decision to vacate the national pollutant
discharge elimination system (NPDES) permitting exclusion in 40 C.F.R. § 122.3(a) for
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. However, since the recent ruling by the
U.S. District Court for the northern district of California (“District Court”) that invalidates the
NPDES exemption, amf recognizes that EPA must institute some form of discharge permitting
mechanism for these incidental discharges. Amf supports the EPA’s utilization of the uniform
national discharge standards for vessels of the armed forces (“unds”) rule as a template for the
proposed VGP.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. While EPA did use information about vessel
discharges from the UNDS rulemaking and related documents to aid in development of the VGP,
EPA did not use UNDS as a template for the VGP.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Captain Michael O. Jones, Director of Marine Operations
Lindblad Expeditions
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0372.1
2
No
Comment: We have relied on EPA’s regulatory exemption in good faith for many years and the
Federal government must act to enable commercial passenger vessels to keep operating past
September 30. We support a single industry-wide "general permit" that would automatically be
granted to all passenger vessel operators. The proposed application process would be yet another
unnecessary governmental paperwork burden on vessel operators.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. The VGP requires the vessel owner/operator to
submit a Notice of Intent only if the vessel is 300 or more Gross Tons or has the capacity to hold
or discharge 8 or more cubic meters of ballast water. The Notice of Intent requirements may be
found in Part 1.5.1 of the VGP and additional explanation can be found in Section 3.7 of the Fact
Sheet. EPA cannot respond to commenter’s observation that the proposed NOI requirement is
“unnecessary” because the commenter does not provide reasons for that conclusion. Responses
to more specific concerns regarding the NOI requirement can be found elsewhere in this
document.
1-27
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Susan Hayman, Vice President, Environmental and Corporate
Development
Foss Maritime Company
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0376.1
9
No
Comment: We can appreciate EPA’s efforts in trying to deal effectively with this difficult and
complex issue. Our comments only reflect the most obvious problems with the draft as there are
legal and operational considerations that exceed the boundaries of a succinct comment
document. In summary we believe both EPA and operators need more time to discuss these
matters in greater detail to develop effective solutions.
Response: Specific concerns raised in the commenter’s letter are addressed elsewhere in this
response to comment document. As to the view more time is needed, the date for vacatur of the
NPDES permit exclusion in 40 CFR 122.3(a) is established by the District Court’s order in the
NWEA litigation. See also response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0343.1, excerpt 6 for
additional discussion related to extension of that date.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Mark Sales, Regulatory and Systems Engineer
Tidewater Marine, LLC
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0387.1
1
No
Comment: We appreciate EPA’s approach in seeking public comment for the proposed system
of permits in order to comply with the Clean Water Act as mandated by the courts; and
respectfully wish to add our recommendation that EPA continue the appeals process to seek to
preserve the regulatory exemption with which the boating public and industry have had in the
past.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. Information on the outcome of the appeal may
be found in Section 2.4 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Mark Sales, Regulatory and Systems Engineer
Tidewater Marine, LLC
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0387.1
33
No
Comment: In summary, tidewater appreciates EPA’s efforts to safeguard our national water
resources. We believe that the proposed permitting system is not the most appropriate method
under the Clean Water Act. In fact we believe that EPA’s previous method whereby vessel
1-28
operational discharges were excluded by regulation from NPDES permits was more appropriate.
Given the courts acquiescence in unduly elastic definitions, we support a workable general
permitting process.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. Information on the outcome of the appeal may
be found in Section 2.4 of the Fact Sheet. EPA has worked with stakeholders and other
regulatory agencies to compile the best available data regarding vessel discharges and shipboard
operations. In addition, EPA has worked closely with the U.S. Coast Guard to ensure the permit
does not conflict with existing requirements and does not compromise vessel safety.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William R. Williams, Captain U.S. Navy (Retired), Vice
President Health, Safety, Environment and Quality
A.P. Moller - Maersk Group
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0395.1
1
No
Comment: First, we would like to acknowledge the challenges faced by EPA in developing the
draft vessel general permit (VGP). We appreciate the complexities of this issue and understand
the difficulties of developing a permit strategy within a framework that, as EPA has pointed out,
is not suited for mobile sources. Because of both the technical and regulatory complexities, we
are requesting an extension of at least 30 days to the current comment period to more thoroughly
study the proposed permit requirements and develop more concrete recommendations. We also
recommend that EPA request a delay of implementation from the courts. To fully address the
scope, we need to work with our technical organization (located in copenhagen), our north
American regulatory team, trade groups, ship’s captains, as well other ship’s personnel who will
be responsible for carrying out many of the permit requirements. It is not possible to obtain and
consolidate feedback from all of these sources in the brief time set aside for comments. In light
of the short response period, we do, however, offer the following general comments on the
proposed VGP:
Response: Due to the extremely tight timeframes imposed by the courts, unfortunately EPA
cannot extend the comment period (please see response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-00550299.1, excerpt 1 for additional discussion. EPA sought and was granted a delay from the
District Court until December 19, 2008. EPA thanks the commenters for submitting these
comments: they were considered and answers follow in this document.
1-29
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John L. Wittenborn, Outside Council
Shipbuilders Council of America (SCA)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0406.1
1
No
Comment: SCA strongly supports the longstanding exclusion in 40 C.F.R. § 122.3(a) for
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel and believes that the exception is
adequately supported by law. Sca recognizes, however, that EPA is required to take action and
believes that EPA is proposing a reasonable and appropriate permitting approach in light of the
U.S. District Court for the northern district of California's ("District Court's") ruling and the U.S.
circuit court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit's ("Ninth Circuit's") holding which invalidated
EPA’s longstanding NPDES exemption for discharges incidental to the normal operations of a
vessel.' /_1 > Nw. Envt'l advocates et al V. EPA, 2006 wl 2669024 (n.d. Cal. Mar. 30, 2005);
Civ. No. 03-74795 (9`)' cir., July 23, 2008)./_1
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. Information on the court decision and appeal
may be found in Section 2 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Captain Robert F. Zales II, President
National Association of Charterboat Operators (NACO)
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0428.1
1
Yes
Comment: We believe the District Court erred in vacating EPA’s regulation excluding
discharges related to the normal operation of a vessel from NPDES permit requirements and we
encourage EPA to continue to exercise its appeal rights at the circuit court level and beyond.
Pending either the reversal of the court ruling or appropriate changes in the law, we support the
use of a general permit as a stop-gap measure and offer these specific suggestions.
Response: EPA notes that this comment was submitted late, and as such, EPA has no legal
obligation to respond to it. EPA is, however, responding to it. Information on the court decision
and appeal may be found in Section 2 of the Fact Sheet.
1-30
1.1
Support Federal Action
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
B. Sachau
None
Private Citizen
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0257
1
No
Comment: There should be zero discharge allowed from any vessel on any body of water. Zero
and a total ban on discharge into waters must be prohibited. Look at the island in the Pacific that
consists of plastic and look at the Gulf of Mexico full of crap.
Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. EPA refers the commenter to Section 4 of the Fact
Sheet, which discusses how EPA sets the effluent limitations that point sources must meet. In
addition, see Part 1.2.3 of the Permit, which explains the discharges types not eligible for
coverage under this permit, including garbage and trash.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Shaun Halvax
Systems Ship Repair Inc.
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0274.1
1
No
Comment: BAE systems has reviewed the draft U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
("EPA's") proposed issuance of a national pollution discharge elimination system ("NPDES")
vessel general permit ("VGP") for discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial
and large recreational vessels. We understand that the proposed VGP has been written to replace
the now vacated 40 CFR 122.3(a) regulations that previously provided exceptions to certain
vessel discharges from requiring NPDES permits. BAE systems supports the proposed VGP and
believes that it is consistent with the intent of the NPDES program and that, given the broad
reach of the requirements; a general permitting framework is appropriate.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John H. Hight
Pierre Area Chamber of Commerce
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0276
1
No
Comment: The passenger vessel industry has relied on EPA’s regulatory exemption for thirtyfive (35) years. Because of the good faith demonstrated by the industry, we feel the Federal
1-31
government must act to enable commercial vessels to keep operating past September 30 without
being branded as law breakers.
Response: Based on the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, recently upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, effective December 19, 2008,
except for those vessels exempted from NPDES permitting by Congressional legislation,
discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels currently excluded from NPDES
permitting by 40 C.F.R. 122.3(a) will be subject to the CWA Section 301’s prohibition against
discharging, unless covered under an NPDES permit. Congress acted in July 2008 to exempt all
recreational vessels from NPDES permit requirements and to place a two year moratorium on
permitting requirements for commercial vessels of less than 79ft and commercial fishing vessels
of all sizes. Further details about the court decisions and Congressional action can be found in
Sections 2.4 and 2.5 of the Fact Sheet. Vessels not affected by either enactment that have
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel will be required to comply with the
requirements of the VGP. Finalization of today’s permit will allow vessels to operate without
violating CWA Section 301’s prohibition against discharge without an NPDES permit.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Captain Joel Hanson
Boat Company
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0282.1
1
No
Comment: The boat company is a not-for-profit small business entity operating two USCG
inspected passenger vessels with overnight accommodations on week-long wilderness
conservation/education cruises during summer months in southeast Alaska inside passage waters.
During winter months, our vessels are laid-up in the Puget sound waters of Washington state. We
have been in continuous seasonal operation since 1981. We have relied on EPA's regulatory
exemption during all these years and trust we may remain in operation past September 30th
without difficulties caused by hastily-crafted permit prescriptions developed on short notice by
EPA to meet the recent court decision.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. EPA has worked with relevant stakeholders as
well as other regulatory agencies to ensure implementation of the VGP is compatible with
shipboard operations and not in conflict with existing vessel regulations.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
James Murray II, General Manager
SunQuest Cruises
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0286.1
1
No
Comment: We are a small passenger vessel operator in destin, fl. We operate a 125’, 150
passenger entertainment yacht. Our operation consists of both private parties and parties open to
1-32
the general public. We currently employ 25 persons. We support prompt relief from having to
permit under the “Clean Water Act”. We do support a general industry permit. Individual permits
would be cumbersome and additional expense for the small operator. In addition, any fees would
add a burden to what is already an expensive industry to operate. In closing, this industry has
done a good job of using the best management practices, we support continued use of these
practices.
Response: EPA acknowledges that the commenter has submitted information about their vessel
and that they support relief from having to meet Clean Water Act requirements. EPA refers the
commenter to Part 2 of the Fact Sheet, which gives a history of why EPA is issuing this permit
and provides a short discussion about congressional legislation passed in Summer of 2008. That
legislation did not exempt vessels such as that described by the commenter. EPA has completed
a cost analysis available in the docket for this permit which estimates costs for various classes of
permittees. EPA’s final permit retains provisions requiring the use of BMPs.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Captain Duran Larsen, Human Resources Director
Argosy Cruises
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0289
2
No
Comment: We have relied on EPA's regulatory exemption in good faith for 35 years and the
Federal government must act to enable commercial passenger vessels to keep operating past
September 30. We support a single industry-wide "general permit" that would automatically be
granted to all locally operated passenger commercial vessel operators. To require individual
permits to every single operator, would require yet another burdensome application process
causing more unnecessary governmental paperwork.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. Today, EPA is finalizing the proposed general
permit. While many vessels will be required to submit a Notice of Intent to receive permit
coverage, there is a subset of vessels covered by the permit will not be required to submit a
Notice of Intent to be covered. Additional information regarding which vessels will be required
to submit a Notice of Intent to receive permit coverage and the reasons EPA has imposed that
requirement can be found in Part 1.5 of the VGP and Section 3.7 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Michael Borgstrom, President
Passenger Vessel Association (PVA)
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0297
1
No
Comment: Support EPA's decision to issue a general discharge permit for all commercial
vessels rather than requiring a permit for each individual vessel.
1-33
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Michael Borgstrom, President
Passenger Vessel Association (PVA)
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0297
5
No
Comment: A general permit is the way to go. If a vessel discharge permitting scheme is to be
implemented, it should rely on a single nationwide "general permit" for commercial vessels. It
would be ludicrous for the government to force each operator of the thousands of commercial
vessel to apply for a discharge permit.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. Additional information regarding which vessels
will be required to submit a Notice of Intent to receive permit coverage can be found in Part 1.5
of the VGP and Section 3.7 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dr. Ralph G. Appy, Ph.D., Director of Environmental
Management Division
City of Los Angeles Harbor Department (LAHD)
Local Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0301.1
3
No
Comment: Support of overall regulatory approach the LAHD supports EPA’s general permit
approach to the vessel NPDES permits, as well as EPA's intent to ensure consistency between
long standing U.S. Coast Guard regulation and NPDES requirements.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Gary Russell, President, Robin Trinko-Russell, VP Finance and
Mike Radtke, Marine Manager
Madeline Island Ferry Line, Inc.
Passenger Vessels
EPA -HQ-OW-2008-0055-0302
1
No
Comment: The passenger vessel industry has relied on EPA’s regulatory exemption in good
faith for 35 years and that the Federal government must act to enable commercial vessels to keep
operating past September 30 without being branded as lawbreakers. General permits are our
preference. We would support a single industry-wide “general permit” automatically granted to
nearly every commercial vessel operator. The alternative would be individual permits to every
1-34
single operator, with a requirement for us to submit an application. This application process
would be yet another unnecessary governmental paperwork burden.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. As explained in Part 2.5 of the Fact Sheet, EPA
agrees that a general permit, rather than individual permits, is the appropriate approach to
address discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. Additional information
regarding which vessels will be required to submit a Notice of Intent to receive permit coverage
and the reasons EPA has imposed that requirement can be found in Part 1.5 of the VGP and
Section 3.7 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Vince Dickinson, P.E., Manager, Environmental Operations
Bath Iron Works (BIW)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0305.1
1
No
Comment: BIW strongly supports the longstanding exclusion in 40 CFR 122.3(a) for
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel and believes that the exception is
adequately supported by law. Biw recognizes, however, that EPA is required to take action and
believes that EPA is proposing a reasonable and appropriate permitting approach in light of the
U.S. District Court for the northern district of California's ruling invalidating EPA's longstanding
NPDES exemption for discharges incidental to the normal operations of a vessel.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Captain Nico Corbijn, Executive Vice President - Operations
Majestic America Line and Windstar Cruises
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0308.1
1
No
Comment: VGP general comments Majestic America Line supports the concept of an “industry
wide” general permit on the condition that the permit guidelines are thoroughly developed with
feedback from all vessel operation sectors. Furthermore, the general permit guidelines must
fairly apply best management practices and engineering applications that can be realistically
achieved during a phased implementation over a period of years.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. EPA has worked with relevant stakeholders as
well as other regulatory agencies to ensure implementation of the VGP is compatible with
shipboard operations and not in conflict with existing vessel regulations. The commenter’s
reference to “phased implementation” is unclear. However, we believe the CWA’s requirement
that technology-based effluent limits be based on technologies that are available and
economically practicable and achievable should protect against the imposition of unrealistic
technology-based requirements. The technology-based limits in the VGP are based on best
1-35
professional judgment, as authorized under CWA Section 402(a)(1) and 40 C.F.R. 125.3, and
include non-numeric control measures, also known as best management practices. EPA has
determined that these limits, taken as a whole, constitute the first level of control (BPT for all
pollutants) and the second level of control (BAT for toxic and non-conventional pollutants
and/or BCT for conventional pollutants) for discharges incidental to the normal operation of
vessels. For more information about technology-based effluent limits in the VGP, see Section 4
of the Fact Sheet. Please see, e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-301.1, excerpt
24 (IMP) for more information on why EPA can not employ an implementation schedule under
the CWA for technology-based limits. For additional discussion about compliance schedules, see
also, e.g., response to comment -0309.1, excerpt 18 (EFL3).
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John L. Wittenborn, Counsel, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
National Shipbuilding Research Program (NSRP)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0310.1
1
No
Comment: NSRP strongly supports the longstanding exclusion in 40 C.F.R. § 122.3(a) for
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel and believes that the exception is
adequately supported by law. NSRP recognizes, however, that EPA is required to take action and
believes that EPA is proposing a reasonable and appropriate permitting approach in light of the
U.S. District Court for the northern district of California's ("District Court's") ruling and the U.S.
circuit court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit's ("Ninth Circuit's") holding which invalidated
EPA's longstanding NPDES exemption for discharges incidental to the normal operations of a
vessel.'
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John L. Wittenborn, Counsel, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
National Shipbuilding Research Program (NSRP)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0310.1
3
No
Comment: IV conclusion EPA’s proposed VGP program provides a reasonable, fully
protective, and cost-effective means of complying with the courts' order requiring elimination of
the NPDES exemption for discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels. Consistent
with the courts' holding, EPA has correctly proposed to regulate incidental discharges from "all
commercial vessels."
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. For information on the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals decision and legislation affecting vessel discharges, please see Section 2 of the Fact
Sheet.
1-36
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Scott Davis, Safety Systems Manager
Washington State Ferries, Washington State Department of
Transportation
State Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0321
1
No
Comment: WSF urges prompt relief by September 30th, 2008: all aspects of WSF operations
are regulated heavily, most notably by the US Coast Guard, with all shipboard systems
scrutinized closely, including any with the potential to pollute the environment. For 35 years
WSF has operated under this regulatory scheme, while relying on EPA’s regulatory vessel
exemption for incidental discharges and has operated in good faith. Consequently, WSF requests
that the Federal government act decisively to enable us and other responsible maritime operators
to keep operating past September 30, 2008 in full compliance with the law. WSF supports
implementation of a single industry-wide “General permit” automatically granted to most
commercial vessel operators:
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. EPA has worked with relevant stakeholders as
well as other regulatory agencies to ensure implementation of the VGP is compatible with
shipboard operations and not in conflict with existing vessel regulations. Additional information
regarding which vessels will be required to submit a Notice of Intent to receive permit coverage
can be found in Part 1.5 of the VGP and Section 3.7 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Lynn J. Tomich Kent, Director
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC),
Division of Water
State Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0324.1
3
No
Comment: However, given the large number of vessels potentially requiring coverage, the
department concurs that a general permit, administered by each of the ten EPA regions, is
feasible, if not ideal. We agree with EPA's position in Ninth Circuit litigation that incidental
discharges, including ballast water. Should remain exempt from the NPDES permit program, in
accordance with EPA's long-standing exclusion of such discharges under 40 CFR 5 122.3(a).
However, we also understand that pending outcome on the Ninth Circuit appeal of the order
issued by the U.S. District Court for the northern district of California in northwest
environmental advocates V. EPA, 2006 wl 2669042 (N.D. Cal. 2006). EPA is also obliged to
prepare court-ordered regulations that will govern incidental vessel discharges, inasmuch as the
District Court has ordered 40 CFR 5 122.3(a) will be vacated as of September 30, 2008. Id.
Given the District Court's order, the state supports EPA's decision to regulate incidental vessel
discharges from a wide variety of vessels through a vessel general permit (VGP), that would
apply to commercial vessels.' /_1 1 congress passed a bill on July 22. 2008 that expressly
exempts recreational vessels from the NPDES regime. A separate congressional measure was
also passed that imposes a two-year moratorium on the application of any regulation of
1-37
incidental discharges associated with commercial fishing vessels a d commercial vessels smaller
than 79 feet in length./_1 courts have viewed general permits as a valid regulatory tool in
appropriate circumstances. Natural Resources Defense Council V. Costle, 568 f.2d 1369, 138 182 (D.C. Cir. 1977); EDC V. U.S. EPA, 344 f.3d 832, 853 (9th cir. 2003).
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. For information regarding the date the exception
will be vacated please see Fact Sheet Section 2.4. For information regarding the impact of the
legislation, please see Fact Sheet Section 2.5.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Speaker Pelosi
San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation
Authority (WETA)
Local Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0325.1
1
No
Comment: The passenger vessel industry has relied on EPA’s regulatory exemption in good
faith for 35 years and that the Federal government must act to enable commercial vessels to keep
operating past September 30 without being branded as lawbreakers. WETA supports a single
industry-wide “general permit” automatically granted to nearly every commercial vessel
operator. The alternative would be individual permits to every single operator, with a
requirement for WETA to submit an application. This application process would be yet another
unnecessary governmental paperwork burden.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. Additional information regarding which vessels
will be required to submit a Notice of Intent to receive permit coverage can be found in Part 1.5
of the VGP and Section 3.7 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Marcie Keever, Clean Vessels Campaign Director
Friends of the Earth
Environmental Group
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0332.1
3
No
Comment: C. Cruise Industry growth equals an increase in pollution cruise vessels carry
millions of people through north American waters each year, and the United States accounts for
70 percent of global cruise ship embarkations, according to the U.S. commission on ocean
policy. The cruise industry has grown by 107 percent over the past 10 years. In 2006, 103 cruise
ships carried 11.7 million passengers on 4,435 north American cruises, according to the U.S.
maritime administration. Passenger volume is projected to grow to 12.6 million in 2007; and
continue to expand at an annual average rate of 4.5 percent per year. Ships with annual capacity
of another 3 million passengers are currently on order and destined for the north American
market by 2012. Cruise ship size and capacity is also expanding dramatically, with many ships
now transporting 5,000 passengers and crew and the next generation of ships carrying 7,000
1-38
passengers and crew. While the cruise industry has attempted to restore its image as an
environmentally sound industry by adopting new voluntary environmental standards such
voluntary programs do little, if anything, to protect U.S. waters from cruise ship dumping. A
cruise ship has never been penalized by its corporate owners or trade organizations for violating
the selfimposed standards and there is no independent or public auditing to determine whether
the cruise lines in fact follow or enforce them. As a result, any action by EPA to control cruise
ship pollution must be regulatory – not voluntary or in any way discretionary.
Response: EPA acknowledges this comment and notes that, under today’s permit, cruise ships
must comply with the mandatory and legally enforceable requirements of the VGP for discharges
incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. Additionally, medium and large cruise ships have
supplemental requirements in Parts 5.1 and 5.2 of the Permit specific to those vessels. These
supplemental requirements add legally mandated limits which are enforceable under the Clean
Water Act.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Marcie Keever, Clean Vessels Campaign Director
Friends of the Earth
Environmental Group
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0332.1
4
No
Comment: D. Cruise ships discharge more types and significantly higher volumes of waste than
other vessels cruise ships – the largest of which carry more than 5,000 passengers and crew – are
floating cities that produce enormous volumes of waste. A large cruise ship on a one week
voyage is estimated to generate 210,000 gallons of human sewage, 1 million gallons of gray
water (water from sinks, baths, showers, laundry, and galleys), 25,000 gallons of oily bilge
water, up to 11,550 gallons of sewage sludge, and more than 130 gallons of hazardous wastes.5
/_5 cruise ship pollution: background, laws and regulations, and key issues rl32450,
congressional research service, may 2, 2008, p. Cr2, http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/
08mar/rl32450.pdf and U.S. EPA draft cruise ship discharge assessment report (EPA cruise ship
report), Dec. 20, 2007, p. 220, http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/cruise_ships/
disch_assess_draft.html. /_5 much of this waste is dumped directly into the ocean, some treated,
some not. Cruise ships also spread invasive species by dumping untreated ballast water in coastal
zones, bays and lakes. As EPA states in its fact sheet for the vpg, “cruise ships have several
unique characteristics and discharges for which they require additional permit requirements.”6
/_6 U.S. EPA NPDES vessel general permit (VGP) fact sheet, p. 88, § 7.1. /_6 since cruise ships
“carry a large number of people onboard, they generate considerably more graywater discharges
than a container or cargo ship.”7 /_7 id. /_7 further, cruise ships provide photo developing, dry
cleaning, and day spas which “use and produce chemicals that are toxic to the aquatic
environment,”8 /_8 id /_8 to name just a few of the pollutant sources cruise ships create. After
years of requests for EPA to assess the significant environmental impacts of cruise ships and
regulate discharges from cruise ships, EPA issued this VGP covering commercial vessels
including cruise ships. While this is a step in the right direction and we appreciate EPA’s efforts
to regulate vessel discharges, EPA should significantly strengthen the VGP to better regulate
discharges from cruise ships; EPA has the authority to do so under the NPDES permitting
program.
1-39
Response: EPA believes that the VGP provides appropriate requirements for incidental
discharges from large and medium cruise ships by including effluent limitations that correspond
to required levels of technology-based control (BPT, BCT, BAT), and including water qualitybased effluent limitations as necessary where the technology-based limitations are not sufficient
to meet applicable water quality standards. See Section 4 of the Fact Sheet for further details
about the VGP’s effluent limitations. Also, the VGP imposes additional technology-based and
related permit requirements based on the class of vessel. Parts 5.1 and 5.2 of the Permit contain
these additional requirements for large and medium cruise ships, and are tailored specifically for
cruise ships. EPA responds to more specific requests to strengthen the cruise ship permit
conditions elsewhere in this response to comment document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Mark Vinsel, Executive Director
United Fisherman of Alaska (UFA)
Commercial Fishing
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0333.1
1
No
Comment: We appreciate and support the direction that the EPA has taken in providing for a
general permit for commercial fishing vessels.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. Information on the impact of Congressional
legislation on the permitting requirements for fishing vessels can be found in Fact Sheet Section
2.5.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Michael Borgstrom, President
Passenger Vessel Association (PVA)
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0334.1
3
No
Comment: A general permit is the way to go if a vessel discharge permitting scheme is to be
implemented, it should rely on a single nationwide "general permit" for commercial vessels as
EPA has proposed. It would be ludicrous for the government to force each operator of the
thousands of commercial vessels to apply for a discharge permit.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. Additional information regarding which vessels
will be required to submit a Notice of Intent to receive permit coverage can be found in Part 1.5
of the VGP and Section 3.7 of the Fact Sheet.
1-40
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Steve Collins, CHMM (Certified Hazardous Materials
Manager), Director Environmental and Health Programs
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0337.1
70
No
Comment: Conclusion we first offer our general comments and concerns, followed by more
detailed comments on specific provisions of the draft general permit. CLIA member lines already
meet or exceed all CLIA comments on EPA NPDES draft large passenger vessel general permit
page 64 of 73 docket NBR. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055 August 1, 2008 applicable U.S.
environmental regulations and requirements and participate in emergency response drills and
other voluntary operations as a means of remaining a partner in providing safe vessel
implementing environmentally protective practices and procedures as an everyday occurrence in
our furtherance of environmental stewardship. Although we feel that the U.S. would be better
served by implementing environmental requirements applied to non-U.S. flag vessels at
international forums such as the international maritime organization, we are offering our
comments in support of EPA objectives and targets for implementation of the general permit
September 30, 2008.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Joe Burgard, Vice President of Operations
Red and White Fleet
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0338
1
No
Comment: We support the issuance of an industry wide general permit and urge the EPA to
take action on this decision prior to September 30, 2008, if at all possible. We support the
continued development of regulations which will protect our collective resources, and as a
forward thinking company, have moved ahead of regulations in taking actions to protect our
environment such as the voluntary use of biodiesel, installation of low emissions engines,
implementation of a comprehensive waste reduction program and others.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment.
1-41
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Ellen Gilinsky, Ph.D., Director, Water Division
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ)
State Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0347
1
No
Comment: In general, we are in support of this general permit as the most appropriate way to
handle such disharges. We offer the following comments in the interest of ensuring that our state
Section 401 certification have as few conditions as possible on the use of this GP.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. See Part 6 of the permit for 401 certification
requirements. Additionally, see e.g., response to comment 273.1, excerpt 10 (CERT) for further
information on incorporating 401 conditions received from states into the VGP.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Margo S. Marks, President
Beaver Island Boat Company (BIBCO)
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0356
1
No
Comment: The passenger vessel industry has relied on EPA’s regulatory exemption in good
faith for 35 years and the Federal government must act to enable commercial vessels to keep
operating past September 30 without being branded as lawbreakers. We support “general
permits”. We would support a single industry-wide “general permit” automatically granted to
nearly every commercial vessel operator. The alternative would be individual permits to every
single operator, with a requirement for us to submit an application. This application process
would be yet another unnecessary governmental paperwork burden.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. Additional information regarding which vessels
will be required to submit a Notice of Intent to receive permit coverage can be found in Part 1.5
of the VGP and Section 3.7 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Captain R. S. Horr, Assistant Operations Manager
Casco Bay Island Transit District (CBITD)
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0358.1
1
No
Comment: Definitive action we support that swift and definitive action be taken in regards to
this rulemaking to avoid a potential conflict in regards to the Clean Water Act. As the current
EPA exemption of overboard discharges incidental to normal operation expiry is September 30,
2008, if action is not taken to either extend the exemption or approve an incidental permit prior
to that date, many commercial vessel operators simply cannot operate. The impact to the marine
1-42
industry and those that depend on these services to transport goods, persons, vehicles, etc is
immeasurable and far reaching. General permit we support the conception of a single, industry
wide "general permit" granted to commercial vessel operators and agencies. The concept of
individual permitting would be both burdensome and unnecessary.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. Information on the outcome of the appeal can be
found in Section 2.4 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Public Hearing Comments
Various
Various
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0365
1
No
Comment: Support EPA's decision to issue a general discharge permit for all commercial
vessels rather than requiring a permit for each individual vessel.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. Information on the outcome of the appeal can be
found in Section 2.4 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Public Hearing Comments
Various
Various
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0365
4
No
Comment: A general permit is the way to go. If the vessel discharge permitting scheme is to be
implemented to rely on a single nationwide general permit for commercial vessels, it would be
ludicrous for the government to force each operator of the thousands of commercial vessels to
apply for discharge permits.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. Information on the outcome of the appeal can be
found in Section 2.4 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Public Hearing Comments
Various
Various
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0365
27
No
Comment: The message from these folks is to win your appeal and continue to pursue it with
all due cost. In lieu of that, we would support the general permit.
1-43
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. Information on the outcome of the appeal can be
found in Section 2.4 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Christian Myers, Vessel Operations Manager/Port Captain
Interstate Navigation Company (The Block Island Ferry)
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0393.1
4
Yes
Comment: * The domestic passenger vessel industry has relied on EPA’s regulatory exemption
in good faith for 35 years and the Federal government must act to enable commercial vessels to
continue operations past September 30th without being branded as “lawbreakers”. Two months
time is insufficient to attempt to comply with a new set of burdensome Federal regulations. *
interstate navigation is in support of a single industry-wide “general permit” automatically
granted to nearly every commercial vessel operator. We oppose individual permits to every
single operator, which require us to submit an application.
Response: EPA notes that this comment was submitted late, and as such, EPA is not legally
obligated to respond to it. EPA, however, will respond. EPA acknowledges this comment and
notes that additional information regarding which vessels will be required to submit a Notice of
Intent to receive permit coverage can be found in Part 1.5 of the VGP and Section 3.7 of the Fact
Sheet. EPA cannot provide additional time to comply because under the court order in the NWEA
litigation, the existing vessel permit exclusion is vacated as of December 19, 2008, and we are
not empowered to extend that date. For further information regarding time to comply, see, e.g.,
response to comment 301.1, excerpt 24 (IMP).
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John Kelly, Chairman
National Paint and Coatings Association Marine Antifouling
Working Group (NPCA AFWG)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0396.3
1
No
Comment: At the outset, we recognize that the NPDES permitting proposal for vessels and
recreation vessels is not something preferred by US EPA and essentially was forced upon it by
recent court decisions that eliminated decades long standing interpretative precedent that
discharges from such craft which are incidental to their normal operation are not “pollutants”.
We agree with the US EPA’s view on this matter. We also agree with its proposal to include
vessels and recreation craft in the NPDES program to prevent the chaos that otherwise would
occur in September when the court ordered date for treating such discharges as “pollutants” will
become effective. We view the proposal as a rational way to deal with a very difficult situation.
We also generally concur in the permitting approach proposed by the US EPA as it affects
antifouling coatings lechate . In particular we agree with the decision not to attempt to set
1-44
numeric discharge limits for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. This
would be impossibly difficult and ultimately ineffective.
Response: EPA clarifies that the court-ordered date refers to vacatur of the NPDES exclusion
for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel (which was not based on a legal
interpretation that incidental discharges are not “pollutants” under the Act). Legislation passed in
July 2008 has removed recreational vessels, fishing vessels, and commercial vessels of less than
79 feet from coverage under this permit. For information regarding the impact of the legislation,
please see Fact Sheet Section 2.4. See Section 4 of the Fact Sheet for EPA’s rationale for
imposing numeric and non-numeric effluent limitations for the discharges incidental to the
normal operation of a vessel eligible for coverage under the VGP.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kevin and Carrie Stier, Owner/Operators
River Cruises
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0404.1
1
No
Comment: The passenger vessel industry has relied on EPA’s regulatory exemption in good
faith for 35 years and we pray the Federal government will take action that will enable
commercial vessels to keep operating past September 30 without being branded as lawbreakers.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. Information on the outcome of the appeal can be
found in Section 2.4 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Marc A. Ross, President & Executive Director
Rock the Earth
Environmental Group
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0405
1
No
Comment: Thousands of die-hard music fans are taking cruises each year with little knowledge
as to the incredible deleterious impact the ships upon which they are sailing are having on the
environment. As the leading environmental advocacy organization to work with the music
industry, we take our role in this issue seriously. Our vast and growing national membership of
concerned and conscious music fans know that environmental issues directly caused by cruise
ships are not being addressed. We hope that by speaking on behalf of the concerned
environmentalists within the music community, we can encourage those within the music
industry – in particular, the artists and producers who work with the cruise industry – to use their
stature and financial resources to do the same and require the cruise industry to meet or exceed
not only Federal requirements, but implement mechanical changes to best preserve one of the
most important resources we have as human beings – our ocean and coastal areas. Therefore,
rock the earth strongly approves of the long overdue implementation of NPDES permits for
ocean going vessels.
1-45
Response: EPA acknowledges the comment regarding numerous music fans taking cruises.
EPA also acknowledges the commenter views on the importance of environmental education and
awareness. See Parts 5.1 and 5.2 of the VGP for additional technology-based and related permit
requirements for large and medium cruise ships.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Russell Rasmussen, Director, Bureau of Watershed
Management
State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
State Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0411.1
2
No
Comment: Nationwide permit the department strongly supports the development of national
performance and permitting standards for ballast water discharges. Nationwide standards that are
implemented consistently on the Great Lakes and in all other national waters are absolutely
needed. EPA should be congratulated for proceeding with the draft permit. Overall, the issuance
of a nationwide permit that is revised to address many of the concerns listed below is long
overdue. Because the transfer of non-indigenous species via ballast water is an international
issue, regulations for the management of ballast water to prevent introductions will be most
effective if applied internationally. Recognizing that EPA must do something now; we support
the national application of ballast water discharge standards and their regulations through the
NPDES permit process. EPA must take seriously the impact of ballast water discharges on both
the economy and ecology. This is a serious matter. EPA can no longer stand on the sidelines. We
want to see a NPDES permit with teeth and substance to effectively address ANS in ballast water
discharges.
Response: EPA acknowledges this comment. See Part 2.2 of the Permit and Section 4.4 of the
Fact Sheet for information on the VGP’s requirements for ballast water discharges.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Captain Gus Gaspardo, General Manager
Padelford Packet Boat Company, Padelford Riverboats
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0422.1
1
No
Comment: The passenger vessel industry has relied on EPA’s regulatory exemption in good
faith for 35 years and the Federal government must act to enable commercial vessels to keep
operating past September 30 without being branded as lawbreakers. We support a single
industry-wide general permit over a burdensome individual permit. The application process is
yet another complicated paperwork process that will take even more time away from operating
our business. Also, we support EPA’s recommendation that there be no fees or charges for the
permit.
1-46
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. Additional information regarding which vessels
will be required to submit a Notice of Intent to receive permit coverage can be found in Part 1.5
of the VGP and Section 3.7 of the Fact Sheet. In those portions of the fact sheet, EPA explains its
rationale for requiring NOIs for certain vessels. Furthermore, these sections contain information
describing the schedule for submitting the NOI.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Captain John B. Ayer, Marine Operations Manager
American Cruise Lines
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0429.2
1
No
Comment: For the past 35 years the passenger vessel industry has relied upon the EPA’s
regulatory exemption from discharges incidental to normal operation of a vessel. Because of this
good faith effort on the part of the passenger vessel industry, we urge the Federal government to
act to enable commercial vessels to keep operating past September 30 without being stigmatized
as lawbreakers. American Cruise Lines believes that a single, industry-wide "general permit"
should be automatically granted to nearly all commercial vessel operators. Requiring each and
every commercial vessel operator to submit to an application process for incidental discharges
would add additional governmental paperwork requirements to an already burdensome process.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. EPA notes that the VGP does not require lengthy
applications, but instead will require certain vessels to submit Notices of Intent (NOIs) to be
authorized to discharge under the permit. Vessel owner/operators may have to submit an
application if they seek, or are required to seek, individual NPDES permit coverage. Additional
information regarding which vessels will be required to submit a Notice of Intent to receive
permit coverage can be found in Part 1.5 of the VGP and Section 3.7 of the Fact Sheet. In those
portions of the fact sheet, EPA explains its rationale for requiring NOIs for certain vessels.
Furthermore, these sections contain information describing the schedule for submitting the NOI.
EPA notes that the VGP grants ‘automatic’ coverage for the first 9 months after permit coverage.
If a vessel is greater or equal to 300 gross tons or the vessel has the capacity to hold or discharge
more than 8 cubic meters (2113 gallons) of ballast water, then the vessel owner/operator must
submit an NOI between June 19, 2009 and September 19, 2009 to continue coverage past
September 19, 2008. These dates are consistent with those timeframes given in the proposed
VGP.
EPA notes that the Agency considered the burden associated with completing NOIs in both the
economic analysis for this permit and will continue to do so as part of the Agency’s obligations
in completing Information Collection Requests (ICRs).
1-47
1.2
Oppose Federal Action
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dylan Hesley, Environmental Manager
National Maintenance and Repair of Kentucky, Inc.
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0280.1
1
No
Comment: National Maintenance and Repair, Inc. supports the exclusion in 40 CFR §122.3(a)
for discharges incidental to the normal operations of a vessel. This exemption is firmly rooted
through 30 years of acceptance and affirmation by congress. The July 23, 2008 decision by the
Ninth Circuit court of appeals to affirm the District Court decision in northwest environmental
advocates V. EPA is very disappointing as the current NPDES permitting program is not
equipped to adequately address shipbuilding, ship repair, towboat, and barge industry operations
on the inland river system. National maintenance urges the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency to take the following actions: (1) pursue all necessary means to appeal the decision by
the District Court including review by the U.S. Supreme Court, (2) seek an extension to the
September 30, 2008 deadline for cessation of the 40 CFR §122.3(a) exclusion and (3) provide an
extension to the public comment period. These steps will allow for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to further analyze vessel discharges and their impacts and to receive further
comments from the shipbuilding, ship repair, towboat, and barge industries and their respective
advocacy groups while pursuing additional appellate options.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. Information regarding the court decision and the
extension of the vacatur until December 19 can be found in Section 2.4 of the Fact Sheet. A
response to the specific requests for action outlined above can be found in the response to EPAHQ-OW-2008-0055-0299.1, excerpt 1 (LEG). It is also important to note that not all discharges
associated with vessels were subject to the 40 CFR 122.3(a) exclusion and thus subject to today’s
permit, only discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel as defined by that
regulation. For more information on the status of some discharges associated with shipbuilding,
see Fact Sheet Section 3.5.2.1. For a discussion of some discharges associated with ship repair,
see, e.g., response to comments 0055-0274.1, Excerpt 2.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Lynn J. Tomich Kent, Director
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC),
Division of Water
State Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0324.1
1
No
Comment: In previous comments on EPA’s intent to regulate vessel discharges, the state of
Alaska recognized concerns on control of invasive species. We questioned, however whether the
Clean Water Act was the appropriate regulatory mechanism for addressing this risk (see August
7, 2007 letter to John Lishman, EPA headquarters water permits division from the Office of the
Governor). We also questioned whether some discharges, such as deck drainage could
1-48
effectively be regulated from the variety of vessels that could be covered under vessel permits
administered under the NPDES program.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. For more information on deck runoff see, e.g.
response to comment 337.1, excerpt 36 (ELF2A), Part 2.2.1 of the VGP and Section 4.4.1 of the
Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Richard Purinton, President
Washington Island Ferry Line Inc.
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0335.1
1
No
Comment: We have a deep respect for the environment in Wisconsin and we are a bit miffed by
the court ruling from northern California with the presumption the nation would be better off to
follow suit. The ruling casts an enormous net, and was prompted, we think, by advocates who
know very little about the range of vessels across this nation’s waters. We are miffed, too, by
EPA officials who propose regulations for permits to allow even the most benign “incidental
vessel discharges”, along with inspections and reports and fees, all in the name of environmental
protection. I think the men named above would find this regulatory approach counter to the
intuitive methods of education and conservation, a waste in public dollars and energies. If there
is any salvation in this regulatory scheme it lies in the opportunity to comment, and vent. I hope
common sense will prevail and influence the final solution.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. EPA has worked with relevant stakeholders as
well as other regulatory agencies to ensure implementation of the VGP is compatible with
shipboard operations and not in conflict with existing vessel regulations. EPA also notes that this
effort was undertaken in response to the Northern District of California’s ruling (discussed in
Section 2.4 of the Fact Sheet for today’s final Permit) and that more specific concerns regarding
the requirements of today’s permit can be found throughout this response to comment document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President - National
Advocacy
The American Waterways Operators
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0343.1
1
No
Comment: In 2005, the coalition joined the Federal government in appealing the decision of the
U.S. District Court for the northern district of California in Northwest Environmental Advocates
V. EPA to the Ninth Circuit court of appeals. Although the appeals court issued a ruling on July
23, 2008, affirming the decision of the District Court that EPA improperly exempted vessel
discharges from the NPDES program in 1973, we continue to believe that the NPDES program is
the wrong vehicle for regulating incidental discharges from vessels. The NPDES system was
1-49
created to manage point source discharges from fixed facilities and is an extremely poor fit for
vessels that transit through the waters of numerous states. The diversity of vessels and their
discharge streams makes the scientific application of this model to vessel discharges an
impossibility.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. Additional information regarding the lawsuit and
the court’s ruling may be found in Section 2 of the Fact Sheet. EPA’s responses to more specific
concerns regarding the requirements of today’s permit can be found throughout this response to
comment document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Chris Flanagan, Vice President
Marine Technical, Overseas Shipholding Group (OSG)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0344.1
4
No
Comment: OSG believes the proposed NPDES program is inappropriate for application to
commercial vessels. The congressionally accepted and long-standing exclusion of discharges
incidental to the normal operations of vessels was logical and should be restored by the courts or
legislature. The NPDES system was intended for stationary sources and when applied to
internationally mobile vessels, creates unnecessary conflicts with existing international and
national laws and regulations. Vessel discharges that have an environmental impact are already
addressed by international agreements and U.S. statutes and regulations. While the NPDES
system has been effective for stationary situations, it is unjustifiably complex and resource
intensive for application to marine vessels.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. EPA has worked with relevant stakeholders as
well as other regulatory agencies to help ensure implementation of the VGP is compatible with
shipboard operations and not in conflict with existing vessel regulations. Additional information
regarding the lawsuit and the court’s ruling may be found in Section 2 of the Fact Sheet.
Additional information regarding the two bills passed by Congress in July 2008 affecting
recreational vessels, fishing vessels, and commercial vessels less than 79 feet may be found in
Section 2.5 of the Fact Sheet. EPA also notes that this effort was undertaken in response to the
Northern District of California’s ruling (discussed in Section 2.4 of the Fact Sheet for today’s
final Permit) and that more specific concerns regarding the requirements of today’s permit can be
found throughout this response to comment document.
1-50
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John Berge, Vice President
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0345.1
15
No
Comment: PMSA has a track record of supporting Federal and international standards for our
industry. In fact, we worked hard in support of the EPA proposal to the IMO regarding Annex VI
to reduce air pollutants from ships worldwide. We continue to urge action at the Federal level in
order to create regulations that are consistent, protective and workable. Unfortunately, using the
NPDES permitting and 401 certification regime will almost certainly create a confusing
patchwork of regulations that are not designed for regulating mobile source discharges for
vessels. At a minimum, EPA should urge the court to provide more time for the agency to
consider the many problems with this approach by extending the deadline for the vacatur of the
current exemption. We appreciate the challenges for EPA in developing a VGP and are available
to provide information that may be of assistance. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Please feel free to contact our office at info@pmsaship.com should you have any questions.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. EPA has worked with relevant stakeholders as
well as other regulatory agencies to ensure implementation of the VGP is compatible with
shipboard operations and not in conflict with existing vessel regulations. Additional information
regarding the lawsuit and the court’s ruling (including the granting of EPA’s request for more
time) may be found in Section 2 of the Fact Sheet. Additional information regarding the two bills
passed by Congress in July 2008 affecting recreational vessels, fishing vessels, and commercial
vessels less than 79 feet may be found in Section 2.5 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Thomas O. Lind, General Counsel and Secretary
Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0355.1
1
No
Comment: In general, CRC is concerned that the proposed VGP is overly burdensome for
inland towing operations and is not an efficient or effective use of EPA, Coast Guard or industry
resources to achieve our mutual goal — environmentally sound operation on our nation’s
waterways. We vigorously oppose the ruling of the Federal court that has led to implementation
at the VGP, and hope to see dial decision reversed, but our comments here will he limited to the
proposed VGP.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. EPA has worked with relevant stakeholders as
well as other regulatory agencies to ensure implementation of the VGP is compatible with
shipboard operations and not in conflict with existing vessel regulations. EPA’s responses to
more specific concerns regarding the requirements of today’s permit can be found throughout
this response to comment document.
1-51
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Gerald A. Gallion, Corporate Counsel
Kirby Corporation
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0361.1
1
No
Comment: First, we must emphasize that we believe that the NPDES permitting program is not
the right mechanism for regulating discharges incidental to normal vessel operations. The Clean
Water Act has clearly established requirements with respect to unauthorized discharges. With
respect to discharges incidental to normal vessel operations, the exemption in the Clean Water
Act does not absolve the owner or operator of the vessel from managing ballast water in
accordance with Coast Guard requirements, discussed in more detail below. Second, if EPA
proceeds with the proposed VGP, it requires significant revision to take into account the
operational realities of the barge and towing industry, especially the inland barge and towing
industry.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. EPA has worked with relevant stakeholders as
well as other regulatory agencies to ensure implementation of the VGP is compatible with
shipboard operations and not in conflict with existing vessel regulations. The commenter
correctly notes that the exemption did not relieve vessels from complying with applicable Coast
Guard regulations for ballast water, as well as any other applicable state or Federal laws. EPA
also notes that this effort was undertaken in response to the Northern District of California’s
ruling (discussed in Section 2.4 of the Fact Sheet for today’s final Permit) and that more specific
concerns regarding the requirements of today’s permit can be found throughout this response to
comment document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
James H. I. Weakley, President
Lake Carriers' Association (LCA)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0362.1
1
No
Comment: General comments we are disappointed we must submit these comments. We had
expected the United States court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit would have vacated a lower
court's ruling that the EPA exceeded its authority when it exempted vessel discharges from the
NPDES program_ the arguments supporting the desired ruling were – and remain – compelling,
but now both the maritime industry and the EPA face the impossible task of regulating as many
as 28 vessel discharges in a scant two months. Again, for the record, the NPDES program is not
an appropriate vehicle to regulate commercial vessels, a point the EPA has conceded more than
once_ in fact, as recently as July 22, 2008, in a webcast. Deborah Nagle, Chief, Industrial
Branch, Water Permits Division, said "NPDES is not a good fit" for the maritime industry. The
NPDES was designed to cover stationary sources. Such as steel mills, power plants, factories.
Now it must be applied to vessels that in our case, for example, begin today in Duluth/Superior
Harbor at the western end of Lake Superior and end it approaching Whitefish Bay at the eastern
end, will tomorrow be in the St. Marys River, and the next day cross either Lake Michigan or
1-52
Lake Huron. Some vessels will then spend day four on Lake Erie, it is incredulous to us that this
basic fact seems to have been ignored by the courts. It is itself ample reason to strike down
application of the NPDES program to vessels. If this is to move forward without a catastrophic
disruption in the nation's transportation system, a maritime-specific program is what is needed.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. EPA has worked with relevant stakeholders as
well as other regulatory agencies to ensure implementation of the VGP is compatible with
shipboard operations and not in conflict with existing vessel regulations. Information regarding
the background of the lawsuit, the court rulings, and the NPDES permitting program can be
found in Section 2 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
James H. I. Weakley, President
Lake Carriers' Association (LCA)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0362.1
31
No
Comment: Summary in closing, we wish to stress the following key points: * use of the NPDES
program that was designed for application to stationary sources is not an appropriate vehicle to
use in managing the diverse types and volumes of discharges incidental to the normal operation
of vessels. * application of requirements to the broad and diverse universe of commercial vessels
cannot be accomplished in one general permit. Operations aboard vessels vary substantially in a
manner that impacts the type of discharges from the vessel as well as their relative volumes.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. EPA has worked with relevant stakeholders as
well as other regulatory agencies to ensure implementation of the VGP is compatible with
shipboard operations and not in conflict with existing vessel regulations. Information regarding
the background of the lawsuit, the court rulings, and the NPDES permitting program can be
found in Section 2 of the Fact Sheet. EPA’s responses to more specific concerns regarding the
requirements of today’s permit can be found throughout this response to comment document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Public Hearing Comments
Various
Various
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0365
10
No
Comment: We are here today because we believe strongly that, one, the NPDES permitting
program is the wrong vehicle for regulating discharges from vessel operations, and two, that the
proposed general permit as drafted requires modification to address the realities of our industry's
operations.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. EPA has worked with relevant stakeholders as
well as other regulatory agencies to ensure implementation of the VGP is compatible with
1-53
shipboard operations and not in conflict with existing vessel regulations. EPA also notes that this
effort was undertaken in response to the Northern District of California’s ruling (discussed in
Section 2.4 of the Fact Sheet for today’s final Permit) and that more specific concerns regarding
the requirements of today’s permit can be found throughout this response to comment document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Captain Michael O. Jones, Director of Marine Operations
Lindblad Expeditions
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0372.1
1
No
Comment: We strongly urge a quick reconsideration of the Environmental Protection Agency's
permitting of "incidental discharges" for all passenger vessels.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. Information on the lawsuit that led to vessel
permitting can be found in Section 2 of the Fact Sheet. EPA’s responses to more specific
concerns regarding the requirements of today’s permit can be found throughout this response to
comment document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Susan Hayman, Vice President, Environmental and Corporate
Development
Foss Maritime Company
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0376.1
1
No
Comment: As a general comment, we feel the NPDES permitting program is an inappropriate
vehicle for regulating vessel discharges and the proposed general permit as drafted does not
adequately reflect the issues of operating tugs and barges. Clearly the NPDES system was
created for stationary source discharges and should not be used to regulate incidental discharges
from vessels transiting through multiple state territorial waters.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. Information on the lawsuit that led to vessel
permitting can be found in Section 2 of the Fact Sheet. EPA’s responses to more specific
concerns regarding the requirements of today’s permit can be found throughout this response to
comment document.
1-54
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William R. Barr
Madison Coal & Supply Company, Inc.
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0390.1
2
Yes
Comment: The NPDES permit system is the wrong vehicle to manage point source discharges
from mobile towboats and barges involved in interstate commerce. We believe a study needs to
be undertaken to quantify the volume amount of the twenty eight proposed vessel discharges to
be regulated. As NPDES permits are being proposed for towing vessels, has runoff discharges
been considered that come during every rainfall from our nations highways and building roofs.
As we are paving the earth for huge mall parking complexes that catch oil, road dirt, and
highway deicing compounds, these vast collection areas rapidly increase the runoff and pollution
of our streams. This is a much larger source than the industry’s 4,000 towing vessels and 27,000
barges.
Response: EPA notes that this comment was submitted late and because of that, EPA is not
obligated to respond to it. EPA will, however, respond to it. EPA notes that this effort was
undertaken in response to the Northern District of California’s ruling (discussed in Section 2.4 of
the Fact Sheet for today’s final Permit) that DINOVs are subject to the CWA Section 301
prohibition against discharge without a permit. The reason for the commenter’s suggestion for a
study of discharge volumes is unclear; discharges other than DINOVs are outside of scope of
today’s action and have no bearing on today’s permit.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Christian Myers, Vessel Operations Manager/Port Captain
Interstate Navigation Company (The Block Island Ferry)
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0393.1
1
Yes
Comment: Interstate Navigation Company (the Block Island Ferry) is strongly opposed to the
proposed vessel general permit for “discharges incidental to normal operation of a vessel”.
Response: EPA notes that this comment was submitted late and because of that, EPA is not
obligated to respond to it. EPA will, however, respond to it. EPA has worked with relevant
stakeholders as well as other regulatory agencies to ensure implementation of the VGP is
compatible with shipboard operations and not in conflict with existing vessel regulations. EPA’s
responses to more specific concerns regarding the requirements of today’s permit can be found
throughout this response to comment document.
1-55
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Christian Myers, Vessel Operations Manager/Port Captain
Interstate Navigation Company (The Block Island Ferry)
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0393.1
20
Yes
Comment: Interstate Navigation is opposed to the EPA’s proposed general permit for
“discharges incidental to normal operation of a vessel” for all commercial vessels, as proposed in
its entirety, while recognizing some virtues within the proposal. It is our hope that the EPA will
obtain relief from congress or the judicial branch of the u.s Government prior to September 30,
2008. We also hope that the EPA will be allowed to return to its previous stance that it had
occupied for 35 years, and allow maritime companies such as ours to operate domestic
passengers vessels without new excessive and burdensome regulation. Our vessels are operated
by U.S. Coast Guard licensed mariners that do all in their power to prevent unauthorized
discharges. We do believe that the EPA should focus only on unauthorized discharges, not
allowable ones which offer minimal impact to the environment. We will do all that we can to
work with the EPA, pva and all concerned parties to develop a vessel general permit for all
commercial vessels.
Response: EPA notes that this comment was submitted late and because of that, EPA is not
obligated to respond to it. EPA will, however, respond to it. EPA has worked with relevant
stakeholders as well as other regulatory agencies to ensure implementation of the VGP is
compatible with shipboard operations and not in conflict with existing vessel regulations. To the
extent the commenter seeks a “de minimis” exclusion for certain (unspecified) discharges, the
Agency does not have the record before it to justify any such exclusions.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Robert D. Rich, Director of Administration
Shaver Transportation Company
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0424.1
1
No
Comment: Shaver Transportation is a 128 year old family owned operator of 10 tugs and 16
grain barges on the Columbia Snake River System . We are strongly opposed to the proposed
NPDES permitting being extended to tugs and barges . The tugs and barges all operate with wet
decks due to wave action, rain, snow and ice. Any effort to contain this water would be futile due
to nature of vessels needing to allow water to shed an d not be retained to remain buoy ant. The
original law exemption was placed for good re as on and has been visited man y times over the
years . Our tugs operate with USCG approved marine sanitation devices that treat any effluent,
which is a far cry from the hundreds of thousands of gallons of untreated sewage our own city
diverts directly into our local waterways . We truly feel that this exemption as it stands serves
and protects our environment and our Federal resources should be targeting the largest sources of
untreated pollution in our waterways first. Thank you for providing an opportunity to comment
on this matter.
1-56
Response: Information on the lawsuit that led to vessel permitting can be found in Section 2 of
the Fact Sheet; . EPA has worked with relevant stakeholders as well as other regulatory agencies
to ensure implementation of the VGP is compatible with shipboard operations and not in conflict
with existing vessel regulations. With respect to deck washdown and runoff, see Part 2.2.1 of the
VGP, which does not require vessel owner/operators to “contain this water”, but instead requires
that they minimize the introduction of on-deck debris, garbage, residue and spill into deck runoff
and washdown discharges from the vessel. To the extent the commenter seeks a “de minimis”
exclusion for its discharges, the Agency does not have the record before it to justify any such
exclusions.
1.3
Other
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Tim Young
Sause Bros., Inc.
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0307.1
2
No
Comment: 1. We request that EPA work very closely with the American Waterways Operators
(AWO) in the development of safe, realistic performance-based criteria for compliance with this
regulation, taking into consideration the potential human and economic costs associated with
permit compliance. AWO has a long and effective history of working in partnership with
numerous regulatory bodies and governmental agencies to successfully develop and implement
standards that work for our industry. 2. We urge EPA to conduct additional research in close
cooperation with AWO and maritime industry representatives to ensure that permit requirements
are achievable.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. EPA has worked with relevant stakeholders as
well as other regulatory agencies to ensure implementation of the VGP is compatible with
shipboard operations and not in conflict with existing vessel regulations. In addition, see the
Economic Analysis for the VGP, which can be found in the docket for this action.
Furthermore, EPA will continue to evaluate vessel discharges and appropriate effluent limits
after finalization of this permit to determine limits and conditions for any future permit issuances
and will continue its practice of working with parties with valuable expertise.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Richard Purinton, President
Washington Island Ferry Line Inc.
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0335.1
8
No
Comment: Note: While considering all of the possible “incidental vessel discharges”, we ask
the court and the EPA to consider the incidental/ accidental discharges recently placed into
1-57
adjacent waterways by midwest flooding. These were triggered by the magnitude of the onceper-one-hundred-years event, but the discharges go on in lesser amounts on other occasions. As
reported by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel of June 20, 2008, an estimated 686 million gallons
of raw sewage were released by 24 cities in one week’s time. (Reedsburg led the list with 14.4
million gallons of sewage discharged downstream.) We presume there were also smaller
contributing towns that were not listed, as well as untold gallons of runoff of chemicals and
manure from farmland, oils and chemicals from paved city streets, all of this multiplied across
several midwest states. We believe the incidental vessel discharge permit as proposed pales in
comparison to these catastrophic events as a threat to the environment. The proposed regulation
directs government’s efforts away from real problems and away from more serious discharges to
clean waterways.
Response: The VGP only addresses discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels, it
does not address combined or sanitary sewer overflows or nonpoint sources such as agricultural
runoff. This scope of permit coverage is consistent with the scope of the vacated regulatory
exclusion. EPA notes that this effort was undertaken in response to the Northern District of
California’s ruling (discussed in Section 2 of the fact sheet for today’s final permit) and that
without today’s permit, after the date of vacatur of 40 CFR 122.3(a), discharges incidental to the
normal operation of vessels would be in violation of CWA Section 301’s prohibition against
discharge without a permit.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Steve Collins, CHMM (Certified Hazardous Materials
Manager), Director Environmental and Health Programs
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0337.1
2
No
Comment: As noted in the Federal Register and the fact sheet associated with this draft general
permit, vessels have discharged within the territorial waters of the United States without a permit
since the early implementation of the Clean Water Act under a specific exemption found at 40
CFR part 122.3(a). Congress has, at various times, elected not to direct the agency to eliminate
this exemption; and in other instances has directed in the law agencies other than EPA (i.e., the
Coast Guard) to initiate regulatory action to address discharges such as ballast water and even, in
the case of large cruise ships operating Alaska, to regulate the discharge of sewage. In that
respect we agree with EPA’s position that Congress has acquiesced to the NPDES exemptions
found at 122.3(a).CLIA appreciates the complexity of the issues which EPA has tried to address
in the proposed vessel general permit. The proposed vessel general permit was issued in an
unusually short time frame, having been precipitated by a judicial determination that the three
decade- old current exemption from the Clean Water Act’s NPDES program for discharges
incident to the normal operation of vessels be vacated on September 30, 2008. See Northwest
Envtl. Advocates V. EPA, 2008 U.S. app. Lexis 15576 (9th Cir. July 23, 2008). While we
continue to believe that EPA properly exempted discharges incident to the normal operation of
vessels 35 years ago by regulation, we acknowledge the fact that, barring any further legal
action, this vacatur will go into effect on that date regardless of whether EPA has issued the
VGP. With this situation, the regulated community is left with a difficult choice between
1-58
opposing the proposed VGP on the legitimate grounds that insufficient justification has been
provided for its terms, thus potentially leaving the maritime industry without the legally required
permit on September 30, 2008, or accepting the permit as proposed. The latter option would
result in a permit program that imposes requirements that are in large part impractical and,
further, that imposes massive unnecessary costs on the industry without the necessary scientific
justification and cost benefit analysis required by applicable law.
Response: With respect to the commenter’s assertion that a “cost-benefit” analysis is required
by law, the legal authority upon which the commenter bases its assertion is unclear. Nothing in
the Clean Water Act mandates the quantification of the benefits associated with the costs of
meeting the effluent limits in this permit. With respect to technology-based BAT limits, Clean
Water Act Section 304(b)(2)(B) simply provides that EPA must consider “the cost of achieving
such effluent reduction,” without specifying a consideration of benefits. See American Paper
Institute V. Train, 543 F.2d 328, 354 (D.C. 1976) (rejecting argument that Agency is required to
perform a cost-benefit analysis in establishing BAT limit). Moreover, with respect to water
quality based effluent limits, cost plays no role in the setting of effluent limits. The Clean Water
Act Section 301(b)(1)(C) requires limits as stringent as necessary to meet state water quality
standards – without any exception for cost/benefit considerations.
EPA does note, however, that the Agency did follow the framework of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act as described in Part IV the Federal Register Notice Announcing Availability of the VGP.
EPA also conducted an Economic Analysis that can be found in the docket for this action and
imposed technology-based conditions under the applicable CWA statutory and regulatory
requirements. For more information, see, e.g., Section 4. This economic analysis also contains a
non-market impacts analysis which explores some of the benefits provided by this permit. With
respect to the commenter’s general view that the draft permit was insufficiently justified and
impractical, EPA notes that the Agency has conducted extensive literature reviews of scientific
and other government literature in support of today’s permit. Many of these documents are cited
in either the VGP Fact Sheet, the economic analysis, or the biological evaluation and are
included, as appropriate in the docket for this permit. In the Agency’s view, this information
sufficiently documents its decision making on today’s permit. EPA further notes that the
Agency’s responses to more specific concerns regarding the requirements of today’s permit can
be found throughout this response to comment document.
EPA has worked with relevant stakeholders as well as other regulatory agencies to ensure
implementation of the VGP is compatible with shipboard operations and not in conflict with
existing vessel regulations. Additional information regarding the court decision and
Congressional action may be found in Section 2 of the Fact Sheet.
1-59
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Public Hearing Comments
Various
Various
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0365
23
No
Comment: Let me start off by saying that my first comment is that we object to the fact that
EPA is regulating our discharges from our ships under the NPDES permit. We don't think it is
appropriate, and it should not be done. You know I have to say that. Okay? Having said that, we
fully recognize why you are doing it, and your presentation was very clear. So we understand
that. So, in that regard, then we would like to provide some comments on what you are doing. In
a general sense, we also believe that EPA has been very reasonable in trying to approach this by
using best management practices, self-inspections, and things like that. We think it provides a
good balance on trying to balance what you need to do here and how it would affect the industry.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kevin and Carrie Stier, Owner/Operators
River Cruises
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0404.1
14
No
Comment: We pray that the EPA will use our comments to help answer the recent court order
that they have been charged with. We believe that there are considerable virtues to the EPA’s
proposed permit; however, we feel the EPA does not completely understand the way passenger
boats operate and who we really are. Case in point, in the EPA’s proposed permit, they refer to
us as a medium cruise ship. We are not a “cruise ship” but small passenger vessel as classified by
another government agency (the USCG). In the larger scheme of things, there are much more
threats to our waterways than grey water or deck run off discharged by passenger and
commercial vessels. The estimated 5 gallons of soap we use to scrub our decks each year is
negligible compared to the hundreds of thousand of tons of road salt that is either dumped into or
enters the rivers via run-off each winter. As small business owners, we experience daily the
challenges of functioning under excessive and sometimes un-necessary governmental guidelines.
Between my wife and I, we have almost 50 years experience operating passenger vessels of our
size. This is our life and livelihood. It would be impractical for us to operate in any way that
would cause damage to the area that we live and work in.
Response: Based on the decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, effective December 19,
2008, except for those vessels exempted from NPDES permitting by Congressional legislation,
discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels currently excluded from NPDES
permitting by 40 C.F.R. 122.3(a) will be subject to the CWA Section 301’s prohibition against
discharging, unless covered under an NPDES permit. Congress acted in July 2008 to exempt all
recreational vessels from NPDES permit requirements and to place a two year moratorium on
permitting requirements for commercial vessels of less than 79ft and commercial fishing vessels
1-60
of all sizes. Further details about the court decisions and Congressional action can be found in
Sections 2.4 and 2.5 of the Fact Sheet. Vessels not affected by either enactment that have
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel will be required to comply with the
requirements of the VGP. EPA has worked with relevant stakeholders as well as other regulatory
agencies to ensure implementation of the VGP is compatible with shipboard operations and not
in conflict with existing vessel regulations. The regulation of road salt is outside the scope of this
permitting action. To the extent the commenter seeks a “de minimis” exclusion for its discharges,
the Agency does not have the record before it to justify any such exclusions.
1-61
2.
RECREATIONAL VESSEL COMMENTS/MISFILED COMMENT
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Anonymous
None
Private Citizen
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0258
1
No
Comment: General comment dear sir or madam, I am the owner of a 33-foot sailboat and I
obey all the laws against the discharge of pollutants. However, this sailboat is not my full-time
job, it is my very part-time hobby. And for every hour that I sail, I usually need to spend an hour
or two maintaining the boat. So I find the suggestion that I, and millions of people like me,
should have to deal directly with the EPA's permit process extremely objectionable, for at least
two reasons: 1 - the amount of time and distress that the process would cost me. No offence, but
based on my experience, it is it the nature of the government regulation process to be excessively
complex and legalistic which puts us mere mortals at an extreme disadvantage. I'm not thrilled
with the idea of being fined or going to jail because I didn't engage a lawyer to fill out my permit
application. 2 - as a citizen, I am appalled at the magnitude of this program and what it will cost
in terms of tax money and bureaucratic effort to implement. For these reasons, I urge you to
categorically exclude small recreational vessels from the entire permit process. Thank you.
Response: Due to the passing of the Clean Boating Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-288), recreational
vessels (as defined in that Act) are no longer subject to this permit, or any other NPDES
permitting requirements. EPA will develop best management practices that will apply to
discharges from recreational vessels. For additional information, please see Section 2.5 of the
Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
D.A. Zehe II
None
Private Citizen
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0259
1
No
Comment: General comment I am appalled by the threat of losing recreational boating due to a
governmental over-sight. I have been a recreational boater for over 20 years. Boating has
allowed my family of 6 to enjoy the outdoors a reconnect with each other after a long week of
work and school. We have fought rising fuel prices, a slow economy, and know our own
government is threatening the one activity that keeps a family together. I am hoping that you can
promptly exempt small (or all) recreational vessels from this absurd requirement as soon as
possible.
Response: Due to the passing of the Clean Boating Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-288), recreational
vessels (as defined in that Act) are no longer subject to this permit, or any other NPDES
permitting requirements. EPA will develop best management practices that will apply to
2-1
discharges from recreational vessels. For additional information, please see Section 2.5 of the
Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
D. Stephenson
None
Private Citizen
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0260
1
No
Comment: I would like to say that requiring an incidental discharge permit for all recreational
boats is just unfair taxation. I own a 15 foot open fishing boat. My only discharge is the water I
pull out of the lake to fill the live while I have fish in it and maybe some rain water if I get
caught out in a rain. My motor is an outboard with a carry on 6 gallon gas tank. There is no
covered bilge to collect any nasty stuff and no bathroom. I have already written my
congressional representatives probably to no avail. Leave it to the government to make a mess
where there wasn't a problem. I will not pay for a permit if it comes to that. I already pay for
enough regulations, I will just quit fishing which will save me money on gasoline, oil, fishing
license, boat registration, trailer license, boat insurance and all the money I spend on fishing
tackle every year.
Response: Due to the passing of the Clean Boating Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-288), recreational
vessels (as defined in that Act) are no longer subject to this permit, or any other NPDES
permitting requirements. EPA will develop best management practices that will apply to
discharges from recreational vessels. For additional information, please see Section 2.5 of the
Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Anonymous
None
Private Citizen
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0261
1
No
Comment: General comment hopefully, the clean boating act of 2008 will be passed, making
this court ordered permitting requirement a non-issue. However, it appears that this proposal may
be the most equitable to recreational boaters under the court's requirements of the EPA. I would
hope that the administration of this system would be in the spirit of the EPA's long-standing
exemption, of recreational boats, from the permitting requirement. What is unclear about the
proposal is how the permitting fees would be administered: via normal state boat registration?
Would a permit obtained in one state be valid for others in which the vessel is operated? What
determines the required fee? Requiring multiple permits for each state, in which a boat is
operated, would be burdensome and confusing to most boaters. Why would kayaks, canoes or
small rowboats, with no form of mechanical propulsion or head or galley facilities even require a
permit? I operate a 20' open boat with inboard propulsion, no galley or head. What level of fee
would that vessel require? I believe that suggested (not mandatory) BMPS be the methodology
2-2
employed. There are already many regulations dealing with what is permissible discharge and
the vast majority of recreational boaters follow them as best as they can. Issuing permits for what
is already permitted seems to be a redundant and unnecessary burden.
Response: Due to the passing of the Clean Boating Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-288), recreational
vessels (as defined in that Act) are no longer subject to this permit, or any other NPDES
permitting requirements. EPA will develop best management practices that will apply to
discharges from recreational vessels. For additional information, please see Section 2.5 of the
Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
M. Stumph
None
Private Citizen
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0262
1
No
Comment: General comment there is no need for this kind of a permit. Small pleasure/ fishing
boats do not discharge harmful bilge water.
Response: Due to the passing of the Clean Boating Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-288), recreational
vessels (as defined in that Act) are no longer subject to this permit, or any other NPDES
permitting requirements. EPA will develop best management practices that will apply to
discharges from recreational vessels. For additional information, please see Section 2.5 of the
Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Pete Alex, President
Erie Pennsylvania Sport Fishing Association
Outdoor Rec Group
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0263
1
No
Comment: To EPA, the Erie Pennsylvania sport fishing association and members have concern
over the possibility of the government requiring permits for vessels under 79ft. Below are our
concerns. This proposed permit will require recreational and small commercial operators to
maintain a permit for incidental discharges. Vessels under 79ft. Will be effected and these are the
vessels of concern. We assume there will be a fee for such. The EPSFA believes that this permit
should not apply to recreation boaters and there should be no fee for such permits. The discharge
issues associated with larger vessels does not apply to typical recreational or small commercial
vessels. An attempt should be made to separate vessels that “actually” discharge from vessels
that do not.
Response: Due to the passing of the Clean Boating Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-288), recreational
vessels (as defined in that Act) are no longer subject to this permit, or any other NPDES
permitting requirements. EPA will develop best management practices that will apply to
2-3
discharges from recreational vessels. For additional information, please see Section 2.5 of the
Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
A. Jenkins
None
Private Citizen
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0264
1
No
Comment: General comment although it is laudable that the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) is interested in protecting the waters used for recreational boating from unintentional
discharge of potential toxic or pollution-laden water, the application of an expensive bureaucracy
to every recreational boater, especially those that have no ballast tanks, is unnecessary and
inappropriate. There are already numerous statutes and regulations that apply to individuals who
pollute, and forcing every boater to get a Federal permit that has nothing to do with any aspect of
running the vessel, as well as impinging on the registration process already run by the states, is
either intrusive at best or a violation of states' rights. Finally, the potential for being fined for
biodegradable discharges (since there is no distinction between organic solvents and food-based
discharges) such as if my daughter were to get sick and throw up overboard seems ridiculous. In
addition, such "incidental" discharges that may put a "sheen" on the water but not add a
significant problem to the pollution of a region ignores a major source of potential pollution Sunblock on bathers who use the same waters. Will the EPA begin regulating all potential
swimmers and require them to get permits to use public waters, and fine them $32,000 per
violation? This is clearly a well intentioned idea that has grown beyond reasonable and is now
entering the realm of the absurd. Please exempt recreational boats less that 79 feet from
discharge permits, as it is both unnecessary and burdensome to the boat owners.
Response: Due to the passing of the Clean Boating Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-288), recreational
vessels (as defined in that Act) are no longer subject to this permit, or any other NPDES
permitting requirements. EPA will develop best management practices that will apply to
discharges from recreational vessels. For additional information, please see Section 2.5 of the
Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Phil Keeter, President and Robert Soucy, Chairman
Marine Retailers Association of America (MRAA)
Recreational Boating Industry
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0265.1
1
No
Comment: MRAA believes the proposed rule would have a vast, unprecedented impact on
recreational boating, the nation’s economy, and the clear choice of family recreation of over 70
million Americans. This rule would place an undue hardship on Americans over everyday water
discharges and would place them in a direct regulatory regime designed for land-based industrial
facilities, like sewage disposal plants, and commercial shipping vessels. As was described in the
2-4
proposed rule, failure for 17 million Americans who own recreational boats to comply with the
proposed rule would result in harsh $32,000 per day fines per violation. Our members strongly
oppose this rule for several reasons: * the NPDES permit program for recreational boats would
strongly discourage Americans from participating in boating in leisure time and would hurt the
nation’s economy with vast increases in unemployment. Our nation is facing the prospects of a
recession that already is being felt in recreational boating with sales significant declines for new
boats. We believe there are 19,000 small businesses in the USA devoted to recreational boating
employing over 154,000 people. This does not include ancillary businesses, such as bait shops,
restaurants, etc., which have a significant amount of their business dependent on recreational
boating. * States can establish their own permits and charge different fees. We understand states
are free to implement different requirements and their own permit programs that vary by body of
water in their own state. This uncertainty allows for the possibility of confusion among boaters
on how to comply, increased bureaucratic paperwork and fees, and enforcement of yet
undetermined permits. * If the boating American tries to comply but gets it wrong, look out for
lawsuits and potential huge fines. American boaters are clearly the target and this government
action will strongly encourage boaters not to go boating and for others not to get involved in
boating for leisure time activities. * The proposed rule does not allow for education of boaters.
Boaters will have to comply with the NPDES permit requirement after September 30, 2008, but
the EPA will not be educating the boating public on what these new permits mean. There are a
lot of people to educate in a very short amount of time. This proposed rule is clearly the first
installment of what could be several new rules that may vary by fifty states. The EPA is even
asking for comments on what new best practices should be mandated on boaters and if boaters
should meet something called “numerical limits.” It is clear the permitting will get more and
more complicated over time further discouraging Americans from boating. MRAA sees great
fault with the proposed rule and the potential of it causing great harm to the nation. We ask that
the proposed rule be reconsidered and returned to the current application of the Clean Water Act
to recreational boats.
Response: Due to the passing of the Clean Boating Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-288), recreational
vessels (as defined in that Act) are no longer subject to this permit, or any other NPDES
permitting requirements. EPA will develop best management practices that will apply to
discharges from recreational vessels. For additional information, please see Section 2.5 of the
Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
K. Wyman
None
Private Citizen
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0266
1
No
Comment: The proposed regulation is inappropriate, too broadly drawn, too ambiguous and
should not be implemented. A focus on recreational boating should only be undertaken after the
pollution by large commercial Cruiser vessels and NYC sludge dumping is addressed. As soon
as cruise ships move beyond the restricted zone they immediately discharge thousands of gallons
of untreated black-water waste directly into our oceans. This is a much bigger problem than
recreational boaters will ever pose. Yes, the issue is harder to resolve than merely imposing
2-5
regulations on individual recreational boaters. But, with just a little intestinal fortitude driving
the will to stand up to a powerful political lobby it could be done. And how about NYC?? Unless
I'm mistaken, NYC still ships and dumps barge loads of sewage treatment sludge ... Daily.... To a
location S.E. of NYC in the Atlantic Ocean. This is a much larger problem than even the cruise
ships. Please, let's get our priorities correct.
Response: Due to the passing of the Clean Boating Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-288), recreational
vessels (as defined in that Act) are no longer subject to this permit, or any other NPDES
permitting requirements. EPA will develop best management practices that will apply to
discharges from recreational vessels. For additional information, please see Section 2.5 of the
Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Frank J. Baldwin, Acting Chief, Water Bureau
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
State Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0273.1
5
No
Comment: Revise Section 4.10 of the recreational vessel general permit (RGP) so that vessel
owners/operators are required to notify the USEPA whenever they become aware that a
discharge from their vessel caused or contributed to an exceedance of a water quality standard.
Response: Due to the passing of the Clean Boating Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-288), recreational
vessels (as defined in that Act) are no longer subject to this permit, or any other NPDES
permitting requirements. EPA will develop best management practices that will apply to
discharges from recreational vessels. For additional information, please see Section 2.5 of the
Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bob Broscheid, Assistant Director
Wildlife Management Division, Arizona Game and Fish
Department
State Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0275.1
1
No
Comment: As we understand it, the basis for the proposed permitting has changed substantially
since issuance of the Federal register notice in June of 2008. In 2006, a U.S. District Court ruling
nullified EPA regulation 40 CFR 122.3(a) under the Clean Water Act exempting effluent
discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels, including recreational boats and
commercial vessels, setting the stage for EPA's proposals of general permits. The department had
substantial concerns with proposals to permit and regulate recreational boaters. Subsequent to
EPA's issuance of its Federal register notice on June 17: 2008, both houses of congress passed
the clean boating act of 2008 (s. 2766). It is our understanding, following consultation with your
staff, that this bill renders the recreational general permit (docket id no. EPA-HQOW- 20082-6
0056) moot, but that the' process for development of general permits for large and commercial
vessels will continue. With that in mind, we offer some specific comments regarding vessel
general permits and general comments regarding permitting for recreational vessels. While
comments regarding the general recreation permits are perhaps unnecessary at this time, we
believed that those comments could be useful if the need for performance standards for
recreational vessels is identified (paragraph 3 of s. 2766) or if regulation proves necessary
(paragraph 4 of s. 2766) in the future.
Response: Due to the passing of the Clean Boating Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-288), recreational
vessels (as defined in that Act) are no longer subject to this permit, or any other NPDES
permitting requirements. EPA will develop best management practices that will apply to
discharges from recreational vessels. For additional information, please see Section 2.5 of the
Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bob Broscheid, Assistant Director
Wildlife Management Division, Arizona Game and Fish
Department
State Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0275.1
3
No
Comment: ***Start of comment incomplete - page missing in original submission?*** and
sailing boats to be registered making notification especially difficult. This would need to be
resolved prior to implementation of any permitting system. The proposed EPA permitting system
would have had a direct relationship to the department's role, mission and authorities; and the
EPA and the Arizona department of environmental quality would apparently have assumed new
roles with regarding to boating enforcement. Per the specifics associated with the RGP under 4.4
inspection and entry, vessel owners and operators would be required to allow EPA or authorized
representatives to: (a) inspect (without warrant) any vessel, equipment (including monitoring and
control equipment), practices, or operations regulated or required under this permit; and b)
sample or monitor (without warrant), for the purpose of assuring permit compliance or as
otherwise authorized by the act, any substances or parameters at any location. Given the lack of
staffing identified previously, EPA and the Arizona department of environmental quality may
have undertaken to administratively assign enforcement duties to boating enforcement agencies
for which for which those agencies are neither funded, Equipped, or staffed. The broad
enforcement privileges identified by the permit may not have been enforceable given
constitutional restrictions regarding search and seizure of personal property and due process.
Further, A.R.S. § 5-311 provides the Arizona game and fish commission with the authority to
make rules and regulations specific to boating and water sports in the state of Arizona. The
inspection, sampling, and enforcement provisions of the permitting requirements as proposed
could have infringed upon this authority. The proposed EPA permitting system could have
directly affected the department's authority for restricted live wildlife, specifically aquatic
nuisance species. Per the specifics associated with the RGP under 2.1.1 general requirements,
living organisms (including wildlife) would be categorized as pollutants. We would disagree
with any language that would classify wildlife as a pollutant as an overly broad interpretation of
the term under the Clean Water Act. The states' have authority to regulate wildlife within their
2-7
borders, and specific identification of plants or animals regulated in discharges could constitute a
preemption of state authority. We would however find discharge standards associated with
'living organisms', similar to the standards described in hr 2830, incidentally discharged with
ballast more readily acceptable.
Response: Due to the passing of the Clean Boating Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-288), recreational
vessels (as defined in that Act) are no longer subject to this permit, or any other NPDES
permitting requirements. EPA will develop best management practices that will apply to
discharges from recreational vessels. For additional information, please see Section 2.5 of the
Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Sean D. Logan, Director
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
State Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0281.1
2
No
Comment: The penalty of up to $32,500 per day associated with violations of the permit may
well be appropriate for VGP (commercial vessels), but are unreasonable for recreational vessels
covered under the RGP. Existing penalties of up to $5,000 per day for violations of the Federal
water pollution control laws would be more appropriate for the types of violations likely to occur
within the recreational boating community.
Response: Due to the passing of the Clean Boating Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-288), recreational
vessels (as defined in that Act) are no longer subject to this permit, or any other NPDES
permitting requirements. EPA will develop best management practices that will apply to
discharges from recreational vessels. For additional information, please see Section 2.5 of the
Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Scott Gudes, Vice President Government Relations
National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA)
Recreational Boating Industry
1
No
Comment: Background concerning the NPDES program and the proposed general permits as
noted in previous NMMA comments, the national pollutant discharge elimination system
(NPDES) permitting scheme of the Federal Clean Water Act was designed primarily to address
discharges from stationary industrial and commercial facilities, and was not intended by congress
to apply to recreational vessels. The NPDES scheme and the legal requirements that govern the
contents and process for issuing NPDES permits are incompatible with the nature of recreational
vessels and their normal and expected use. We recognize and understand that EPA issued
proposed NPDES permits for recreational vessels not out of any policy or legal judgment by
EPA that this was legally appropriate or advisable, but because EPA was required to do so in
2-8
light of an order issued by a Federal judge in the northern district of California that will vacate
EPA’s regulatory exemption at 40 C.F.R. § 122.3(a) as of September 30, 2008. See, e.g.,
northwest environmental advocates V. EPA, ____ f.3d ____ (9th cir. July 23, 2008) (no. 0617188) (panel decision affirming District Court’s order). While NMMA continues to disagree
with the court’s interpretation of the Clean Water Act upon which this order was based, that
question is moot with respect to recreational vessels. In the wake of the court’s decision,
congress has acted to amend the Clean Water Act to make clear that recreational vessels do not
require NPDES permits. The clean boating act of 2008 on July 22, 2008, both houses of congress
passed s. 2766, the clean boating act of 2008. See 154 cong. Rec. H6749-52, s6981-83 (daily ed.
July 22, 2008). The president signed s. 2766 on July 29, 2008, making it effective immediately.
Pub. L. No. 110-288; 122 stat. 2650 (2008). The clean boating act provides that no permit shall
be required under the Clean Water Act by EPA or a state for any discharge incidental to the
normal operation of a recreational vessel. See clean boating act of 2008, § 2. The clean boating
act expressly applies this prohibition of permits for recreational vessels equally to EPA and the
states (in the case of a permit program approved under subsection (b) of Section 402 of the
Federal water pollution control act (22 U.S.C. 1342)). Id. Under the clean boating act, a
“recreational vessel” is any vessel “manufactured or used primarily for pleasure” or that is
“leased, rented, or chartered to a person for the pleasure of that person.” Id., § 3. Excluded from
the term is any vessel that is a U.S, Coast Guard “inspected vessel” and either “is engaged in
commercial use” or “carries paying passengers.” Id. As EPA has already recognized in its draft
permits, uninspected (as opposed to inspected) vessels are typically the same as recreational
vessels, but have been granted special leave to carry only a very small number of paying or
passengers for hire without having to be subject to the extensive regulations for an inspected
vessel. It is not uncommon for a boat owner to subsidize the cost of their vessel by periodically
taking out passengers for tours or to go fishing, but otherwise use the same vessel for their
personal recreational use. In addition, leased vessels, the vessels used in a bare boat charter, or
vessels used in a boat livery operation also typically are the same as a recreational vessel, but are
leased or rented to an individual for that individual’s Environmental Protection Agency August
1, 2008 page 3 of 4 pleasure. Congress has included in the scope of the clean boating act all of
these recreational and uninspected vessels. In addition, the clean boating act, as the Clean Water
Act it amends, applies to foreign vessels when in U.S. waters. Therefore, a foreign flagged vessel
in the U.S. that is being operated in the U.S. for the pleasure of the owner would also be covered
by the clean boating act provisions. Instead of subjecting recreational vessels to the ill-suited
NPDES program, the clean boating act instructs EPA, working with the Coast Guard, the
secretary of commerce, and interested states, to conduct a review and only if appropriate
determine the incidental discharges from recreational vessels for which it is reasonable and
practicable to implement management practices to mitigate adverse impacts on the waters of the
United States. Any management practice must take into account the nature of the discharge, any
environmental effects of the discharge, vessel safety, and other factors. See clean boating act of
2008, § 4. Federal standards of performance suitable for recreational vessels are to be
promulgated based on the management standards. Id. NMMA looks forward to working with
EPA, the U.S. Coast Guard, the department of commerce and interested states on the review of
recreational vessel incidental discharges. Impact of the clean boating act on the proposed general
vessel permits as proposed, the RGP and VGP include numerous provisions that are highly
problematic from a legal, practical, and boating safety standpoint as applied to recreational
vessels. However, due to the enactment of the clean boating act it is inappropriate for EPA to
proceed with the proposed general permits as they apply to recreational vessels. NMMA
therefore advises EPA to make the following changes to the draft permits. A. General permit for
2-9
discharges associated with recreational vessels (RGP) the proposed RGP applies to “recreational
vessels” and “uninspected passenger vessels” under 79 feet in length. RGP at 1, § 1.1. Under the
clean boating act, incidental discharges from all recreational vessels will be exempt from the
NPDES permit requirement and that category should be removed from the proposed RGP. In
addition, “uninspected passenger vessels” identified by EPA as i.e., “sailboats for-hire, charterfishing vessels engaging in hook-and-line fishing, and personal watercraft for hire” subject to the
RGP will also be exempt under the clean boating act. See RGP fact sheet at 12. Each of these
types of vessels is manufactured, used, leased, rented, and/or chartered for pleasure, and
therefore is exempt under the act. Accordingly, all incidental discharges from all of the vessels
contemplated for coverage under the RGP will be exempt from the NPDES Requirement. /_1
moreover, to the extent there could exist a passenger vessel under 79 feet that is not a
recreational vessel (or an uninspected passenger vessel), s. 3298 was passed by congress at the
same time the clean boating act was passed and would provide a two-year exemption from the
NPDES requirement for incidental discharges from non-recreational vessels under 79 feet in
length as well as all fishing vessels, regardless of length. See 154 cong. Rec. H6752-56, s698183
(daily ed. July 22, 2008) (signed by president on July 31, 2008). /_1 for these reasons, NMMA
urges 1 EPA to withdraw this draft permit and would expect EPA to include language in the code
of Federal regulations that would reflect the newly enacted exemption for these vessels from the
NPDES program (Federal and state).
Response: Due to the passing of the Clean Boating Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-288), recreational
vessels (as defined in that Act) are no longer subject to this permit, or any other NPDES
permitting requirements. EPA will develop best management practices that will apply to
discharges from recreational vessels. For additional information, please see Section 2.5 of the
Fact Sheet
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dr. Ralph G. Appy, Ph.D., Director of Environmental
Management Division
City of Los Angeles Harbor Department (LAHD)
Local Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0301.1
8
No
Comment: Section 2.1.5 vessels with anti-foulant paint the last bullet of this section requires
that a "tarp" be placed under a boat while being cleaned out of the water. The LAHD has found
that house keeping related to on-shore boat cleaning activities is more effective when boats are
cleaned over hard surfaces, such as asphalt, without a tarp. Due to the need for supports and
scaffolding to work on the boats, structures must be places upon the tarps and therefore tarps
cannot be picked up each day. Sweeping activities performed at the end of each day to ensure
that discharges to the water are prevented are more effective on hard surfaces than tarps. Further,
the cleaning of materials from the tarp upon completion is difficult and often times can result in
debris becoming airborne, complicating clean-up activities. Rather than mandating the use of
tarp in the regulation, it is suggested that the regulation be modified as follows to allow the use
of equal1 y or more effective methods of precluding paint chips and debris entering harbor
waters: "-employ good house keeping methods to catch loose particles.. . . . ." add new Section
2.1 vessel class specific requirements for municipal boat fleets operated in local waters with the
2-10
inclusion of municipal boat fleets operated in local waters in the RGP, it is recommended that
vessel class specific requirements to be added for this class of RGP vessels (similar in concept to
the vessel specific requirement established in Section 5 of the VGP). Such municipal boat fleet
vessel class specific requirements are recommended to include annual training of municipal fleet
operators and record keeping requirements. Due to the small size and confined space of LAHD
municipal boats, it is impractical for records to be maintained on-board LAHD operated vessel.
In addition, LAHD is in the process of centrally automating record keeping for its fleet
operations, including marine craft. Therefore, records for local municipal vessels should be
allowed to be kept at the shore-side facility responsible for boat operations, such as the
construction and maintenance yard, the port police headquarters, and the port pilot station in the
case of LAHD. Further, since all boats operate within the port of Los Angeles, recording the
location of a municipal boat discharge is not necessary. The following language for the new RGP
Section 2.1 is suggested for EPA's consideration: 2.1 vessel class specific requirements for
municipal boat fleets operated in local waters municipal boat fleet operators must comply with
the following requirements in addition to any requirement specified elsewhere in this permit. municipal boat operators, boat repair personnel, and personnel responsible for annual boat
inspections must receive annual training regarding boat operation environmental procedures in
conformance with the requirements established in this permit and must be able to demonstrate
proficiency in implementing such procedures. - the governmental agency operating the municipal
boat fleet must provide a methodology for on-shore reception facilities for sewage and
contaminated bilge water for its fleet. This may include, but is not limited to, developing and
maintaining its own shoreshide reception facility(ies), utilizing public or private reception
facilities provided in the local water region, or contracting for other reception services. Municipal boats must be annually inspected for any potential contamination sources to
discharges incidental to boat operations. - Fleet boat operators must maintain the records listed
below for each individual vessel. These records must be maintained for a three year period.
These records can be maintained at a shore-side facility responsible for the municipal boat
operations. The following records are required: + estimates of all discharges into waters subject
to this permit, including date, estimated volume of the discharge, and type of discharge. + Boat
repair and maintenance records. + annual boat inspection records, including the date of the
inspection, personnel conducting the inspection, note of any potential problems and sources of
contamination found. Inspection records must be signed by the personnel conducting the
inspection. + Training records. Section 6 definitions with the inclusion of municipal boat fleets
operated in local waters in the RGP, a definition for this vessel category will need to be added to
the RGP. The following definition is suggested: "municipal boat fleets operated in local waters"
means boats owned and operated by a local governmental agency for governmental purposes
within local waters only."
Response: Due to the passing of the Clean Boating Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-288), recreational
vessels (as defined in that Act) are no longer subject to this permit, or any other NPDES
permitting requirements. EPA will develop best management practices that will apply to
discharges from recreational vessels. For additional information, please see Section 2.5 of the
Fact Sheet.
2-11
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Amey W. Marrella, Deputy Commissioner
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
State Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0326.1
1
No
Comment: Issue 1: Section 2.1.5 of the RGP ("vessels with anti-foulant paint") recommends
that hulls with anti foulant paint should be gently cleaned on a regular basis and further states
that when cleaning these hulls while in the water, only soft sponges should be used. Comments:
CT DEP agrees that frequent washings with a soft sponge are the best way to keep boat bottoms
clean and minimize attachment of aquatic nuisance species. Boats that are not often used, or
move slowly due to their displacement hulls, can build up a "slime" layer, which provides a
substrate for aquatic species to attach to the vessel. Gently washing removes this slime layer to
expose the anti-fouling surface so that it can work effectively. While it is preferable to clean
hulls" with anti-foulant paint out of and away from water, in-water hull cleaning, with
appropriate control in place, should not be discouraged if it is the only alternative to preventing
the spread of aquatic nuisance species. Issue 2: Section 4.4 of the RGP ("inspection and entry")
allows for an authorized representative of EPA (e.g., a state agency) to conduct inspections of
vessels, equipment, practices, or operations, or sample or monitor any substances or parameters
related to the vessel. Comments: while EPA is" assumed to be taking a lead role in enforcement,
staff at state agencies may be playing a significant role in enforcement matters" related to the
RGP (i.e., investigation of complaints, etc. Taking into account the number of regulated entities
affected by the RGP, it is anticipated that a sign)qcant amount of staff time may be consumed by
enforcement-related activities. CT DEP is interested in whether EPA is considering providing
funding to state agencies for this purpose. Issue 3: Section 3.3 of the RGP fact sheet ("obtaining
coverage under this permit") indicates that EPA has determined that it would not be appropriate
to request a notice of intent (NOI) in order to obtain coverage under the RGP provided that all
eligibility requirements are met and compliance with all required effluent limits are obtained.
Comments: CT DEP agrees with EPA ’s decision not to require an NOL for the RGP for the
reasons provided in the fact sheet: in Connecticut, there are approximately 200,000 registered
and non-registered boat owners. Requiring individual boat owners to file an NOI unnecessarily
burdens boat owners, as well as EPA, and will not provide any information that doesn’t already
exist. Requiring an NOI additionally has the potential to create compliance problems should boat
owners/operators fail to submit an NOI or submit an incorrect NOI. While CT DEP agrees that
filing an NOI FI)r the RGP is not necessary, it is concerned about a related issue as to how boat
owners/operators are to be made aware of the RGP, and hence their coverage. In all likelihood, a
significant portion of the regulated universe may not be aware of the existence of the RGP and
therefore, the need to comply with the terms and conditions contained therein. CT DEP is
interested in whether EPA has considered, or will consider, providing any type of outreach or
training to the regulated community concerning what is required of boat owners/operators who
will be subject to the RGP. Issue 4: Section 4.3.2 of the RGP fact sheet requests comments on
whether the RGP should contain numeric discharge limits currently not included in the proposed
permit. Comments: CT DEP does not feel that numeric effluent limits are necessary or warranted
in the RGP, as the non-numeric effluent limits appear protective of the environment. Placing
numeric limits in the permit has to potential to complicate compliance for recreational boaters by
unnecessary burdening them with the costs, and possible complications, associated with testing
and analyzing their discharges to determine compliance with permit conditions, while not
2-12
necessarily achieving any significant added measure of protection to the environment. Issue 5:
Section 4.8 of the RGP fact sheet indicates that the RGP prohibits the discharge of materials such
as antifreeze and paint, and the contents of used batteries and out-of-date flares, and other similar
materials, into waters subject to the RGP. Comments: CT DEP has questions as to the antifreeze
prohibition as it relates to discharges of propylene glycol associated with vessel commissioning
activities. In cold weather states, boat engines are winterized with propylene glycol during vessel
commissioning in the spring, the propylene glycol from the engines is reportedly discharged, to
some extent, into the water. Does EPA consider this waste stream "incidental to the normal
operation of a vessel"? Lf not, what impact does the antifreeze prohibition in the RGP have on
this discharge? Also, CT DEP is interested in whether EPA can recommend a best management
practice for this operation. Issue 6: Section 5.0 of the RGP fact sheet requests comments on
whether any of the best management practices ("BMPS") identified in Section 3 of the RGP
should be made mandatory or should be completely removed from the "encouraged best
management practices" section. Comments: while all the BMPS identified in Section 3 of the
RGP are important, CT DEP does not feel that these practices should be mandatory. CT DEP
recognizes that it would be difficult to enforce these BMPS should they be made mandatory.
Response: Due to the passing of the Clean Boating Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-288), recreational
vessels (as defined in that Act) are no longer subject to this permit, or any other NPDES
permitting requirements. EPA will develop best management practices that will apply to
discharges from recreational vessels. For additional information, please see Section 2.5 of the
Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Cindy L. Squires, Esq., Chief Counsel for Public Affairs and
Director of Regulatory Affairs
National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA)
Recreational Boating Industry
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0329.1
1
No
Comment: As explained in NMMA’s separately-submitted comments, incidental discharges
from recreational vessels are exempt from the Clean Water Act permit requirement under the
clean boating act of 2008, which was passed by congress on July 22, 2008, and signed into law
by the president on July 29, 2008. Pub. L. No. 110-288; 122 stat. 2650 (2008). Accordingly, the
recreational vessels manufactured by NMMA members should be removed from EPA’s
proposed permits. Nonetheless, i provide this separate response providing technical information
concerning marine engine cooling water and wet exhaust and in order to be responsive to your
request. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like additional information
concerning these subjects.
Response: Due to the passing of the Clean Boating Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-288), recreational
vessels (as defined in that Act) are no longer subject to this permit, or any other NPDES
permitting requirements. EPA will develop best management practices that will apply to
discharges from recreational vessels. For additional information, please see Section 2.5 of the
Fact Sheet.
2-13
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Public Hearing Comments
Various
Various
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0365
9
No
Comment: I have a very narrow focus of interest in this topic. It is on the recreational general
permit, specifically on the issue of bilge discharges of petroleum hydrocarbons from recreational
boats. I have spent considerable time and resources studying how gasoline and diesel fuel and oil
behave in the bilge of a boat, and also what it takes to prevent that from being discharged out of
boats. Basically, there's two ways to prevent that. One way is to physically prevent the petroleum
or the oils from getting to the bilge pump, and if they can't get to the bilge pump, they can't be
discharged out into the waterway. My product, harborgard, does that in a very simple way, by
surrounding the bilge pump with absorbent material, pad that floats. Admittedly, Ms. Nagle, it is
a prototype that has been tested, and it is not in production yet, but it's very close. So this is one
way to guarantee 99-plus-percent performance on hydrocarbons being passed out through the
bilge pump. This has been tested and retested and retested in an environmental lab in Denver
with a process that I believe fits all the criteria that rich set forth and very carefully done. If you
don't surround the bilge pump and prevent the oils from going through, they will be drawn
through the bilge pump with the water, and then the only other known way currently is to filter
the discharge line of the bilge pump, and this product is by another company called MYCELX
which is available for sale and being used. This filters oils from discharge, bilge pump discharge,
again to 99-plus-percent efficiency, and it is available. Both of these products, this is less than
$100. Harborgard is less than $50. Both are less than a tank of gas for most boats. They are very
simple to install, small enough to fit in recreational boats, give 99-percent efficiency, represents
a practical solution in my opinion. 15 we also studied and observed pad material, oil-absorbent
pad material that you recommended in the best management practices on the recreational side,
and yes, that material does absorb oil. It is random at best to put that in the back of a boat and
expect it to perform. It must forcibly come into contact with the oil, which doesn't necessarily
happen, and as far as guaranteeing performance by floating a piece of material in the bilge of a
boat, I don't know how that is possible to do. Based on our testing and observations, the only
thing that is guaranteed is that if you put that in there, some oil is going to pass. So I am
submitting these as suggestions for future interactions of the permit. It is obviously a fluid
situation and evolving, and I hope that EPA would consider these new technologies as available
and available soon to address this problem. My last comment is on the effluent limits. I agree
with you that it might be cumbersome to try to delineate effluent limits for REC boats in a
manner of terms of how much is discharged, but we chose in our testing to express that in how
much oil. We put a measured amount of oils in a bilge and then measured how much did not
make it out of the boat, and that was 99-plus percent. So we might just look at a different way to
express those that would be very simple.
Response: Due to the passing of the Clean Boating Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-288), recreational
vessels (as defined in that Act) are no longer subject to this permit, or any other NPDES
permitting requirements. EPA will develop best management practices that will apply to
discharges from recreational vessels. For additional information, please see Section 2.5 of the
Fact Sheet.
2-14
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Public Hearing Comments
Various
Various
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0365
14
No
Comment: While NMMA is acutely aware of the litigation that has spurred the EPA into
issuing these two draft permits to cover the normal operations of boats, I want to be clear that
NMMA strongly opposes the use of the Clean Water Act NMDES permit regime to regulate
recreational and uninspected passenger boats. It is obvious that EPA has attempted the
impossible writing these general permits. It is taking a program that is designed to deal with
large corporate facilities and contorting it in order to apply it to boaters using their individual
boats in multiple waters across local and state jurisdictions. The draft permits clearly groan under
the weight of this contradiction. NMMA would like to offer just a few quick observations. We
will be providing very substantive comments, very comprehensive comments to the permits, but
at this point, a couple points I wanted to bring out. One is that we want to make sure that
everyone remembers that we are taking what were voluntary best practices for boaters and
turning them into binding obligations, subject to civil penalties, criminal prosecution. Under this
regime, we are now taking things like if you spill something on your boat and it ends up in the
scuffers, you could be violating the Clean Water Act and subject to a citizen suit. That is a very
strong something, and we urge that you look at the permit language very carefully to make sure
you are not inadvertently including something that would be nearly impossible to be complied
with. NMMA also opposes having recreational boats split between two different permits. We
feel that this is an arbitrary distinction between footage and that it should be the use of the vessel
that should prevail, not the fact of its size. So we would hope that we would just have one permit
for recreational boaters. We think that will be a lot easier to make sure that they can understand
it. The education effort is going to be very complicated. EPA must also recognize that the normal
incidental operation of a recreational boat is much more than as a mode of transportation.
Recreational boating is not about getting from point A to point B. It is about enjoying the ride.
Boaters play and live on their boats, and this is exactly what the boats that they buy are intended
to do. Any discharges that are normal to a recreational boat's operation must include allowing a
boater to use their galley, sleep in their berth, and take a shower. It is unreasonable to expect, as
these permits do, that recreational boaters should curtail this entirely expected normal use of
their boats. NMMA also has serious reservations about the lack of notice to individual boaters.
This lack of notice is apparent in a number of ways. First, EPA has stated in its public meetings
that the public will get no notice of additional conditions which may be imposed by the states as
part of the permit's Section 401 certification process. These will only show up in the final version
of the permits. Second, there is no plan to educate boaters about the terms of these permits.
Third, the permits and fact sheets are long and full of confusing and legalistic language. That will
simply confuse boaters. Finally, EPA has done little to reach out to recreational boaters where
they are. We would note that the public meetings did not occur in prime boating states, and the
meetings and the Webcasts occur during working hours when boaters are unable to attend. We
would hope that as this program moves forward -- hopefully, it doesn't, but if it does move
forward -- we will have to work together to have a real educational campaign and real public
meetings that actual boaters will be able to attend and ask a lot of questions. This will have to be
a partnership. We certainly appreciate the opportunity to provide this testimony today, and we
look forward to working with EPA in the future to address these and our other concerns that we
2-15
will provide to you in our written comments. It is ultimately our hope that either the U.S. court of
appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturns this ill-founded decision or congress amends a law to
ensure that boaters are not subject to this unwieldy and unworkable solution.
Response: Due to the passing of the Clean Boating Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-288), recreational
vessels (as defined in that Act) are no longer subject to this permit, or any other NPDES
permitting requirements. EPA will develop best management practices that will apply to
discharges from recreational vessels. For additional information, please see Section 2.5 of the
Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Public Hearing Comments
Various
Various
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0365
21
No
Comment: By now, you probably know we don't want a permit. We know that you don't want a
permit. so I will pass on the thought that lunch might be coming sooner. today's general
comments will focus on the specifics of the permits published on June 17th. while the bulk of our
expertise is focused on recreational vessels less than 79 feet, we are unsure why larger
recreational vessels are pulled out of this permit and put into the vessel general permit, and we
would suggest that those few boats belong more appropriately within the recreational guidelines.
A few short perspectives. EPA's current approach to a default permit for recreational boats is
more realistic than requiring each boat owner to file an NOI. However, we are extremely
concerned about October 1st and that many boat owners will not even know that they are
covered under a new permit and that they now must operate under a certain set of requirements
or face possible lawsuits. As an example of how hard it is to reach all the boaters in this country,
after a year of huge press and grass-roots work by many large groups of boaters and fishermen,
we still face boaters that have no clue that this permit is impending. The permit also should not
establish numeric discharge limits now or in the future. Discharges from recreational boats
would be next to impossible to measure, and asking a citizen who is recreating to measure the
boat's discharges is absolutely unreasonable and unrealistic. For example, bilge pumps work
automatically to keep leaky boats and wooden boast afloat while people are aboard and while the
boats are unattended, and they are unattended most of the time. So how could this discharge be
measured? We don't know. Third, the encouraged best management practices listed under
Section 3 should not be made mandatory. these concepts were developed for voluntary clean
marina and clean boating programs, and they were developed as some of the many suggestions
for people to consider on how to be in their particular boating experience, whether it was a
canoe, big boat, powerboat, sailboat. I know because I wrote many of them years ago. making
these tips a boating requirement is as unfeasible as requiring you to purchase all your food you
bring home in biodegradable containers or always wash your car at a professional car wash and
not at home. Number four, the current wording in Section 2, "effluent limits and requirements,"
is very difficult to decipher. As a result, we feel it jeopardizes the ability of boaters and boating
groups to concretely understand the steps required to comply with this permit. If this permit
comes to fruition, it will be on the shoulders of everyone in this room to help the affected
communities know how to comply. Like it or not, this permit will affect us, our neighbors, our
2-16
family, our friends. They are not going to read the permit. They don't know what a CFR is. They
don't know what an NOI is, a TMDL, or a WLA, and in fresh water, they need a definition of
"waters of the United States." they need to know whether it applies to them or not. They just
want to take their kids out tubing this afternoon. That is why they own a boat. as a result, we
believe that Section 2 needs to be so clear that your mom could follow it, and you wouldn't be
worried about her violating the terms of the permit and being sued or fined. We recognize the
complexity of the project given to you by the court-imposed permit and timeline, and we
appreciate the opportunity to comment here and for August 1st.
Response: Due to the passing of the Clean Boating Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-288), recreational
vessels (as defined in that Act) are no longer subject to this permit, or any other NPDES
permitting requirements. EPA will develop best management practices that will apply to
discharges from recreational vessels. For additional information, please see Section 2.5 of the
Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Mark Sales, Regulatory and Systems Engineer
Tidewater Marine, LLC
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0387.1
12
No
Comment: We believe that the proposal for recreation vessels’ permit (RGP) to be granted
without an NOI process to be the only workable method for smaller craft. We do also question
whether that permit will govern for daughter-craft when operating away from their mother
vessel. We believe that the gross similarities between a rescue boat or small skiff being used as a
workboat with recreational vessels including operations should be examined and incorporated
into that permit system. We believe that the RGP should not be based upon numeric discharge
limits for the same reason as given for our response on VGP and numeric discharge limits.
Response: Due to the passing of the Clean Boating Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-288), recreational
vessels (as defined in that Act) are no longer subject to this permit, or any other NPDES
permitting requirements. EPA will develop best management practices that will apply to
discharges from recreational vessels. For additional information, please see Section 2.5 of the
Fact Sheet.
2-17
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
James G. DeZolt, P.E., Director, Division of Water, for
Alexander B. Grannis, Commissioner
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC)
State Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0400.1
1
No
Comment: I. Summary the New York state department of environmental conservation (DEC)
respectfully submits these comments regarding the United States Environmental Protection
Agency’s (EPA) draft general permit covering pollutant discharges incidental to the operation of
recreational vessels. Dec favor’s the issuance of the general permit for recreational vessels by
EPA. The draft permit is designed to employ available management practices to control various
waste streams from the incidental operation of recreational vessels. II. DEC comments on
specific aspects of the recreational general permit (RGP) ballast water is broadly recognized as
one of the largest vectors for introductions of aquatic invasive species, and recreational vessels
have considerable potential to introduce nonnative aquatic invasive species and disease
organisms to new waters, and move such organisms between local waterbodies. Dec commends
the EPA for the development of a useful and rational approach to the legal requirement for
creation of a permit program addressing the discharges incidental to the operation of recreational
vessels. The use of management practices in this context provides for a workable regulatory
format that achieves the objectives of the Clean Water Act. Implementation of these conditions
nationwide will likely reduce the transport and introduction of aquatic invasive species by
recreational vessels. With no notice of intent requirement, a strong outreach initiative will be
necessary to achieve acceptable compliance levels. While DEC largely supports the draft RGP,
we respectfully request the following modifications: 2.1.1 general requirements add the
following to the third item: “substantial contrast in color or turbidity”. This terminology is
consistent with New York’s water quality standards, set forth in 6 NYCRR Part 703, which state,
there shall be no substantial contrast. The permit should state that nothing therein allows a
permittee to violate any state water quality standards. 2.1.2 Fuel management add the following
item: “place a collection container under inboard fuel tank air vents during refueling.” This
terminology will attempt to include any potential areas of a fuel system where fuel may overflow
from the storage system and be released to the environment. 2.1.5 Vessels with anti-foulant paint
the fifth item details a procedure for cleaning hulls with toxic anti-fouling paint while the vessel
is in the water. Dec recommends this item be replaced with: “in water cleaning of hulls painted
with toxic anti-fouling paint is prohibited.” Dec discourages in water cleaning of hulls that have
antifouling paint. Any cleaning operation can release anti-fouling chemicals into the water. Dec
recommends that vessels be removed from the water for cleaning of hulls. 2.1.6 Engine and oil
control add the following item: “2-cycle outboards engines must be maintained and operated so
that no visible sheen of oil or oil mixtures is noticeable in the wet exhaust or waterbody where
vessel is being operated.” Fuel with a 20:1 gasoline to oil mixture. When not properly operating,
the engines may exhaust un-burnt oil in the wet exhaust that can cause a visible sheen of oil
mixture. These engines must be properly operated and maintained to prevent release of oil to the
waterbodies. 1 6 NYCRR § 703.2 narrative water quality standards. 2.1.7 graywater add the
following item: “do not discharge graywater inside marinas.” The discharge of graywater while
within the confines of a marina must not be allowed. Many vessel owners may recreate on the
boat while at dock and generate graywater. If the marina does not have significant flow to flush
2-18
water, graywater could lead to contamination and water quality violations. The DEC believes
that the above changes to the draft permit will provide improved protection for the waters of the
United States. 4.4 inspection and entry inspection and entry may be performed by EPA, U. S.
Coast guard, authorized contractor, or an appropriate state agency. EPA should establish an
appropriate funding mechanism to assist states in deferring the cost of inspections. 6. Specific
requirements for individual states or Indian country lands New York state narrative water quality
standards2 state that toxic and other deleterious substances shall not impair the waters for their
best usage. The Clean Water Act defines “biological material”, such as invasive species, as a
“pollutant”. For New York, fish propagation and survival is a best use for all classes of waters.
The RGP should require that any discharge complies with all of New York’s water quality
standards, and does not impair any New York waters from their best usage. III. EPA solicited
comments on specific aspects of recreational general permit (RGP) • the approach to not require
NOIS for recreational boats and recommendations (and rationale supporting them) where
commenters favor NOI submittal for recreational boaters. Dec agrees that the owners or
operators of vessels covered by the RGP should not have to apply for coverage with a NOI. •
whether the permit should establish numeric discharge limits for discharges incidental to the
normal operation of a vessel for which the proposed permit would solely require BMPS. (the
proposed permit establishes one numeric effluent limit in the form of a zero discharge standard
for leaching of Tribulyl tin from vessel hulls, a second numeric 2 6 NYCRR §703.2, op. Cit.
Effluent limit for graywater discharges from cruise ships when they discharge in certain waters,
and a third for residual biocides from experimental ballast water treatment systems. EPA
requests that if commenters provide suggested numeric limits, that they should also provide any
supporting data that identifies technologies or BMPS available to meet these limits, and if these
limits are more stringent than requirements of this permit, provide the costs and non-water
quality impacts of setting those limits, and any other relevant information that would be helpful
in setting these limits. Dec would like the zero discharge of Tributyl tin be increased to no
discharge of any antifouling hull paint. Dec encourages the management practice for cleaning of
hulls to be done when the vessel is removed from the water. • whether any of the BMPS listed
under the ‘encouraged best management practices’ section should be made mandatory under this
permit or completely removed as an encouraged practice. Dec has no comments on this aspect.
Response: Due to the passing of the Clean Boating Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-288), recreational
vessels (as defined in that Act) are no longer subject to this permit, or any other NPDES
permitting requirements. EPA will develop best management practices that will apply to
discharges from recreational vessels. For additional information, please see Section 2.5 of the
Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Darrin Polhemus, Deputy Director, Division of Water Quality,
State Water Resources Control Board
California Environmental Protection Agency
State Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0408.1
1
No
Comment: Thank you for the opportunity for the state water resources control board staff to
comment on the proposed recreational general permit (RGP). We appreciate the U.S.
2-19
Environmental Protection Agency's efforts in developing these important regulations. While the
intent of the RGP is to protect the marine environment, we have some concerns over its
administration, and some of the technical components of this permitting program. Although we
believe that a regulatory permit will improve existing voluntary programs for recreational
vessels, we need more time to evaluate the required best management practices (BMPS).
California's unique ecosystems, extensive water conveyance systems, large population of
recreational vessels, and mild climate (leading to year-round mooring of recreational vessels)
apparently were not considered when developing this RGP. In fact, many of the assumptions
used to develop the BMPS did not consider the large amount of recreational vessels that are
moored year-round as well as liveaboards. Administrative issues: 1) the following classes of
recreational vessels should be exempt from the RGP because only a few of the BMPS in Section
2.1.3 (trash management) and Section 2.1.4 (deck and hull cleaning and preventing transport of
visible living organisms) may apply to these classes of recreational vessels. Any vessel propelled
manually, including kayaks, canoes, rowboats, surfboards or sailboards. Sailboats with no motor
and eight feet or less in length. A ship's lifeboat (i.e. dingy). Requiring these recreational vessel
owners to abide by the terms of the RGP is inappropriate and inefficient. 2) how are dischargers
going to be aware of and understand the BMPS required under this RGP? The RGP should be
accompanied with a companion document intended to clearly communicate the requirements to
the lay boater. The state may require the department of motor vehicles (DMV) to issue this
companion document as a component of the vessel registration process. This companion
document should include the appropriate state (rather than Federal) contacts and resources. 3)
There is no mechanism to track or enforce the RGP if a notice of intent is not required of the
discharger. Perhaps a memorandum of agreement between the state and the DMV could be used
to help gather basic data on vessel class, size, location, owner information, type of anti-foulant
coating used (if any), and mooring location (if applicable). 4) The RGP should explain in more
detail, the requirements contained in Clean Water Act s1322. Since this RGP is intended for
recreational vessel owners and could have extensive readership, it should contain as much
information as possible regarding the potential water polluting activities associated with boating.
Bacteria and pathogens are a water quality concern for poorly flushed marinas and boat basins
throughout California. Improper use and installation of marine sanitation devices on liveaboards
and vessels moored seasonally or permanently are thought to be contributing to bacteria and
pathogen loading in some of these marinas and boat basins. Technical issues: 1) copper (both
dissolved and total) concentrations in the majority of marinas located in salt and brackish waters
exceed the California toxics rule (CTR) values. Some freshwater marinas also have copper
concentrations that exceed CTR values (California department of pesticide regulations, draft
report on copper-based anti-foulant paints 2008). BMPS provided in Section 2.1.5 (vessels with
anti-foulant paint) may not be protective enough to limit copper-discharges related to underwater
hull cleaning of vessels coated with copper-based anti-foulant paint. Additionally, due to
California's mild climate, many vessels are moored year-round and/or are liveaboards. Passive
leaching of copper from vessels coated with copper-based anti-foulant paint is thought to
contribute to elevated levels of dissolved copper found in many of California's marinas and boat
basins. Numeric effluent limits may be more appropriate for copper than BMPS especially for
vessels moored year-round and liveaboards. Implementation of the following BMPS, in addition
to those listed in Section 2.1.5, may limit the release of copper and improve water quality: store
infrequently used vessels on land. "Soft" sloughing and ablative (self polishing) hull paints
release copper when cleaned underwater. Refrain from underwater cleaning if using these paints.
Use hard finish, conventional anti-fouling paints rather than soft sloughing and ablative (self
polishing) hull paints. Hire only certified professional underwater vessel hull cleaning services to
2-20
perform underwater hull cleaning activities. Do not sand or strip hull paint underwater. Use
stainless steel brushes and pads on non-painted, metal areas only. Repair paint bonding problems
at haul-out areas to avoid further chipping and flaking of paint into the water. Please refer to
htt~:ncommserv.ucdavis.edu/cesandie19o/seanrant/hullclean.htm for more information on the
BMPS listed above. 2) The term "waste stream" in Section 2.1.3 is confusing. If the intention is
to make sure that this waste ends up in the appropriate waste stream, i.e., the municipal landfill
rather than the open ocean or marina basin, then please clarify and/or define "waste stream" or
replace with "discharges" to be consistent. 3) Section 2.1.4 (deck and hull cleaning and
preventing transport of visible living organisms) may not be protective enough to prevent the
potential spread of QUAGGA mussels. Particularly in the following reservoirs which have bans
on recreational boating: Lake Casitas and Westlake Lake. For more information, please refer to
http:l/www.dbw.ca.qovlboaterlnfo/qua~aloc.aspx. Suggestion: zero discharge for transport of
quagga mussels in waterbodies with active bans on recreational boating due to potential
QUAGGA mussel infestation. - modify the second bullet, "inspect the visible areas of the vessel
for any attached or stowaway visible living organisms. If organisms are found, they must be
removed and disposed of in appropriate trash receptacle on-land. " - Modify the third-bullet of
the third bullet, "rinse hull with a high-pressure spray of hot tap water after each use when
possible." - add the following bullet, "Check with the appropriate waterway management agency
prior to launching boat; some inland reservoirs and lakes have bans and restrictions on
recreational boating." 4) Section 2.1.7 (graywater) is not protective of Lake Shasta where there is
a prohibition on graywater discharges. Suggestion: numeric limit for Lake Shasta, zero
discharge.
Response: Due to the passing of the Clean Boating Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-288), recreational
vessels (as defined in that Act) are no longer subject to this permit, or any other NPDES
permitting requirements. EPA will develop best management practices that will apply to
discharges from recreational vessels. For additional information, please see Section 2.5 of the
Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Herbert C. Frost, Associate Director, Natural Resource
Stewardship and Science
National Park Service
Federal Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0413
13
No
Comment: Proposed recreational general permit - RGP general comments: we have only a few
general thoughts about the recreational vessel permit relative to NPS concerns. First, the permit
contains no extra provisions or prohibitions for recreational vessels in protected areas. Such
provisions or prohibitions should be considered. Second, because the permit relies on required
BMPS to meet standards, enforcement of this requirement seems difficult and unlikely. On p. 34,
Section 6.5, EPA notes, “if the permittee becomes aware, or EPA determines, that the discharge
causes or contributes to a standards exceedance, corrective actions and EPA notification are
required.” It seems that cases for which clear cause could be established would be very rare, and
there is no mention of improving boater education to make the permit requirements widely
known or of installing equipment for cleaning at landings or marinas to make compliance more
2-21
likely. In essence, while the BMPS are good practice, it is not clear that this permit accomplishes
much beyond existing recommendations and outreach efforts. Lastly, a couple of clarifications
would be useful with respect to the BMPS for preventing invasive species transfer (see below).
Specific comments: p. 16, Section 3.3.5: EPA is not currently proposing to require NOIS for
recreational boats, due to concerns that these would generate little useful information and create
an enormous data management load. We agree with this approach. P. 23, Section 4.3.2: EPA
specifically requested comments on whether this permit should contain numeric discharge limits.
In the case of recreational vessels, there does not appear to be a strong case for numeric
standards given the large number of vessels concerned and the lack of enforcement capacity. P.
26, Section 4.5: the BMPS for preventing aquatic nuisance species transfer are generally well
accepted and would likely be effective if implemented consistently on the large scale that is
proposed. However, a couple of additional clarifications would be helpful. First, regarding
disposal of unused bait fish, the fact sheet notes that they may be discarded overboard if they
came from the same water body. The permit language should be made more geographically
restrictive here, in order to prevent the intra-water body transfer of bait fish in large water bodies
like the Great Lakes, Mississippi River, and oceans. Secondly and similarly, perhaps there
should be some provisions for cleaning boats while in transit within the same water body, and
not just in between. In particular, options for treating bilge water, live wells, and so on while
moving over large distances within the same water body should be made available.
Response: Due to the passing of the Clean Boating Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-288), recreational
vessels (as defined in that Act) are no longer subject to this permit, or any other NPDES
permitting requirements. EPA will develop best management practices that will apply to
discharges from recreational vessels. For additional information, please see Section 2.5 of the
Fact Sheet.
2-22
3.
APPLICABILITY/REQUESTING EXEMPTION OF ANY CLASS OF VESSELS
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Anonymous
None
Private Citizen
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0256
1
No
Comment: General comment are research vessels exempt from this regulation? If not, will this
be explicitly stated? If research vessels are not addressed, then how will research facilities know
that this change applies to them?
Response: The VGP is an NPDES permit, not a regulation. See Section 2.6 of the Fact Sheet,
which explains that NPDES permits authorize the discharge of a specified amount of pollutant(s)
into waters under certain conditions. Research vessels of 79 feet or more are subject to today’s
permit. These vessels are required to meet all general requirements of the permit as well as the
research-vessel specific provisions of Part 5.6. For additional information, please see Part 5.6 of
the Permit and Section 7.6 of the Fact Sheet. Like all vessels with discharges incidental to their
normal operation, EPA has provided vessel owner/operators with sufficient notice of the VGP,
including issuance of a Federal Register notice soliciting information on vessel discharges in
June 2007, in anticipation of the vacatur of the regulatory exclusion for vessel discharges, and,
more importantly, providing a 45-day public comment period on the proposed VGP. These
vessels will be given adequate notice by the publication of the Federal Register notice
announcing today’s permit. See Sections 2.7 and 2.8 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Shaun Halvax
BAE Systems Ship Repair Inc.
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0274.1
2
No
Comment: BAE systems attended one of the EPA public meetings and provided certain
information at that meeting regarding our operations. We are taking this opportunity to provide
additional information that we believe EPA should consider when adopting the final permit.
BAE systems recognizes that the proposed VGP does not contemplate the regulation of any
industrial discharges and we do not herewith advocate such regulation within the proposed VGP.
Those discharges are more appropriately regulated under the shipyard's general or individual
permit for industrial discharges. Floating drvdocks floating drydock are vessels used to lift ships
out of the water for repair and maintenance. Floating drydocks have ballast tanks, like many
other large vessels, which are used to raise and lower the drydock (and ship) and maintain
stability. The ballast water from floating drydocks is taken in when submerging the dock and
discharged when raising the dock. In some cases drydocks are removed from their moored
location, disconnected from shore services, and relocated to another location within the shipyard
to perform their function. Discharges incidental to the operation of floating drydocks have
operated under the regulatory exclusion of 40 CFR 122.3(a) and the VGP should continue to
3-1
recognize these discharges and therefore be included in the proposed general NPDES permit.
Additionally, the uniform national discharge standards for vessels of the armed forces ("unds")
includes drydocks as vessels and therefore bae systems believes that consistency in that approach
is appropriate in the VGP. Discharges from vessels in drydock not infrequently, vessels in
drydock must continue to discharge cooling water and, in some cases, ballast water. When these
situations occur it is because the vessel is still operating in its normal capacity and therefore the
discharges incidental to the normal operation of that vessel do not cease. Provided these
discharges do not commingle with industrial discharges, the definition of these discharges, found
in 33 U.S.C. §1322(12)(a), is maintained. BAE systems recognizes that the discharge from the
testing and maintenance of these systems in drydock (e.g., when the vessel is not waterborne, as
defined in 33 U.S.C. §1322(12)(a)(ii)) is not a discharge incidental to the normal operation of the
vessel. We believe that this distinction supports our position regarding incidental discharges in
drydock. The vacated CWA exclusion at 40 C.F.R. 122.3(a) applied to vessels operating as a
means of transportation. 40 C.F.R. 122.3(a) identified that the exclusion does not apply when a
vessel is operating in a capacity other than as a means of transportation. Examples in 122.3(a)
include energy or mining facility, seafood processing facility, or when secured to a storage
facility or the bed of the ocean. When a vessel is in drydock it does not change the nature and
character of that vessel's operational capacity as a means of transportation. The same is true
when a vessel is moored to a pier undergoing repair, taking on/offloading cargo, or waiting for a
new assignment. If the vessel is still operating in its capacity as a means or transportation then it
is within the meaning of the vacated regulatory framework, especially in those circumstances
where the ship's crew is still living aboard and the ship's systems are still fully operational. The
carve out of the discharge (systems testing and maintenance) from the CWA's definition of
incidental discharges at 33 U.S.C. §1322(12)(a)(ii) is evidence of the legislative intent to
recognize those discharges only when the vessel is waterborne. If the legislature intended
exclude all discharges when not waterborne it would have done so and not bifurcated the specific
discharge related to testing and maintenance of ship systems. Although these situations are not
common, they do occur and the discharges incidental to that vessel's normal operation are not in
any way related to, nor can or should they become the responsibility of the shipyard operator.
Therefore, discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, even in drydock (as defined
in 33 U.S.C. 322(12)(a)), should remain a discharge from that vessel and regulated under this
VGP.
Response: For information on the applicability of the VGP to vessels being operated other than
as a means of transportation, see e.g., Section 3.5.2.1 of the Fact Sheet and response to comment
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0277.1, excerpt 10.
With respect to ballast water or other incidental, non-industrial, discharges from a floating
drydock that is moving between locations, such discharges are within the scope of the VGP as
they would be incidental to the normal operation of a vessel operating in a capacity as a means of
transportation. We believe such an approach is consistent with the applicability of the UNDS
program to drydocks. (See, UNDS Technical Support Document, pg. 1-3: “Discharges related to
a floating drydock’s function as a vessel are covered by UNDS and do not require authorization
by NPDES permits.” (emphasis added)). With respect to periods when the drydock is
transitioning between its status as a means of transportation and becoming, in effect, a ship
maintenance and repair facility, such as when discharging ballast water to accept into, or deliver
vessels from, the drydock, the VGP would similarly cover its incidental, non-industrial,
discharges. However, once immobile and operating in an industrial capacity as a ship
3-2
maintenance or repair facility, the drydock ceases to operate in a capacity as a means of
transportation and thus its discharges are not covered by the VGP. We also note that similar logic
would apply to other types of vessels that transition between transportation and nontransportation modes of operation (for example, mobile drilling units or construction barges
which cease moving to carry out their industrial, non-transportation functions).
With respect to the comments regarding discharges from a vessel that is that is undergoing repair
or maintenance while within a drydock, we do not agree with the commenter’s suggestion that
the incidental discharges from such vessels are properly subject to the VGP. Unlike vessels that
are simply tied to a pier in the course of a voyage, vessels undergoing repair or maintenance
within a drydock are not afloat, not operating in a capacity as means of transportation, and are
likely to be out of service for more protracted periods of time. Such vessels are beyond the scope
of the 40 CFR 122.3(a) exclusion, and hence not subject to the VGP. While the commenter
points to text in UNDS statutory language (33 U.S.C. § 1322(a)(12)(A)(II)) to support its views
that incidental discharges from dry-docked vessels are within the scope of the VGP, we do not
believe this to be a correct reading of the statute, and in fact, the UNDS implementing
regulations make explicit that UNDS “does not apply to . . . vessels in dry-dock . . . .” 40 C.F.R.
1700.1(a). See also, UNDS NPRM preamble: “UNDS would not apply to discharges from
vessels while they are in drydock because they are not waterborne, even if the discharges would
otherwise meet the definition of a ‘discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel.’” 63
FR 45305, col. 2 (August 25, 1998).
Note that EPA also does not agree with another commenter’s view that the language “whenever
the vessel is waterborne”, which modifies the inclusion of discharges in connection with the
“testing, maintenance and repair” of ship systems in the CWA 312(a)(12) definition of
“discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel,” evinces Congressional intent that the
40 C.F.R. 122.3(a) should be read more broadly than the 312 definition to capture discharges
while in drydock. EPA sees no evidence of such intent. “Testing, maintenance, and repair”
discharges are often conducted in drydock (i.e., out of the water) and, in all likelihood, the
“waterborne” qualification was deemed necessary to ensure that the 312 program was not
enlarged beyond what was excluded under 40 C.F.R 122.3(a).
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John Pertgen, Assistant Director, Offshore Technical and
Regulatory Affairs
International Association of Drilling Contractors
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0277.1
2
No
Comment: (2) cooling water intake structures. In our letter of 3 August 2007 to docket ow2007-0483, IADC questioned whether the issuance of a NPDES permit for discharges incidental
to the normal operation of a vessel would trigger the need for certain vessels to comply with
requirements under the Clean Water Act for cooling water intake structures. EPA was
unresponsive to this question. Will issuance of a NPDES permit for discharges associated with
the normal operation of a vessel trigger requirements for compliance with Section 316(b) of the
Clean Water Act? (3) holding of material for later discharge. Iadc asks that the EPA review
3-3
Section 4.2.3 of the fact sheet and other similar provisions addressing retention of certain fluids
on board for later discharge in areas outside the coverage area of the permit and confirm that it
has determined such action is not in conflict with the provisions of 40 CFR 220.1(a) regarding
the transportation of material outside the United States for the purposes of “dumping.”
Response: With respect to cooling water intake structures, the VGP does not address intake of
cooling water. We further note that EPA has issued regulations under CWA § 316(b) in three
phases for specified types of facilities as follows: Phase I – 66 FR 65255 (December 18, 2001):
(new electric generating plants and manufacturers that withdraw more than two million gallons
per day (MGD) from waters of the U.S., if they use 25% or more of their intake water for
cooling); Phase II – 69 FR 41575 (July 9, 2004) (large existing power plants that are designed to
withdraw 50 MGD or more and that use at least 25 percent of their withdrawn water for cooling
purposes only); Phase III – 71 FR 35005 (June 16, 2006) (new offshore oil and gas extraction
facilities, new offshore liquified natural gas facilities and new seafood processing vessels, as
well as other existing facilities that have a design intake flow threshold of greater than 2 MGD
and that withdraw at least 25 percent of the water exclusively for cooling purposes).
With respect to the applicability of regulations under the Ocean Dumping Act (33 USC §§ 1401
et seq.) in areas outside the coverage area of the VGP, we note such issue is beyond the scope of
the VGP, and further note the VGP is issued under authority of CWA § 402.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John Pertgen, Assistant Director, Offshore Technical and
Regulatory Affairs
International Association of Drilling Contractors
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0277.1
5
No
Comment: While IADC understands the circumstances which led EPA to propose a NPDES
permit addressing discharges incidental to the normal operations of a vessel, and given these
circumstances, support EPA’s action in proposing the permit, we continue to believe that the
NPDES permitting system is an inappropriate vehicle for addressing such discharges. We urge
EPA to continue to seek appropriate judicial and legislative relief. Unfortunately, we believe that
both the draft fact sheet and the draft vessel general permit reflect the time constraints under
which they were developed and require substantial revision. We ask that EPA carefully review
the comments that we have offered, as well as those offered by other industry associations, in
order to improve the fact sheet and permit so as to allow them to be more effectively understood
and ultimately implemented by the industry.
Response: We note the commenter’s support for proposal of the VGP. With respect to judicial
relief, we note the agency appealed the District Court decision to the Ninth Circuit, which upheld
the lower court decision. Nw. Envt’l Advocates et al. V. EPA, 537 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2008).
See also discussion of litigation in response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0287.1,
excerpt 1.
With respect to seeking legislative relief, such issue is beyond the scope of the VGP, but we
further note the agency did testify in favor of such relief, and offered legislative text on that
matter for consideration by Congress. See, EPA’s June 12, 2008, testimony before the Water
3-4
Resources and Environment Subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee (available on-line at
http://www.epa.gov/ocir/hearings/testimony/110_2007_2008/2008_0612_jah.pdf).
With respect to revisions to the draft VGP and accompanying Fact Sheet, we have carefully
considered all comments received, and, as explained elsewhere in this response to comment
document, have made appropriate changes to the VGP and Fact Sheet in light of comments
received.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John Pertgen, Assistant Director, Offshore Technical and
Regulatory Affairs
International Association of Drilling Contractors
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0277.1
10
No
Comment: Section 3.5.2.1 discharges not subject to former NPDES permit exclusion and
vessels being operated in a capacity other than as a means of transportation IADC does not
disagree with these provisions of the fact sheet; however, IADC does believe that further
clarification is needed regarding “vessels operating in a capacity other than as a means of
transportation.” 40 CFR 122.3(a) provided several examples of situations where vessels would
not be considered to be operating as a means of transportation, i.e., “when used as an energy or
mining facility, a storage facility or a seafood processing facility, or when secured to a storage
facility or a seafood processing facility, or when secured to the bed of the ocean, contiguous zone
or waters of the United States for the purpose of mineral or oil exploration or development.” To
address each of these specified situations, EPA developed a permitting system for such vessel
operations. However, there are numerous other capacities in which vessels have been employed,
for which no permitting scheme has been developed, and for which their inclusion in this
proposed permit should be clarified. For example: (1) vessels that are in either seasonal or
extended lay-up should be considered to be operating in a capacity “as a means of
transportation.” (2) guidance should be provided regarding the point in time, if any, at which an
abandoned or derelict vessel ceases to be operating “as a means of transportation.” (3) vessels
used as homes (houseboats), for recreation, construction, harbor maintenance, pipe-laying, etc,
whose “discharges” are not appreciably different from vessels that are clearly operating “as a
means of transportation,” and for which EPA has not developed permitting programs, should be
eligible for coverage under the proposed permit. The discharge categories for these vessels do
not differ appreciably from those of vessels being employed “in the capacity of a means of
transportation.” In the 25 years since the promulgation of 40 CFR 122.3(a) IADC is unaware of
any effort having been made to direct the owners and operators of such vessels to obtain
individual NPDES permits for their operations. To provide guidance in this regard, IADC would
propose that the second paragraph of Section 3.5.2.1 of the fact sheet be revised as follows: the
regulatory exclusion does not apply when the vessel is operating in a capacity other than as a
means of transportation. Vessels that are not being operated in the capacity of a means of
transportation include vessels being used as energy or mining facilities, storage facilities, seafood
processing facilities, or vessels that are secured to a storage facility or a seafood processing
facility, or when secured to the bed of the ocean, contiguous zone, or water of the United States
for the purpose of mineral or oil exploration or development for which an NPDES permitting
3-5
program had been developed prior to September 29, 2008. Vessels in this category have never
been excluded from NPDES permitting under 40 CFR part 122.3(a). In addition, “floating” craft
that are permanently moored to their piers, such as “floating” casinos, hotels, restaurants, bars,
etc. Are not covered by the current vessel exclusion and thus would not be covered by the vessel
proposed permit. These structures are outside the scope of the 40 CFR part 122.3(a) exclusion
because they operate “in a capacity other than as a means of transportation.” They are best
characterized as casinos, hotels, restaurants, bars, etc. That happen to be located on water instead
of land, much like, for example, the water-based storage facilities mentioned in 122.3(a) as being
outside the scope of the exclusion. Section 3.5.2.9 discharges currently or previously covered by
another permit IADC believes that additional clarification needs to be provided with respect to:
(1) vessels that may be subject to another NPDES permit due to their employment in a service
which has not been considered to be “a means of transportation” when they are subsequently
placed in service as a means of transportation; and (2) other vessels which may be temporarily
brought under the NPDES permit coverage of an industrial facility, such as a shipyard while
under construction or repair. Iadc recommends the addition of the following text to this section
of the fact sheet: vessels that have been employed as an energy or mining facility, a storage
facility or a seafood processing facility, or when secured to a storage facility or a seafood
processing facility, or when secured to the bed of the ocean, contiguous zone or waters of the
United States for the purpose of mineral or oil exploration or development, when not actively
engaged in such service are eligible for coverage under this permit. Such vessels will normally
obtain coverage under this permit, but permit coverage will be suspended for the duration of the
period for which they are placed under the coverage of an energy, mining, or seafood processing
permit. Similarly, coverage under this permit will be suspended for the duration of the period
during which a vessel is placed under the operational control of a shipyard or ship repair facility
and is subject to the coverage of the NPDES permit of that facility.
Response: For information on the applicability of the VGP to vessels being operated other than
as a means of transportation, see Section 3.5.2.1 of the Fact Sheet. See also response to comment
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0274.1, excerpt 2.
In order to clarify VGP coverage, the commenter believes that further clarification is needed
regarding interpretation of “vessels operating in a capacity other than as a means of
transportation;” and to do so, recommends an addition to Part 3.5.2.1 of the VGP Fact Sheet as
shown in bold font below:
“The regulatory exclusion does not apply when the vessel is operating in a capacity other than as
a means of transportation. Vessels that are not being operated in the capacity of a means of
transportation include vessels being used as energy or mining facilities, storage facilities, seafood
processing facilities, or vessels that are secured to a storage facility or a seafood processing
facility, or when secured to the bed of the ocean, contiguous zone, or water of the United States
for the purpose of mineral or oil exploration or development for which an NPDES permitting
program had been developed prior to September 29, 2008. Vessels in this category have never
been excluded from NPDES permitting under 40 CFR Part 122.3(a)
EPA does not agree with the commenter’s suggested change for a number of reasons. The permit
exclusion does not apply “when the vessel is operating in a capacity other than as a means of
transportation” (40 C.F.R. 12.3(a)), and the presence or absence of “an NPDES permitting
program” thus is not relevant the exclusion’s applicability. In addition, there already is an
“NPDES permitting program” for discharges outside the scope of the exclusion – the overall
3-6
NPDES permit program as established by 40 C.F.R. Parts 122 – 125 – and that program has been
and continues to be used to permit vessels operating in a capacity other than as a means of
transportation. To the extent the commenter is suggesting that the absence of a “permit program”
specifically tailored to the various categories of vessels discussed in the comment somehow
obviated their need for an NPDES permit, we note that applicability of the CWA and its § 301(a)
prohibition against discharge-without-a-permit is not dependent upon the existence of NPDES
permitting programs tailored to particular discharge types.
With respect to the comment’s discussion of vessels in seasonal or extended layup, abandoned
vessels, derelict vessels, and houseboats, the issue of precisely when such vessels cease operating
in a capacity as a means of transportation will necessarily depend upon the specific facts
presented. This would include factors such as the duration the vessel is out of service, normal
industry practices with respect to vessel lay-up, and the ability of the vessel to return to
transportation service without major renovations. With respect to construction and maintenance
vessels that transition between transportation and non-transportation modes of operation, once
non-mobile and engaged in industrial operations, coverage under the VGP would cease. See also
VGP Fact Sheet Part 3.5.2.1 with respect to dredges holding CWA § 404 or MPRSA § 103
permits.
The commenter also suggested additional clarification with respect to: (1) vessels that may be
subject to another NPDES permit due to their employment in a service which has not been
considered to be “a means of transportation” when they are subsequently placed in service as a
means of transportation; and (2) other vessels which may be temporarily brought under the
NPDES permit coverage of an industrial facility, such as a shipyard while under construction or
repair. It is unnecessary to make the permit changes commenter suggests because EPA has
provided clarification in Section 3.5.2.1 of the Fact Sheet, which notes that the VGP covers
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel operating in a capacity as a means of
transportation. Vessels that transition between operation in a transportation capacity and nontransportation capacities will cease to be covered by the VGP when operating in an industrial
non-transportation mode, but will return to VGP coverage when resuming operation as a means
of transportation. With respect to floating drydocks and vessels in drydock, see, e.g., response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0274.1, excerpt 2. With respect to vessels under
construction, see VGP Fact Sheet 3.5.2.1.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John Pertgen, Assistant Director, Offshore Technical and
Regulatory Affairs
International Association of Drilling Contractors
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0277.1
22
No
Comment: 1.2.3.1 discharges not subject to former NPDES permit exclusion and vessel
discharges generated from vessels when they are operated in a capacity other than as a means of
transportation IADC recommends the following change to the proposed permit text: vessels
being used as an energy or mining facility, a storage facility, a seafood processing facility, or
when secured to the bed of waters subject to this permit or to a buoy for the purpose of mineral
3-7
or oil exploration or development are not eligible for coverage under this permit must obtain
coverage under a permit applicable to their operation.
Response: The change suggested by commenter is not necessary. The VGP clearly sets forth
requirements for discharges incidental to normal vessel operations, and discharges from vessels
operating in a capacity other than as a means of transportation are not eligible for permit
coverage under the VGP. See also 3.5.2 of the Fact Sheet for further information about discharge
types specifically not authorized under the VGP. Please see, e.g., the response to Comment EPAHQ-OW-2008-0055-0277.1, Excerpt 10 for further details about vessels operating in a capacity
other than as a means of transportation.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Sean D. Logan, Director
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
State Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0281.1
1
No
Comment: First, from a practical perspective, state agencies, such as the ohio department of
natural resources, division of watercraft, would be able to implement these rules much more
efficiently and cost-effectively, if the RGP and VGP vessel classifications more closely
resembled existing United States Coast Guard (ljscg) vessel classes. Therefore, we request
changing the vessel length limit for RGP to all vessels less than 65 feet in length and the VGP to
all vessels 65 feet in length or greater.
Response: EPA worked closely with the Coast Guard, and examined existing Coast Guard
classifications in developing the VGP. Where EPA draws the line between regulation under the
VGP and RGP is no longer an issue, given the Clean Boating Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-288), signed
into law on July 29, 2008, which removes recreational vessels, regardless of length, from
NPDES permit requirements. For more information on the impact of this legislation on the VGP,
please see Section 2.5 of the Fact Sheet.
EPA notes that the length of vessels covered by today’s permit is those that are 79 feet or more,
consistent with S.3298 (P..L. 110-299), which was signed into law on July 31, 2008. This law
generally places a temporary moratorium on NPDES permitting requirements, except for ballast
water, for discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels of less than 79 feet and
commercial fishing vessels (as defined in 46 USC 2101) of any size.
3-8
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Sean D. Logan, Director
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
State Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0281.1
3
No
Comment: It does not seem to be appropriate for all government-owned vessels to fall under the
provisions of the VGP. Although non-powered watercraft generally would not require additional
marine pollution control devices (mpcd) under the VGP, the typical utilization of these types of
vessels by government agencies involve education, waterway cleanup, and water quality
sampling, which would indicate the same level of environmental impact typically associated with
recreational use. In addition, non-powered watercraft owned by liveries, which are used
exclusively for recreational activities, would be more appropriately classified under the
provisions of the RGP.
Response: The VGP applies to discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels,
regardless of whether they are privately owned, or owned by a governmental entity (other than a
vessel of the Armed Forces subject to CWA § 312(n)). The scope of the discharges eligible for
coverage under the VGP are those discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel
covered by the exclusion in 40 C.F.R. 122.3(a) that exclusion was judicially vacated; EPA notes
that without the coverage provided by this permit, or coverage under another NPDES permit, any
discharges subject that exclusion would be in violation of CWA 301’s prohibition against
discharge without an NPDES permit upon vacatur of that exclusion. See Section 2.4 of the Fact
Sheet for further discussion of the court decisions that require EPA to issue the VGP. EPA notes
that many government-owned vessels, particularly those owned by states and municipalities, are
less than 79 feet in length. EPA notes that the length of vessels covered by today’s permit is
those that are 79 feet or more, consistent with S.3298 (P.L.110-299), which was signed into law
on July 31, 2008. This law generally places a temporary moratorium on NPDES permitting
requirements, except for ballast water, for discharges incidental to the normal operation of
vessels of less than 79 feet and commercial fishing vessels (as defined in 46 USC 2101) of any
size. In addition, the Clean Boating Act of 2008 was signed into law on July 29, 2008, which
removes recreational vessels, regardless of length, from NPDES permit requirements. For more
information on the impact of this legislation on the VGP, please see Section 2.5 of the Fact
Sheet.
To the extent commenter argues for a de minimis exclusion from the requirement for NPDES
permitting for discharges from government-owned vessels, commenter does not offer, and EPA
does not have, a record basis for any such exclusion.
3-9
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Henry Eby, Manager, Environmental Affairs
Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA)
Local Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0285.1
1
No
Comment: The LCRA is a conservation and reclamation district, which provides flood control,
water and waste water services, electric utility services, economic development programs and
other public services to the citizens of Texas. We have boats that are used to police local lakes,
boats used to take samples to evaluate water quality, and boats used to move our employees
throughout our irrigation district canals. We were created by the Texas legislature in 1934 and
receive no state tax money nor can we levy taxes. With this background in mind, lcra would like
to offer the following comments: EPA cites the Coast Guard's definition of a "recreational
vessel" as the source of its definition under the definitions section of both of the general permits.
The definition of "recreational vessel" includes a "vessel being manufactured or operated
primarily for pleasure." we request that you clarify whether this definition is intended to include
vessels that are manufactured as recreational vessels but are used for business purposes, such as
boats used for water quality sampling.
Response: The VGP covers discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels operating in
a capacity as a means of transportation, regardless of whether they are owned by a private or
governmental entity (other than a vessel of the Armed Forces subject to CWA § 312(n)).
Recreational vessels have been removed from the NPDES permitting program by the Clean
Boating Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-288), which was signed into law on July 29, 2008. Most
discharges from non-recreational vessels of less than 79 feet are not subject to the VGP, due to
another law (P.L. 110-299) that was signed into law on July 31, 2008. With regard to recreational
vessels manufactured for pleasure but used for business, such vessels, if subject to Coast Guard
inspection and engaged in commercial use or carrying paying passengers, are not excluded from
permitting by the Clean Boating Act. See Section 3 of the Clean Boating Act. For more
information on this legislation, please see Section 2.5 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
David Daly
Marathon Oil Company
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0287.1
2
No
Comment: Comment #3: both permits should be clarified such that the permits do not apply to
vessels engaged in national security emergency response, law enforcement or public safety
emergency response, environmental emergency response or natural disaster emergency response.
There are many vessels that are critical to effective response to the aforementioned situations that
may have to stop critical operations to comply with the proposed permits. Please note, these
vessels can be publicly owned, owned by commercial interests, or privately owned. These
vessels can also range from jon boats and boston whalers to ocean-going recovery vessels. When
involved in actual response, which is usually under extremely difficult and trying conditions,
3-10
such vessels should be excluded from complying with either the VGP or the RGP. Comment #4:
many commercial interests maintain vessels, intended for a multitude of purposes and ranging in
size from dingys to boston whalers, which are stored out of the water unless involved in an
emergency response drill or involved in an actual response. These permits do not address vessels
that are kept out of the water for a predominant amount of time. We suggest that both permits be
clarified to indicate that these permits only apply when a vessel is in the water and not involved
in emergency response operations. This should also include recreational vehicles. As the permits
are now written, a vessel stored on a trailer in an owner’s back yard must comply with these
permits for events such as rain (deck runoff). We do not believe it is the intention of the permits
to cover such circumstances. Therefore we believe the applicability of these permits should be
tied to the vessel being in operation on the water. Other permits and programs apply and protect
water quality for those instances when a vessel is out of the water.
Response: With respect to comment # 3, EPA disagrees that the VGP should not apply to vessels
engaged in emergency response – to do so would mean that following vacatur of the 40 CFR
122.3(a) exclusion, such vessels would be discharging without a permit in contravention of
CWA § 310(a). With respect to concerns as to the VGP’s terms and conditions, see, e.g.,
response to comment 287.1 excerpt 4 , which discusses how the VGP has been drafted to provide
necessary flexibility and includes numerous provisions to account for safety concerns;
commenter does not explain why these provisions do not provide the required flexibility in the
emergency situations it describes. EPA also notes that, pursuant to 40 CFR 122.3(d), discharges
in compliance with the instructions of on On-Scene coordinator pursuant to 40 CFR part 300 and
33 CFR 153.10(e) are exempt from NPDES permit requirements. We also note there are specific
additional requirements for emergency vessels, such as fire boats and police boats, in Part 5.7 of
the VGP. See Section 7.7 of the Fact Sheet for additional information.
With respect to comment #4, as the VGP is written, a vessel stored on a trailer, in a location
away from a waterbody, would not be subject to the terms of the permit for deck runoff, as the
commenter suggests, because it would not result in a discharge to waters subject to this permit.
Note that recreational vessels have been removed from the NPDES permitting program by the
Clean Boating Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-288), which was signed into law on July 29, 2008. Except
for ballast water, discharges from non-recreational vessels of less than 79 feet are generally not
subject to the VGP, due to another law (P.L. 110-299), that took effect on July 31, 2008. For
more information on this legislation, please see Section 2.5 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
David Daly
Marathon Oil Company
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0287.1
4
No
Comment: Comment #6: the VGP seemingly diminishes the value of one of the most important
laws of maritime operations that have been in effect for centuries, this being that the first
responsibility of any ship’s master is to protect his/her crew and vessel. We strongly suggest that
language indicating this permit does not apply to situations where a ship’s master determines his
crew and/or vessel may be in danger. This is necessary to ensure the ship master has the
3-11
flexibility he/she needs to ensure the safety of crew and vessel at all times. Comment #7: the
VGP does not address possible situations of vessels not in operation as a means of transportation
(Section 1.2.3.1). This includes, but is not limited to, the following cases: * a vessel permanently
moored to the shoreline for some purpose; * a vessel in layup (either seasonal or extended); * a
mobile working platform (such as a mobile drilling rig, crane barge, construction barge, pipeline
laying barge, etc.) That is towed through the water from one work location to another work
location; * a dredge (which by its intended purpose emits a discharge); * vessels that are
dedicated to a specific harbor for the purpose staging empty and full barges in preparation for
transportation activities conducted by line-haul vessels; * a barge tied off as floating storage. We
suggest the application of the VGP (or RGP if the vessel is smaller than the VGP criteria in size),
be tied to mobility in these cases. If the vessel is “in transit” then the permits apply. However, if
the vessel is in a stationary state for a specific purpose, then other programs should be applied,
and not the VGP/RGP, to protect water quality.
Response: EPA does not agree that the permit diminishes the responsibility of the master to
protect the safety of the crew or vessel. The permit has been drafted to provide necessary
flexibility and includes numerous provisions to account for safety concerns. See e.g., VGP Parts
2.1.4 (toxic and hazardous materials); 2.2.2 (bilgewater); 2.2.3 (ballast water); 2.2.5 (AFFF);
2.2.6 (boiler blowdown); 2.2.8 (chain locker effluent); 2.2.11 (elevator pit effluent); 2.2.12
(firemain systems). In addition, the conditions applicable to all NPDES permits (in 40 CFR
122.41 and incorporated by reference into the VGP) include provisions for “bypass” which allow
for noncompliance under certain circumstances. The commenter provides no explanation for why
all of these provisions together do not provide the necessary flexibility. We thus do not agree that
it is necessary to add a blanket provision as suggested that the “permit does not apply to
situations where a ship’s master determines his crew and/or vessel may be in danger.” We
further note the suggested text would mean that VGP provisions requiring recordkeeping and
documentation of safety concerns would not apply. This would unduly interfere with the ability
to identify and review situations where the safety exception is invoked. See also, e.g., response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0323.1, excerpt 19.
We disagree with the assertion that the VGP does not address possible situations of vessels not in
operation as a means of transportation -- as stated in VGP Part 1.2.3.1, such vessels were not
subject to the 40 CFR § 122.3(a) exclusion and thus are not eligible for coverage under the VGP.
With respect to issues related to determining when a vessel is being used as a means of
transportation, please see, e.g., responses to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0277.1, excerpt
10 and EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0274.1, excerpt 2, and Section 3.5.2.1 of the VGP Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
David Daly
Marathon Oil Company
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0287.1
24
No
Comment: Comment 37: Section 5.7 – MPC requests that EPA clarify whether this permit
coverage includes emergency response vessels and rescue boats less that 79’ in length. MPC
owns and operates many small response boats for rescue and/or deployment of containment and
3-12
absorbent boom for emergency response events. MPC believes these boats will meet the
recreational vessel exemption.
Response: Response to Comment 37: Recreational vessels and, (except for ballast water) nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet in length are not required to obtain NPDES permit coverage
because of congressional action. See Section 2.4 of the Fact Sheet for more details about two
laws that were passed addressing those categories of vessels. In addition, please see, e.g.,
response to Comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0287.1, Excerpt 2, Comment #4, which
discusses the applicability of the VGP to emergency vessels.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Captain Duran Larsen, Human Resources Director
Argosy Cruises
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0289
1
No
Comment: We strongly urge a quick reconsideration of the Environmental Protection Agency's
permitting of "incidental discharges" for locally operated vessels.
Response: It is necessary for EPA to issue the VGP for discharges incidental to the normal
operation of vessels operating in a capacity as a means of transportation because those discharges
are no longer excluded from the need to obtain an NPDES permit. See Sections 2.3 and 2.4 of
the Fact Sheet for a discussion of the legal challenge to the NPDES exclusion for such
discharges, and for the court decisions that necessitate issuance of the VGP. It is unclear what
commenter means by “locally operated” vessels, but EPA notes that recreational vessels and,
except for ballast water, most non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet in length are currently
not required to obtain NPDES permit coverage for their discharge, pursuant to congressional
action. See Part 2.5 of the Fact Sheet for further information about the recently enacted
legislation. In addition, several ballast water provisions in the VGP specifically take into account
vessels that operate solely within one Captain of the Port (COTP) zone. See Part 2.2.3 of the
VGP and Section 4.4.3 of the Fact Sheet for more information about the requirements for those
vessels. See also other responses to comments addressing vessel that operate only in local waters
or within one COTP zone.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Maurya B. Falkner
California Marine Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities
Division (MFD), California State Lands Commission
State Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0292.1
40
No
Comment: Comments – VGP fact sheet 3.5.1 eligibility (pg 25-26) pg 26, paragraph 3 - the
battelle report (2007) is not included in the references. Technical development document should
be capitalized as it is the title of the document. Also, this is an 864 page document. When this
3-13
report is cited (as it should be in each of the Sections 3.5.1.1 through 3.5.1.28) please provide
some indication of what page the information was taken from.
Response: EPA has added the Battelle Report to the list of references. EPA acknowledges the
UNDS Technical Development Document is an 864 page document and notes we have
capitalized the title of the Technical Development Document. However, EPA believes that it is
not necessary, nor is it standard practice, to cite specific page numbers in documents when citing
to information. For example, in a technical document cited for this fact sheet (Dobroski et al.
2007), the authors generally do not cite specific page numbers whenever they cite specific
sources, despite the fact that hundreds of pages of information are referenced.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Scott Gudes, Vice President Government Relations
National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA)
Recreational Boating Industry
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0295.1
2
No
Comment: 1 b. General permit for discharges associated with commercial and large recreational
vessels (VGP) the proposed VGP applies to commercial vessels, and recreational vessels over 79
feet in length. VGP at 1, § 1.2.1. Under the clean boating act, incidental discharges from all
recreational vessels (including uninspected passenger vessels) will be exempt from the NPDES
permit requirement, regardless of length. Accordingly, the “large” recreational vessels and
uninspected passenger vessel categories should be removed from the proposed VGP. With
respect to other non-recreational commercial and inspected passenger vessels, nmma would note
that, under a separate piece of legislation passed by congress on July 22, and signed by the
president on July 31, most incidental discharges from commercial vessels under 79 feet in length,
and all fishing vessels regardless of length, will be exempt from the NPDES requirement during
a two-year period beginning on July 31, 2008. See 154 cong. Rec. H6752-56, s6981-83 (daily ed.
July 22, 2008). This legislation provides EPA with additional time to develop any NPDES permit
for these commercial vessels./_2 this legislation also requires EPA, in consultation with the
Coast Guard, to conduct a study to evaluate the impacts of such incidental discharges, and
submit a report to congress. /_2
Response: The scope of the VGP has been revised to be compatible with the Clean Boating Act
of 2008 (P.L. 110-288) and S.3298 (P.L. 110-299). For more information on this legislation,
please see Section 2.5 of the Fact Sheet.
3-14
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Teresa Preston, Environmental, Health and Safety Director
Atlantic Marine Alabama, LLC
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0296.1
2
No
Comment: While AMA agrees that the unds’s modeled vessel general permit is appropriate for
the purpose of regulating the discharges incidental to the normal operations of a vessel, we are
concerned that EPA has not clearly defined the types of vessels and the extent of vessel
discharges to which this rule applies. Consequently, by this transmittal, AMA requests that EPA
clarify the applicability of this rule to vessel types and vessel discharges not specifically defined
in the proposed VGP regulation. Specifically, we request clarification with regard to the
applicability of the VGP to vessels during initial construction prior to delivery to the vessel’s
owner, and vessels that have been removed from the water via floating dry docks, for the purpose
of maintenance and repair. Additionally AMA requests clarification regarding the applicability
of the VGP to floating dry docks. For the reasons set forth below AMA believes the EPA should
amend the proposed regulation to clearly define the applicability of the VGP to discharges
incidental to the normal operation of: (1) new vessels during construction; (2) vessels in dry
dock, and; (3) floating dry docks. 1. Incidental discharges from vessels under construction should
be regulated by the VGP when the vessel becomes waterborne a large majority of the
shipbuilding construction process for new vessels takes place on land. Incidental discharges from
vessels under construction that occur while the vessel is on land are typically covered by the
shipbuilder’s individual facility NPDES permit. After the vessel is launched and becomes
waterborne final construction and outfitting activities are undertaken. Prior to delivery of the
vessel to the vessel owner, the shipbuilder conducts equipment and systems testing, dock trials,
and sea trials. During this period there are discharges incidental to the vessel’s normal
operations. These discharges are the same type of discharges that are described in the UNDS.
Consequently, incidental discharges while the vessel is waterborne should be regulated in the
same manner as the UNDS regulates these discharges for vessels of the armed forces. AMA
asserts that once the vessel is launched and becomes waterborne, that the incidental discharges
should be regulated by a VGP. Discharges from waterborne vessels under construction should
therefore be regulated under a VGP issued initially to the shipbuilder as soon the vessel is
waterborne. Following delivery of the vessel to the vessel owner, the vessel owner would then be
responsible for the incidental discharges and the permitting there of. 2. Incidental discharges
from vessels undergoing maintenance or repair in dry dock should be regulated by the vessel’s
VGP as a vessel is placed into dry dock, and even after the vessel is lifted out of the water,
several discharges incidental to the normal operations of the vessel typically occur and continue.
These discharges include water from the cooling and fire-main systems and ballast water.
Although under UNDS these discharges are distinguished from other incidental discharges that
occur while a vessel is waterborne, AMA seeks consistency with the definition of a discharge
incidental to the normal operation of a vessel and recommends that these discharges while the
vessel is in dry dock should remain subject to the vessel’s VGP. AMA asserts that these
incidental discharges are clearly “vessel” discharges and not discharges from the shipyard
facility. Consequently, the vessel owner should remain responsible for the incidental discharges
from his vessel and for compliance with the vessel’s VGP. The alternative would be to require
these discharges to be regulated under the individual facility’s NPDES permit. While this may be
feasible for some facilities, particularly those that are responsible for both the vessel and land3-15
side operations (e.g., U.S. Navy), it is not practical for commercial dry dock operators to assume
responsibility for operational discharges from vessels not under their control. AMA recognizes
that industrial discharges generated as a result of maintenance and repair activities associated
with the vessel are appropriately regulated under the individual facility’s NPDES permit.
However, incidental discharges that are clearly a result of the normal operations of the “vessel”,
should be regulated by the vessel’s VGP. 3. Incidental discharges from floating dry docks should
be regulated by the VGP historically, in practice and for regulatory purposes, dry docks have
been defined as “vessels”. The uniform national discharge standards for vessels of the armed
forces, upon which EPA modeled the proposed VGP, covers almost all vessels of the armed
forces and specifically includes dry docks. Expressly, the UNDS states that “discharges related
to a floating dry dock’s function as a vessel are covered by UNDS and do not require
authorization by NPDES permits.” A floating dry dock is a type of vessel used for lifting other
vessels out of the water so that they can be accessed for maintenance and repair activities.
Floating dry docks contain floodable ballast tanks that are used to lift and lower the dry dock as a
maintenance platform. When valves are opened these tanks are filled with water (ballast) and the
dry dock partially submerges. A vessel is then positioned over the submerged dry dock and,
when ballast water is pumped out of the ballast tanks, the dry dock floats to the surface lifting the
vessel to be serviced out of the water. The ballasting and de-ballasting of a dry dock for the
purpose of lifting vessels out of the water for servicing, clearly meets the definition of
“incidental discharges to the normal operation of the vessel”. Consequently, AMA asserts that
these dry dock incidental discharges should be regulated as is consistent with the UNDS, under
the vessel’s VGP. Again, AMA recognizes that industrial discharges generated as a result of
maintenance and repair activities associated with the vessel are appropriately regulated under the
individual facility’s NPDES permit, and not consider them to be vessel discharges relative to the
VGP. However, AMA strongly encourages EPA to make clear that discharges incidental to the
operation of the dry dock itself are covered under the VGP. Conclusion when vessels that are
still under construction are launched and become waterborne, and the vessel’s equipment and
systems are functioning, discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel commence.
Vessels under construction are also tested during dock trials, sea trials, etc., during which these
vessels have discharges incidental to their normal operations as a vessel. AMA requests that EPA
regulate incidental discharges from all waterborne vessels, including those vessels still under
construction by the VGP. Additionally, discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels
that are non-waterborne while in dry dock for maintenance and repair do not cease to be “vessel”
discharges and consequently should be subject to the requirements of the VGP as proposed.
Discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel in dry dock should continue to be
regulated under the dry-docked vessel’s VGP because the owner of the vessel continues to
maintain control of those discharges while the vessel is in dry dock. AMA requests that EPA
clarify this important distinction. Lastly, while AMA disagrees with the need for such regulation,
EPA’s proposed VGP regulation provides a reasonable and effective means of complying with
the District Court’s order requiring the vacation of the NPDES exemption for discharges
incidental to the normal operation of vessels. Consistent with the District Court’s ruling, EPA
has appropriately proposed to regulate incidental discharges from “all commercial vessels.”
Floating dry docks are waterborne commercial vessels and appropriately should be subject to the
VGP. Floating dry docks should be specifically defined in this regulation as such, so that a clear
distinction is made between them and other types of land-based dry docks. Discharges from
land-based dry docking facilities, are typically regulated under an individual facility’s NPDES
permit. AMA requests that EPA clarify this important distinction.
3-16
Response: EPA notes that, while information from the UNDS process was among the
information used to help identify discharges, UNDS was not used as a template for the VGP as
the UNDS statutory framework (CWA § 312(o)) is unique to Vessels of the Armed Forces. In
addition, the VGP is an NPDES permit, not a regulation. See Section 2.6 of the Fact Sheet for a
discussion of NPDES general permits. For information regarding the applicability of the VGP to
floating drydocks and vessels in drydock, please see, e.g., the response to Comment EPA-HQOW-2008-0055-0277.1, Excerpt 10 and Comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0274.1, Excerpt 2.
With respect to vessels under construction, see VGP Fact Sheet 3.5.2.1.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Michael Borgstrom, President
Passenger Vessel Association (PVA)
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0297
3
No
Comment: Suggest that there is a need for congress or the Federal judiciary to step in and
relieve EPA of the obligation to conduct this rulemaking because the national pollutant discharge
elimination system (NPDES) is not the appropriate regulatory vehicle for most vessel discharges
and because there has been no showing that most discharges incidental to the normal operation
of a vessel cause any environmental harm to or degradation of U.S. waters.
Response: With respect to legislative and judicial relief, see response to comment EPA-HQOW-2008-0055-0277.1, excerpt 5. With respect to the commenter’s apparent view that a
showing of harm is a predicate to CWA regulation, see e.g., discussion of that issue in response
to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1, excerpt 17.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Michael Borgstrom, President
Passenger Vessel Association (PVA)
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0297
14
No
Comment: We are here today because Federal policy is being set by litigation and a single
unelected judge. We need policy to be set by our elected lawmakers. Ballast water discharges
should be governed by a law specific to that purpose. Other discharges incidental to the normal
operation of a vessel should be subject to regulation or permitting only if harm to the
environment can be demonstrated. So far, that showing has not been made. The passenger vessel
association urges EPA to craft a workable rule based on a nationwide general permit, but pva
also urges the agency to persuade congress that there is a need for a better regulatory framework
other than NPDES permitting.
Response: Support for a general permit approach is acknowledged. With respect to other issues,
see response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0297, excerpt 3.
3-17
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Rod Moore
West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA)
Commercial Fishing
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0298
3
No
Comment: Section 1.2.1 of the VGP requires this permit be applicable to vessels operating in
"waters of the United States" and references 40 CFR 122.2. To facilitate communication with
members of the general public we recommend the EPA clearly articulate the areas to be covered
rather than reference the code of Federal regulations. It is imperative the public understand this
permit is intended to cover all commercial fishing vessels regardless of size operating in all U.S.
waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. However, we question the applicability of Sections
2 through 4 of the VGP to undocumented commercial fishing vessels (i.e., those under 5 net tons
which are numbered under 46 U.S.C. chapter 123). These include but are not limited to such
vessels as: secondary or support vessels carried towed by larger vessels participating in various
commercial purse seine fisheries ("seine skiffs" used primarily to anchor or circle the net during
fishing operations); small vessels used to tend nets, pounds, or traps in - among other locations the Chesapeake Bay drainage, the Columbia River drainage (including vessels employed in the
tribal fisheries), and the Yukon and Kuskokwim River drainages; beached-launched dories in
Oregon and California; other open or partially enclosed vessels used to target fish near shore
(Oregon and California) or support shellfish harvesting operations (numerous coastal states).
These small vessels are basic in design and are analogous to recreational vessels which are being
covered under a less onerous recreational general permit (RGP). It is not practical to require this
class of specialized vessels to comply with all provisions of the VGP; instead, we suggest that
they be covered under the same terms and conditions of Sections 1.4 through 1.6 and Section 2
of the RGP.
Response: Part 1.2.1 of the VGP states that the “permit is applicable to discharges incidental to
the normal operation of a vessel identified in Part 1.2.2 into waters subject to this permit. These
waters are ‘waters of the U.S. as defined in 40 C.F.R. 122.2 (extending to the outer reach of the 3
mile territorial sea as defined in Section 502(8) of the CWA).” Given the national scope of the
VGP, EPA believes that this description clearly articulates the waters subject to permit coverage,
and that further explanation is unnecessary. Non-ballast water incidental discharges from nonrecreational vessels of less than 79 feet and commercial fishing vessels, regardless of size, are
not subject to the VGP, due to a law (P.L. 110-299) that was signed into law on July 31, 2008.
For more information on this legislation, please see Section 2.5 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Robert P. Birtalan, President
Jacksonville Area Ship Repair Association (JASRA)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0300.1
2
No
Comment: While JASRA agrees that the unds's modeled vessel general permit is appropriate
for the purpose of regulating the discharges incidental to the normal operations of a vessel, we
3-18
are concerned that EPA has not clearly defined the extent to which vessels and vessels
discharges that this rule applies. Consequently, by this transmittal, JASRA request that EPA
clarify the applicability of this rule to vessel types and vessel discharges not specifically defined
in the proposed VGP regulation. Specifically, we request clarification with regard to the
applicability of the VGP to vessels during initial construction prior to delivery to the vessel's
owner, and vessels that have been removed from the water via floating dry docks, for the purpose
of maintenance and repair. Additionally JASRA requests clarification regarding the applicability
of the VGP to floating dry docks. For the reasons set forth below JASRA believes the EPA
should amend the proposed regulation to clearly define the applicability of the VGP to
discharges incidental to the normal operation of: (1) new vessels during construction; (2) vessels
in dry dock, and; (3) floating dry docks. 1. Incidental discharges from vessels under construction
should be regulated by the VGP when the vessel becomes waterborne a large majority of the
shipbuilding construction process for new vessels takes place on land. Incidental discharges from
vessels under construction that occur while the vessel is on land are typically covered by the
shipbuilder's individual facility NPDES permit. After the vessel is launched and becomes
waterborne final construction and outfitting activities are undertaken. Prior to delivery of the
vessel to the vessel owner, the shipbuilder conducts equipment and systems testing, dock trials,
and sea trials. During this period there are discharges incidental to the vessel's normal operations.
These discharges are the same type of discharges that are described in the UNDS. Consequently,
incidental discharges while the vessel is waterborne should be regulated in the same manner as
the UNDS regulates these discharges for vessels of the armed forces. JASRA asserts that once
the vessels is launched and becomes waterborne, that the incidental discharges should be
regulated by a VGP. Discharges from waterborne vessels under construction should therefore be
regulated under a VGP issued initially to the shipbuilder as soon it is waterborne. Following
delivery of the vessel to the vessel owner, the vessel owner would then be responsible for the
incidental discharges and the permitting there of. 2. Incidental discharges from vessels
undergoing maintenance or repair in dry dock should be regulated by the vessels' VGP as a
vessel is placed into dry dock, and even after the vessel is lifted out of the water, several
discharges incidental to the normal operations of the vessel typically occur and continue. These
discharges include water from the cooling and fire-main systems and ballast water. Although
under UNDS these discharges are distinguished from other incidental discharges that occur while
a vessel is waterborne, JASRA seeks clarification and consistency with the definition of a
discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel and recommends that these discharges
while the vessel is in dry dock should remain subject to the vessel's VGP. JASRA asserts that
these incidental discharges are clearly "vessel" discharges and not discharges from the dry
docking facility. Consequently, the vessel owner should remain responsible for the incidental
discharges from his vessel and for compliance with the vessel's VGP. The alternative would be
to require these discharges to be regulated under the individual facility's NPDES permit of the
dry-docking facility. While this may be feasible for some facilities, particularly those that are
responsible for both the vessel and land-side operations (e.g., us. Navy), it is not practical for
commercial dry dock operators to assume responsibility for operational discharges from vessels
not under their control. JASRA recognizes that industrial discharges generated as a result of
maintenance and repair activities associated with the vessel are appropriately regulated under the
individual facility's NPDES permit. However, incidental discharges that are clearly a result of the
normal operations of the "vessel", should be regulated by the vessel's VGP. 3. Incidental
discharges from floating dry docks should be regulated by the VGP historically, in practice and
for regulatory purposes, dry docks have been defined as "vessels". The uniform national
discharge standards for vessels of the armed forces, upon which EPA modeled the proposed
3-19
VGP, covers almost all vessels of the armed forces and specifically includes dry docks.
Expressly, the UNDS states that "discharges related to a floating dry dock's function as a vessel
are covered by UNDS and do not require authorization by NPDES permits." a floating dry dock
is a type of vessel used for lifting other vessels out of the water so that they can be accessed for
maintenance and repair activities. Floating dry docks contain floodable ballast tanks that are used
to lift and lower the dry dock as a maintenance platform. When valves are opened these tanks are
filled with water (ballast) and the dry dock partially submerges. A vessel is then positioned over
the submerged dry dock and, when ballast water is pumped out of the ballast tanks, the dry dock
floats to the surface lifting the vessel to be serviced out of the water. The ballasting and deballasting of a dry dock for the purpose of lifting vessels out of the water for servicing, clearly
meets the definition of "incidental discharges to the normal operation of the vessel".
Consequently, JASRA asserts that these dry dock incidental discharges should be regulated as is
consistent with the UNDS, under the vessel's VGP. Again, JASRA recognizes that industrial
discharges generated as a result of maintenance and repair activities associated with the vessel
are appropriately regulated under the individual facility's NPDES permit, and not consider them
to be vessel discharges relative to the VGP. However, JASRA strongly encourages EPA to make
clear that discharges incidental to the operation of the dry dock itself are covered under the VGP.
Conclusion when vessels that are still under construction are launched and become waterborne,
and begin the functioning of the vessel's equipment and systems, discharges incidental to the
normal operation of a vessel commence. Vessels under construction are also tested in dock trials,
sea trials, etc., during which these vessels have discharges incidental to their normal operations
as a vessel. JASRA requests that EPA regulate incidental discharges from all waterborne vessels,
including those vessels still under construction by the VGP. Additionally, discharges incidental
to the normal operation of vessels that are non-waterborne while in dry dock for maintenance
and repair do not cease to be "vessel" discharges and consequently should be subject to the
requirements of the VGP as proposed. Discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel
in dry dock should continue to be regulated under the dry-docked vessel's VGP because the
owner of the vessel continues to maintain control of those discharges while the vessel is in dry
dock. JASRA requests that EPA clarify this important distinction. Lastly, EPA’s proposed VGP
regulation provides a reasonable and effective means of complying with the District Court's
order requiring the vacation of the NPDES exemption for discharges incidental to the normal
operation of vessels. Consistent with the District Court's ruling, EPA has appropriately proposed
to regulate incidental discharges from "all commercial vessels." floating dry docks are
waterborne commercial vessels and appropriately should be subject to the VGP. Floating dry
docks should be specifically defined in this regulation as such, so that a clear distinction is made
between them and other types of land-based dry docks. Discharges from land-based dry docking
facilities, are typically regulated under an individual facility's NPDES permit. JASRA requests
that EPA clarify this important distinction.
Response: This comment is identical to comment 296.1 excerpt 2. Please see response to that
comment.
3-20
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dr. Ralph G. Appy, Ph.D., Director of Environmental
Management Division
City of Los Angeles Harbor Department (LAHD)
Local Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0301.1
1
No
Comment: The LAHD supports EPA’s general permit approach to the vessel NPDES permits
and EPA’s intent to ensure consistency between long standing U.S. Coast Guard regulation and
NPDES requirements. Under the proposed regulations as drafted, municipal boats that are
operated solely within the port of Los Angeles would be regulated under the VGP, and as such
subject to requirements that substantially exceed existing U.S. regulations. Lahd municipal boat
fleet operations and vessel types are more similar to recreational vessels than to ocean going
ships, and operate and are currently regulated in manner similar to that proposed by EPA for
recreational vessels of less than 79 feet in length. Therefore, the inclusion of local municipal
boats in the RGP, with establishment of vessel class specific requirements for annual training
and record keeping for municipal boats (similar in concept to the vessel specific requirement
established in Section 5 of the VGP) is the most appropriate method of regulating municipal
boats operated in local waters. It is therefore recommended that, consistent with current
regulatory requirements and EPA’s stated intent, the EPA expand the RGP to include municipal
boat fleets that operate within local waters, such as the port of Los Angeles, and that EPA clarify
that the VGP is not applicable to such municipal boats.
Response: The RGP is not being finalized due to enactment of the Clean Boating Act, P.L. 110288. We further note, however, the comment letter describes the length of the vessels in the
commenter’s fleet, and that description indicates they are under 79 feet in length. If that is the
case, the vessels would not be subject to the VGP, except with respect to ballast water
discharges, due to enactment of P.L. 110-299.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dr. Ralph G. Appy, Ph.D., Director of Environmental
Management Division
City of Los Angeles Harbor Department (LAHD)
Local Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0301.1
4
No
Comment: Appropriate classification of local municipal boat fleets consistent with EPA’s intent
to ensure consistency between existing U.S. Coast Guard regulations and NPDES requirements,
municipal vessels that are operated solely within ports and their immediate vicinity should be
regulated in a manner similar to recreational vessels. Lahd municipal boat fleet operations and
vessel types are more similar to recreational vessels than to ocean going ships, and operate and
are currently regulated in a manner similar to that proposed by EPA for recreational vessels of
less than 79 feet in length. The LAHD operates a municipal fleet, which is exempt from
registration with U.S. Coast Guard (except a single vessel), that includes approximately: four (4)
refuse collection boats, 33-feet in length, built in the 1970s, all of which have inboard engines.
3-21
Refuse collection boats are responsible for removing potential navigational hazards, such as logs,
from the port's channels and removing trash and debris from the harbor. These boats have no
grey, sewage, or ballast water operations. These boats never leave the port of Los Angeles. Five
(5) survey boats between 16-1 8 feet in length, three (3) of which have out-board engines. The
boats are used in surveying the port and in performing wharf piling evaluations. These boats
have no grey, sewage, or ballast water operations. These boats never leave the port of Los
Angeles. Two (2) port pilot boats, 53-feet in length, both of which have twin in-board engines.
These boats ferry port pilots to ocean going vessels entering or leaving the port complex. Lahd
purchased new port pilot boat in 1994, incorporating environmental design considerations. The
engine compartment and the areas where bilge water may accumulate are completely separated
to avoid contamination of bilge water with petroleum products. These boats have no grey or
ballast water operations. The boats are solely operated in the port of Los Angeles and adjacent
waters in the port entry zone. Although these boats are exempt from registration with us. Coast
guard, the port pilots voluntarily participate in the Coast Guard certificate of inspection program.
Seven (7) port police boats ranging in size from 18 to 32 feet, four of which have outboard
engines. Five (5) of the port police boats have no grey, sewage, or ballast water operations. Two
(2) port police boats have a restroom on board and one has a shower facility, although not used.
These boats never leave the port of Los Angeles. One (1) vessel for free port tours, with a length
of 65 feet, which has twin in-board engines. This vessel is used to provide free tours of the port
to diplomats, elected and public officials, homeland security, army corps of engineers,
environmental agencies, commerce related personnel, etc. The engine compartment and the areas
where bilge water may accumulate are separated to avoid contamination of bilge water with
petroleum products. This boat has no ballast water operations. Grey water is largely limited to
hand washing in the restroom facility. This boat never leaves the port of Los Angeles. Since this
boat carries passengers, it is subject to registration with the U.S. Coast Guard and the associated
Coast Guard certificate of inspection program. Two (2) tug boats, 33 and 55 feet in length, with
in-board engines. These vessels are used to assist in positioning barges used in pile driving and
other maintenance operations. These boats have no grey, sewage, or ballast water operations.
The tug boats and barges never leave the port of Los Angeles. Import of non-indigenous species
is not a concern with LAHD municipal boats since they operate solely within the port of Los
Angeles, and in the case of port pilot boats immediately adjacent waters, further, no LAHD boats
have ballast water operations. In addition, the majority of lahd's vessels have no sewage or grey
water operations. Further, those vessels that do have sewage water are all "hard plumbed" with
no pumping capabilities, precluding the accidental discharge of sewage water into the harbor.
Fueling operations are accomplished at a marina fueling station, the same as recreational boats.
Similar to recreational boats, except for fuel sources and safety equipment (such as flares), no
hazardous material are maintained onboard LAHD municipal fleet boats. Lahd boats are
generally washed down with fresh water only (e.g. no detergents or cleaners are used). The
discharges incidental to vessel operations from the lahd's municipal boat fleet are currently
minimized and managed, consistent with existing regulations, in a manner similar to those stated
in RGP. EPA states that it is their "understanding that “uninspected passenger vessels" share
similarities with recreational vessels and that it is appropriate to cover them under this permit
[RGP] as well" (EPA RGP fact sheet, page 12). Likewise, "uninspected" LAHD municipal boat
operations share similarities to recreational vessels and it is appropriate that they also be covered
under the RGP. Including municipal boats under the RGP is further supported by EPA’s intent to
"avoid any conflicts with U.S. Coast Guard regulations" (EPA VGP fact sheet page lo), under
which the lahd's municipal boats are regulated similar to recreational boats. Additionally, LAHD
boats are not "Marpol vessels" (see VGP Section 2.1.4). It is therefore recommended that,
3-22
consistent with current regulatory requirements, the EPA expand the RGP to include municipal
boat fleets that operate within local waters, such as the port of Los Angeles, and that the EPA
clarify that the VGP is not applicable to such municipal boats. It is further recommended that
combined with the inclusion of local municipal boats in the RGP, vessel class specific
requirements (similar in concept to the vessel specific requirement established in Section 5 of the
VGP) be established for municipal boat fleets. Such municipal boat fleet vessel class specific
requirements should include annual training of municipal fleet operators and record keeping
requirements. Since municipal fleets are centrally operated, establishment of annual vessel
operator training and record keeping, as more fully described below in the RGP specific
comments section, is a best management practice supported by LAHD.
Response: The RGP is not being finalized due to enactment of the Clean Boating Act, P.L. 110288. We further note, however, the comment letter describes the length of the vessels in the
commenter’s fleet, and that description indicates they are under 79 feet in length. If that is the
case, the vessels would not be subject to the VGP, except with respect to ballast water
discharges, due to enactment of P.L. 110-299.
For vessels that are subject to NPDES permitting, we believe the VGP, as written, is sufficiently
flexible to address the full range of vessels. Vessels subject to NPDES permitting need coverage
under an NPDES permit following vacatur of the 40 CFR 1222.3(a) exclusion for all discharges
incidental to their normal operation, not just ballast or graywater discharges or else they would
be in violation of the CWA § 301(a) prohibition against discharge without a permit. See Part
2.2.2 of the VGP. In addition, as explained in Part 1.2.3 of the VGP, discharges of sewage are
not subject to NPDES permitting, and discharges of garbage or trash are not eligible for coverage
under the VGP as such discharge were outside the scope of the 40 CFR 122.3(a) NPDES
exclusion..
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dr. Ralph G. Appy, Ph.D., Director of Environmental
Management Division
City of Los Angeles Harbor Department (LAHD)
Local Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0301.1
7
No
Comment: RGP specific comments Section 1.1 coverage the category of municipal boat fleets
operated in local waters should be added to Section 1.1. This addition also requires the addition
of a definition of municipal boat fleets operated in local waters in Section 6. As discussed in
detail in the general comments above, the discharges from the lahd's municipal boat fleet are
currently managed, consistent with existing regulations, in a manner similar to those stated in the
RGP. EPA states that it their "understanding that "uninspected passenger vessels" share
similarities with recreational vessels and that it is appropriate to cover them under this permit
[RGP] as well" (EPA RGP fact sheet, page 12). Likewise, "uninspected" LAHD municipal boat
operations share similarities to recreational vessels and it is appropriate that they also be covered
under the RGP. Including municipal boats under the RGP is further supported by EPA’s intent to
"avoid any conflicts with U.S. Coast Guard regulations" (EPA VGP fact sheet page 101, under
which the lahd's municipal boats a regulated similar to recreational boats. Additionally, LAHD
3-23
boats are not "Marpol vessels" (see VGP Section 2.1.4). It is therefore recommended that,
consistent with current regulatory requirements, the RGP be expanded to include municipal boat
fleets that operate within local waters, such as the port of los angeles. The VGP would need to be
concurrently clarified as not applicable to such municipal boats (see VGP comments below).
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0301.1, excerpt 4.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dr. Ralph G. Appy, Ph.D., Director of Environmental
Management Division
City of Los Angeles Harbor Department (LAHD)
Local Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0301.1
9
No
VGP specific comments Section 1.2.1 general scope of this permit the category of municipal
boat fleets operated in local waters should be added to the vessels that are not eligible for
coverage under the VGP. This change also requires the addition of a definition of municipal boat
fleets operated in local waters in appendix a definitions. As discussed in detail in the general
comment above, the discharges from the lahd's municipal boat fleet are currently managed,
consistent with existing regulations, in a manner similar to those stated in the RGP. EPA states
that it their “understanding that "uninspected passenger vessels" share similarities with
recreational vessels and that it is appropriate to cover them under this permit [RGP] as well"
(EPA RGP fact sheet, page 12). Likewise, "uninspected" LAHD municipal boat operations share
similarities to recreational vessels and it is appropriate that they also be covered under the RGP.
Including municipal boats under the RGP is further supported by EPA’s intent to "avoid any
conflicts with U.S. Coast Guard regulations" (EPA VGP fact sheet page 1 o), under which the
lahd's municipal boats a regulated similar to recreational boats. Additionally, LAHD boats are
not "Marpol vessels" (see VGP Section 2.1.4). It is therefore recommended that, consistent with
current regulatory requirements, the RGP be expanded to include municipal boat fleets that
operate within local waters, such as the port of los angeles, and the VGP be clarified as not
applicable to such municipal boats (see RGP comments above).
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0301.1, excerpt 4.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dr. Ralph G. Appy, Ph.D., Director of Environmental
Management Division
City of Los Angeles Harbor Department (LAHD)
Local Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0301.1
23
No
Comment: Additional comments as commented in detail above, consistent with current
regulatory requirements, EPA should expand the RGP to include municipal boat fleets that
3-24
operate within local waters, such as the port of los angeles, and clarify that the VGP is not
applicable to such municipal boats.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0301.1, excerpt 4.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Anonymous
None
Private Citizen
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0304.1
1
No
Comment: Based on the premise that pictures can sometimes be more powerful in conveying
information than words, I am submitting these illustrated comments for your consideration as
you develop the proposed NPDES permit for vessel operations: [see dcn:EPA-HQ-OW-00550304.1 for all the photos.] Question: am i subject to the permit: photo1&02: research vessel –
publicly owned (?) Photo3: research vessel – owned by the national science foundation photo4:
floating maritime museum photo5: another floating maritime museum photo6: a construction
barge photo7: a construction ship photo8: a cable laying ship photo9: an EPA-owned survey
ship. Please place the environmental management system and any related operational guidance
for this vessel in the docket. What discharge categories is EPA currently controlling? Photo10:
am i a vessel? Photo11: am i ‘in transportation’? Photo12: when would i have submitted an
notice of termination for this vessel? The permit would seem to be a nice tool for preventing /
ameliorating this situation – however picturesque. Photo13: ditto – but this concrete ship in an
integral part of a state park in California. How about a photo14: floating drydock that isn’t part
of an active shipyard? Photo15: this ‘propelled’ barge, and another non-propelled barge are an
active part of a bridge. Speaking of bridges: how about the pontoons that make up i-90 in
Seattle? Photo16: while in Seattle: how about these houseboats – they have many of the same
discharge categories as proposed for coverage in the permit. Or the Seattle kayak club? Photo17:
how about a prison barge in New York – note that this one seems to have draft marks and
anchors. Photo18: a pipe-laying barge? Photo19: here’s the salvage of the New Carissa on the
Oregon coast. Photo21: two jack-up salvage barges – subject to the permit? Photo21: what about
what’s left of the New Carissa? When would permit coverage have terminated? A self-elevating
barge similar to those used in salvaging the New Carissa. Subject to the permit when afloat?
When elevated? Photo22: how about this self-propelled and self-elevating “liftboat” used for
general maintenance on offshore structures? Photo23: feeling spacey? How about a rocket
launching platform? Photo24: back to Seattle – would this display be an authorized discharge
from the firemain? It certainly isn’t a necessary part of training, testing, or maintenance.
Photo25: they do it in New York too – with dye. Do we have to paint our barges? Photo26: ok,
fishing vessels and recreational vessels are probably ‘out’ of the permitting scheme – but had
they been included – would these vessels still be ‘in transportation after the hurricane hit?
Photo27: or this one? Photo28: would a notice of termination be required? A new notice of intent
before moving it back in the water? Hope these photos inspire you to contemplate the scope of
the industry that is being crammed into a one-size-fits-all permit and some of the problems
associated with the proposed language of the permit.
3-25
Response: The purpose of these photos was to ask EPA to understand the scope of the VGP and
how difficult it might be to implement, yet this comment does not provide the specificity
necessary for EPA to address commenter’s potential concerns. Whether and how the VGP
applies to various vessels depends upon site-specific circumstances, all of which are not readily
apparent by photograph. The VGP has grouped similar discharges together to be regulated under
this general permit. See Section 2.6 of the Fact Sheet for a discussion of the purpose of NPDES
general permits. In addition, some of the descriptive phrases that accompany these photos are for
vessels that are clearly contemplated by the VGP, for example, the requirements for research
vessels are articulated in Part 5.6 of the VGP, and the applicability of the VGP to floating
drydocks is discussed in Section 3.5.2 of the Fact Sheet and in related responses to comments in
this response to comment document. For information on the vessels eligible for coverage under
the VGP, see Part 1.2.1 of the Permit and Section 3.3 of the Fact Sheet. Only those discharges
incidental to the normal operation of a vessel are eligible for permit coverage. For more
information, see Part 1.2 of the VGP and Section 3.5 of the Fact Sheet. A list of eligible
discharges may be found in Part 1.2.2 of the VGP. For information on Federal legislation
affecting NPDES applicability to vessels, see Section 2.5 of the Fact Sheet. For information on
the applicability of the VGP to vessels being used other than as a means of transportation, see,
e.g., the response to Comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0274.1, Excerpt 2. For information on
submitting a Notice of Termination, see Part 1.6 of the Permit and Section 3.8 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Vince Dickinson, P.E., Manager, Environmental Operations
Bath Iron Works (BIW)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0305.1
2
No
Comment: BIW respectfully submits the following comments in regards to the draft VGP
BIWfully supports legislation s. 3298 authorizing a two year moratorium on the VGP
requirements for commercial vessels under 79 feet in length. The effluent waste streams
generated on small commercial vessels are the same as recreational vessels which are now
exempt under s. 2766. Generally small commercial vessels do not generate the effluent waste
streams listed in the VGP and do not discharge effluent waste stream which is harmful to the
environment. Ultimately, BIW recommends that incidental discharges from small commercial
vessels be permanently exempted fi-om the requirements of the VGP.
Response: Except for ballast water discharges, non-recreational vessels of less than 79 feet are
not subject to the VGP, due to enactment of S. 3298 (P.L. 110-299), which places a temporary
moratorium on NPDES permitting of their other incidental discharges. The question of whether
that moratorium should become permanent is outside the scope of today’s action.
3-26
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Nina Bell, J.D., Executive Director
Northwest Environmental Advocates, et al
Environmental Group
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0309.1
21
No
Comment: III. Comments on specific permit conditions in the proposed permit sec. 1.2.2.15
graywater we understand the statutory basis for EPA’s exclusion from this permit of graywater
discharged into the Great Lakes. Considering the importance of treating graywater discharged
into any confined waterbodies, including but not limited to the Great Lakes, it is incumbent upon
EPA to improve its implementation of sec. 312 both in terms of treatment requirements for
sewage, including graywater discharged into the Great Lakes, as well as implementation of the
provisions of that section. For this reason we urge EPA to revise its sec. 312 requirements
outside the context of this permit as well as to use this permit as a way of reminding vessel
owners that discharge graywater to the Great Lakes that they are required to meet sec. 312 and its
implementing regulations.
Response: As commenter notes, CWA Section 312 is outside the scope of this permit, as
discharges of graywater from commercial vessels in the Great Lakes is regulated as sewage, and
not graywater, per that CWA provision.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John L. Wittenborn, Counsel, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
National Shipbuilding Research Program (NSRP)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0310.1
2
No
Comment: We are writing to seek clarification in the final rule regarding the applicability of the
VGP to floating drydocks and to ships that are undergoing repair or construction. Although
nothing in the proposed VGP specifically excludes these discharge scenarios, we believe that the
proposed VGP should be amended explicitly to cover discharges incidental to the normal
operation of. (1) floating drydocks; (2) vessels in drydock, and; (3) vessels under construction.
Each of these recommended clarifications is discussed further below. 1. Floating drydocks are
vessels subiect to the proposed VGP a floating drydock is a type of vessel used for lifting ships
or boats out of the water so that they can be repaired, maintained, or rescued and transported.
Floating drydocks contain floodable ballast tanks that are used to raise and lower the drydock
and to maintain stability while a vessel is in the drydock. When valves are opened these tanks are
filled with water and the drydock partially submerges. A ship is then moved into position over
the submerged drydock and, when ballast water is pumped out of the ballast tanks, the drydock
floats to the surface lifting the ship to be serviced out of the water. Ballast water flow is critical
during the actual raising and lowering of the ship-dock combination and significant safety issues
can arise if this process is not rigorously managed while ships are transported in and out of the
water. Nearly every large shipyard in the world utilizes floating drydocks as part of their
operations. Drydocks typically remain moored dockside at shipyards to increase stability and
worker safety, but these drydocks remain mobile and often are moved around the shipyard
3-27
depending on the work to be performed. Usually, drydocks are towed into position (much like
barges), but numerous types of drydocks have their own propulsion systems. Traditionally, in
practice and for regulatory purposes, drydocks are treated as vessels. The uniform national
discharge standards for vessels of the armed forces ("unds"), upon which EPA relied in drafting
the VGP, covers (with minor exceptions) all vessels of the armed forces and specifically includes
drydocks.2 critically, the UNDS state that "[d]ischarges related to a floating drydock's function
as a vessel are covered by UNDS and do not require authorization by NPDES permits." nsrp
believes that the regulatory approach in UNDS is appropriately inclusive and consistent with the
district and Ninth Circuit courts' ruling in nw. Envt'l advocates et al V. EPA. In this case, the
District Court invalidated a NPDES exemption which applied to all vessels.3 the injunctive
remedy required by the District Court's September 30, 2008 deadline is to eliminate that
exemption and force EPA to regulate or license all previously-exempted vessels. The Ninth
Circuit upheld the District Court's holding. EPA's proposed remedy in the VGP is responsive in
that it appears to be inclusive of all previously exempted vessels, including drydocks. EPA's
proposed response to the courts' ruling is to issue general permits to both commercial and
recreational vessels. The VGP for commercial vessels generally mirrors the UNDS categories for
vessel discharges and generally covers all "commercial vessels." nsrp seeks clarification that the
discharges associated with normal operations of a commercial drydock will itself fall within the
scope of the VGP, as is does within the UNDS. Nsrp is not seeking to cover under the VGP
industrial discharges associated with ship repair or construction in the drydock, such as abrasive
blasting or other hull cleaning activities. These discharges are already subject to existing NPDES
permitting obligations. However, we strongly encourage EPA to make clear that discharges
incidental to the operation of the drydock itself are covered under the VGP. Ii. Vessels
undergoing maintenance or repair in drydock are subject to those vessels' VGP as a ship is
placed into drydock, and even after the ship is raised from the water, several discharges
incidental to the operation of the vessel may occur and continue. These discharges include water
from the cooling and fire-main systems and ballast water.4 although under UNDS these
discharges are distinguished from other incidental discharges that occur while a ship is
waterborne, nsrp seeks clarification and consistency with the definition of a discharge incidental
to the normal operation of a vessel and recommends that these discharges while the vessel is in
drydock should remain subject to the VGP. Cooling water, ballast water, and fire-main are all
discharges incidental to normal operation of a vessel under the Clean Water Act ("CWA")5 as
well as the proposed VGP. The fact that these incidental discharges from the ship may continue
while in drydock does not, in any way, change the nature of the discharges, nor should it, in any
way, amend the ship owner's duty to regulate these discharges consistent with the ship's VGP.
The CWA specifically states that the discharge from the testing, repair, and maintenance
activities are included in the definition of discharges that the CWA classifies as "incidental to the
normal operation of a vessel" whenever the vessel is waterborne 6. This differentiation in the
language of the Clean Water Act means that the normal discharges emanating from vessels in
drydock (e.g., even when the ship is not waterborne) are incidental to the normal operation of the
vessel and therefore included in within the scope of 40 CFR 122.3 and by extension, should be
covered under a VGP. The CWA exclusion at 40 C.F.R. 122.3(a) applies to vessels operating as
a means of transportation. The transportation distinction in 40 C.F.R. 122.3(a) addresses
stationary vessels such as immobile seafood processors, mining platforms, oil and gas platforms,
and dockside storage vessels. The primary purpose of the vessels enumerated in the CWA
requires these vessels to remain stationary. The primary purpose of a transportation vessel,
whether or not in drydock, is to provide transportation. Simply because the vessel is not carrying
out a transportation purpose at a particular time does not mean that the vessel ceases to be a
3-28
transportation vessel subject to the CWA's incidental discharge exclusion. A different
interpretation would yield an absurd result - any transportation vessel that stops to refuel or take
on or discharge passengers or cargo would cease to be a transportation vessel subject to the
incidental discharge exclusion for that period. EPA has never interpreted this exclusion in this
matter and should not do so here. The alternative would be to require these discharges to be
regulated under the facility NPDES permit. While this may be feasible for some shipyards,
particularly those that are responsible for both the ship and land-side operations (e.g., U.S.
Navy), it is not possible for commercial drydock operators to assume responsibility for
operational discharges from vessels not under their control. Nsrp recognizes that industrial
discharges related to the repair or maintenance of the ship are appropriately regulated under the
shipyard's NPDES permit. As previously stated, ongoing discharges from vessels being repaired
or maintained in drydock are incidental to the normal operation of that vessel. In some cases,
ships crews are still living aboard the vessel while in drydock during planned events. In other
cases vessels may be required to be dry-docked because of some mechanical emergency. A
shipyard's NPDES permit cannot foresee, and account for, discharges from vessels not under the
control of the shipyard. As such, it is necessary that these incidental discharges continue to be
regulated under the ship's VGP. Iii. Waterbornevessels under construction should be regulated
under the VGP even if still under construction ship construction commences on land but
eventually is completed on the water. Potential releases resulting from construction, repair, or
maintenance while the ship is landside are regulated by the shipyard's individual NPDES permit.
Once a vessel is in the water, operations that generate normal unds-type discharges prior to ship
delivery to the owner, such as sea trials, should be treated identically to other incidental
discharges and therefore be regulated under a shipyard VGP. Once the ship is delivered, it should
be subject to the owners VGP. The UNDS states that a ship becomes a vessel of the armed forces
when construction is complete and the armed services take control of the ship. The UNDS
regulatory distinction is not applicable here because the UNDS definition of a vessel of the
armed forces creates a distinction based on ownership and not on whether the ship is a vessel.
The UNDS needed to distinguish between a vessel of the armed forces (which is covered under
the unds) and a non military ship (which is not subject to unds). The UNDS does not state that a
ship under construction is not a vessel. It simply states that it is not yet a vessel of the armed
forces. Clearly, a waterborne ship under construction remains a vessel in the same way a fully
constructed ship is a vessel. Waterborne transportation vessels that are under construction also
remain transportation vessels despite being incomplete or not fully tested. As explained in
Section II, the CWA incidental discharge exemption only applied to transportation vessels, and
not those whose primary purpose requires them to remain stationary, such as storage, seafood
processing, or resource extraction vessels. The distinction was significant for purposes of the
CWA incidental discharge exemption because stationary vessels do not have the same incidental
discharges as transportation vessels and their stationary nature makes them more akin to a
dockside or waterborne facility subject to NPDES. In the case of a waterborne transportation
vessel under construction, the vessel's purpose is to provide transportation on the water and, in
the common case of sea trials, the vessel may, in fact, transport across the water. Issuing the
VGP once the vessel is waterborne, as opposed to when it is first used in transportation, allows
for a much more identifiable and consistent trigger for the VGP. With the rare exception of
vessels that would have to be dry-docked after launch, once a vessel is waterborne, it remains
waterborne. A vessel begins to transport in increments. Once launched, the vessel may be towed
to service areas (much like a barge). Its engines are started and ship navigation systems may be
used to steer the vessel or for testing. Additionally, vessels are all tested during sea trials. Each of
these scenarios is akin to transportation but, unlike launching, none provide a clear and
3-29
consistent trigger for VGP permitting. Waterborne ships under construction should therefore be
regulated under a VGP issued to the ship as soon it is waterborne.
Response: Please see, e.g., the response to Comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0277.1, Excerpt
10 for a discussion of the VGP’s applicability to vessels under construction and vessels that are
seasonally operated. See also the VGP Fact Sheet 3.5.2.1 for more details about vessels under
construction. With respect to floating drydocks and vessels in drydock, see, e.g., response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0274.1, excerpt 2.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John L. Wittenborn, Counsel, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
National Shipbuilding Research Program (NSRP)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0310.1
4
No
Comment: Drydocks are mobile waterborne commercial vessels subject to the VGP and should
be specifically listed in this rule so that clear distinctions can be made between land-based
drydocking structures, which are typically regulated under a shipyard's NPDES permit.
Additionally, vessels in drydock do not cease to be vessels subject to the VGP program, nor do
they necessarily cease having discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessel. Discharges
incidental to the normal operation of a vessel in drydock should continue to be regulated under
the dry-docked ship's VGP because the owner of the ship in drydock continues to control
incidental discharges while in drydock. We request that EPA clarify this important distinction.
Finally, ships under construction become waterborne and begin having discharges incidental to
the normal operation of a vessel as soon as basic ship systems come online. Ships under
construction are also operated in sea trials, during which these vessels have discharges incidental
to their normal operation as a vessel. We request that EPA include VGP coverage for all
waterborne vessels, including those that may still be under construction. Nsrp appreciates the
opportunity to provide these comments on EPA’s proposed VGP program.
Response: Please see, e.g., the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0274.1, excerpt 2
and response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0277.1, excerpt 10. As discussed in the
responses regarding drydocks, discharges from vessels during the drydock period are outside the
scope of the 40 CFR 122.3(a) exclusion and thus not covered by today’s permit. Issues of who
must obtain permits for such discharges are therefore also outside the scope of today’s action.
3-30
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Barbara A. Carroll PE, Vice President, Health, Safety and
Environmental Affairs
Rowan Companies, Inc
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0314.1
4
No
Comment: Section 3.5.2.1 discharges not subject to former NPDES permit exclusion and
vessels being operated in a capacity other than as a means of transportation rowan does not
disagree with these provisions of the fact sheet; however, rowan does believe that further
clarification is needed regarding "vessels operating in a capacity other than a means of
transportation." 40 CFR 122.3(a) provided several examples of situations - where vessels would
not be considered to be operating as a means of transportation, i.e., "when used as an energy or
mining facility, a storage facility or a seafood processing facility, or when secured to a storage
facility or a seafood processing facility, or when secured to the bed of the ocean, contiguous zone
or waters of the United States for the purpose of mineral or oil exploration or development." to
address each of these specified situations, EPA developed a permitting system for such vessel
operations. However, there are numerous other capacities in which vessels have been employed,
for which no permitting scheme has been developed, and for which their inclusion in this
proposed permit should be clarified. For example: (1) vessels that are in either seasonal or
extended lay-up should be considered to be operating in a capacity "as a means of
transportation." (2) guidance should be provided regarding the point in time, if any, at which an
abandoned or derelict vessel ceases to be operating "as a means of transportation.'' (3) vessels
used for recreation, construction, harbor maintenance, pipe-laying, etc, whose "discharges" are
not appreciably different from vessels that are clearly operating "as a means of transportation,"
and for which EPA has not developed permitting programs, should be eligible for coverage
under the proposed permit. In the 25 years since the promulgation of 40 CFR 122.3(a) rowan is
unaware of any effort having been made to direct the owners and operators of such vessels to
obtain individual NPDES permits for their operations. To provide guidance in this regard, rowan
would propose that the second paragraph of Section 3.5.2.1 of the fact sheet be revised as
follows: the regulatory exclusion does not apply when the vessel is operating in a capacity other
than as a means of transportation. Vessels that are not being operated in the capacity of a means
of transportation include vessels being used as energy or mining facilities, storage facilities,
seafood processing facilities, or vessels that are secured to a storage facility or a seafood
processing facility, or when secured to the bed of the ocean, contiguous zone, or water of the
United States for the purpose of mineral or oil exploration or development for which an NPDES
permitting program had been developed prior to September 29,2008. Vessels in this category
have never been excluded from NPDES permitting under 40 CFR part 122.3(a). In addition,
"floating" craft that are permanently moored to their piers, such as "floating" casinos, hotels,
restaurants, bars, etc. Are not covered by the current vessel exclusion and thus would not be
covered by the vessel proposed permit. These structures are outside the scope of the 40 CFR part
122.3(a) exclusion because they operate "in a capacity other than as a means of transportation."
they are best characterized as casinos, hotels, restaurants, bars, etc. That happen to be located on
water instead of land, much like, for example, the water-based storage facilities mentioned in
122.3(a) as being outside the scope of the exclusion. Section 3.5.2.9 discharges currently or
previously covered by another permit rowan believes that additional clarification needs to be
provided with respect to: (1) vessels that may be subject to another NPDES permit due to their
3-31
employment in a service which has not been considered to be "a means of transportation" when
they are subsequently placed in service as a means of transportation; and (2) other vessels which
may be temporarily brought under NPDES permit coverage of an industrial facility, such as a
shipyard while under construction or repair. Rowan recommends the addition of the following
text to this section of the fact sheet: vessels that have been employed as an energy or mining
facility, a storage facility or a seafood processing facility, or when secured to a storage facility or
a seafood processing facility, or when secured to the bed of the ocean, contiguous zone or waters
of the United States for the purpose of mineral or oil exploration or development, when not
actively engaged in such service are eligible for coverage under this permit. Such vessels will
normally obtain coverage under this permit, but permit coverage will be suspended for the
duration of the period for which they are placed under the coverage of an energy, mining or
seafood processing permit. Similarly, coverage under this permit will be suspended for the
duration of the period during which a vessel is placed under the operational control of a shipyard
or ship repair facility and is subject to the coverage of the NPDES permit of that facility.
Response: Please see, e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0277.1, excerpt 10.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Barbara A. Carroll PE, Vice President, Health, Safety and
Environmental Affairs
Rowan Companies, Inc
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0314.1
13
No
Comment: http://www2.ergweb.com/commresponse/docs/EPA-HQ-OW-2008-00550314.1.pdf1.2.3.1 discharges not subject to former NPDES permit exclusion and vessel
discharges generated from vessels when they are operated in a capacity other than as a means of
transportation rowan recommends the following change to the proposed permit text: vessels
being used as an energy or mining facility, a storage facility, a seafood processing facility, or
when secured to the bed of waters subject to this permit or to a buoy for the purpose of mineral
or oil exploration or development are not eligible for coverage under this permit must obtain
coverage under a permit applicable to their operation.
Response: Please see, e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-277.1, excerpt 10.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Charles F. Nalen, Vice President, Environmental, Safety and
Quality Assurance
Crowley Maritime Corporation
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0319.1
3
No
Comment: It is not clear from the wording of the vessel general permit whether or not vessels
that leave the territorial waters (3 mile limit) will only be required to comply with permit
3-32
provisions while inside the 3-mile limit. If vessel operators are required to comply with the
vessel general permit requirements outside the 3-mile limit, it has potential to conflict with
international laws since some of the discharges in the vessel general permit are already covered
by other international and national law/regulations.
Response: The scope of the permit is described in Part 1.2.1 of the VGP and Section 3.1 of the
Fact Sheet. As stated there, the requirements of the permit apply to discharges incidental to the
normal operation of a vessel into waters subject to the permit – i.e., “waters of the United
States,” as defined in 40 CFR 122.2 (extending to the outer reach of the 3 mile territorial sea as
defined in Section 502(8) of the CWA.). The permit does not apply to discharges beyond the
three mile territorial sea. See also, e.g., response to comment 328.1, excerpt 4.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs and Joseph J.
Angelo, Deputy Managing Director
Chamber of Shipping of America and INTERTANKO
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1
1
No
Comment: A. More time is necessary to ensure that a program to regulate incidental vessel
discharges is effective and appropriate under the Clean Water Act. The chamber and intertanko
appreciate the complexity of the issues which EPA has tried to address in the proposed VGP.
The proposed VGP was issued in an unusually short time frame, having been precipitated by a
judicial determination that the three-decade-old current exemption from the Clean Water Act’s
NPDES program for discharges incident to the normal operation of vessels be vacated on
September 30, 2008. See northwest envtl. Advocates V. EPA, 2008 U.S. app. Lexis 15576 (9th
cir. July 23, 2008). While we continue to believe that EPA properly exempted discharges
incident to the normal operation of vessels 35 years ago by regulation, we acknowledge the fact
that, barring any further legal action, this vacatur will go into effect on that date regardless of
whether EPA has issued the VGP. With this situation, the regulated community is left with a
difficult choice. On the one hand, it can provide information to the agency demonstrating that the
proposed VGP is fundamentally flawed and legally unsupportable under applicable law, thus
potentially leaving the commercial shipping industry without a required permit program in place
on October 1, 2008. On the other, it could accept the permit as proposed, which would result in a
program that imposes requirements that are in large part impractical and, further, that imposes
massive unnecessary costs on the industry without the desired environmental benefits, necessary
scientific justification, or cost-benefit analysis required by applicable law. As explained in our
comments below, EPA can and must extend the time for developing this program and for
industry to comply with it. Absent such an extension, EPA cannot ensure that the program
ultimately constitutes an effective means of preventing any harmful discharges of pollutants into
waters of the United States using practical and effective measures that meet applicable legal
requirements. We believe a deliberate and comprehensive assessment of discharges incident to
the normal operation of commercial vessels should be conducted. Such an assessment would
result in a program that would manage these discharges in a scientifically justified manner,
would give due regard for the relative environmental impacts of these discharges, and would take
into account the diverse nature of the vessels covered under the program and the costs of
3-33
management controls compared to environmental benefit. We do not believe EPA’s assessments
made under this hurried regulatory proposal meet these legally mandated criteria, which we
discuss in greater detail below.
Response: Commenter’s support for the NPDES exclusion in 40 CFR 122.3(a) is acknowledged,
and as commenter notes, this exclusion is being vacated by order of the District Court in the
NWEA litigation. With respect to commenter concerns as to environmental benefits, necessary
scientific justification, cost-benefit analysis, need for a deliberate and comprehensive assessment
of discharges, and consistency with applicable legal requirements, see responses to comments
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1, excerpts 5, 9, 13, 17, 20, 41 and other additional related
responses contained elsewhere in this response to comment document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs and Joseph J.
Angelo, Deputy Managing Director
Chamber of Shipping of America and INTERTANKO
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1
35
No
Comment: 1. 1. Application of requirements to the broad and diverse universe of commercial
ship types can not be accomplished in one general permit. Operations aboard vessels vary
substantially in a manner which impacts the types of discharges from the vessel as well as their
relative volumes.
Response: EPA acknowledges the differences in vessels pointed out by the commenter, but
disagrees that the requirements for vessel discharges cannot be contained in one permit. The
VGP covers discharges incidental to normal operations of vessels operating in a capacity as a
means of transportation, regardless of the size or type of vessel. Because vessel discharges vary
depending on the size and type of vessel, EPA has structured the VGP to include requirements
for all vessels as well as vessel-specific requirements for certain vessel types. Nothing in this
comment suggests why these accommodations are unworkable or otherwise inappropriate. For
more information on the structure of the VGP, please see Section 3.2 of the Fact Sheet. See also
other responses to comments discussing the use of flexible non-numeric BMPs by the VGP.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs and Joseph J.
Angelo, Deputy Managing Director
Chamber of Shipping of America and INTERTANKO
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1
37
No
Comment: 3. 3. Use of the NPDES program which was designed for application to stationary
sources with few exceptions is not an appropriate vehicle to use in managing the diverse types
and volumes of discharges incidental to the normal operations of vessels.
3-34
Response: EPA acknowledges your comment. For background information on the vacatur of the
vessel exclusion compelling issuance of this permit, see Section 2 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs and Joseph J.
Angelo, Deputy Managing Director
Chamber of Shipping of America and INTERTANKO
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1
42
No
Comment: 10. 12. Consideration must be given to modifying application of the proposed VGP
to a vessel that spends very little of its time in U.S. waters. Specifically, some type of de minimis
exception should be created for vessels that rarely trade in U.S. waters. For example, one vessel
owner has two vessels that have been operating for 8 years and each has made exactly one port
of call in the United States in that time. Another example is provided by a vessel which conducts
lightering activities 20 nautical miles offshore and which occasionally enter the 3 nm limit for
repairs or bunkering operations (estimated at 6 days total over a 3 year period). In many cases,
vessels which infrequently call in the u.s., do not know when or if they will be returning to the
U.S. in these three examples, due to the management of their discharges via other legal
requirements, their short time within the 3 nm limit and the likely de minimis nature for most of
the VGP listed discharges, the costs associated with implementing the provisions of the VGP
including documentation and recordkeeping, overwhelm what little, if any, environmental
benefit that would ensure from their application. Bmps are necessarily practices that cannot be
‘turned on’ and turned off’ when one enters U.S. waters. To require a vessel that enters those
waters once a year or less to meet the same requirements as those that are present more regularly
fails to consider the necessarily lesser volume of discharges over time that could possibly come
from the vessels that are rarely in U.S. waters.
Response: For information on vessels rarely in waters subject to this Permit please see, e.g., the
response to Comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0319.1, Excerpt 3. Section 301(a) of the CWA
generally prohibits the “discharge of a pollutant” without a permit issued under the Act,
regardless of the volume or duration of the discharge. EPA does not have, and the commenter
does not provide, a basis for making a de minimis finding for the types of discharges it describes.
We further note that if a discharge was improperly excluded from coverage, this could mean the
vessel’s discharge would be a violation of the CWA § 310(a) prohibition against discharge
without a permit. For information on the regulation of discharges under the Clean Water Act, see
Section 2.1 of the Fact Sheet.
3-35
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs and Joseph J.
Angelo, Deputy Managing Director
Chamber of Shipping of America and INTERTANKO
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1
47
No
Comment: 14. 17. An exemption for small commercial vessels is needed as is currently
included in part 1.5.1.2; however the language in this section should be modified to be consistent
with the language in part 1.5.1.1 which applies the exemption if the commercial vessel is smaller
than 300 gross tons or does not have the capacity to hold more than 8 cubic meters of ballast
water. The connector “and” should be deleted to reflect the fact that existence of either of these
criteria trigger the exemption. This appears to be a drafting error.
Response: The language the commenter cites was not a drafting error. The language in Part
1.5.1.2 explains which vessels are not required to submit Notices of Intent in order to receive
permit coverage. Vessels not required to submit an NOI, but still meeting the eligibility
requirements in Part 1.2, are still required to meet all other applicable terms and conditions in the
permit. Commercial vessels of less than 79 feet that do not have ballast water discharges are not
subject to the VGP, due to P.L. 110-299. For more information on this legislation, please see
Section 2.5 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John P. Wronowski, Owner and President
Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0322.1
4
No
Comment: Cross sound is strongly opposed to many requirements of the proposed VGP and we
feel that the EPA’s previous exemption of discharges incidental to the normal operation of a
vessel was correct and well suited for operations in the marine industry. Ferry operators like csf
are literally being forced to comply with regulations that are meant for vessels very different
from ours such as vessels that travel great distances either from overseas or between different
bodies of water within the United States and pose a risk for introducing invasive species. If a
vessel operates solely within the same interconnected lakes, bays, and sounds (as defined by the
US Coast Guard) in a particular geographical region that does not include waters listed in part 12
of the VGP, as do all of csf’s, it should be exempt from all aspects of the VGP related to ballast
water and invasive species. This is a common-sense exemption because it is impossible for a
vessel like csf’s that only operates solely within interconnected lakes, bays, and sounds to
acquire invasive species from outside that area.
Response: For a discussion of why vessels that operate within “a particular geographical region
that does not include waters listed in Part 12 of the VGP” cannot be exempt from the VGP’s
requirements, see, e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0276, excerpt 3. For
background information on the lawsuit and court decision that vacated the vessel exemption,
3-36
please see Section 2 of the Fact Sheet. Also, because vessel discharges vary depending on the
size and type of vessel, EPA has structured the VGP to include requirements to take into account
all vessels as well as including as appropriate vessel-specific requirements for certain vessel
types. For more information on the structure of the VGP, please see Section 3.2 of the Fact
Sheet. EPA recognizes the unique nature of vessels operating solely within one Captain of the
Port (COTP) zone, and these vessels are exempt from certain ballast water requirements. For
more information, please see Part 2.2.3 of the VGP and Section 4.2.3 of the Fact Sheet. For
information on why EPA can not exempt a category of vessels from NPDES permitting
requirements, please see, e.g., the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0287.1,
Excerpt 2.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kenneth R. Wells, President
Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA)
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0323.1
5
No
Comment: Focus on foreign vessels. According to the maritime administration, nearly 7,000
foreign vessels called on U.S. ports in 2006, averaging nine international voyages to and from
the United States per vessel. Based on both the track record and the future potential impact, these
foreign vessels present the highest risk for invasive species or biohazard releases into U.S.
waters. Since these vessels also operate under the regulatory frameworks of other flag states,
they present the largest question mark when it comes to u.s regulatory compliance. Yet the
rulemaking does not make clear that foreign vessels must comply with the permitting process.
Nor does it outline an enforcement scheme that would focus scrutiny on those vessels that
present the greatest potential risk.
Response: Commenter does not explain the basis for its assertion that the permit “does not make
clear that foreign vessels must comply with” the permit. To the contrary, the permit clearly
states, without qualification, that it applies to discharges incidental to the normal operation of a
vessel into waters of the U.S. More importantly, CWA Section 301 clearly prohibits “the
discharge of any pollutant by any person” into such waters. EPA thus has not made changes to
the permit in response to this comment. For additional information see Part 1.2 of the Permit and
Section 3.3 of the Fact Sheet. Immediately after permit issuance, EPA will focus its efforts on
compliance assistance and developing a workable enforcement strategy with the Coast Guard
and other Federal and state agencies. See e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-00550307.1, excerpt 3.
3-37
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kenneth R. Wells, President
Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA)
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0323.1
11
No
Comment: 1.2.3.1 – the EPA excludes vessels from the permit process when they are not in
“transportation.” At the least this provision is confusing for vessel operators. At worst, it makes
the provision unworkable for a large number of vessels. At its heart it is an incorrect
interpretation of 40 CFR 122.3. Under that subpart, certain offshore activities, such as vessels
“secured to the bed of the ocean, contiguous zone or waters of the United States for the purpose
of mineral or oil exploration or development” require a different permit. This is clearly because
those sorts of activities produce different kinds of discharges and consequently have their own
permit process. By comparison, many vessels move offshore in a transportation mode, but then
work in a different function, serving as a base for divers, support vessels for seismic activity or
as a stable base for maintenance on offshore energy facilities. The test should not be whether the
vessel is transporting. After all, every vessel ceases to be in “transportation” when it docks to
unload cargo. The test should be whether the fundamental internal operations on board the vessel
change. A vessel that arrives at an offshore location does not cease to use its marine sanitation
systems or cease to use an oily water separator. Since the measures used by the vessels to control
discharges do not change, the permit under which they operate should not change either. Any
other approach could make it impossible for a large number of vessels to operate under this new
permitting scheme. Further confusing the issue, vessels on drydock or undergoing other shipyard
maintenance typically continue to run their engines to power their onboard systems. Would they
be required to cease all discharges while at a shipyard? The shipyards have permits, but these do
not generally cover vessels. Under this scope of coverage for the permit, vessels may be left in a
limbo where they are not covered by any permit. These problems can only be solved by taking a
more correct interpretation of 40 CFR 122.3 and allowing vessels to be permitted based on their
systems, rather than the activity they are involved in at any given point in time. This is consistent
with current regulations governing vessel discharges as well as safety regulations. 1.2.3.8 - this
reference is somewhat confusing. It says that discharges of liquid substance residue subject to 46
CFR 153.1102 are not eligible for coverage. The existing regulations allow for discharge of
residue beyond 12 miles from shore. It is not clear whether the EPA is simply stating that this
residue may not be discharged within the three mile territorial sea or is implying that the existing
regulations are not valid. This is an example of the permit covering areas that are already heavily
controlled in other regulation.
Response: EPA disagrees that the test for whether a vessel is eligible for coverage under the
VGP “should be whether the fundamental internal operations on board the vessel change,” as
commenter suggests. The VGP clearly states that it applies to vessels that operate in a capacity as
a means of transportation which have eligible discharges and if required, submit a Notice of
Intent (NOI) to be covered by the VGP. With respect to vessel coverage when not operating in a
capacity as a means of transportation, please see, e.g., the responses to comments EPA-HQ-OW2008-0055-0277.1, excerpt 10 and EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0274.1, excerpt 2. With respect to
“liquid substance residue,” the commenter’s reference actually appears to be in the context of
“noxious liquid substances (NLS)” which are regulated by the Coast Guard under the Act to
Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS). The relevant Coast Guard regulations generally prohibit
3-38
the discharge of NLS residues any closer than 12 nmi from shore (46 CFR §§ 153.1102 and
153.1128). Since waters subject to the VGP in essence are inland waters and the 3 nmi territorial
sea, VGP Part 1.2.3.8 provides discharges of NLS are not eligible for coverage under the VGP.
This does not call into question the validity of Coast Guard regulations, but, to the contrary, is in
the VGP because those Coast Guard regulations prohibit such discharges within 3 nmi of shore.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Michael Borgstrom, President
Passenger Vessel Association (PVA)
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0334.1
12
No
Comment: Congress needs to provide relief despite the ruling of the Federal District Court, pva
believes that the permitting system of the Clean Water Act is not the appropriate public policy
response to the issue of discharges incidental to the normal operations of a vessel. Pva urges
EPA to recommend that congress devise a legislative response to this problem that is better
suited to the unique characteristics of the maritime industry. The key initial question in devising
a new statutory framework is to determine the degree, if any, to which waters of the United
States suffer any injury from discharges incidental to the normal operations of a vessel. Pva
acknowledges that EPA has undertaken this proposal because of the order by a single Federal
District Court judge in California. For decades, EPA acted pursuant to a more justifiable policy
position, asserting that discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel should not be
subject to a NPDES permitting obligation.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0297, excerpt 3.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Steve Collins, CHMM (Certified Hazardous Materials
Manager), Director Environmental and Health Programs
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0337.1
25
No
Comment: Part 1.2 eligibility part 1.2.1 general scope of this permit this section specifies that
this general permit is applicable to discharges “incidental to the normal operation of a vessel.” It
should be noted that the universe of such discharges varies widely depending on the type of
vessel under consideration. The general permit and fact sheet must make clear the applicability
of this permit to lifeboats and tenders deployed from large cruise ships. A large cruise ship may
have upwards of 20 lifeboats as well as rescue boats that are deployed not only in emergencies,
but also when calling at “tender ports,” when conducting drills and even rescues at sea. Flag state
registries typically list these auxiliary craft as ship’s equipment on the passenger ship safety
certificate. These auxiliary craft should be covered under the notice of intent for the larger “host”
vessel, and ought not to require their own notice of intent. Operation of these auxiliary vessels is
integral to the operation of the larger vessel, and should be captured in the general permit notice
3-39
of intent to be submitted for the “host” vessel. We recommend the following language: this
permit is applicable to discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel identified in part
1.2.2 into waters subject to this permit. These waters are “waters of the United States” as defined
in 40 CFR 122.2 (extending to the outer reach of the 3 mile territorial sea as defined in Section
502(8) of the CWA.) Auxiliary vessels, such as lifeboats, tenders, fast rescue boats etc. Normally
carried by and deployed from a commercial vessel are considered “ship’s equipment” for
purposes of this permit. Discharges from auxiliary vessels, while serving in the above capacity
for the host vessel, are also covered under this permit and do not require submittal of a separate
notice of intent.
Response: EPA agrees that auxiliary craft should be covered under the Notice of Intent for “the
larger ‘host’ vessel.” Based on this comment, EPA has made additions to the Final Permit. Part
1.2.1 of the VGP now states “if auxiliary vessels or craft, such as lifeboats or rescue boats
onboard larger vessels require permit coverage (i.e., they are greater than 79 feet in length), they
are eligible for coverage under this permit and are covered by submission of the Notice of Intent
for larger vessels. While EPA did not adopt the commenter’s specific language, the language the
Agency did use is substantively the same. See also Section 3.5.1 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Steve Collins, CHMM (Certified Hazardous Materials
Manager), Director Environmental and Health Programs
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0337.1
29
No
Comment: Part 1.2.3 limitations on coverage this section lists limits on discharges covered
under the general permit. Part 1.2.3.1 broadly describes that discharges not within the scope of
40 CFR part 122.3(a) are not authorized under this general permit. EPA should acknowledge that
this universe of discharges might vary depending on the particular vessel category and/or
specific engineering of the vessel. There should be some type of language that allows for the
development of new technology that is no more impacting, not heretofore considered and
included in the permit. This permit should not become a hindrance to the advancement of new
alternative fuels, wastewater treatment systems, novel propulsion systems, etc. Part 1.2.3.1
discharges not subject to…this part notes that “this permit does not apply to any vessel when it is
operating in a capacity other than as a means of transportation.” Cruise ships are sometimes used
to provide emergency housing following a disaster, such as after hurricane Katrina. Part 1.2.3.1
means that under such a circumstance the discharges would no longer be permitted. The liability
concerns associated with unpermitted discharges would preclude making cruise ships available
during such emergencies. We also note that cruise ships may house caretaker or maintenance
staff when laid up for long periods of time. We request clarification of the section to include
vessels that are temporarily used as housing. We recommend: “this permit does not apply to any
vessel when it is operating in a capacity other than as a means of transportation except if
operating as a hotel or laid up for an extended period with or without crew and guests onboard
and other such circumstances.” Part 1.2.3.2 sewage in addition to references 40 CFR part 140
and 33 CFR part 139, this section should explicitly reference the Federal pre-emption clause
found in part 312 of the Clean Water Act. Part 1.2.3.7 discharges of medical waste and related
3-40
materials EPA should cite the statutory definition of medical waste in at the medical waste
tracking act of 1988 not 33 U.S.C. 1362(20). EPA is properly seeking to prevent the discharge of
medical wastes such as syringes, bandages, blood waste, and so on, however, the general permit
language is overly broad, inconsistent with those placed on shore based medical facilities, and
would be a disincentive for the adoption of advanced wastewater treatment systems. The medical
waste tracking act of 1988 can be found on the internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/medical/tracking.htm it is not the intention of the cruise
industry to ask for disposal of spent syringes, bandages, blood waste or other like materials to
wastewater systems that would discharge to permit water. However, the broad net cast by citing
33 U.S.C. 1362(20) would preclude medical departments from disposal of other wastes
consistent with their duties and responsibilities. It would appear that this would also prevent
doctors and nurses from washing their hands in a medical facility sink unless that sink is
separately piped to some storage tank. In fact, Marpol 73/78 Annex Iv and U.S. regulations
(u.s.p.h. vessel sanitation program operations manual) recognize and require that medical facility
sinks be piped to the blackwater (sewage) systems and not the graywater systems. This should be
an acceptable practice under the VGP as these sinks are not used to dispose of “medical wastes.”
While standard medical and cruise industry practice is to return outdated or unused
pharmaceuticals to the medical supplier or other licensed vendors, drug enforcement agency
requirements specify the onboard destruction of outdated narcotics, sometimes by disposal in
very small quantities into medical sinks or toilets that are plumbed to the sewage treatment
system. This task is supervised, logged, witnessed and typically performed by trained nursing
staff outside permit waters. On ships equipped with advanced wastewater treatment systems, and
if parts 1.2.2.27 and 2.2.27 are preserved, discharge from AWTS would be managed as
graywater but might include de minimis amounts of these wastes. Therefore, the question would
remain as to compliance to the general permit at any future date if a discharge from the AWTS
were to occur in permit waters unless the sewage tank, bioreactor, equipment and piping were
opened, cleaned, tested and inspected to insure no trace of these wastes remained. This might
require shutting down and otherwise making the sewage treatment system inoperable for several
weeks or months (the bioreactor microbes would die and need to be replaced, piping would need
to be opened and equipment removed for inspection, tanks opened and hand cleaned, and so on),
rendering the vessel unusable during this time, as an unintended consequence. Even if this
destruction practice were suspended, it begs the question as to how a vessel could continue to
operate in the event of an accidental disposal. Cruise ships have many passengers and a frequent
turnover of passengers. While a cruise ship medical department can follow this requirement, and
while passengers can be advised of this requirement, it is not possible for a cruise ship to assure
compliance by all of its passengers. Restrictions on dialysis wastes might be appropriate,
however, it is standard practice for shorebased clinics to discharge filtered dialysis electrolytes
removed from kidney machines to their municipal sewage treatment system and land based
municipal treatment plants receiving spent or unused pharmaceuticals consequently discharge
them to receiving waters. Absolute restrictions, as per the current language of the draft general
permit would eliminate “dialysis at sea” voyages in which kidney patients receive dialysis
treatment during the course of a voyage. Such voyages, while not a large segment of the cruise
market, are an important travel opportunity for this affected population and is in keeping with the
spirit of the Americans with disabilities act. In addition, some guests perform self-administered
peritoneal dialysis in their cabins, as they do in their own homes, under the direction of their own
physician/nephrologists. They then dispose of the waste dialysis fluid into their cabin toilet
which then goes to the sewage system. Given that sewage systems must treat bacterial pathogens,
and are also effective against viruses, CLIA contends that the threat posed by the normal use of
3-41
the sewage system for trace amounts of human bodily fluids is negligible. CLIA recommends the
following language: discharges of medical waste as defined in the medical waste tracking act of
1988 are not eligible for coverage under this permit. This restriction does not apply to the
destruction of small quantities of outdated, spent, unused or unusable narcotics destroyed in
accordance with dispensations granted by the drug enforcement agency and properly reported via
dea forms. This restriction also does not apply to fluids or filtered fluid by-products from dialysis
machines, or other clinical or self administered medical treatment related wastewaters typically
discharged to municipal wastewater facilities when generated at shored based clinics.
Response: With respect to varying discharges by type of vessel and potential development of
new technologies, the VGP was written to provide flexibility by use of narrative BMPs in most
cases to establish effluent limitations, and typically were drafted to apply broadly across vessel
categories. Where particular vessel types had discharges that were unique to their type of vessel
or otherwise warranted specific attention, then type-specific effluent limits were included in
VGP Part 5. Because of this, and because the VGP in any event does not specify use of any
particular technology, we do not believe the VGP will interfere with or preclude development of
new technology or become a hindrance to the advancement of new alternative fuels, wastewater
treatment systems, or novel propulsion systems. We further note that if developments did result
in new discharges or the VGP was believed to hinder use of a particular new technology, the
vessel can seek coverage of such discharges by applying for an individual permit.
With respect to vessel coverage when not operating as a means of transportation, please see, e.g.,
the responses to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0277.1, excerpt 10 and EPA-HQ-OW2008-0055-0274.1, excerpt 2. In the context of cruise ships that are temporarily used to provide
housing for emergency workers or are temporarily laid-up, coverage under the VGP would
depend upon how the specific situation squared with the requirement that a vessel be operating in
a capacity as a means of transportation , but as a general matter, so long as the period of
inactivity is temporary in nature, the vessel can return to service without major alterations or
refitting, and the discharges are incidental to the normal operation of cruise ships, we would
expect the VGP to apply.
With respect to medical waste, CWA § 301(f) prohibits the discharge of medical waste, which is
defined in CWA § 502(20) (33 USC 1362(20)), such that the language in the VGP prohibiting
the discharge of medical waste comes from the CWA itself. We thus do not agree with the
commenter’s suggestion that we not use the definition set out in the CWA in favor of a different
statute’s definition or that we add in an exemption based on dispensations from the Drug
Enforcement Agency. Many of the concerns the commenter raises stem from the statutory
prohibition itself, however, we note that we do not agree that the statutory language creates the
types of concerns the commenter has with respect to precluding medical departments from
carrying out their duties such as doctors and nurses no longer washing their hands.. With respect
to Annex IV of MARPOL, we note that the U.S. is not a Party to that Annex. With respect to
dialysis waste, the commenter is referred to VGP Fact Sheet 3.5.2.7 and response to comment
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0337.1, excerpt 65.
3-42
With respect to vessel sewage, the provisions in VGP Part 1.2.3.2 are intended to make clear that
vessel sewage is not subject to NPDES permitting and thus is not covered by the VGP. We do
not believe it appropriate to include in the permit an explanation of the features of the CWA §
312 regime that governs vessel sewage in lieu of the NPDES program.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Steve Collins, CHMM (Certified Hazardous Materials
Manager), Director Environmental and Health Programs
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0337.1
76
No
Comment: Page 31, part 3.5.1.27 graywater mixed with sewage from vessels the discussion
should note that such mixed waste stream is considered to be sewage, and not covered by this
permit and note that such discharges are instead regulated as sewage from vessels under Section
312 of the CWA. Page 32, part 3.5.2.2 sewage from vessels the discussion should add the
following sentences: some vessels treat the combined sewage and gray water. Gray water that is
combined with sewage is also “sewage from vessels.”
Response: For information on the discharge of graywater mixed with sewage, please see, e.g.,
response to Comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0337.1, Excerpt 27, which responds to this
commenter’s concerns, Part 2.2.15 of the VGP, and Section 4.4.15 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Steve Collins, CHMM (Certified Hazardous Materials
Manager), Director Environmental and Health Programs
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0337.2
1
No
Comment: Every effort has been made to describe discharges incidental to normal operation of
our member’s vessels. These vessels were manufactured over several decades and contain a
variety of environmental equipment of varying design, methodology, structure, fit, and purpose.
As you are aware, the US Navy (ref. UNDS) took five years to complete their study of
environmental aspects of discharges. The 45-day comment period afforded the maritime industry
is not sufficient to provide environmental data for discharges associated with the normal
operation of our vessels and this data is therefore not available for inclusion in our comments.
Further: • CLIA supports the EPA’s efforts to appeal the 9th circuit courts decision to vacate
thirty years of practice excluding incidental discharges from normal operations of vessels from
the Clean Water Act (CWA), and CLIA is committed to supporting a clean environment but does
not support the application of the NPDES permit process, one designed for point-sources of
relatively stable and continuous flows from stationary sources, to manage incidental discharges
from mobile sources,
3-43
Response: With respect to the 45 day comment period, we note that agency originally solicited
data and information on discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels in a June 21,
2007, Federal Register notice (72 FR 34241). See also response to comment EPA-HQ-OW2008-0055-0299.1, excerpt 1.
With respect to appeal of the lower court decision, see e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW2008-0055-0277.1, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Connie A. Determan, Vice President and Michael C. Shaw,
District Environmental Manager
Kiewit Corporation and General Construction Company
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0339.1
1
No
Comment: General response to proposed vessel general permit Kiewit understands that EPA
regulation 40 CFR 122.3(a), which previously exempted vessel incidental discharges from
NPDES regulation, has been vacated by a court order in northwest environmental advocates V.
United states Environmental Protection Agency. Kiewit also understands that this order was
recently affirmed by the United States court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Kiewit's position is
that this exemption must be reinstated, either judicially or through an act of congress. Kiewit
urges EPA to aggressively pursue both avenues even as it finalizes the VGP. Kiewit notes that
the clean boating act of 2008 (s. 2766), recently passed by both houses of congress, restores the
vessel incidental discharges exemption for recreational boats. Kiewit would support similar
legislation reinstating the same exemption for all commercial vessels. Kiewit is concerned that if
this exemption is not reinstated, the September 30, 2008 deadline does not provide sufficient
time to adequately construct a comprehensive and complex permitting regime applicable to
hundreds of thousands of mobile vessels. The anticipated impact of the draft VGP on marine
construction vessels makes it clear that EPA does not have all of the information necessary in
order to draft permit requirements appropriate to these vessels, or to specify appropriate
technology-based effluent limitations for this industry. EPA itself has acknowledged that due to
the court-ordered deadline, the agency has not been able to pursue original, non-EPA data
directly from all affected industries. As a result, the draft VGP does not appropriately categorize
marine construction vessels, does not identify the types of discharges specific to these vessels,
and does not evaluate that the cost and availability of technologies needed to address these
discharges. Kiewit takes this opportunity to provide EPA with more specific information about
marine construction vessels so as to better inform the agency's rule-drafting process. Specific
concerns regarding the proposed VGP Kiewit's concerns specific to particular VGP
requirements, as well as suggested modifications, are described below. Please note that even if
EPA were to incorporate the following modifications into the VGP, Kiewit maintains the
position that the vessel incidental discharges exemption should be reinstated, and that additional
regulations imposed by the VGP are unwarranted. Kiewit's suggested revisions are not intended
to represent Kiewit's acceptance of the VGP.
3-44
Response: 0055-0320.1, excerpt 20 and other similar responses.
With respect to adequacy of data in general, see e.g., responses to comments EPA-HQ-OW2008-0055-0320.1, excerpts 5, 13, 20.
With respect to particular concerns raised by the commenter specific to marine construction
vessels, those specific concerns are addressed elsewhere in this response to comment document
and will not be repeated here.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Connie A. Determan, Vice President and Michael C. Shaw,
District Environmental Manager
Kiewit Corportaion and General Construction Company
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0339.1
2
No
Comment: 1. Section 1.2.1 -general scope of the VGP whether the VGP covers commercial
vessels less than 79 feet is unclear. The VGP specifically applies to owners and operators of
commercial and recreational vessels that are greater than 79 feet in length. The VGP specifically
excludes recreational vessels less than 79 feet in length, including uninspected passenger vessels
less than 79 feet in length. Further, commercial fishing vessels, commercial ferries, tug boats,
freighters, water taxis, and small cruise ships are covered by the VGP. However, the VGP does
not definitively state that small boats such as those used to transfer equipment and employees
between marine construction vessels are within VGP coverage. As a result, it is unclear whether
these types of boats will be subject to the requirements of the VGP. Vague regulations that are
not sufficiently specific to provide adequate notice to regulated communities are subject to
judicial challenges under both the administrative procedure act and the due process clause of the
United States constitution. The description of vessels covered by the VGP permit is not
sufficiently specific, and is cast too broadly to adequately determine which vessels are covered
by which permit.
Response: Except for ballast water discharges, commercial vessels of less than 79 feet are not
subject to the VGP, due to P.L. 110-299. For more information on this legislation, please see
Section 2.5 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Connie A. Determan, Vice President and Michael C. Shaw,
District Environmental Manager
Kiewit Corportaion and General Construction Company
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0339.1
15
No
Comment: Finally, and importantly, Kiewit reiterates its position that EPA’s exemption for
vessel incidental discharges must be reinstated. Kiewit's suggested revisions above do not
3-45
represent Kiewit's acceptance of the VGP. The additional regulations proposed by EPA are
unwarranted.
Response: The commenter’s views on acceptance of the VGP are noted. As to reinstatement of
the NPDES permit exclusion, refer to discussions related to legislative and judicial relief in
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0339.1, excerpt 1 and other related responses in
this response to comment document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
James N. Christman, Hunton & Williams
Utility Water Act Group (UWAG)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0342.1
2
No
Comment: We believe that when EPA says that the draft vessel general permit applies to
owners and operators of “commercial vessels and recreational vessels that are greater than 79
feet … in length,” it means (1) all commercial vessels (of whatever length) but only (2)
recreational vessels longer than 79 feet. Vessels equal to or greater than 300 gross registered tons
and vessels with the capacity to hold or discharge more than eight cubic meters of ballast water
would have to submit a notice of intent (NOI) by six months after the date the permit is issued.
Vessels smaller than 300 gross registered tons and without the eight cubic meters of ballast
capacity would be covered automatically without submitting an NOI (§§ 1.5.1.1, 1.5.1.2). On
July 22, 2008, the house and senate approved s.3298, which provides that vessels under 79 feet
do not need an NPDES permit for two years (with certain exceptions, including ballast water).
The president signed the bill July 31, so EPA will need to acknowledge that only vessels “79 feet
or greater” in length need the permit for the next two years (apart from ballast water).
Response: As this commenter recognizes, commercial vessels of less than 79 feet that do not
have ballast water discharges are not subject to the VGP, due to P,L. 110-299. For more
information on this legislation, please see Section 2.5 of the Fact Sheet. A vessel is required to
submit a Notice of Intent if the vessel is either 300 or more Gross Tons or if the vessel is capable
of carrying or discharging 8 cubic meters of ballast water. For more information please see Part
1.5 of the VGP and Section 3.8 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President - National
Advocacy
The American Waterways Operators
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0343.1
6
No
Comment: For the reasons above, and because the universe of vessels and discharges covered
by the VGP is extremely diverse in type, operation and location, an evaluation of discharges
based on vessel type and size needs to be conducted before the proposed VGP is finalized. We
3-46
strongly urge EPA to petition the District Court for a three-year extension to develop and
establish the program, and to allow the industry adequate time to implement it, before the current
regulatory exemption is revoked. Recent congressional action underscores congress’s
understanding of the need for better analysis to underlie an effective program; the recently
passed s. 3298 requires EPA to conduct a two-year study analyzing vessel discharges and their
impacts before regulating those from fishing vessels and smaller commercial vessels. The scope
of the study is not limited to vessels under 79 feet. Second, the draft VGP does not contain the
factual basis necessary to comply with Clean Water Act standards for the development of
NPDES permits. EPA is required by law to ensure that the permit requirements are based on
articulated facts in the record./_5 American trucking associations V. EPA, 175 f.3d 1027, 105455 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Markedly different than the washdown from an aircraft carrier or cruise
ship, and those differences should be reflected in the BMPs. /_5 however, the permit record lacks
a factual basis for concluding that all 28 waste streams identified contain pollutants that must be
regulated under the Clean Water Act, mostly because EPA did not have adequate time to study
vessel discharges from commercial vessels.
Response: With respect to request for an extension of the September 30, 2008, vacatur deadline,
please see responses to comment numbers EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0287.1 excerpt 1 and EPAHQ-OW-2008-0055-0298, excerpt 1.
With respect to the commenter’s assertions as to the nature of the study called for by S. 3298
(P.L. 110-299), we note such comments are outside the scope of the VGP.
With respect to concerns as to the adequacy of the factual basis underlying the VGP, including
concerns that discharges covered might not contain “pollutants,” see responses to comments
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1, excerpts 5, 13, 17, 20, EPA-HQ-OW2008-0055-0340.1, excerpt 3 and other related responses in this response to comment document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President - National
Advocacy
The American Waterways Operators
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0343.1
19
No
Comment: In closing, we urge EPA to proceed immediately to request a three-year extension of
the vacatur deadline from the District Court; to conduct a thorough analysis of vessel discharges
and the effectiveness of proposed best management practices; and, to adopt the specific
recommendations offered herein for changes to the proposed permit requirements.
Response: With respect to vacatur extension, analysis of discharges, and BMP effectiveness see
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0343.1, excerpt 6 and other related responses
elsewhere in the response to comment document. In addition, the specific recommendations
referred to by the commenter are addressed and responded to elsewhere in the response to
comment document and will not be repeated here.
3-47
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Chris Flanagan, Vice President
Marine Technical, Overseas Shipholding Group (OSG)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0344.1
6
No
Comment: OSG is also concerned that the accelerated implementation timeline imposed by the
court’s ruling is impractical to properly address the mitigation strategies for the discharges
identified in the general permit. There is insufficient time to integrate these procedures into
safety and environmental management systems and conduct proper training of crews and
shoreside personnel. The EPA has not had sufficient time to correctly evaluate the operational
realities of commercial shipping or to analyze the environmental impacts of the 28 discharges to
determine whether the impacts justify additional management or assess the economic impacts of
implementation across a very large and diverse population of ship types and routes. Additionally,
EPA has not adequately analyzed or acknowledged what technologies and best management
practices are currently in place within the maritime industry regarding these discharges.
Sufficient time should be taken to identify, quantify and assess commercial vessel discharges in a
deliberate and comprehensive manner. The proposed regulations lack specificity and do not
provide for any equivalency of accepted standard or best management practices. Most of the
information in the current proposal is qualitative and little quantitative data is presented
regarding discharges for individual classes of ships and the geographic distribution of these
discharges over time. Implementation of uniform national discharge standards (UNDS) for
armed forces vessels has been underway since 1990. It has taken 17 years for the UNDS process
to reach its current stage. EPA has had only 18 months to finalize a regulation and issue permits
to all covered vessels.
Response: With respect to the commenter’s concerns about the timeline imposed by the court’s
ruling, evaluation of the realities of commercial shipping, analysis of the environmental impacts
of the 28 discharges, analysis of current technologies and practices, and lack of data, see
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1, excerpts 2, 5, 13, 17, 20, EPA-HQOW-2008-0055-0340.1, excerpt 3, EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0388.1, excerpt 3, and other related
responses in this response to comment document.
With respect to time for industry to integrate the procedures and train crews, see e.g., discussion
of compliance schedule issue in response to comments contained within in the
Inspections/Monitoring/Reporting/Recordkeeping chapter and comment EPA-HQ-OW-20080055-0348.1, excerpt 2.
With respect to lack of specificity in the VGP, see e.g., responses to comments EPA-HQ-OW2008-0055-0367.1, excerpt 4 and EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0319.1, excerpt 4.
3-48
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Chris Flanagan, Vice President
Marine Technical, Overseas Shipholding Group (OSG)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0344.1
19
No
Comment: We believe incidental vessel discharges should be analyzed in a scientific manner to
determine the impacts and cost of management. Failure to modify the vessel general permit to
address the practical issues associated with vessels engaged in international trade will have a
dramatic negative effect. There is a critical need for further discussion and additional analysis
regarding these proposed regulations. Because of these gaps, osg highly recommends that an
extension of the implementation date be sought to allow for a more detailed review of the
proposal and development of appropriate and standardized requirements that can be applied
industry-wide.
Response: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0344.1, excerpt 6.
With respect to seeking an extension to obtain more time, see e.g., EPA-HQ-OW-2008-00550343.1, excerpt 6.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John Berge, Vice President
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0345.1
1
No
Comment: Our comments are intended to provide additional context and perspective as to the
complexities of developing and implementing permit requirements under an unacceptably tight
timeline for the broad diversity of vessel types and operations. We agree with EPA that the
NPDES tool is not a good fit for mobile sources. The NPDES program has been developed to
address stationary sources of pollutants. The inherent complexity of trying to apply such a
program to mobile sources transiting between multiple state water bodies, coupled with the lack
of data collected in the short time period provided could result in significant disruptions to
national and international shipping and trade. Although EPA is working under court imposed
restrictions, the challenges in both developing a functional program and allowing adequate time
for compliance from the regulated body support the need for additional time. We therefore urge
the EPA to petition the Federal court for both an extension of time for development of the
permit, and a delay in the vacatur of the current exemption to allow for legal vessel operations
until the permit is able to be reasonably implemented. Unfortunately, barring a delay in the
vacatur of the exemption under the CWA, our industry will be obliged to accept and
accommodate whatever potentially flawed permit is developed in this process in order to attempt
to comply with the governing statute. Delay in the implementation of the VGP and exemption
vacatur is needed. There are multiple reasons why a delay in the vacatur of the exemption and an
extension of the general permit is necessary. Because of the complexity of issues; the lack of
existing data, the various national and international regulatory entities involved, and the number
3-49
and type of vessels impacted, the current timeline does not allow for effective analysis based on
sound science and a review of existing technologies. We believe that EPA needs to collect better
data and assess all of the necessary information before making final decisions as to each
discharge requirement; including environmental impact, recordkeeping, sampling, best
management practices, compliance and associated cost/benefit analyses. Lack of available data
on commercial fleet discharges the most relevant effort in developing data on vessel discharges
similar to this effort is the uniform national discharge standards for armed forces vessels
(UNDS). This effort, which addresses a population of vessels operated and managed by a single
entity, the department of defense, has been underway for over seventeen years and the program
has yet to address control systems and protocols for those discharges. This VGP effort by the
EPA attempts to extrapolate UNDS data to a population of vessels with completely different
physical and operational parameters, owned and operated through a complex scheme of national
and international entities. As opposed to the 17 years used by the armed forces, EPA has been
given only two years to collect and analyze data from a disparate population of national and
international vessels owned by a multitude of entities.
Response: The commenter’s views on the appropriateness of the NPDES program for regulating
vessels and the potential implications of State regulation are noted, but such concerns are beyond
the scope of the VGP, which is being issued under the statutory framework of the CWA in light
of a court order vacating the Agency’s NPDES exclusion for vessels as set out in 40 CFR
122.3(a).
With respect to lack of data, including extrapolation from UNDS data and the need for more time
to develop the VGP and provide time for compliance, see e.g., responses to comments EPA-HQOW-2008-0055-0344.1, excerpt 6 and EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0343.1, excerpt 6.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John Berge, Vice President
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0345.1
7
No
Comment: For these reasons and others put forward in the comment submissions from the
World Shipping Council, the Chamber of Shipping of America and Intertanko, PMSA
recommends that EPA urge the Federal District Court to extend the deadline for vacating the
exemption together with additional time for permit development in a reasonable and thoughtful
manner. PMSA fully concurs with the world shipping council request that whatever EPA decides
to do regarding the lawsuit, it have a viable permit in place when the exemption is vacated. The
court should be made aware that once the discharges are identified and standards/BMP’s
established, a worldwide shipping industry will need sufficient lead time to establish and
incorporate these practices into individual company and vessel operations. Interestingly, we note
that just today the president signed s. 3298, a bipartisan bill providing a two year extension of the
incidental discharge exemption under the CWA for fishing vessels and other vessels under 79
feet in length; citing the need for additional time to study and report on said discharges. We
agree with the legislative and executive branches in their determination of the need for this delay
and would argue that for similar reasons such an extension should be granted to the remaining
0.01% of vessels that comprise the national and international deepwater fleet.
3-50
Response: Comments from the World Shipping Council, the Chamber of Shipping of America
and INTERTANKO are addressed elsewhere in this response to comment document. With
respect to extension of the court’s vacatur deadline and need for time for industry compliance,
see e.g., responses to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0344.1, excerpt 6 and EPA-HQ-OW2008-0055-0343.1, excerpt 6. We acknowledge commenter’s support for S. 3298 (P.L. 110-299)
and its desire for a similar extension of the applicability of NPDES permitting for its vessels, but
further note the moratorium created by P.L. 110-299 is limited to “covered vessels” as defined in
§ 1 of that Act. In addition, comments seeking or supporting legislative changes are outside the
scope of the VGP.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Ellen Gilinsky, Ph.D., Director, Water Division
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ)
State Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0347
4
No
Comment: 4. EPA recognizes outstanding national resource waters in Section 12.1.6 of the
VGP and states that permittees should consult state water quality management agencies to
determine if onrws exist in the area and where they may operate their vessels. Many states do not
allow new or increased point sources to onrw or tier 3 waters. EPA should state that vessels in
onrws are (or may be) considered one of the limited or temporary activities that are allowed in
onrws. As it is written it seems EPA is saying vessels (as point sources) are not allowed in
onrws.
Response: Commenter is incorrect in stating that “vessels (as point sources) are not allowed in
ONRWs.” Part 12 of the VGP, including Part 12.1.6, is a list of waters federally protected
wholly or in part for conservation purposes. A vessel owner/operator should refer to this list
when discharging, for example, bilgewater or graywater, pursuant to Parts 2.2.2 and 2.2.15 of the
VGP, because those permit provisions contain additional requirements that owner/operators must
adhere to when discharging bilgewater or graywater to those waters. Part 12 is not a prohibition
on vessels operating in ONRWs, or any of the waters listed in that Part, but instead, are a list for
reference in implementing certain provisions of the VGP. See, e.g., response to comment 277
excerpt 37 [EFL1E] for further discussion of Part 12’s requirements.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Laura Powell, Assistant Director
State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA)
State Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0348.1
4
No
Comment: Other comments we believe that two areas of the permit need clarification: (1) the
applicability of this permit to canoes and small crafts used by government agencies and
universities in routine field work, and (2) whether limits for residual chlorine and residual
3-51
oxidants need a compliance level based on analytical quantification levels. Based on our review
of the vessel general permit and the recreational vessel permit, it appears that the vessel general
permit applies to canoes and small boats used by states. These watercrafts do not seem to be
included in the definition of recreational vessels, even though they are identical in many ways to
recreational crafts. The closest classification seems to be the research vessels classification in the
vessel general permit. The discharges from ohio EPA watercrafts are not very different from
those of recreational vessels. Discharges from canoes would be identical, as would those from
john boats and our two 26-foot crafts. While these boats are sometimes outfitted with specific
equipment, such as electrofishing gear, these enhancements do not add discharges. Some
discharges related to these vessels, such as non-toxic dyes, would need to be added to the
authorization. As a result, we request that you add specific authorizations related -to these types
of crafts to the recreational vessel permit.
Response: The VGP does not apply to canoes or small crafts that are recreational vessels or to
non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet in length if they do not discharge ballast water.
Recreational vessels have been removed from the NPDES permitting program by the Clean
Boating Act of 2008, which was signed into law on July 29, 2008 (P.L. 110-288). Commercial
vessels of less than 79 feet are generally not subject to the VGP, due to P,L. 110-299. For more
information on these enactments, please see Section 2.5 of the Fact Sheet. For response to the
comment on limits for residual chlorine and oxidants, see, e.g., response to Comment EPA-HQOW-2008-0055-0348.1, Excerpt 3.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Christine A. Fazio, Counsel, Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP
Polska Zegluga Morska (POLSTEAM)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0349.1
5
No
Comment: POLSTEAM requests, however, that the final rule clarify that foreign-flagged vessels
that transit in U.S. waters a few times a year are subject to the weekly inspections and other
compliance obligations of the VGP just prior to the vessel's entering U.S. waters as well as the
entire period that the vessel remains in U.S. waters, but that such vessels are not subject to any
compliance obligations of the VGP when the vessels are not in U.S. waters.
Response: As Part 1.2.1 of the VGP states, the permit is applicable to eligible discharges that
occur in waters subject to the VGP, which extends to the outer reach of the 3-mile territorial sea,
as defined in the CWA. For information on the applicability of the VGP to vessels only
occasionally in U.S. waters, please see, e.g., responses to Comments EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055319.1, Excerpt 3 and EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0328.1, excerpt 4.
3-52
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kendra L. Martin, Director, Maritime and Corporate Affairs
American Petroleum Institute (API)
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0354.1
13
No
Comment: IADC has requested further clarification regarding “vessels operating in a capacity
other than a means of transportation” (VGP fact sheet, Sections 3.5.2 and 3.5.2.9). API supports
IADC’s request, because some vessels used for petroleum exploration and production may be in
extended periods of layup between uses. Also, drilling units that are regulated by oil and gas
general permits when they are anchored to the sea bed would appear to be in “transportation”
when they are being moved. The VGP language should clarify that when vessels switch from
operation as a means of transportation to a non-transportation category, the VGP is no longer
applicable and the appropriate general permit for the non-transportation activity applies. It
should not be necessary to terminate the VGP because the next time the vessel is moved it would
again be subject to the VGP; instead, the VGP language should state that the VGP applicability
to the non-transport operation is suspended for the duration of such operations.
Response: EPA agrees that it is not necessary to terminate coverage under the VGP by
submitting a Notice of Termination (NOT) when a vessel changes from operating as a means of
transportation to operating in its non-transportation mode. Further, it is not necessary to add
commenter’s suggested language because EPA has clarified the NOT requirements to require
submission of an NOT if the vessel owner/operator has “permanently ceased operating in waters
subject to this permit.” See Part 1.6.1.2 of the VGP. Vessels with discharges not subject to the
former NPDES exclusion, including vessels operated in a capacity other than as a means of
transportation, may have limited instances in which they operate solely in a transportation mode.
At those times, the VGP applies to the vessel’s discharges.
Please see, e.g., the response to Comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0277.1, Excerpt 10 for a
response to issues raised regarding vessels operating other than as a means of transportation. See
also Section 3.5.2.1 of the Fact Sheet for clarification regarding vessels being operated other than
as a means of transportation.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
James H. I. Weakley, President
Lake Carriers' Association (LCA)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0362.1
8
No
Comment: For all these reasons and more, the EPA must request an extension of the September
30, 2008 deadline. Then the agency and the maritime industry can begin a careful examination of
vessel discharges, determine the impacts, identify BAT. Calculate compliance costs. The court
rulings have put us all in an impossible position. To rush into this would be foolhardy. It is one
thing for the courts to rule that the EPA must regulate vessel discharges; it is quite another to
subject an industry to a regulatory regime based on what are little more than first impressions.
3-53
The only pollutant-specific factual or scientific studies of vessels that will actually be regulated
under the permit that were relied upon by the EPA in identifying pollutants: discharges
characteristics, and their environmental impacts were done of Alaskan cruise ships such vessels
bear no relation to our members' dry-bulk carriers operating exclusively on the Great Lakes. We
believe a deliberate and comprehensive assessment of discharges incidental to the normal
operation al vessels should be conducted which would result in a program that would manage
these discharges in a scientifically-justified manner with due regard for the relative
environmental impacts of these discharges and taking into account the diverse nature of the
vessels covered under the program and costs of management controls compared to environmental
benefit we do not believe EPA’s assessments made under this hurried regulatory proposal as a
result of the court order in NW Environmental Advocates V. EPA meet the criteria the agency is
mandated to use. Simply put, EPA’s reliance on the Battelle report and the yet-to-be-completed
uniform national discharge standards {"unds") for armed forces vessels does not provide the
legally-required justification for requirements included in the vessel general permit.' /_1 as the
Battelle report (technical support for EPA development of a permitting framework to address the
vacatur of the NPDES vessel excluston, September 2007) concedes on pg. 41 "a caveat to this
information that bears repeating is that the discharge information provided by EPA and the
department of defense relates to armed forces vessels [and] Batelle's ability to associate
discharges to particular civilian vessels types was limited, given the specific applicability of the
UNDS reports 1c armed forces vessels."/_1 the record upon which the agency based the
identification of the 28 streams is exclusively based on studies of armed forces vessels and cruise
ships and does not contain any facts to support a conclusion that the concerns regarding
discharges from those vessels are transferable to other, completely unrelated vessels. It is
incumbent upon the EPA to conduct appropriate research regarding discharges from the actual
vessels that will be regulated by the vessel general permit so that it has facts relating to the
regulated community and can tailor its permit for that community. Just one example: a majority
of armed forces vessels have technologically sophisticated propulsion systems (e.g., gas turbine,
nuclear) while commercial vessels are typically powered with either steam or diesel systems,
which explains the vast difference in discharge profiles and volumes generated on these two very
different types of ships. Again, we respectfully request EPA to return to the District Court and
seek additional time to enable the type of analysis and assessment that is required by law prior to
promulgation of a final vessel general permit. In requesting additional time from the District
Court, we urge EPA to make the following points. * acknowledge that some of these discharges
are quite likely to be found de minimis. EPA should focus first on actual discharge streams front
vessels that contain pollutants. Many of those listed in the proposed vessel general permit are
unlikely to contain pollutants. Or if they do. Contain them at concentrations that would be found
to be de minimus under current EPA assessment protocols. * as a result of the accelerated
process, the proposed vessel general permit contains provisions that are either ambiguous or
operationally unrealistic with regard to normal vessel operations and this will make compliance
with the requirements problematic at best- * while we support inclusion of best management
practices as the appropriate control strategy_ the wide variation in vessel types, sizes, and
discharge profiles makes defining best management practices impossible across the diverse
universe of vessels without additional analysis of the discharges and the various management
practices in place. Given the complex and massive nature of this effort, and the technical,
mechanical, and scientific considerations that must be taken into account in order for EPA to
develop the kind of effluent standards even in the form of best management practices that the law
requires_ more time is urgently needed.
3-54
Response: With respect to returning to the District Court and seeking extension of the September
30, 2008, deadline, see e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0343.1, excerpt 6.
The commenter’s assertion that the “only pollutant-specific factual or scientific studies of vessels
that will actually be regulated under the permit that were relied upon by the EPA in identifying
pollutants, discharges characteristics, and their environmental impacts were done of Alaskan
cruise ships,” is incorrect. EPA relied upon numerous other sources of information, as identified
in the VGP Fact Sheet and the docket, nor did it use data from Alaskan cruise ships to establish
or derive numeric limits applicable to the commenter’s vessels (“Lakers”).
With respect to the need to consider “costs of management controls compared to environmental
benefit,” the CWA does not require such consideration in setting either technology-based or
water quality based limits. See e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0345.1,
excerpt 4.
With respect to other matters raised in this comment, see e.g., responses to comments EPA-HQOW-2008-0055-0320.1, excerpts 5, 13, 17, 20 and EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0340.1, excerpt 3.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Lawrence I. Kiern, Winston & Strawn, LLP
Liberty Maritime Corporation (Liberty)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0363.1
2
No
Comment: http://www2.ergweb.com/commresponse/docs/EPA-HQ-OW-2008-00550363.1.pdfLiberty recommends that EPA clarify the limited jurisdictional reach of the proposed
permit. It should expressly provide that the permit does not apply to vessels, like liberty's fleet,
when they are outside the navigable waters of the United States.
Response: It is not necessary for the VGP to expressly provide that the permit does not apply to
vessels when they are outside the navigable waters of the United States because the VGP clearly
states that it applies to eligible discharges that occur in waters subject to the VGP, which is
defined as waters of the United States as defined in 40 C.F.R. 122.2, and extending to the outer
reach of the 3 mile territorial sea as defined in Section 502(8) of the CWA. See Part 1.2.1 of the
VGP. With respect to discharges from vessels operating as means of transportation, the
jurisdictional reach of the Clean Water Act extends to 3 nautical miles from the baseline. This is
described in Section 3.1 of the Fact Sheet. For information on the applicability of the VGP to
vessels only occasionally in U.S. waters, please see, e.g., the response to Comment EPA-HQOW-2008-0055-0319.1, Excerpt 3.
3-55
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Lawrence I. Kiern, Winston & Strawn, LLP
Liberty Maritime Corporation (Liberty)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0363.1
11
No
Comment: Additional recommendations in drafting the final NPDES general permit, liberty
also requests that EPA consider the following recommendations: 1. EPA should request a stay.
The EPA should request a stay of the September 30, 2008 deadline for 18 months. The deadline
for compliance with an as yet incomplete and erroneous general permit is untenable. Liberty has
not had sufficient time to react to the EPA’s proposal beyond the comments presented herein, but
our broader review of the proposal gives us grave concern. The EPA’s proposal implicates
multiple discharges incidental to the operation of vessels that implicate liberty's fleet. The
potential impact on liberty of the implementation of the permit is great and will interfere with
liberty's operations and cause it to incur substantial additional costs. The EPA has yet to perform
a proper study of the potential impacts of the discharges. Indeed, on July 3 1, 2008, president
bush signed into law legislation mandating such a study. The law now requires the EPA, in
consultation with the Coast Guard, to conduct the study and issue a report to the congress within
15 months. As Senator Murkowski explained in the congressional record on July 22,2008, "the
commercial moratorium bill directs the EPA to study the incidental discharges of commercial
vessels to determine the volume, type, and frequency of various categories and sizes of vessels. It
is my sincere hope that after the results of the study are reported . . . Congress will take action to
exempt commercial vessels, as we are now doing for the recreational sector. . . ." 154 cong. Rec.
S6982 (daily ed. July 22, 2008)(statement by Sen. Murkowski). Therefore, both congress and the
president have plainly signaled that the EPA should first study the impacts of the discharges
before imposing the proposed permit requirements.
Response: With respect to returning to the District Court and seeking extension of the September
30, 2008, deadline, see e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0343.1, excerpt 6.
With respect to the commenter’s general concern that the VGP implicates multiple discharges
and that commenter will experience great impacts, interference with operations, and substantial
additional costs, the commenter does not further elaborate or explain the basis for this general
concern. To the extent these general concerns are based on the other more specific issues raised
in other parts of the commenter’s letter, those other more specific comments are addressed
elsewhere in this response to comments document. As to the general concern about impacts and
interference with operations, we note the VGP primarily relies upon the use of flexible BMPs
rather than prescriptive one-size fits all mandates and that the VGP also incorporates existing
international and domestic requirements where consistent with the CWA. With respect to
economic and cost concerns, we refer the commenter to the economic analysis prepared for the
VGP and other related materials, such as the responses to the comments received on economic
issues. Lastly, we acknowledge the VGP does cover multiple discharges, but note that the
NWEA court’s vacatur of the NPDES permit exclusion in 40 CFR 122.3(a) was not limited to
ballast water alone. Had the VGP not addressed the range of discharges incidental to the normal
operation of vessels, following vacatur of the NPDES exclusion by the court, the omitted
discharges would be occurring without an NPDES permit in contravention of CWA § 301(a).
That would have potentially far more disruptive implications for the commenter (and shipping in
general), than inclusion of a discharge within the VGP.
3-56
With respect to the comment that EPA has yet to perform a proper study of the potential impacts
of the discharges, see e.g., responses to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1, excerpts 5,
13, 20.
With respect to the comment that legislation mandating such a study was signed into law on July
31, 2008, we note that the law being referred to is S. 3298 (P.L. 110-299), and that, contrary to
the commenter’s apparent view, that Act does not mandate suspension of permitting of
commercial vessels in general pending further study. To the contrary, it reflects a deliberate
decision by Congress to temporarily exclude from NPDES permitting only certain “covered
vessels,” as defined in § 1 of that Act, rather than a more general moratorium.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Lawrence I. Kiern, Winston & Strawn, LLP
Liberty Maritime Corporation (Liberty)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0363.1
12
No
Comment: 2. EPA should expressly state that the permit does not apply outside the navigable
waters of the United States. As defined in title 33, Section 1321(b) of the United States code, the
Clean Water Act's jurisdiction is expressly limited to "the navigable waters of the United States,
adjoining shorelines, . . . [and] natural resources" of the United States. Furthermore, Section
1.2.1 of the permit limits the permit's application to "waters of the United States" as defined in
40 CFR 122.2 as extending to the outer reach of the three-mile territorial sea. Unfortunately, the
proposed permit does not expressly state that it does not apply to vessels operating outside the
navigable waters of the United States. 'This is important because liberty's fleet spends only
approximately ten percent of its time in the navigable waters of the United States. That is, as a
practical matter, liberty's vessels are on the high seas and in the waters of foreign nations, e.g. the
countries of Africa, 90 percent of the time. None of the proposed permit requirements, including
the inspection, sampling, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions, would lawfully apply to
liberty's vessels operating outside of the navigable waters of the United States. Therefore, the
proposed permit should expressly provide that records and reports should only be created and
maintained with respect to vessel operations within the navigable waters of the United States.
Response: The commenter’s reference to “navigable waters of the United States, adjoining
shorelines, . . . [and] natural resources of the United States” is based upon the jurisdictional
provisions of CWA § 311(b)(1) (33 USC 1321(b)), which establishes the scope of the CWA §
311 program (Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability), not as the commenter seems to believe, a
generic delineation of the CWA’s geographic jurisdiction. With respect to commenter noting
their vessels spend the vast majority of time operating on the high seas or in foreign waters, such
vessels would be beyond the 3 nmi U.S. territorial sea (as defined in the CWA) and if operating
in a capacity as a means of transportation, their discharges into such waters would thus be
beyond the scope of the VGP. See VGP Fact Sheet Part 3.1; see also, e.g., response to comments
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0319.1, excerpt 3 and EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0328.1, excerpt 4 for
a discussion of how the permit’s recordkeeping and reporting requirements apply to vessels that
move in and out of waters subject to this permit.
3-57
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Captain Peter Bolster, Director of Shipboard Operations
Living Classrooms Foundation
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0364.1
1
No
Comment: Although our vessels would be exempt from the permitting regulations during the 2year moratorium on small commercial vessels, I am writing to request that our small sail training
vessels be exempt from this permitting process for the following reasons: our vessels pose
minimal pollution threats to the environment (certainly less than the nationwide fleet of
recreational vessels which are exempt from this regulation. Ours are sail vessels which have a
small reliance on polluting machinery. Also, they carry no cargo and each has fixed (not water)
ballast.
Response: As the commenter notes, discharges incidental to the normal operation of nonrecreational vessels of less than 79 feet are not subject to the VGP, except for ballast water
discharges, due to P,L, 110-299. For more information on this legislation, please see Section 2.5
of the Fact Sheet. Per that legislation, EPA must conduct a study and provide a report to
Congress.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Public Hearing Comments
Various
Various
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0365
28
No
Comment: We believe EPA has actually tried to identify the characteristics of commercial
fishing vessels in the bgp, but it is deficient in that it is based on size tonnage rather than on use.
We would suggest that the EPA would explore further subdivisions based on vessel use, barge,
tug, ferry, commercial vessel, and many small commercial fishing vessels probably have the
same characteristics as the recreational fishing vessels, and it might be more logical to cover
them under the RGP. Section 121 of the VGP specifies that vessels will be impacted that are
operating in waters of the United States. Most of our fishermen don't read the code. So we would
recommend that to facilitate communication, the EPA clearly specify that this is subject to
vessels that are on U.S. waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. We also question
the applicability of Sections 2 through 4 of the VGP to undocumented commercial fishing
vessels. Many of the smaller vessels, skips, small support vessels that can even be carried by
larger commercial vessels, small vessels that use the 10-pound nets or dories that may be
launched from the beach and various fisheries, they are certainly more analogous to recreational
boats that the larger commercial boats, and we recommend that you would consider them under
1.4 and 1.6 of the RGP.
Response: The RGP is not being finalized because recreational vessels have been removed from
the NPDES permitting program by the Clean Boating Act of 2008 (p.L.110-288), which was
signed into law on July 29, 2008. Commercial fishing vessels and non-recreational vessels of less
3-58
than 79 feet that do not discharge ballast water are not subject to the VGP, due to P,L, 110-299,
signed into law on July 31, 2008. For more information on these enactments, please see Section
2.5 of the Fact Sheet. EPA has clearly specified, in Part 1.2.1 of the VGP, that, except for ballast
water, commercial fishing vessels (s defined in 46 USC 2101) are not subject to the permit, and
therefore, it is unnecessary to make changes to the permit language as suggested.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Adam Wronowski, Owner and Managing Member
Block Island Ferry Services, LLC (BIFS)
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0368.1
4
No
Comment: BIF is strongly opposed to many requirements of the proposed VGP and we feel that
the EPA’s previous exemption of discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel was
correct and well suited for operations in the marine industry. Ferry operators like BIF are literally
being forced to comply with regulations that are meant for vessels very different from ours such
as vessels that travel great distances either from overseas or between different bodies of water
within the United States and pose a risk for introducing invasive species. If a vessel operates
solely within the same interconnected lakes, bays, and sounds (as defined by the US Coast
Guard) in a particular geographical region that does not include waters listed in part 12 of the
VGP, as do all of BIF’s, it should be exempt from all aspects of the VGP related to ballast water
and invasive species. This is a common-sense exemption because it is impossible for a vessel
like BIF’s that only operates solely within interconnected lakes, bays, and sounds to acquire
invasive species from outside that area.
Response: This comment is virtually identical to EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0322.1, excerpt 4.
See response to that comment.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Wayne S. Holt, Environmental & Safety Director
Atlantic Marine Florida, LLC (AMF) and Atlantic Marine
Mayport, LLC (AMM)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0370.1
2
No
Comment: While AMF agrees that the unds’s modeled vessel general permit is appropriate for
the purpose of regulating the discharges incidental to the normal operations of a vessel, we are
concerned that EPA has not clearly defined the extent to which vessels and vessels discharges
that this rule applies. Consequently, by this transmittal, AMF request that EPA clarify the
applicability of this rule to vessel types and vessel discharges not specifically defined in the
proposed VGP regulation. Specifically, we request clarification with regard to the applicability
of the VGP to vessels during initial construction prior to delivery to the vessel’s owner, and
vessels that have been removed from the water via floating dry docks, for the purpose of
maintenance and repair. Additionally, AMF requests clarification regarding the applicability of
3-59
the VGP to floating dry docks. For the reasons set forth below AMF believes the EPA should
amend the proposed regulation to clearly define the applicability of the VGP to discharges
incidental to the normal operation of: (1) new vessels during construction; (2) vessels in dry
dock, and; (3) floating dry docks. 1. Incidental discharges from vessels under construction should
be regulated by the VGP when the vessel becomes waterborne a large majority of the
shipbuilding construction process for new vessels takes place on land. Incidental discharges from
vessels under construction that occur while the vessel is on land are typically covered by the
shipbuilder’s individual facility NPDES permit. After the vessel is launched and becomes
waterborne final construction and outfitting activities are undertaken. Prior to delivery of the
vessel to the vessel owner, the shipbuilder conducts equipment and systems testing, dock trials,
and sea trials. During this period there are discharges incidental to the vessel’s normal
operations. These discharges are the same type of discharges that are described in the UNDS.
Consequently, incidental discharges while the vessel is waterborne should be regulated in the
same manner as the UNDS regulates these discharges for vessels of the armed forces. AMF
asserts that once the vessels is launched and becomes waterborne, that the incidental discharges
should be regulated by a VGP. Discharges from waterborne vessels under construction should
therefore be regulated under a VGP issued initially to the shipbuilder as soon it is waterborne.
Following delivery of the vessel to the vessel owner, the vessel owner would then be responsible
for the incidental discharges and the permitting there of. 2. Incidental discharges from vessels
undergoing maintenance or repair in dry dock should be regulated by the vessels’ VGP as a
vessel is placed into dry dock, and even after the vessel is lifted out of the water, several
discharges incidental to the normal operations of the vessel typically occur and continue. These
discharges include water from the cooling and fire-main systems and ballast water. Although
under UNDS these discharges are distinguished from other incidental discharges that occur while
a vessel is waterborne, AMF seeks clarification and consistency with the definition of a
discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel and recommends that these discharges
while the vessel is in dry dock should remain subject to the vessel’s VGP. AMF asserts that these
incidental discharges are clearly “vessel” discharges and not discharges from the dry docking
facility. Consequently, the vessel owner should remain responsible for the incidental discharges
from his vessel and for compliance with the vessel’s VGP. The alternative would be to require
these discharges to be regulated under the individual facility’s NPDES permit of the dry-docking
facility. While this may be feasible for some facilities, particularly those that are responsible for
both the vessel and land-side operations (e.g., U.S. Navy), it is not practical for commercial dry
dock operators to assume responsibility for operational discharges from vessels not under their
control. AMF recognizes that industrial discharges generated as a result of maintenance and
repair activities associated with the vessel are appropriately regulated under the individual
facility’s NPDES permit. However, incidental discharges that are clearly a result of the normal
operations of the “vessel”, should be regulated by the vessel’s VGP. 3. Incidental discharges
from floating dry docks should be regulated by the VGP historically, in practice and for
regulatory purposes, dry docks have been defined as “vessels”. The uniform national discharge
standards for vessels of the armed forces, upon which EPA modeled the proposed VGP, covers
almost all vessels of the armed forces and specifically includes dry docks. Expressly, the UNDS
states that “discharges related to a floating dry dock’s function as a vessel are covered by UNDS
and do not require authorization by NPDES permits.” A floating dry dock is a type of vessel used
for lifting other vessels out of the water so that they can be accessed for maintenance and repair
activities. Floating dry docks contain floodable ballast tanks that are used to lift and lower the
dry dock as a maintenance platform. When valves are opened these tanks are filled with water
(ballast) and the dry dock partially submerges. A vessel is then positioned over the submerged
3-60
dry dock and, when ballast water is pumped out of the ballast tanks, the dry dock floats to the
surface lifting the vessel to be serviced out of the water. The ballasting and de-ballasting of a dry
dock for the purpose of lifting vessels out of the water for servicing, clearly meets the definition
of “incidental discharges to the normal operation of the vessel”. Consequently, AMF asserts that
these dry dock incidental discharges should be regulated as is consistent with the UNDS, under
the vessel’s VGP. Again, AMF recognizes that industrial discharges generated as a result of
maintenance and repair activities associated with the vessel are appropriately regulated under the
individual facility’s NPDES permit, and not consider them to be vessel discharges relative to the
VGP. However, AMF strongly encourages EPA to make clear that discharges incidental to the
operation of the dry dock itself are covered under the VGP. Conclusion when vessels that are
still under construction are launched and become waterborne, and begin the functioning of the
vessel’s equipment and systems, discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel
commence. Vessels under construction are also tested in dock trials, sea trials, etc., during which
these vessels have discharges incidental to their normal operations as a vessel. AMF requests that
EPA regulate incidental discharges from all waterborne vessels, including those vessels still
under construction by the VGP. Additionally, discharges incidental to the normal operation of
vessels that are non-waterborne while in dry dock for maintenance and repair do not cease to be
“vessel” discharges and consequently should be subject to the requirements of the VGP as
proposed. Discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel in dry dock should continue
to be regulated under the dry-docked vessel’s VGP because the owner of the vessel continues to
maintain control of those discharges while the vessel is in dry dock. AMF requests that EPA
clarify this important distinction. Lastly, EPA’s proposed VGP regulation provides a reasonable
and effective means of complying with the District Court’s order requiring the vacation of the
NPDES exemption for discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels. Consistent with
the District Court’s ruling, EPA has appropriately proposed to regulate incidental discharges
from “all commercial vessels.” Floating dry docks are waterborne commercial vessels and
appropriately should be subject to the VGP. Floating dry docks should be specifically defined in
this regulation as such, so that a clear distinction is made between them and other types of landbased dry docks. Discharges from land-based dry docking facilities, are typically regulated under
an individual facility’s NPDES permit. AMF requests that EPA clarify this important distinction.
Response: This comment is virtually identical to comment 296.1 excerpt 2. See response to that
comment.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John P. Wronowski, Owner and President
Thames Towboat Company, Inc. (TTB)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0371.1
4
No
Comment: Thames towboat is strongly opposed to many requirements of the proposed VGP
and we feel that the EPA’s previous exemption of discharges incidental to the normal operation
of a vessel was correct and well suited for operations in the marine industry. Tug operators like
TTB are literally being forced to comply with regulations that are meant for vessels very
different from ours such as vessels that travel great distances either from overseas or between
different bodies of water within the United States and pose a risk for introducing invasive
3-61
species. If a vessel operates solely within the same interconnected lakes, bays, and sounds (as
defined by the US Coast Guard) in a particular geographical region that does not include waters
listed in part 12 of the VGP, as do all of TTB’s, it should be exempt from all aspects of the VGP
related to ballast water and invasive species. This is a common-sense exemption because it is
impossible for a vessel like TTB’s that only operates solely within interconnected lakes, bays,
and sounds to acquire invasive species from outside that area.
Response: This comment is identical to Comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0368.1, Excerpt 4.
Please see response to that comment.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
David Sehrt, Senior Vice President, Chief Operations Officer
Ingram Barge Company (Ingram Barge)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0378.1
3
No
Comment: 2. EPA should seek amendments to the Clean Water Act to clarify that discharges
incidental to the normal operation of towing vessels and barges do not require coverage under
the NPDES program. As you are aware, congress recently enacted the clean boating act of 2008,
exempting certain “covered vessels”—vessels under 79 feet in length and fishing vessels—from
the NPDES permit program while EPA and the Coast Guard study the issue and prepare a final
recommendation to congress. Similar relief is greatly needed for commercial towing vessels,
especially given the very limited amount of time that the courts have, to date, afforded our
industry to come into compliance with this new permit program. As discussed below, significant
industry resources are currently focused on, or will soon be focused on, implementing several
other Federal priorities. If EPA is to proceed with a new permitting program, there simply needs
to be more time devoted to developing an appropriate permit and for making the necessary
operational changes to comply with a new VGP. Accordingly, while we would hope that the
District Court would grant an extension of the September 30, 2008 vacatur date, we would
nonetheless urge EPA to still work with congress to ensure that a legislative exemption (whether
temporary or permanent) covering all commercial vessels is enacted, preferably before
September 30, 2008, but certainly as soon as possible. An exemption of this nature would be
warranted for many reasons. First, commercial towing vessels are already subject to extensive,
overlapping regulatory requirements designed to protect human health and the environment,
including but not limited to: . • part 1321 of the Federal water pollution prevention and control
act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., which prohibits the discharge of oil or hazardous substances into
the navigable waters of the United States in harmful quantities. . • the refuse act, 33 U.S.C. §
407, which prohibits the discharge or depositing of any refuse matter or any material of any kind
into the navigable waters in a manner that could impede navigation. . • the ocean dumping act,
33 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq., which prohibits the dumping of any material from a vessel of the
United States without a permit. . • the act to prevent pollution from ships, 33 U.S.C. § 1901 et
seq., which implements the provisions of the international convention for the prevention of
pollution from ships (“Marpol”) and generally prohibits the disposal of plastics and other
garbage into the sea. . • the oil pollution act, 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., which prohibits the
discharge of oil into navigable waters, requires reporting of spills, and imposes significant
restrictions on the types of barges that can carry petroleum. • the comprehensive environmental
3-62
response, compensation and liability act, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq., which makes owners or
operators of vessels used to transport hazardous substances potentially liable for releases of those
substances to the environment. . • U.S. Coast Guard regulations which mandate that all sewage
generated aboard a vessel must be processed and treated in approved marine sanitation device
sewage treatment systems aboard the vessel. See 33 C.F.R. § 159.7. A variety of other
international, Federal, and state restrictions apply as well, as do various other practices adopted
voluntarily by our industry. Second, an exemption from NPDES permitting for our vessel
discharges—even just a temporary exemption—is necessary in light of the other Federal
priorities which our industry is currently implementing. For example, we are currently
implementing the U.S. Coast Guard’s new transportation worker identification credential
(“twic”) requirements, which were mandated by congress after 9/11 as part of the maritime
transportation security act of 2002. As part of the effort, we are currently working to ensure that
all of our associates obtain “twic” cards (i.e., the biometric security credential required for
unescorted access to inland ports and other areas important to homeland security) by the
compliance deadline of April 15, 2009./_3 for more information on the U.S. Coast Guard’s twic
program, please visit http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/twic/index.shtm. /_3 similarly, our
industry is preparing for compliance with EPA’s new marine diesel engine emissions standards
(see 73 fed. Reg. 25,098) and various other initiatives of the U.S. Coast Guard such as
implementation of new guidance related to “crew endurance management systems” and the
anticipated new subchapter m requirements. Third, an exemption would be warranted in light of
the environmental advantages of waterway transport over other modes. The inland waterway
transportation industry is comprised of hundreds of separate, individual tugboat, towboat, and
barge companies operating, cumulatively, thousands of motor vessels and tens of thousands of
unmanned barges. Our industry provides significant environmental advantages over other modes
of transport./_4 see U.S. department of transportation, maritime administration, environmental
advantages of inland barge transportation (Aug. 1994); Texas transportation institute, a modal
comparison of domestic freight transportation effects on the general public (Nov. 2007),
available at
http://www.Americanwaterways.com/industry_stats/facts_about_ind/public%20study.pdf. /_4
for example, inland waterway transportation, as compared to rail and truck transport, moves
cargo more efficiently, with fewer air emissions, and poses less risk to human health and safety,
and barge transport is, from a carbon emissions perspective, preferable to rail and truck transport.
Moreover, as the U.S. department of transportation’s (“usdot”) maritime administration
concluded in a 1994 report: “the environmental impacts of water transportation vary from river
to river and project to project, but in many cases, the environment is not noticeably affected by
waterway freight transport. Where it does have a negative impact, the effect is usually minimal.”
Dot final report at 23 (emphasis added). That 1994 usdot report also cited a 1993 study by the
Illinois state water survey which found that “current levels of barge traffic on the Illinois River
are not adversely affecting water quality in the navigation channel.” Id. As a result, Ingram barge
continues to agree with EPA concerning the validity of 40 C.F.R. Section 122.3(a). When it
adopted this exclusion, EPA explained: “most discharges from vessels to inland waters are now
clearly excluded from the [npdes] permit requirements. This type of discharge generally causes
little pollution and exclusion of vessel wastes from the permit requirements will reduce
administrative costs drastically.” 38 fed. Reg. 13,528 (may 22, 1973) (emphasis added). That
decision was correct in 1973, and considering the variety of new environmental restrictions
placed on vessel operations since that time as well as advances in the industry, EPA’s exemption
remains warranted today.
3-63
Response: We acknowledge commenter’s summary of requirements applicable to the
commercial towing industry, its activities to respond to “other Federal priorities,” and the
commenter’s views on the benefits of inland waterway transportation, which were offered as
reasons the commenter supports legislative relief or extension of the vacatur deadline by the
court.
With respect to seeking amendments to the CWA to exclude discharges incidental to the normal
operation of vessels from NPDES permitting, such matters are outside the scope of the VGP. See
e.g., discussion of legislative issues in response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0277.1,
excerpt 5. We also note that based on the commenter’s description of what the commenter
termed the “Clean Boating Act,” the actual statute would be P.L. 110-299. We refer the
commenter to the discussion of that Act in response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-00550363.1, excerpt 11. (The actual “Clean Boating Act” is instead P.L. 110-288 and relevant only to
recreational vessels.)
With respect to seeking an extension of the court’s date for vacatur of the NPDES exclusion in
40 CFR 122.3(a), see e.g. discussion of such issue in response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-20080055-0343.1, excerpt 6.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
James Leatherwood, Director, Environmental Management
Division
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Federal Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0381.1
1
Yes
Comment: NASA's space shuttle program uses vessels to retrieve space flight hardware from
the ocean after launch. The hardware is attached to ships and towed back to shore for reuse. It is
NASA’s understanding that the retrieval vessels would be subject to the proposed vessel general
permit requirements. However, the space flight hardware, whether free floating or being towed
behind the vessels, would not be subject to the proposed NPDES permitting requirements since
they are neither watercraft nor other artificial contrivance being used as a means of
transportation.
Response: EPA notes that this comment was submitted after the August 1, 2008 deadline. EPA
is not legally obligated to respond to late comments; however will respond to it. EPA agrees with
the commenter’s understanding regarding the applicability of the VGP to its retrieval vessels
when discharging within waters subject to this permit. We do not disagree with commenter’s
view that retrieved space flight hardware is not a vessel.
3-64
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Harry T. Stewart, P.E., Director, Water Division
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
(NHDES)
State Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0382.1
1
No
Comment: Barges, oil tankers, and petroleum tankers are eligible for the vessel general permit.
The permit requires best management practices and corrective action assessments if spills or
violations occur, and the general permit depends somewhat on an “honor system” of reporting
violations. These vessels may be large and carry significant quantities of toxic material that
could have significant environmental impacts if released. It is not clear whether EPA will have
sufficient staff to conduct inspections or compliance checks, but because of the toxicity and
potential for environmental damage caused by violations on these vessels, careful oversight
would be preferable. It may be more appropriate to cover them under individual industrial
permits.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. It is estimated there are 70,000 vessels eligible
for coverage under the VGP. It is not feasible for EPA to write and approve individual permits
for each vessel because of that, particularly given the tight timeline which EPA had to research,
draft, propose, and finalize the permit. Furthermore, vessels which operate other than as a means
of transportation are still required to have a permit for those discharges which result from the
industrial operations. For more information on general permits, individual permits, and vessels
with industrial operations, please see Section 2.5 of the Fact Sheet. See also, e.g., response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0307.1, excerpt 3 for a discussion of enforcement and
compliance assistance with respect to the VGP. EPA is not sure it understands commenter’s
apparent criticism that the permit relies “somewhat on an honor system,” but does note in
response that the CWA authorizes imposition of civil and criminal penalties for permit
violations.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Mark Sales, Regulatory and Systems Engineer
Tidewater Marine, LLC
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0387.1
4
No
Comment: We also believe there is some confusion regarding the terms and boundaries of the
permit to the extent that the permit(s) govern discharges within 3 nautical miles of shore, but the
record-keeping requirements make no real requirement to note vessel position from time to time
for this purpose. Therefore the record keeping requirement apparently exists for all vessels
regardless of flag or location for the first six months? Then for vessels having subscribed a notice
of intent (NOI) under the VGP permit after the six month opening period until their termination
notice (not) – regardless of location? The difficultly that we see is that the laws and treaties that
govern other waters may impose their own regulations with the result that some clarification
would be necessary for mariners, especially considering what the coastal states could require.
3-65
Response: Commenter is incorrect in stating that the VGP’s recordkeeping provisions “make no
real requirement to note vessel position from time to time.” Part 4.2 of the VGP requires that
vessels covered by this permit must include, in their written records, a voyage log, including “the
dates and ports of arrival…last port and country of call, and next port and country of call (when
known).” The VGP automatically provides coverage for all vessels subject to the VGP; to
continue that coverage, vessels subject to the requirement to submit an NOI must do so in
accordance with the timeframes specified in the VGP. See VGP Part 1.5.1.1. In terms of “other
waters,” if those waters mean waters outside the waters subject to the VGP, the VGP would not
apply in such waters. See also Part 1.2.1 of the VGP that discusses the general scope of the
permit. For information on the applicability of the VGP to vessels only occasionally in U.S.
waters, see, e.g., the responses to Comments EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0319.1, Excerpt 3 and
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0328.1, excerpt 4.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Mark Sales, Regulatory and Systems Engineer
Tidewater Marine, LLC
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0387.1
14
No
Comment: Comments on proposed vessel general permit (specific details) 1.2.1 we propose that
vessel daughter-craft also be excluded from this section as they are better represented, while
away from mother vessel by the RGP. We also submit that commercial vessels under contract to
Federal entities such as the army corps of engineers, U.S. Navy and Coast Guard (for example)
be included under their contract holder’s exemptions.
Response: Due to the July 29, 2008, enactment of S. 2766 (P.L. 110-288), the RGP will not be
finalized. Regarding “daughter craft,” Part 1.2.1 of the VGP states that “If auxiliary vessels or
craft, such as lifeboats or rescue boats onboard larger vessels require permit coverage (i.e., they
are greater than 79 feet in length), they are eligible for coverage under this permit and are
covered by submission of Notice of Intent for larger vessels.” Additionally, except for ballast
water discharges, commercial fishing vessels (regardless of size) and other non-recreational
vessels of less than 79 feet are not subject to the VGP, due to enactment of S. 3298 (P.L. 110299). For more information on these laws, please see Section 2.5 of the Fact Sheet. Also please
see VGP Fact Sheet Part 3.5.1 regarding auxiliary vessels over 79 feet.
With respect to commercial vessels under contract to Federal entities (and that are not subject to
the above-described exemption in P.L. 110-299), unless they are “vessels of the Armed Forces”
subject to regulation under CWA § 312(n) (the “UNDS” program), such vessels are not exempt
from NPDES permitting of discharges incidental to their normal operation. As a general matter,
“vessels of the Armed Forces” are limited to vessels of the Department of Defense or the Coast
Guard and do not include Army Corps of Engineers vessels, U.S. Maritime Administration
vessels, nor any vessel that is merely time or voyage chartered by the Armed Forces. See, 40
CFR 1700.1 and 1700.3. EPA agrees with the commenter, however, that the UNDS standards
apply “to the owners and operators” of Armed Forces, regardless of whether such an “operator”
3-66
is itself one of the Armed Forces (or Coast Guard) or a contractor of the Armed Forces (or Coast
Guard). 40 CFR 1700.1(a).
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Mark Sales, Regulatory and Systems Engineer
Tidewater Marine, LLC
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0387.1
17
No
Comment: 2. 1.2.3.1 “discharges not subject to former NPDES permit exclusion and vessel
discharges generated when vessels when they are operated in a capacity other than as a means of
transportation” parsing of this section implies that when a vessel is moored or anchored the terms
of this permit are no longer valid. Stretching the phrase ‘means of transportation’ does not
recognize modes or evolutions whereby a vessel may be nosed into a bank (awaiting a dock
opening for example) or otherwise on dock taking on a load, ‘rafted up’ alongside another vessel
engaged in vessel to vessel transfer for any reason or other evolution that fall outside the strict
interpretation of either moored to a dock with a permit or ‘operated as a means of transportation’.
We believe that when commercial craft are operating within the capacity of their ‘designed
missions’ they should be covered under this permit. The mariner should not be put into the
position where they need to define each evolution on the basis of whether they are actually
transporting something at any/every point in time. 3. 1.2.3.8 since part of an offshore support
vessel’s mission is carriage of noxious liquid substances used in offshore drilling, maintenance
and production of energy facilities and those entities have permits to dispose of certain cuttings,
it is conceivable that since those facilities generally extend well above the structure of our
vessels that some of those materials may be carried by wind and wave action onto our vessels so
as to create a residue which might be carried into within 3 nm of land. Perhaps the intent of this
paragraph is better stated more explicitly; “…(nls) tank residues shall not be discharged within 3
nm of land…”
Response: Please see the response to Comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0277.1, Excerpt 10 as
well as response to Comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0274.1, Excerpt 2 for information on
vessels operating other than as a means of transportation. EPA additionally notes that the term
“means of transportation” does not need to be “stretched” to generally accommodate the types of
typical lulls in actual movement that occur while a vessel performs its transportation functions;
EPA reads the phrase “operating in a capacity . . . as a means of transportation” to include such
normal breaks in actual movement. The language in Part 1.2.3.8 of the VGP, related to Noxious
Liquid Substances, states that NLS discharges subject to 33 CFR Part 151, Subpart A are not
eligible for coverage under the VGP. EPA declines to include the commenter’s suggested
language because the outer reach of the VGP is limited to the U.S. 3- mile territorial sea and
those Coast Guard regulations governing NLS do not allow for their discharge that close to
shore. We also call commenter’s attention to definition of “Noxious Liquid Substances” in 33
CFR 151.05 so that commenter can determine if, in fact, the material he has expressed concern
over are actually Noxious Liquid Substances as defined therein.
3-67
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
James L. Henry, President
Transportation Institute (TI)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0388.1
6
No
Comment: Ultimately, EPA must conduct a comprehensive and thorough assessment of the
appropriateness of coverage of each of the discharges regulated under the permit and the
appropriateness of the identified BMPs, taking into account the tremendous diversity among the
regulated vessels and the myriad of ways in which permittees may comply with the permit's
requirements. This research and analysis takes time. We urge EPA to accept the Ninth Circuit's
invitation to request an extension of the September 30, 2008 deadline to allow EPA the time that
is needed to develop a legally justifiable and defensible permitting system that is properly
tailored to the regulated community. The regulated community also requires notice of the
standards it is expected to meet and a reasonable period of time to implement the BMPs and
achieve compliance with the permit once it is finalized. In sum, EPA’s regulation of vessels in
this way is unprecedented. In fact, this community may be the largest and most diverse industrial
sector for which the EPA has ever sought to create effluent limits. Addressing the diversity of
maritime operators affected will be challenging. Nevertheless, any proposed permitting scheme
must provide an effective means of protecting U.S. waters while appropriately reflecting the
operational realities of the U.S. maritime industry and preserving the industry's economic and
competitive strength. It is for this reason, that we strongly urge EPA to extend the time for
development of the regulatory framework and for the industry to comply with the requirements
ultimately established.
Response: We acknowledge that the VGP is a first time permit addressing a diverse range of
vessels and variety of discharges incidental to their normal operation. The issues raised by this
comment are addressed in other responses to comments, see e.g., response to comment EPA-HQOW-2008-0055-0379.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Anda A. Ray, Vice President, Environmental Stewardship and
Policy
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
Federal Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0389.1
2
No
Comment: TVA recommends that an exemption from this permit be considered for small
vessels and that more flexibility is added to the permit to account for the physical and operational
differences among the wide range of vessels covered by the proposed permit. Page 2 July 31,
2008
Response: Recreational vessels have been removed from the NPDES permitting program by the
Clean Boating Act of 2008 (P,L 110-288), which was signed into law on July 29, 2008. Except
for ballast water, commercial fishing vessels and non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet are
3-68
not subject to the VGP, due to P,L, 110-299. For more information on these laws, please see
Section 2.5 of the Fact Sheet. Commenter’s suggestion to add additional flexibility is too general
to allow a response; more specific concerns about permit conditions and flexibility issues are
responded to elsewhere in this document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William R. Barr
Madison Coal & Supply Company, Inc.
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0390.1
1
Yes
Comment: I believe that a broad approach to regulation of vessel discharges ( excluding ballast
water ) is placing the towing industry in a class with much larger vessels that have much larger
deck areas and usage areas than a towboat whether it is under or over 79 feet.
Response: EPA notes that this comment was submitted after the August 1, 2008 deadline. EPA
is not legally obligated to respond to late comments. However, EPA responds by noting that
except for ballast water discharges, commercial fishing vessels and non-recreational vessels of
less than 79 feet are not subject to the VGP, due to P,L, 110-299. For more information on this
legislation, please see Section 2.5 of the Fact Sheet. Discharges incidental to the normal
operation of towboats larger than 79 feet are still required to obtain coverage under the VGP.
EPA has worked with relevant stakeholders as well as other regulatory agencies to help ensure
implementation of the VGP is compatible with shipboard operations and not in conflict with
other existing vessel regulations.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Cynthia L. Brown, President
American Shipbuilding Association (ASA)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0392.2
1
No
Comment: EPA states that the agency proposes an NPDES vessel general permit (VGP) to
cover discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial and recreational vessels. The
proposal points out that the Clean Water Act's definition of "pollutant" specifically excludes
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel of the armed forces. ASA strongly
supports the implicit exclusion of such vessels from the requirements of this proposal and
recommends that the exclusion be made explicit for purposes of clarification. The proposal does
not otherwise directly address vessels of the armed forces; vessels while under construction, sea
trials, repair, maintenance, or overhaul; or discharges from floating dry docks utilized for such
purposes. These comments therefore address concerns ASA has about the possibility of
unintended consequences that could result from this proposal for the vessels that are built,
maintained, overhauled, and repaired by our member shipyards. ASA also strongly supports
EPA’s longstanding regulatory exclusion of discharges incidental to the normal operation of
vessels found at 40 C.F.R. § 122.3(a) from the NPDES program and believes that the exclusion
3-69
is adequately supported by law. Due to a court case addressing invasive, or aquatic nuisance
species in ballast water discharged from large oceangoing commercial vessels, however, an
unfortunate ruling by the U.S. District Court for the northern district of California has resulted,
which vacates the regulatory exclusion as of September 30, 2008. Although EPA appealed that
decision, it was subsequently affirmed by the U.S. court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit. These
developments have occurred despite the fact that the exclusion policy and EPA’s authority to
enforce it had been unquestioned since 1973. EPA has identified significant practical and policy
reasons to continue this longstanding regulatory exclusion, reasoning that there are a number of
ongoing activities within the Federal government related to control of invasive species in ballast
water, many of which are likely to become more effective and efficient than use of NPDES
permits under the Clean Water Act. EPA also notes that congress has enacted statutes directing
the Coast Guard, rather than EPA, to regulate discharges incidental to the normal operation of
non-military vessels, including ballast vaster. Nevertheless, the agency is now forced to regulate
such discharges through NPDES permitting, recognizing that this forced proposed permitting
regime would create a host of unintended consequences, congress quickly passed legislation on
July 22, 2008 excluding recreational vessels from. Npdes permit requirements and providing a
moratorium on such requirements for commercial fishing vessels and other small commercial
vessels. The legislation was then quickly signed into law by the president, the type of regulatory
scheme being proposed here would be uniquely problematic if applied to vessels of the armed
forces because the resulting requirements could cause significant delays and considerable cost
increases for such vessels while under construction, sea trials, maintenance, repair, or overhaul.
For EPA, the Navy, the Coast Guard, the ASA member shipyards, and, ultimately, the taxpayers,
the increased administrative costs, training costs, and facility and process investment costs that
could potentially result from the implementation of a new military vessel inspection regime
under this proposal would overshadow by far any environmental benefit, again, ASA believes
that such is not the intended consequence of the proposal. Vessels of the armed forces are subject
to regulation by Section 312(n) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1322(n), also known as the
uniform national discharge standards (UNDS) program. The UNDS mission is to enhance the
protection of our harbors and coastal areas by standardizing discharge control practices on
vessels of the armed forces, EPA, the department of defense, and the Coast Guard, in
consultation with other Federal agencies, states, and environmental organizations over a period
of years, are well into the development of UNDS, which was amandated by the national defense
authorization act of 1996. In addition to comparing discharge concentrations to Federal and state
water quality criteria, other U.S. laws and international standards were also evaluated, including
the standards for oil established by the 1973 international convention for the prevention or
pollution from ships modified by the protocol of 1978 (marpoi, 73/78), as implemented by the
act to prevent pollution from ships, 33 U.S.C. § 1905-1915, and the oil spill regulations at 40
C.F.R. § 110. Under the thorough and painstaking development process of UNDS, twenty-five
(25) vessel discharges have been identified as requiring marine pollution control devices
(mpcds). These are control technologies or best management practices (BMPs) that can
reasonably and practicably be installed or otherwise used on a vessel of the armed forces to
receive, retain, treat, control, or discharge a discharge incidental to the normal operation of the
vessel. The discharges identified by the UNDS program are similar to the VGP discharges
addressed in this NPDES permit proposal. Vessels of the armed forces will ultimately be
required to include mpcds for these discharges in their construction designs, specifications, and
in BMPs, rendering any VGP a redundant and unnecessary requirement for those vessels. The
resulting additional expense for the taxpayers would also he redundant and unnecessary. Again,
ASA strongly recommends that vessels of the armed forces, which arc already subject to
3-70
regulation by the UNDS program, be explicitly excluded from the VGP requirements proposed
here. In doing so, EPA should spell out that the exclusion applies during construction, sea trials,
maintenance, repair, overhaul, and to floating dry docks utilized for such purposes.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0274.1, Excerpt 2 and comment
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0277.1, Excerpt 10 for information on specific vessel types and
operations. In addition, the VGP states in Part 1.2 that it does not apply to vessels of the Armed
Forces, as defined in §312(a)(14) of the CWA. EPA has not included the explanatory language
suggested by the commenter regarding the scope of that definition, as it is outside the scope of
today’s action. Instead, EPA refers the commenter to the existing regulations implementing
UNDS, including the applicability provisions, at 40 CFR Part 1700.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Cynthia L. Brown, President
American Shipbuilding Association (ASA)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0392.2
4
No
Comment: When utilized for construction or any other work performed on vessels covered by a
VGP, ASA recommends that EPA clarify that discharges incidental to the normal operation of a
floating dry dock are covered under the VGP as well. As stated above, land-based, stationary dry
docks are already covered by NPDES permits, as are discharges associated with work performed
on a vessel that are not incidental to the normal operation of the vessel. ASA also recommends a
further clarification that a transportation vessel's VGP covers discharges incidental to the normal
operation of that vessel while it is under construction, maintenance, repair, or overhaul in a
floating dry dock because a shipyard cannot be reasonably held responsible through an nimes
permit for discharges from vessels that the shipyard does not control. Lastly, and again, EPA
should clarify that any transportation vessels under construction on the water, if intended to be
regulated by this proposal, will be done so through a VGP, which should cover such vessels the
instant they become waterborne. To do otherwise would leave ambiguous the point at which a
vessel under construction becomes a transportation vessel for purposes of issuing a VGP under
this proposal. The point at which a vessel under construction is launched from a stationary dry
dock into the water is the most logical and easily identifiable point to determine its status as a
transportation vessel.
Response: Please see response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0274.1, Excerpt 2 and
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0277.1, Excerpt 10 for a discussion of the applicability of
the VGP to floating drydocks and vessels under construction. To address this and other
comments, EPA has included language in the Fact Sheet to clarify at what point the VGP covers
discharges from vessels under construction. As noted in Section 3.5.2 of the Fact Sheet, “with
respect to vessels under construction, when the vessel is engaged in sea trials which result in
operational discharges, because testing is a critical part of vessel operation, such discharges
would be incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, and thus eligible for coverage under this
VGP. However, any discharges resulting from construction activities are not covered by the VGP
as they are incidental to vessel construction, not vessel operation.”
3-71
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Christian Myers, Vessel Operations Manager/Port Captain
Interstate Navigation Company (The Block Island Ferry)
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0393.1
3
Yes
Comment: It is our understanding that EPA had exempted discharges “incidental to the normal
operation of a vessel” from having to have a permit under the Federal Clean Water Act. We were
told that due to a recent lawsuit by west coast environmental groups, Federal courts have ruled
that EPA had no legal authority to issue this exemption. In response to the court ruling, EPA’s
longstanding exemption for these vessel discharges will expire on September 30, 2008, and in
the absence of judicial or full legislative relief, EPA must develop a permitting system by
September 30. We believe that our vessels which are over 79 feet should be afforded the same
congressional or judicial relief that was afforded to vessels less than 79 feet. Operational
procedures are not that different between the two size “classes”, especially in light of the fact
that our largest vessel is less than 200 feet in length.
Response: EPA notes that this comment was submitted after the August 1, 2008 deadline. EPA
is not legally obligated to respond to late comments. However, EPA responds by noting that
Congress decided not to exclude non-recreational vessels greater than 79 feet in length from
NPDES permitting requirements. EPA does not have the authority to enlarge that Congressional
exclusion as commenter suggests. EPA further notes that while commenter’s largest vessel is
subject to the VGP, it will not be required to submit a Notice of Intent if that vessel does not
have the capacity to hold or discharge more than 8 cubic meters of ballast water. Recreational
vessels have been removed from the NPDES permitting program by the Clean Boating Act of
2008, which was signed into law on July 29, 2008. Discharges incidental to the normal operation
of non-recreational vessels of less than 79 feet and fishing vessels of all sizes are not subject to
the VGP, except for ballast water discharges, due to P.L. 110-299 that was signed into law on
July 31, 2008. For more information on this legislation, please see Section 2.5 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John L. Wittenborn, Outside Council
Shipbuilders Council of America (SCA)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0406.1
2
No
Comment: We are writing to seek clarification in the final rule regarding the applicability of the
VGP to floating drydocks and to ships that are undergoing repair or construction. Although
nothing in the proposed VGP specifically excludes these discharge scenarios, we believe that the
proposed VGP should be amended explicitly to cover discharges incidental to the normal
operation of. (1) floating drydocks; (2) vessels in drydock, and; (3) vessels under construction.
Each of these recommended clarifications is discussed further below. I. Floating drydocks are
vessels subject to the proposed VGP a floating drydock is a type of vessel used for lifting ships
or boats out of the water so that they can be repaired, maintained, or rescued and transported.
Floating drydocks contain floodable ballast tanks that are used to raise and lower the drydock
3-72
and to maintain stability while a vessel is in the drydock. When valves are opened these tanks are
filled with water and the drydock partially submerges. A ship is then moved into position over
the submerged drydock and, when ballast water is pumped out of the ballast tanks, the drydock
floats to the surface lifting the ship to be serviced out of the water. Ballast water flow is critical
during the actual raising and lowering of the ship-dock combination and significant safety issues
can arise if this process is not rigorously managed while ships are transported in and out of the
water. Nearly every large shipyard in the world utilizes floating drydocks as part of their
operations. Drydocks typically remain moored dockside at shipyards to increase stability and
worker safety, but these drydocks remain mobile and often are moved around the shipyard
depending on the work to be performed. Usually, drydocks are towed into position (much like
barges), but numerous types of drydocks have their own propulsion systems. Traditionally, in
practice and for regulatory purposes, drydocks are treated as vessels. The uniform national
discharge standards for vessels of the armed forces ("unds"), upon which EPA relied in drafting
the VGP, covers (with minor exceptions) all vessels of the armed forces and specifically includes
drydocks.2 critically, the UNDS state that "[d]ischarges related to a floating drydock's function
as a vessel are covered by UNDS and do not require authorization by NPDES permits." /_2
armed forces vessels subject to the UNDS regulations include most watercraft or other artificial
contrivances used, or capable of being used as a means of water transportation by the armed
forces. Examples of such vessels are ships, submarines, barges, tugs, floating drydocks, and
landing craft, as well as boats of all sizes. Phase i uniform national discharge standards for
vessels of the armed forces; technical development document, 1-2 to 1-3 (Apr. 1999). /_2 sca
believes that the regulatory approach in UNDS is appropriately inclusive and consistent with the
district and Ninth Circuit courts' rulings in nw. Envt i advocates et al V. EPA. In this case, the
District Court invalidated a NPDES exemption which applied to all vessels.3 the injunctive
remedy required by the District Court's September 30, 2008 deadline is to eliminate that
exemption and force EPA to regulate or license all previously-exempted vessels. The Ninth
Circuit upheld the District Court's holding. EPA's proposed remedy in the VGP is responsive in
that it appears to be inclusive of all previously exempted vessels, including drydocks. EPA's
proposed response to the courts' ruling is to issue general permits to both commercial and
recreational vessels. The VGP for commercial vessels generally mirrors the UNDS categories for
vessel discharges and generally covers all "commercial vessels." sca seeks clarification that the
discharges associated with normal operations of a commercial drydock will itself fall within the
scope of the VGP, as is does within the UNDS. Sca is not seeking to cover under the VGP
industrial discharges associated with ship repair or construction in the drydock, such as abrasive
blasting or other hull cleaning activities. These discharges are already subject to existing NPDES
permitting obligations. However, we strongly encourage EPA to make clear that discharges
incidental to the operation of the drydock itself are covered under the VGP. /_3 40 C.F.R.
122.3(a). /_3 ii. Vessels undergoing maintenance or repair in drydock are subject to those
vessels' VGP as a ship is placed into drydock, and even after the ship is raised from the water,
several discharges incidental to the operation of the vessel may occur and continue. These
discharges include water from the cooling and fire-main systems and ballast water.4 /_4
typically, a ship may continue to discharge ballast as it is being raised until the ship and the
drydock lift process are completed, and for some time thereafter. Often, a ship's crew may
remain aboard the vessel while in drydock, necessitating continued operation of the cooling and
fire-main systems. The cooling water system will discharge continuously while in operation. /_4
although under UNDS these discharges are distinguished from other incidental discharges that
occur while a ship is waterborne, sca seeks clarification and consistency with the definition of a
discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel and recommends that these discharges
3-73
while the vessel is in drydock should remain subject to the VGP. Cooling water, ballast water,
and fire-main are all discharges incidental to normal operation of a vessel under the Clean Water
Act ("CWA")5 as well as the proposed VGP. The fact that these incidental discharges from the
ship may continue while in drydock does not, in any way, change the nature of the discharges,
nor should it, in any way, amend the ship owner's duty to regulate these discharges consistent
with the ship's VGP. The CWA specifically states that the discharge from the testing, repair, and
maintenance activities are included in the definition of discharges that the CWA classifies as
"incidental to the normal operation of a vessel" whenever the vessel is waterborne6. This
differentiation in the language of the Clean Water Act means that the normal discharges
emanating from vessels in drydock (e.g., even when the ship is not waterborne) are incidental to
the normal operation of the vessel and therefore included in within the scope of 40 CFR 122.3
and by extension, should be covered under a VGP. /_5 33 U.S.C. 1322( 12)(a)(i). /_5 /_6 33
U.S.C. 1322( 12)(a)(ii). /_6 the CWA exclusion at 40 C.F.R. 122.3(a) applies to vessels
operating as a means of transportation. The transportation distinction in 40 C.F.R. 122.3(a)
addresses stationary vessels such as immobile seafood processors, mining platforms, oil and gas
platforms, and dockside storage vessels. The primary purpose of the vessels enumerated in the
CWA requires these vessels to remain stationary. The primary purpose of a transportation vessel,
whether or not in drydock, is to provide transportation. Simply because the vessel is not carrying
out a transportation purpose at a particular time does not mean that the vessel ceases to be a
transportation vessel subject to the CWA's incidental discharge exclusion. A different
interpretation would yield an absurd result - any transportation vessel that stops to refuel or take
on or discharge passengers or cargo would cease to be a transportation vessel subject to the
incidental discharge exclusion for that period. EPA has never interpreted this exclusion in this
matter and should not do so here. The alternative would be to require these discharges to be
regulated under the facility NPDES permit. While this may be feasible for some shipyards,
particularly those that are responsible for both the ship and land-side operations (e.g., U.S.
Navy), it is not possible for commercial drydock operators to assume responsibility for
operational discharges from vessels not under their control. Sca recognizes that industrial
discharges related to the repair or maintenance of the ship are appropriately regulated under the
shipyard's NPDES permit. As previously stated, ongoing discharges from vessels being repaired
or maintained in drydock are incidental to the normal operation of that vessel. In some cases,
ships crews are still living aboard the vessel while in drydock during planned events. In other
cases vessels may be required to be dry-docked because of some mechanical emergency. A
shipyard's NPDES permit cannot foresee, and account for, discharges from vessels not under the
control of the shipyard. As such, it is necessary that these incidental discharges continue to be
regulated under the ship's VGP. III. Waterborne vessels under construction should be regulated
under the VGP even if still under construction ship construction commences on land but
eventually is completed on the water. Potential releases resulting from construction, repair, or
maintenance while the ship is landside are regulated by the shipyard's individual NPDES permit.
Once a vessel is in the water, operations that generate normal unds-type discharges prior to ship
delivery to the owner, such as sea trials, should be treated identically to other incidental
discharges and therefore be regulated under a shipyard VGP. Once the ship is delivered, it should
be subject to the owners VGP. The UNDS states that a ship becomes a vessel of the armed forces
when construction is complete and the armed services take control of the ship. The UNDS
regulatory distinction is not applicable here because the UNDS definition of a vessel of the
armed forces creates a distinction based on ownership and not on whether the ship is a vessel.
The UNDS needed to distinguish between a vessel of the armed forces (which is covered under
the unds) and a non military ship (which is not subject to unds). The UNDS does not state that a
3-74
ship under construction is not a vessel. It simply states that it is not yet a vessel of the armed
forces. Clearly, a waterborne ship under construction remains a vessel in the same way a fully
constructed ship is a vessel. Waterborne transportation vessels that are under construction also
remain transportation vessels despite being incomplete or not fully tested. As explained in
Section H, the CWA incidental discharge exemption only applied to transportation vessels, and
not those whose primary purpose requires them to remain stationary, such as storage, seafood
processing, or resource extraction vessels. The distinction was significant for purposes of the
CWA incidental discharge exemption because stationary vessels do not have the same incidental
discharges as transportation vessels and their stationary nature makes them more akin to a
dockside or waterborne facility subject to NPDES. In the case of a waterborne transportation
vessel under construction, the vessel's purpose is to provide transportation on the water and, in
the common case of sea trials, the vessel may, in fact, transport across the water. Issuing the
VGP once the vessel is waterborne, as opposed to when it is first used in transportation, allows
for a much more identifiable and consistent trigger for the VGP. With the rare exception of
vessels that would have to be dry-docked after launch, once a vessel is waterborne, it remains
waterborne. A vessel begins to transport in increments. Once launched, the vessel may be towed
to service areas (much like a barge). Its engines are started and ship navigation systems may be
used to steer the vessel or for testing. Additionally, vessels are all tested during sea trials. Each of
these scenarios is akin to transportation but, unlike launching, none provide a clear and
consistent trigger for VGP permitting. Waterborne ships under construction should therefore be
regulated under a VGP issued to the ship as soon it is waterborne. Iv. Conclusion EPA’s
proposed VGP program provides a reasonable, fully protective, and cost-effective means of
complying with the courts' orders requiring elimination of the NPDES exemption for discharges
incidental to the normal operation of vessels. Consistent with the courts' holdings, EPA has
correctly proposed to regulate incidental discharges from "all commercial vessels." drydocks are
mobile waterborne commercial vessels subject to the VGP and should be specifically listed in
this rule so that clear distinctions can be made between land-based drydocking structures, which
are typically regulated under a shipyard's NPDES permit. Additionally, vessels in drydock do not
cease to be vessels subject to the VGP program, nor do they necessarily cease having discharges
incidental to the normal operation of vessel. Discharges incidental to the normal operation of a
vessel in drydock should continue to be regulated under the dry-docked ship's VGP because the
owner of the ship in drydock continues to control incidental discharges while in drydock. We
request that EPA clarify this important distinction. Finally, ships under construction become
waterborne and begin having discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel as soon as
basic ship systems come online. Ships under construction are also operated in sea trials, during
which these vessels have discharges incidental to their normal operation as a vessel. We request
that EPA include VGP coverage for all waterborne vessels, including those that may still be
under construction.
Response: This comment is identical to comment 310.1, excerpt 2, except for the conclusion,
which is an additional summary of the commenter’s full comment, and is addressed in other
excerpts from the commenter. See response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0310.1
excerpt 2.
3-75
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bill Moore, P.E., Manager, Program Development Services,
Water Quality Program
State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology)
State Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0410.1
3
No
Comment: 1 the definition of "waters subject to this permit" should clearly state that the subject
waters are greater than three nautical miles from shore in some areas as defined in state law.
According to the Washington state constitution, state waters extend more than 12 nautical miles
from shore in some places. Our state water quality standards apply in all state waters. All
references to 3 nm for waters subject to this permit should be changed to accommodate any
greater distance existing in any state's law, 2 Section 1 3 2, limitations on coverage, sewage: the
definition of"pollutant" in Clean Water Act (CWA) paragraph 502(6) says: "this term does not
mean (a) "sewage from vessels " the meaning of Section 312 of this a c t " CWA Section 312 is
titled marine sanitation devices and the definitions in 33 CFR 159.3 for its implementation only
address controlling the discharge of fecal coliforms CWA Section 312 and the regulations
promulgated in accordance with it are clearly intended to only address sanitation concerns by
controlling fecal coliforms. However, CWA paragraph 502(13) provides another separate
definition of "toxic pollutant" that is much broader in scope and specificity than Section 312 or
paragraph 502(6). The vessel general permit should therefore limit toxic pollutants in all vessels
discharges including sewage. We have whole effluent toxicity test results on cruise ship sewage
with 48-hour lc5os for Americamysis bahia as low as 3.2% effluent. Dilution of the sewage
sample at a ratio of 1:16 parts clean lab water was not sufficient in some tests to remove
significant toxicity to either mysids or purple sea urchins. The total ammonia concentration in
these cruise ship sewage samples could be as high as 53 mg/l and metals or surfactants are also
possible toxicants. Sewage from vessels contains toxic pollutants which EPA is legally required
to control and the draft permit should be revised to meet this requirement. In addition, state water
quality standards for bacteria are now expressed in terms of enterococci as well as fecal
coliforms. Bacterial contamination accounts for a large share of 303(d) listings in this state and
around the nation. Nutrients are a growing national concern as well, especially in marine waters
such as puget sound, hood canal, and Chesapeake Bay. CWA Section 3 12(b)(l) requires the
USCG to set standards for marine sanitation devices which prevent the discharge of inadequately
treated sewage. We believe that changes in treatment technology and the widespread water
quality impairment around the nation caused by bacteria and nutrients now require a more
stringent standard for adequately treated sewage than when CWA Section 312 and 33 CFR 159
were first written. CWA Section 312(f)(4)(a) instructs the EPA administrator to prohibit
completely the discharge of sewage from vessels if a state demonstrates that it is necessary to
protect state waters. Such demonstrations will be unnecessary if the vessel general permit
requires adequate treatment of vessel sewage now. 3 limitations on coverage: the permit states
that discharges of the following materials are not eligible for coverage: used or spent oil (Section
1 2 33), garbage or bash (Section 1.2.3 4), photo processing effluent (Section 1 2 3 5), effluent
from dry cleaning operations (Section 12.3 6), medical waste as defined in 33 US C 1362(20)
and related materials (Section 1.2.3.7), and noxious liquid substances residues subject to 46 CFR
1531 102 (Section 1.2 3 8). To avoid confusion among the vessel operators and members of the
public who won't take time to read the permit's fact sheet, permit language should make clear in
each case that discharges of these substances are prohibited.
3-76
Response: The geographic scope of the permit reflects the jurisdictional reach of the CWA’s
NPDES permitting program with respect to discharges from vessels, specifically discharges from
vessels operating as a means of transportation, and that jurisdictional reach extends only three
miles from the ordinary low water mark, i.e., the “territorial sea” as the term is used in the Clean
Water Act. See, CWA §§ 502(12)(B) and 502(8), 40 CFR 122.2 (defining “discharge of a
pollutant”). See also, VGP Fact Sheet Part 3.1 and response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-20080055-0319.1, excerpt 3. Although Washington State may have a more extensive definition of
State waters or apply its water quality standards beyond the three mile territorial sea under state
authorities preserved by CWA § 510, this does not extend the jurisdictional reach of the NPDES
permitting program beyond the scope specified by Congress in the CWA.
“Sewage from vessels” as defined in CWA § 312(a) (i.e., 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 on the Great Lakes, such term includes graywater) are not subject
to regulation under the VGP because they are not subject to NDPES permitting under the CWA.
See, CWA § 502(6)(B) and VGP Part 1.2.3.2. Besides fecal coliforms, the standards under the
CWA § 312 program also include solids (40 CFR 140.3). With respect to toxicity of sewage
caused by ammonia, we note that ammonia is associated with the breakdown of human body
waste associated with retention of such waste in holding tanks. With respect to concerns
expressed as to other toxic pollutants not created by sewage, we note that the VGP already
contains numerous provisions to limit or prohibit such discharges (e.g., no coverage for industrial
or non-incidental discharges (VGP Part 1.2.3.1); no discharge of used or spent oil (VGP part
1.2.3.3); no discharge from photo processing or dry cleaning operations (VGP Parts 1.2.3.5 and
1.2.3.6); no discharge of tetrachloroethylene degreasers (VGP part 1.2.3.9); proper storage of
toxic and hazardous material (VGP Part 2.1.2); limitations on AFFF discharges (VGP part 2.2.5);
limitation with respect to cathodic protection (VGP Part 2.2.7) water quality based limits (VGP
Part 2.3.1). Se also, VGP Fact Sheet Parts 3.5.1 and 3.5.2. With respect to the commenter’s
recommendation for more stringent standards to be developed under CWA § 312, we note that
such recommendation is outside of the scope of the permit.
With respect to the suggestion that the VGP should state certain discharges are “prohibited,”
instead of the current formulation providing they are “not eligible for coverage” under the VGP,
we believe that the current approach of stating such discharge are ineligible for coverage under
the VGP clearly informs even a cursory reader that they are not authorized by this permit. See
also discussion in VGP Fact Sheet 3.5.2. Such ineligible discharges would be prohibited by
operation of CWA § 301(a), unless eligible for coverage under another permit and such coverage
is obtained. We thus believe the suggested change is unnecessary and decline to make the
suggested change.
3-77
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Herbert C. Frost, Associate Director, Natural Resource
Stewardship and Science
National Park Service
Federal Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0413
4
No
Comment: P. 3: why is there an exception related to coverage of graywater discharge on the
Great Lakes?
Response: Graywater discharges from commercial vessels on the Great Lakes are included in the
definition of sewage under CWA Section 312. Section 502(6)(A) of the CWA excludes sewage
within the meaning of CWA Section 312 from the definition of “pollutant.” Thus, sewage is not
covered by NPDES permit requirements, and because graywater discharges from commercial
vessels on the Great Lakes are considered sewage, those discharges are not regulated by the
VGP. See also Section 3.5.1.15 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kathy Hansen, Executive Director
Southeast Alaska Fishermen's Alliance (SEAFA)
Commercial Fishing
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0414.1
1
Yes
Comment: We appreciate that the EPA realized the only practical permitting process was a
general permit that covers categories of vessels. We still question the applicability of including
commercial fishing vessels in a category that consists of large vessels, barges, ferries and large
passenger vessels. It appears in reading through the Federal register and the “national pollutant
discharge elimination system (NPDES) vessel general permit for discharges incidental to the
normal operation of commercial and large recreational vessels” fact sheet that EPA still is not
recognizing that commercial fishing vessels come in all sizes. In the “fact sheet” Section 3.3
page 14 – 15 states that according to the vesdoc data, there are 33,550 U.S. owned commercial
fishing vessels with a cod in US waters and further states that any vessel owned by a U.S. citizen
that gross tons and therefore even though they fish they do not qualify for receiving a certificate
of documentation. EPA needs to re-evaluate the universe of commercial fishing vessels if the
Federal legislation is not implemented. For example, Alaska in 2007 registered or licensed 9,828
commercial fishing vessels, ranging in length from 7 feet to 635 feet. Over 2,000 of these Alaska
commercial fishing vessels are of 20 feet or less in length, over 2,000 are from 21 to 29 feet,
4,404 are from 20 to 49 feet and 497 are over 79 feet. So, it is likely that just under half of the
Alaska commercial fishing vessels were considered in the universe of this permit.
3-78
Response: EPA notes that this comment was submitted after the August 1, 2008 deadline. EPA
is not legally obligated to respond to late comments. However, EPA responds by noting that
commercial fishing vessels (as defined in 46 USC 2101) are not subject to the VGP, except for
ballast water discharges, because of P.L. 110-299. For more information on this legislation,
please see Section 2.5 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Robert T. Miller, Counsel
Ocean Shipholdings, Inc.
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0420.1
7
No
Comment: http://www2.ergweb.com/commresponse/docs/EPA-HQ-OW-2008-00550420.1.pdfSection 1.2.1 provides that permit coverage will extend to all discharges incidental to
the "normal operation of a vessel.. . ." the term "normal operation" is not defined; however, some
of the discharges covered, such as underwater ship husbanding or unanticipated spills and
operations such as drydocking, are not considered "normal operations" by OSI. (also, see Section
1.2.3.1 for the converse permit discharges outside the scope of the permit.) A clear definition of
"normal operations" is needed to permit vessel owners and operators to determine whether
discharges from a particular operation are covered by the permit. Section 1.2.1 excludes vessels
of the armed forces, defined at 33 CFR 122(14) as "any vessel owned or operated by the
department of defense.. . ." from the permit. Osi manages two vessels for the maritime
administration ("marad), both of which are owned and operated by marad while in reserve
operating status ("ros”). Marad is an agency of the department of transportation. When activated
to full operating status ("fos”), these vessels transfer to operational control of the U.S. Navy, an
arm of the department of defense. Osi and similarly situated marad ship managers require some
clarification as to whether the permit will even apply to marad vessels and, if so, when. Also, if
the permit applies while the ships are in ros status but ceases to apply when the vessels are in fos,
will a notice of withdrawal be required? Likewise, will a subsequent NOI be required when the
ships return to ros?
Response: For discussion and interpretation of “discharges incidental to normal operation of a
vessel” refer to such responses to comments as EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0274.1 excerpt: 2 and
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0277.1 excerpt 10; see also VGP Fact Sheet 3.5.2.1. In addition, the
permit clearly identifies what discharges are incidental to the normal operation of a vessel by
listing the discharges subject to the permit at Section 1.2.2. With particular respect to
“underwater ship husbanding” we note such discharge are included within the list of discharges
incidental to the normal operation of a vessel for purposes of the CWA § 312(n) program (see 40
CFR 1700.4(x) for description of underwater ship husbandry) and that the UNDS program, as
general matter, only applies to discharges from vessels of the Armed Forces that are within the
scope of the 40 CFR 122.3(a) NPDES vessel exclusion. CWA § 312(a)(12)(B)(iii) and 40 CFR
1700.3 (definitions of “discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel”); see also VGP
Fact Sheet Part 3.5.1.22.
With respect to the types of MARAD vessels discussed in the comment we note that such vessels
are not “vessels of the Armed Forces” subject to regulation under the CWA § 312(n) “UNDS”
3-79
program (see 40 CFR 1700.1(a) and 63 Fed. Reg. 45305, col. 1 (August 25, 1998)). Unless
otherwise exempted from NPDES permitting by P.L. 110-299, vessels in the MARAD National
Defense Reserve Fleet (NRDF) that are operationally capable (e.g., the ready reserve fleet) are
subject to the VGP when in waters subject to the VGP (generally, inland waters and the 3 nmi
U.S. territorial sea). See also response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0387.1, excerpt 14.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Robert T. Miller, Counsel
Ocean Shipholdings, Inc.
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0420.1
13
No
Comment: For all of the reasons outlined above, and for reasons outlined in comments
submitted by Intertanko, the U.S. chamber of shipping and the American petroleum institute,
OSI urges the Environmental Protection Agency to obtain the time necessary to develop a clearer
understanding of the vessel discharges which need to be regulated and to promulgate a clear,
cogent general vessel permit which provides specific and attainable standards to be followed by
the seagoing industry and which comports with standard regulation within the international
maritime community as expressed in Marpol and other international maritime treaties.
Response: Comments from INTERTANKO, U.S. Chamber of Shipping, and the American
Petroleum Institute are addressed elsewhere in this response to comment document, as are the
specific comments contained in this comment letter. This comment generally summarizes the
commenter’s views as to a need for a clearer understanding by EPA of vessel discharges needing
regulation, the need for a clear VGP with specific and attainable standards, and consistency with
international standards, issues which are addressed ad discussed in other related responses to
comments as set out elsewhere in this response to comment document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Captain Gus Gaspardo, General Manager
Padelford Packet Boat Company, Padelford Riverboats
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0422.1
2
No
Comment: Most small passenger vessels like those owned and operated by padelford packet
boat company do not carry or discharge ballast water. Furthermore, our vessels operate on the
Mississippi River in St. Paul, MN. We are not licensed to operate more than 1 mile from shore
our average trip travels 8 miles upriver and back. Because the lawsuit centered on ballast water
issues we feel we are being unfairly included in the broad web this permitting process casts.
Response: While the lawsuit was centered on ballast water discharges from vessels, the court
decisions vacated the NPDES permitting exclusion for all discharges incidental to normal vessel
operations, not just ballast water, and therefore, the VGP is designed to cover all incidental
discharges so that vessels will not, upon vacatur, be violating the CWA by discharging without
3-80
an NPDES permit. See Sections 2.3 and 2.4 of the VGP Fact Sheet for a discussion of the legal
challenge and court decisions that compelled EPA to issue the VGP.
Discharges incidental to the normal operation of non-recreational vessels of less than 79 feet and
commercial fishing vessels of all sizes are not subject to the VGP, except for ballast water
discharges, due to P,L. 110-299. For more information on this legislation, please see Section 2.5
of the Fact Sheet. In addition, EPA recognizes the unique circumstances of vessels which are
considered medium cruise ships and are unable to operate outside of one nautical mile. EPA has
adjusted the permit requirements for discharges of graywater from medium cruise ships
accordingly. See Part 5.2.1.1.1 of the VGP and response to similar comments in this document
for additional information.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Captain Robert F. Zales II, President
National Association of Charterboat Operators (NACO)
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0428.1
3
Yes
Comment: We feel that the classification of vessels in two categories, "VGP" vessel general
permit and "RGP" recreational vessel permit, are too restrictive and do not adequately identify
the various types of vessels to be covered under each permit. To this point, the vast majority of
recreational charter boats, uninspected or inspected by the United States Coast Guard certificate
of inspection (USCG coi), are identi cal in size and equipment and those that are not are very
similar. We have at tached information to describe two basic charter boats (one uninspected/one
with a USCG coi) they came out of the same moldso are the same length and width. Since the
primary difference in the vessels is simply their length, breadth, and pas senger capacity, and
issued a USCG coi or not, we wish to stress any potential im pact to our waterways is little, if
any, than the vessels you identify as 79' or less . In fact, since the USCG coi vessels are currently
required to under go annual and 24 month inspections by USCG personnel, we argue they are
less likely to impose any problems on our water ways. It needs to be noted here that there are a
multitude of ways to categorize vessels, length, breadth, gross tonnage, style, etc. We suggest
that all small recreational charter boats (uninspected and with a USCG coi) as defined by the
U.S. code of less than ioo gross tons fall under the RGP. Recreational charter boats do not have
ballast water tanks and do not transfer ballast water from one water body to another. We fully
support efforts to eliminate all invasive species in trusion and fully support your ballast water
proposal for the larger vessels that utilize ballast water tanks. Our vessels are required to keep
thevessel bilges clean and free from oil and other pollutants so we do not feel that any
recreational charter boat, regardless of length, should be required to file any NOI. Charter boats
routinely depart and return to the same dock on a daily basis so there are no issues of invasive
species associated with these vessels. In reading the proposed guidelines of the RGP, we suggest
that you include all charter boats, regardless of length, under the RGP due to the fact that these
vessels operate in a similar man ner. As stated above, these vessels are very similar, operate in
similar manners, always use best management practices, and depart and return to the same dock
on a daily basis. There is no reasonable reason to discriminate one charter boat from another. We
suggest if you include all small passenger vessels (as defined in the U.S. code), regardless of
length, in the RGP that the need to initiate a full regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) is greatly
3-81
diminished. However, should you choose to make no changes to the proposed language we
request a full and complete rfaas the impact of your proposal will have a substantial impact on
those charter boats and our industry.
Response: EPA notes that this comment was submitted after the August 1, 2008 deadline. EPA
is not legally obligated to respond to late comments. However, EPA responds by noting that the
RGP is not being finalized due to recent congressional action (P,L. 110-288), which provides
that recreational vessels are exempt from NPDES permitting. In addition, discharges incidental
to the normal operation of non-recreational vessels of less than 79 feet and commercial fishing
vessels of all sizes are not subject to the VGP, except for ballast water discharges, due to P,L.
110-299. For more information on these enactments, please see Section 2.5 of the Fact Sheet.
The application of the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act is discussed in detail in the
Federal Register Notice announcing today’s permit. EPA has determined that the VGP is not
likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
addition, see response to comments [ECON] for more details.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Captain Robert F. Zales II, President
National Association of Charterboat Operators (NACO)
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0428.1
4
Yes
Comment: The two boats pictured below are both of fiberglass construction and were built from
the same mold . Both boats are 52' long with a beam of 17'7" wide. The blue vessel with the
cabin and flying bridge is the Seminole wind and is USCG certified to carry 28 passengers. The
vessel carries 600 gallons of fuel, has a single 735 hp diesel, a 12 kwdiesel generator, one head,
full galley, 3 cabins, and large fishing cockpit. She carries no ballast water. As a USCG coi
vessel, the owner is required to have annual safety inspections, and bi annual hull inspections
where the vessel must be hauled out of the water. These inspections by the USCG consist of a
USCG inspector checking all safety equipment, hull integrity, all piping, all bilge areas,
machinery, steering, and ability to operate in offshore conditions for safe operation. The white
vessel, Aegeus, is the identical hull with an open cockpit configuration. It has twin diesel engines
of a total 1260 hp, 12 kw generator, two heads, two cabins, open fishing cockpit, partial galley,
and carries 600 gallons of fuel. She carries no ballast water. This vessel does not have a USCG
coi and is considered to be a recreational vessel, uninspected, that can carry up to 6 passengers.
This vessel has no government requirement to be hauled out for any type inspection, has no
government scheduled safety inspections, and operates on the same waters as the Seminole wind.
The Aegeus is a typical recreational vessel that is in charter fishing service because she has a
USCG licensed captain operating her. As anyone can plainly see, these two vessels are identical
hulls, operate in very similar fashions on similar water ways, and have the same potential impact
on the resources. The current bills s2766 and hr5949 exempt the Aegeus from any permitting for
the Clean Water Act while they specifically do not exempt the Seminole wind. Is it reasonable to
exempt one of these vessels but not the other? These vessels are almost identical with the major
exception being that the Seminole wind has a USCG coi . Having no answer as to why these two
vessels are being treated differently in these bills is the primary reason naco cannot support the
two bills in their current form . The vast majority of the charters fishing vessels in the United
3-82
States are very similar to these in most all configurations. The potential impact from these
vessels are very similar on all of them and is no more than the millions of private recreational
vessels that operate on the same waters.
Response: EPA notes that this comment was submitted after the August 1, 2008 deadline. EPA
is not legally obligated to respond to late comments. However, EPA responds by noting that
discharges incidental to the normal operation of non-recreational vessels of less than 79 feet and
fishing vessels of all sizes are not subject to the VGP, except for ballast water discharges, due to
P.L. 110-299. For more information on this legislation, please see Section 2.5 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bert Rogers, Executive Director
American Sail Training Association (ASTA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0431.1
2
No
Comment: Recreational vessels are exempt from this requirement (by legislative action). We
are also aware that there will be a two-year moratorium of its application for all fishing vessels
and commercial vessels under 79 feet. Asta member vessels pose a lesser pollution threat than
these classes of vessels by any measure: aggregate volume of discharge per vessel or per class of
vessel, and the potential for pollution in any single discharge. Compared to these other classes of
vessels, sail training vessels carry very small amounts of fuel, and are less reliant on potentially
polluting machinery installations. Sail training vessels do not carry cargo. Sail training vessels
rely on fixed ballast, and do not employ ballast tanks. We therefore request that sail training
vessels be exempted from this permit requirement because of their de minimus impact.
Response: As the commenter correctly notes, discharges incidental to the normal operation of
non-recreational vessels of less than 79 feet and commercial fishing vessels of all sizes are not
subject to the VGP, except for ballast water discharges, due to P.L. 110-299. Recreational
vessels have been removed from the NPDES permitting program by the Clean Boating Act of
2008 (P.L. 110-288), which was signed into law on July 29, 2008. For more information on these
laws, please see Section 2.5 of the Fact Sheet. EPA does not have the authority to enlarge these
Congressional exclusions as commenter suggests. See also responses to other comments in this
document related to the issue of de minimis exemptions.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bert Rogers, Executive Director
American Sail Training Association (ASTA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0431.1
5
No
Comment: The basis for the limitations and practices included in the permit is also
questionable. For example, deck runoff is regulated because "nutrients resulting from vessels are
also thought to be discharged from deck runoff, vessel graywater, and vessel bilgewater, among
3-83
other sources" (emphasis added). Implementing a whole new regulatory program on what is
thought rather than what is known does not appear to be a supportable basis for proceeding with
this program. - is there reasonable data on the special or temporal impact of each discharge
subject to this permit? - if not,shouldn't there be an interim time in which more data is gathered
and any modifications, if needed, developed before enforcement begins?
Response: At the outset, we note that the VGP is not a “new regulatory program”, but an
NPDES permit being issued in light of the decision by the District Court in the NWEA litigation
that will vacate the existing NPDES permit vessel exclusion in 40 CFR 122.3(a) as of the date
established for such vacatur by the court. See discussion of litigation in VGP Fact Sheet Part 2.4.
As of the date of vacatur of the § 122.3(a) exclusion, discharges incidental to the normal
operation of vessels (e.g., deck runoff, graywater, bilgewater) that are not statutorily exempted
from NPDES permitting will be in violation of CWA § 301(a) unless authorized by and NPDES
permit. With respect to seeking an extension of that date from the court, see e.g. response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0343.1, excerpt 6.
With specific respect to the commenter’s reference to nutrients, we note that graywater will
contain nutrients and that depending upon the operational practice of vessels, deck runoff and
bilgewater also can be sources of nutrients; we further note that deck runoff will certainly
contain other constituents of concern (e.g., oil, rust, material residues), as would bilgewater (e.g.,
oil, rust, contaminants in water draining to bilges). Omitting such discharges from the VGP
would mean they are not authorized for discharge by an NPDES permit, and we further note that
where we did not have sufficient data to establish numeric limits, the VGP primarily relies on the
use of narrative, flexible BMPs.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Bert Rogers, Executive Director
American Sail Training Association (ASTA)
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0431.1
13
No
Comment: EPA has noted in its webcast that foreign flag vessels are subject to the requirements
of the VGP only when they are within the three-mile limit of U.S. waters. Knowing exactly what
requirements are applicable during a limited time in U.S. waters is needed if foreign flag vessels
are to be held accountable for compliance with permit requirements. The proposed permit does
not make it clear. - if an ASTA member with a foreign flag vessel comes to the United States for
only a few days once a year, what requirements are applicable? - if an ASTA member with a
foreign flag vessel comes to the United States for only a few days once a year, what
recordkeeping is required? If compliance is only required within three miles, are only the actions
taken within three miles required to be recorded?
Response: For information on the applicability of the VGP to foreign-flagged vessels and
vessels while outside of the waters subject to this permit, please see, e.g., the responses to
Comments EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0319.1, excerpt 3 and EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0328.1,
excerpt 4.
3-84
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Keri A. Christ
Southold Citizens for Safe Roads (SCSR), the Group for the
East End (GEE) and North Fork Environmental Council
(NFEC)
Environmental Group
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0433.1
10
Yes
Comment: B. Parts 12.1 and 12.2—federally protected waters and national parks and refuges.
Parts 2 and 5 of the proposed permit prohibit discharge of (1) deck washdown and runoff; (2)
aqueous film forming foam; (3) boiler/economizer blowdown; (4) graywater; (5) motor gasoline
and compensating discharge and (6) ballast water to the waters referenced in part 12. /_13for
example, vessels greater than 400 gross registered tons shall not discharge treated bilgewater into
these waters unless necessary to maintain safety and stability, and for all vessels, discharges of
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) may not occur in or within 1 nm of these waters with few
exceptions, and boiler/economizer blowdown may not be discharged in or within 1 nm of these
waters except for safety purposes, nor may firemain systems be discharged in these waters
except in emergency situations or when washing down the anchor chain to comply with anchor
wash down requirements. All vessels that have the capacity to store graywater may not discharge
that graywater into these waters and vessels that cannot store graywater, vessel operators must
minimize the production of graywater while in these waters. Lastly any effluent created by
washing the decks may not be discharged into these waters. /_13 we request clarification of the
criteria used to include the waterbodies and monuments on the part 12 list. Is Federal designation
or protection for conservation purposes a criteria? Does a “unit of the national park system,
including national preserves and national monuments” include national natural landmarks? The
national park service administers the nnl program and we believe that the 600 nnls of the United
States, to the extent that these are likely to be effected by vessel operations, should be included
in the part 12 list. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the peconic estuary and orient beach
state park, national natural landmark (“nnl”) located within the town of southold’s hamlet of
Orient, Long Island be placed on the part 12 list. Csf and other ferry companies operate in
estuarine waters in close proximity to orient’s nnl. The purpose of the national natural landmarks
program is to recognize and encourage the conservation of outstanding examples of our
country’s natural history, /_14 http://www.nature.nps.gov/nnl/ /_14 and to identify and preserve
natural areas that best illustrate the biological and geological character of the United States, to
enhance the scientific and educational values of preserved areas, to strengthen public
appreciation of natural history, and fosters a greater concern for the conservation of the nation’s
natural heritage. /_15 36 C.F.R. §62.1(b) (2007) /_15 most importantly, nnl regulations and the
national environmental policy act require Federal agencies to consider nnls when assessing the
impacts of their actions on the environment. /_16 36 C.F.R. §62.6(f) (2007) /_16 one of the
objectives of the nnl program is for Federal government agencies to take this fact into account
when making planning and land use decisions. /_17 64 fed. Reg. 25711 (may 12, 1999) /_17 the
VGP is an opportunity for EPA to take nnls into account to safeguard the nation’s waters. We
also believe that the 28 estuaries of national significance should be placed on the part 12 list.
/_18 http://www.nationalestuaries.org/images/neps/nep_map.jpg /_18 in order to effectively
carry out their purpose to implement conservation and management plans, including priority
corrective actions and compliance schedules, the managers of these estuaries must be in a
position to assess the impact on water quality of point source inputs. /_19 33 usca 1330/_19 most
3-85
importantly, the ability of managers to develop coordinated implementation of the Federal and
local agencies participating and to monitor the effectiveness of actions taken pursuant to their
plans would be undermined if these estuaries were omitted from the list. We respectfully request
that Long Island Sound and Peconic Bay be placed on the part 12 list. In 1992, the Peconic
Estuary was designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as an “estuary of
national significance” under the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). /_20
http://www.epa.gov/region02/water/nep/peconic.htm /_20 it is one of 28 such estuaries
nationwide. As defined by the peconic estuary program, the peconic estuary consists of all open
waters, harbors, creeks west of an imaginary line from orient point to montauk point. /_21
www.peconicestuary.org/pathogen_TMDL.pdf /_21 the overall focus of the peconic
comprehensive conservation management plan (ccmp) is on protectpreservation of water quality,
living resources and habitats, along with restoration where degradation has occurred. Orient is
located in the peconic estuary watershed, and is one of the 17 critical natural resource areas
(cnra) identified within the estuary by the U.S. fish and wildlife service in 1996 (see attached
map). Cnras are geographically specific locations that have significant biodiversity and may
require an extra level protection to preserve their unique characteristics. Csf’s ferry terminal is in
the orient and csf operates its vessels within the orient cnra. In April 1980, long beach, orient
state park was designated nnl 00458 by the secretary of the interior as containing nationally
significant ecological features. /_2216 U.S.C. 641, 36 C.F.R. pt. 62 (2007). /_22 it is “one of the
finest remaining examples in new york of a sand-gravel spit illustrating succession from salt
marsh to maritime forest. The area contains a breeding colony of common and roseate terns,
species which are becoming scarce in other North Atlantic breeding grounds.” /_23
http://www.nature.nps.gov/nnl/registry/usa_map/states/newyork/nnl/lb/index.cfm /_23 long
beach is owned by new york state and is one of only 25 nnls in all of new york state. According
to the US fish and wildlife service orient point is part of a “significant coastal habitat” /_24
http://training.fws.gov/library/pubs5/necas/web_link/7_orient%20point.htm /_24 (see attached
map/_25 http://training.fws.gov/library/pubs5/necas/web_link/images/opi1_1b.jpg /_25): the
stretch of sand beach along the peninsula of long beach and orient beach is a relatively extensive,
high value site for nesting colonies of piping plover (charadrius melodus), a U.S. threatened
species, and least tern (sterna antillarum). It is considered to be one of the best sites on long
island for piping plover, and is certainly of regional significance as a colonial bird-nesting site.
Beaches and sand ridges in the orient point area contain populations of at least three regionally
rare plant species, and historical records for several others: scotch lovage (ligusticum scothicum),
slender knotweed (polygonum tenue) and sea-beach knotweed (polygonum glaucum). …of
special significance in this same area are stands of an unusual type of maritime red cedar forest,
in which the individual trees are low-growing (3-6 feet in height; 1-2 meters) and circular in
form, many of which are quite old. There is also an interesting stand of blackjack oak (quercus
marilandica) on orient point, the northern limit for this species. Recent studies indicate that the
waters of Gardiners Bay, the Peconic Bays and other bodies of water in this general area may
serve as important summer feeding and nursery areas for juvenile kemp's ridley (lepidochelys
kempii), one of the rarest sea turtles and a U.S. endangered species, and for other federallyprotected sea turtle species.
Response: EPA notes that this comment was submitted after the close of the public comment
period, and because of that, EPA is under no legal obligation to respond to it. However, EPA
responds by noting that, as stated at the beginning of Part 12 of the VGP, the areas listed
represent a complete list of select classes of waters that was not filtered by EPA. EPA notes that
the list includes units of the National Park System, including National Preserves and National
3-86
Monuments. It does not include National Natural Landmarks (NNLs) because the NNL program
is voluntary, and while it is administered by the National Park Service (NPS), NNLs are not units
of the NPS, nor owned by the NPS. The list also does not include state parks. The list consists of
nationally designated Federal resources, and EPA notes that with respect to state designated
resources, including estuaries in the CWA Section 320 National Estuary Program, if a state
believes that those resources need additional protections, the state can include limitations on
discharges into those resources through the CWA Section 401 certification process. Please see
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0309.1 excerpt 31 for additional discussion
regarding areas included in Part 12 of the Permit. For a discussion of why EPA has not
conducted a NEPA analysis for the VGP, see, e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-20080055-0433.1, excerpt 11.
3-87
4.
AUTHORIZATION/TERMINATION/NOI/NOT
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Chris Muzzy
Marine Spill Response Corporation
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0271
1
No
Comment: General comments to whom it may concern, I understand that if this permit is issued
in September, vessel and barge owners will have to submit an NOI for each applicable vessel
individually. Many vessels and barges in MSRC's fleet have similar characteristics (same
tonnage, ballast tank capacities, etc). It would be an additional burden to submit a NOI for each
applicable vessel and barge MSRC owns, and to maintain individual documentation for same. A
vessel owner should be able to submit one NOI for like/similar vessels, and be given as much
flexibility as possible, as long as all applicable vessels are covered. This will not only minimize
the burden on submitters, but also on the EPA personnel reviewing the NOIs.
Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. While an NOI is required for each individual
vessel and one cannot submit a single NOI for an entire fleet EPA is minimizing the burden of
NOI requirements on permittees. 40 C.F.R. 122.28(b)(2)(ii) requires that the contents of a Notice
of Intent (NOI), must “require the submission of information necessary for adequate program
implementation,” and include, “at a minimum…the facility name and address,” which for a
vessel, is captured in the VGP’s NOI form as the vessel name, registered identification number,
call sign, and port of registry. See Part 10 of the VGP for further details about the content of the
NOI form. In order to efficiently and properly administer the VGP, EPA is requiring the specific
information unique to each vessel. EPA plans to design the electronic NOI system to minimize
the administrative burden on owner/operators with multiple vessels, and will make efforts to
enhance the system’s functionality. In addition, EPA believes that submission of one NOI for
multiple vessels could complicate EPA’s ability to require a specific vessel to obtain an
individual permit where appropriate. Though EPA is not committing to any specific approaches
at this time, possible methods to minimize the burden may include, for example, the ability to
pre-populate the forms when vessels have identical information. EPA is also exploring options
for batch imports from other vessel owner/operator databases to minimize the burden placed on
those vessel owner/operators with hundreds or thousands of vessels.
The electronic NOI system will be available in 6 months after Permit issuance.
4-1
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John Pertgen, Assistant Director, Offshore Technical and
Regulatory Affairs
International Association of Drilling Contractors
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0277.1
11
No
Comment: Section 3.8.1 no requirement to submit a notice of intent (NOI) for certain
commercial vessels IADC supports the proposal to delay submission of NOI’s until six months
after permit issuance. IADC strongly believes that an outreach effort should be made to inform
owner/operators of affected vessels, particularly foreign vessels, of the requirements and means
of applying for coverage. An information paper submitted to the international maritime
organization’s marine environment protection committee may be an appropriate vehicle for such
notification. In addition, suitable notice should be given to the world trade organization
regarding the establishment of the permit requirement as a technical barrier to trade. Section
3.8.2.1 owner / operators required to submit NOIs IADC supports the proposed timeframes
associated with permit coverage and vessel delivery as specified in the fact sheets. Section 3.9.2
when to submit a notice of termination IADC believes that further clarification is required to
address the issue of termination of the permit when “operation of the vessel has ceased in waters
subject to the permit.” Numerous vessel types, both foreign and domestic, trade outside the U.S.
territorial seas on a routine basis, often for prolonged periods of time, yet are expected to return
to the U.S. territorial seas. IADC does not believe that it is reasonable to require repeated filing
of notices of intent and termination for such vessels. IADC recommends addition of the
following text to this Section: termination of the permit is not required when a vessel dEPArts
the waters subject to the permit when it is known or intended that the vessel will return to waters
subject to the permit within the period of validity of the permit.
Response: In addition to the outreach effort following permit proposal (see FR Notice, June 17,
2008), EPA made an informal presentation at MEPC 58. EPA also intends to provide an
information paper as well as conduct appropriate outreach at industry association meetings.
With respect to notifying WTO, EPA does not agree that this imposes a technical barrier to trade
and will not be notifying the WTO as such.
The VGP does not require a vessel owner/operator to submit a Notice of Termination (NOT)
every time the vessel leaves waters subject to this permit and another Notice of Intent (NOI)
every time the vessel returns to waters subject to this permit. For additional information
regarding the applicability of the VGP to vessels that regularly leave and return to waters of the
U.S., please see, e.g., the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0319.1, excerpt 3.
4-2
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John Pertgen, Assistant Director, Offshore Technical and
Regulatory Affairs
International Association of Drilling Contractors
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0277.1
24
No
Comment: 1.5.1.1 vessels required to submit notices of intent (NOIs) IADC recommends the
following addition to table 1. Category NOI deadline discharge authorization date* vessel
entering waters 30 days prior to entry 30 days after complete NOI subject to this permit received
by EPA after June 30, 2009 our proposed 30-day prior notice is consistent with that required for
vessels being placed into service in the United States, and is likely workable for our membership,
as our members’ vessels infrequently move between countries. We believe that EPA should
assess its ability to be more responsive and provide a shorter period for vessels actively trading
internationally, so as to reduce the potential for disrupting trade. In addition, this section uses the
term ‘gross registered tons’ in order to determine eligibility and to establish requirements for
submission of a notice of intent. No definition of the term has been offered in the proposed
permit, and it appears that there is some confusion within EPA regarding the meaning of this
term as it is equated with ‘weight’ (e.g., in the proposed one-time report) when it is an adjusted
measure of volume. Further, ‘registered tonnage’ is generally used in reference to vessels trading
internationally, i.e., under ‘registry’, and may not be applicable to vessels employed wholly in
domestic service. To further complicate matters, measurement of vessels to determine their
tonnage (e.g., in accordance with Coast Guard regulations in 46 CFR part 69) is not required of
all the vessels potentially subject to the provisions of the proposed permit. Accordingly, IADC
believes that the EPA should consider using the term ‘gross tonnage’ in lieu of ‘gross registered
tons’ in the permit and should work with the Coast Guard to establish a definition for ‘gross
tonnage’ for inclusion in appendix a of the permit. 1.6.1.2 when to submit a notice of termination
as discussed in detail in our comments provided regarding the fact sheet, IADC believes that the
provisions of the permit regarding operation outside waters subject to the permit need to be
clarified. Accordingly, IADC suggests the following change: • you have ceased operating the
vessel in waters subject to this permit and do not intend for the vessel to return to waters subject
to this permit and there are no longer vessel discharges; or • you have obtained vessel-specific
coverage for the vessel under an individual or alternative general permit for all discharges
required to be covered by a NPDES permit, unless you were directed to obtain this coverage by
EPA in accordance with part 1.8. 1.6.1.3 suspension of the permit as discussed in detail in our
comments offered on the fact sheet, IADC recommends the addition of a new section addressing
suspension of the permit for those periods when a vessel may be in waters subject to the permit,
but is temporarily covered by another NPDES permit. IADC suggests the addition of the
following: 1.6.1.3 suspension of the permit the permit is automatically suspended when the
vessel is placed under the coverage of: • a NPDES permit for energy or mining facilities, storage
facilities, seafood processing facilities, or vessels that are secured to a storage facility or a
seafood processing facility, or when secured to the bed of the ocean, contiguous zone, or water
of the United States for the purpose of mineral or oil exploration or development for which a
NPDES permitting program had been developed prior to September 29, 2008; or • a NPDES
permit for a shipyard or ship repair facility. The suspension applies for the duration of the period
of coverage under the other permit. An entry in the vessel’s official log or other recordkeeping
4-3
document shall be made identifying the permit under which the vessel was placed and the
duration of coverage.
Response: EPA has the authority to establish dates for NOI submittal and the authorization to
discharge, pursuant to 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)(iii). The waiting period between submission of an
NOI and authorization to discharge allows EPA an opportunity to assess the appropriateness of
the VGP requirements for the vessel, considering the vessel type and discharge types, and to
require an individual permit application if appropriate. For each vessel which may make a trip to
waters subject to this permit, the owner/operator should plan accordingly. For additional
information, please see Section 3.7 of the Fact Sheet.
For information on the requirement for vessels of more than 300 gross tons to submit an NOI,
please see Section 3.7 of the Fact Sheet.
For information on the applicability of the permit to vessels that frequently leave and re-enter
waters subject to the permit, please see, e.g., the responses to Comment EPA-HQ-OW-20080055-0277.1, Excerpt 11 and Comment EPQ-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0319.1, Excerpt 3 and EPAHQ-OW-2008-0055-0328.1, excerpt 4.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Captain Joel Hanson
Boat Company
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0282.1
2
No
Comment: Our two vessels are similar in design and passenger/crew capacity, each being
approximately 150 feet long carrying less than 25 passengers and 13 crew. Neither vessel carries
ballast water. Due primarily to peculiarities and loopholes in the USCG's admeasuring system,
our two vessels, though quite similar, have been issued quite different gross registered tonnage
amounts, i.e. <100 GRT and 403 GRT. EPA proposes to require operators of all covered vessels
over 300 GRT to file NOIs. This means that due to our two vessels' different GRTs alone (not
due to any substantive differences between the vessels) one of them would be automatically
issued a general permit and the other would require an NOI filing. This seems unreasonable
considering each vessel is of similar size and similar design, and each conducts similar activities
with similar numbers of passengers. We believe that since the proposed permit creates special
categories for passenger vessels, i.e. medium cruise ships and large cruise ships, and since
inspected passenger vessels tend to be already heavily burdened with requirements for manning,
training, equipment and operations, EPA should grant automatic issuance of general permits to
all inspected passenger vessels not fitting into the medium or large cruise ship categories,
regardless of their GRT. In other words, EPA should require operators of medium and large
cruise ships and uninspected vessels over 300 GRT to file NOIs. Such a change could release a
significant number of already heavily regulated and inspected operators of smaller passenger
vessels from having to file NOIs, while maintaining the NOI requirement in the case of medium
and large cruise ships and all large commercial vessels not receiving regular inspections by the
USCG, such as large fishing vessels and tug boats. Of course, we feel it is reasonable for vessels
4-4
carrying more than eight cubic meters of ballast water to be required to file an NOI regardless of
their GRT.
Response: EPA disagrees that it should “grant automatic issuance of general permits to all
inspected passenger vessels that do not fit into the medium or large cruise ship categories,
regardless of their [Gross Registered Tonnage (GRT)].” First, EPA notes that is has clarified the
requirement for submission of an NOI to require submission from vessels that are equal to or
greater than 300 gross tons, vs. gross registered tons. Secondly, all permittees, regardless of
whether or not they submit an NOI, must comply with the VGP’s requirements in order to
maintain permit coverage.
See, e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0298, excerpt 4 for a discussion of
why EPA has chosen the 300 gross ton cut-off as part of the criteria for requiring submission of
an NOI. For further information on requirements to submit an NOI, please see Section 3.7 of the
Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stanley F. Chelluck
Bouchard Transportation
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0283
2
No
Comment: First, we urge EPA to modify the notice of intent requirements to avoid imposing
overly burdensome administrative requirements on tugboat, towboat, and barge industry
operations. In particular, we urge the agency to: • exclude barges from the requirement to submit
a notice of intent to be covered by the vessel general permit. Unmanned barges not only have
less potential to discharge the number and volumes of toxic and conventional pollutants that the
permit is designed to control, but are also typically operated in ways incompatible with the
structure of the NOI and notice of termination requirements as drafted. (a barge may be chartered
to multiple operators in a relatively short period of time, making the proposed NOI/not
submission process cumbersome and burdensome.) • exclude self-propelled vessels under 300
gross tons that are currently subject to the NOI requirement because they have the capacity to
carry 8 cubic meters or more of ballast water, provided they meet certain operational conditions.
Current U.S. Coast Guard regulations for ballast water reporting exempt from coverage vessels
that employ certain operational conditions to minimize or eliminate the potential for introduction
of aquatic nuisance species, such as using only water from commercial or municipal sources for
ballast or taking on and discharging ballast water in the same location. EPA should review these
Coast Guard-recognized conditions and exempt vessels that meet them from the requirement to
submit a notice of intent. • establish a fleetwide NOI option, allowing vessel owners to submit a
single NOI covering the entire listed fleet. Provisions should be added to make it simple for an
owner to add new vessels to the fleetwide NOI, either prospectively or retroactively. • amend the
NOI so that coverage of all 28 listed discharges is assumed, unless a vessel owner affirmatively
excludes a listed discharge. Because a vessel may be outfitted with different equipment or enter a
different service in the course of the permit’s validity period, this will prevent unnecessary
paperwork violations of the permit terms. As long as the best management practices in the permit
are complied with, the environmental protection objectives of the permit will have been met.
4-5
Response: Several changes have been made to the NOI requirements, including substituting
gross tons for gross registered tons. However, it is unnecessary to remove the requirement to
submit an NOI for barges more than 300 gross tons regardless of whether or not they are
unmanned. As discussed in Section 3.7 of the Fact Sheet, EPA has chosen 300 gross tons as a
cut-off for submission of an NOI because these larger vessels will each individually have a
greater volume of discharge and are more likely to have greater volumes of discharges of
concern. In addition, the cut-off is consistent with Coast Guard requirements, including those for
environmental control. Furthermore, EPA will use information submitted through NOIs to
inform future iterations of the VGP, and make necessary adjustments to the permit’s
requirements.
Although the Coast Guard regulations in 33 CFR 1151.2010(b) do exclude vessels that operate
exclusively within one COTP zone from the ballast water recordkeeping requirements of 33 CFR
151.2045, we do not believe that exceptions developed specific to the context of ballast
water/invasive species concerns provide a similar basis for determining when an NOI is needed
to obtain coverage under the VGP. First, the VGP addresses the full range of discharges
incidental to the normal operation of vessels. While exclusive operation of a vessel in one COTP
zone may be evidence of lower risk for spreading invasive species, it is not a predictor of lower
risk for the numerous other discharges the VGP addresses (e.g., the potential for impacts from
bilgewater or deck runoff via oil or hazardous material constituents is not reduced because of the
vessel’s exclusive operation in the same water body). Second, unlike the VGP NOI requirement,
the ballast water recordkeeping provisions in the Coast Guard regulations are more frequent, as
such reports generally are to be filed on per-voyage basis (see 33 CFR 151.2041), whereas the
NOI requirement only applies when a vessel needs to obtain coverage under the VGP. With
respect to the 8 cubic meter ballast water capacity criteria used in VGP Part 1.5.1.1 in
determining which vessels are subject to the NOI requirements, we note that number was used in
light of the February 2004 IMO Ballast Water Management Convention Regulation A-5. That
Regulation uses the 8 cubic meter capacity criteria to determine which recreational and search
and rescue craft are excused from literal compliance with the treaty’s ballast water exchange and
discharge standards. While we recognize that the U.S is not signatory that Convention, nor is it
in force internationally, we drew upon the 8 cubic meter ballast water capacity for use in
determining which vessels are subject to the VGP’s NOI requirements as it is premised upon a
judgment that such limited ballast water capacity reflects a lower environmental risk.
See, e.g., response to comment 271.1 excerpt 1 for a discussion of why NOIs cannot be
submitted on a fleet-wide basis.
With respect to amending the NOI to provide coverage of all discharges listed in the VGP, we
note that when a vessel submits an NOI, it does obtain coverage of all VGP-eligible discharges,
whether or not the owner/operator checks each box. However, EPA does request the
owner/operator to check the boxes that correspond to those discharges that the vessel will have to
assist EPA’s information gathering process, in order to further refine the VGP the next time it is
issued.
4-6
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
David Daly
Marathon Oil Company
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0287.1
5
No
Comment: Comment #8: the proposed system of “notice of intent” (NOI) for coverage under
the VGP is burdensome and ineffective, specifically for inland tug/barge fleets. This system
needs to be modified to allow for providing NOIs for an entire fleet of vessels belonging to one
owner. This will be much less burdensome to the regulated community while providing EPA and
the Coast Guard the information they need on the vessels that are being permitted under the
VGP.
Response: For information on why an NOI must be submitted for each vessel meeting the
requirements of Part 1.5.1.1 please see, e.g., response to Comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-00550271, Excerpt 1.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
David Daly
Marathon Oil Company
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0287.1
12
No
Comment: Comment 16: Section 1.5.1.1, paragraph 2 – states that EPA strongly urges NOIs to
be submitted via EPA’s electronic notice of intent (eNOI) system. However, Section 10.1.1.1.2,
paragraph 2 – states that all NOIs “must” be completed and filed using the eNOI system. The
web site states that the regulated community must: “use this system only if your construction site
or industrial facility is located in a state in which EPA is the permitting authority. Please note
that EPA's multi-sector general permit (msgp-2000) expired at midnight on October 30, 2005 so
you cannot currently use eNOI to submit notices of intent for industrial activities or no exposure
certifications for exclusion from NPDES stormwater permitting.” MPC proposes to allow
alternative means of submitting NOIs to the EPA (i.e. electronic, hard copy, etc.).
Response: Response to Comment #16: EPA encourages all prospective permittees to submit
NOIs using the eNOI system, however, as stated in Part 10.1.1.1.2, the NOI must be submitted
either through the eNOI system or by mailing a completed NOI form to EPA at the address
listed. The website commenter refers to is for submission of NOIs for the Multi-Sector General
Permit (MSGP) for stormwater discharges. There will be a new eNOI system for the VGP that
can be found at www.epa.gov/NPDES/vessels/eNOI.
4-7
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Michael Borgstrom, President
Passenger Vessel Association (PVA)
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0297
8
No
Comment: The proposed general permit sets out various types of authorized discharges. U.S.flagged passenger vessels may engage in a number of such discharges, including: deck runoff;
anti-fouling leachate; cathodic protection; chain locker effluent; gray water; non-oily machinery
wastewater; and seawater cooling overboard discharge. The types of discharges may vary from
passenger vessel to passenger vessel. As stated, most don't discharge ballast water. The proposed
general permit gives automatic coverage to a vessel of no more than 300 gross tons or that has a
ballast water storage capacity of no more than 8 cubic meters. There needs to be no notice or
application to the EPA for the operator of such a vessel to take advantage of the general permit.
Nearly all us.-flagged commercial passenger vessels fall under these thresholds. Therefore, very
few operators of a commercial passenger vessel will have to file with EPA a notice of intent to
take advantage of the general permit.
Response: Commenter is correct in noting that vessels that are smaller than 300 gross tons and
do not have the capacity to hold or discharge 8 cubic meters of ballast water do not have to
submit an NOI to receive coverage under the VGP for the vessel’s eligible discharges. However,
these vessels will still be required to comply with all of the applicable terms and conditions of
the permit in order to be authorized to discharge under the permit. For information on discharges
authorized by the permit, see Section 3.5 of the Fact Sheet; for information on how to receive
discharge authorization, please see Section 3.7 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Rod Moore
West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA)
Commercial Fishing
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0298
4
No
Comment: Section 1.5.1.1 specifies that vessels greater or equal to 300 gross registered tons
(GRT) or vessels that have the capacity to hold or discharge more than 21 13 gallons of ballast
water must submit NOIs and NOTs. The EPA provides no sound basis or justification for this
size requirement. In fact, Sections 2.2.2, 2.2.6, and 2.2.15 and others in the VGP utilize a
different cutoff point (i.e. 400 GRT) for numerous permit requirements. EPA should be
consistent and use 400 GRT as the size requirement for vessels to submit NOIs and NOTs.
Response: In the final VGP, EPA has chosen 300 gross tons, rather than 300 gross registered
tons, as one of the criteria for whether or not a vessel is required to submit an NOI. A description
of this change, the reasons for it, and the effect it has on vessels owners and operators may be
found in Section 3.7 of the Fact Sheet. EPA disagrees that 400 gross registered tons should be
the cut-off for whether or not a vessel has to submit an NOI. As EPA notes in Section 3.7.1 of
the VGP Fact Sheet, EPA has chosen 300 gross tons as the threshold for NOI submission
4-8
because it would be inappropriate to require smaller vessels to provide information about their
discharges through submission of an NOI, and that 300 gross tons is consistent with U.S. Coast
Guard requirements.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dr. Ralph G. Appy, Ph.D., Director of Environmental
Management Division
City of Los Angeles Harbor Department (LAHD)
Local Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0301.1
10
No
Comment: Section 1.5.1.1 vessels required to submit notices of intent (NOI) as commented in
the general comment section above, informing small businesses, family owned fishing vessels,
small international shipping companies, etc. Of the U.S. EPA NPDES vessel permit requirements
will be difficult. Therefore, LAHD is concerned that EPA's current regulatory stance that "late
NOIs will be accepted, but authorization to discharge will not be retroactive" will be detrimental
to participation after the initial NOI filing dates. Indeed, it appears that vessel owners would be
penalized for filing an NOI if they become aware of the requirement after the filing date. The
LAHD respectfully requests that EPA focus on the benefits of registering vessels, consider the
difficulty of notifying all impacted vessel owners and establish procedures that incentivize
compliance, rather than discourage compliance.
Response: Owner/operators must submit an NOI in order to receive coverage under the VGP
only if their vessel is 300 or more gross tons or if their vessel has the capacity to hold or
discharge more than 8 cubic meters of ballast water. EPA anticipates that this category of vessels
will include very few small, family owned businesses. In addition, EPA has reached out to vessel
owners, operators, and their relevant trade associations to inform them of the VGP and its
requirements. All vessels will be covered by the VGP without submitting an NOI until 9 months
after the permit was issued, September 19, 2009. As of that date, however, any vessel required to
submit an NOI must do so in order to continue to be covered by the VGP. If a vessel
owner/operator is required to submit an NOI and does not do so by the dates specified in Table 1
of the VGP then the vessel is not authorized by the VGP to discharge into waters subject to the
permit. This is not a disincentive or penalty for not submitting an NOI, it is a failure to seek
permit coverage on the part of the owner/operator.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Vince Dickinson, P.E., Manager, Environmental Operations
Bath Iron Works (BIW)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0305.1
3
No
Comment: 2. As stated above, vessels under construction are only under control of the
construction company for short periods of time making submitting and terminating storm water
applications cumbersome. Considering these facts, BIW recommends that vessels under
4-9
construction be exempt fi-om the notification requirements of the VGP until completed.
Specifically, ship construction companies should comply with the effluent guidelines detailed in
the VGP but should not submit NOI's for each vessel while under construction. It would be the
responsibility of the final owner to submit the no1 once vessel construction is complete and the
vessel is fully operational.
Response: For information related to the applicability of the VGP to vessels under construction,
please see, e.g., the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0277.1, excerpt 10. The
VGP does not require submission of an NOI for coverage under the VGP for vessels under
construction until the discharges from those vessels are incidental to the normal operation of the
vessels, such as testing. See Section 3.5.2 of the Fact Sheet. In terms of NOI submission, Part 1.5
of the VGP provides that for new vessels delivered to the owner/operator after September 19,
2009, the VGP requires that an NOI be submitted no later than 30 days before the vessel will
discharge into waters subject to this permit.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Nina Bell, J.D., Executive Director
Northwest Environmental Advocates, et al
Environmental Group
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0309.1
6
No
Comment: B. Question: the approach for requiring NOIs for commercial vessels. We support
the approach that EPA has proposed to require NOIs for approximately half of the commercial
vessels. We agree that, for work load reasons, EPA should not attempt to require NOIs from all
vessels covered under this first permit. On the other hand, EPA needs a great deal of basic
information on the largest vessel dischargers and the NOI is a good way to obtain this
information.
Response: EPA agrees that NOIs are a good way to obtain basic information about vessels. The
VGP’s NOI form requires that vessel owner/operators provide basic information, such as types
of discharges that the vessels may generate. See Part 10.2 of the VGP for the complete NOI
form. EPA intends to use the NOI information gathered to inform decisions that will be made
regarding the second iteration of the permit. EPA plans use this information in characterizing the
vessel universe, including who owns and/or operates each type of vessel and identifying
additional vessel features which affect discharge streams. EPA expects that this information will
be used to better manage permittees under the VGP.
4-10
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Nina Bell, J.D., Executive Director
Northwest Environmental Advocates, et al
Environmental Group
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0309.1
20
No
Comment: B. Permit provisions concerning the information required for notice of intent,
monitoring, and reporting are inadequate in general, EPA has not required sufficient reporting
for owner/operators whose discharges are subject to this permit. Changes should be made with
respect to reporting of monitoring and ballast water management, the information required to be
submitted as part of the NOI, and reporting of noncompliance with the permit terms. 1.
Monitoring reports must be submitted at least once annually the lack of a requirement that
records be regularly submitted to EPA and other appropriate agencies is a significant oversight in
this draft permit. EPA's own regulations require that, at a minimum, monitoring reports be
submitted at least annually, and that they include a report of the volume of effluent discharged.
106 /_106 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(i). /_106 while the draft permit requires submission of greywater
monitoring results, it fails to require submission of information about a vessel's ballast water
discharges or information about the volume of ballast water and wastewater discharged. At a
minimum, EPA should require completion and submission of the national ballast information
clearinghouse's ballast water reporting form as well as annual reporting of the estimated volume
of all discharges. 2. Timely reporting of noncompliance the draft permit should require reporting
of noncompliance within 24 hours of discharging any ballast or wastewater in a manner
inconsistent with the terms of the permit. As drafted, noncompliance must only be reported in a
timely manner if it endangers health or the environment. While we recognize that this
requirement is virtually identical to that in EPA's NPDES requirements, it is too vague to be
consistent implemented. Instead, the permit should take an approach similar to that taken by at
least two other states – Alaska and Maine – which require reporting of all discharges of
wastewater that are inconsistent with the permit terms. We further urge that this approach be
taken with respect to ballast water as well and that all uptakes or discharges of ballast water in a
manner inconsistent with the permit requirements be reported within 24 hours. Such timely
reporting will provide a greater incentive for vessels to record and track instances of
noncompliance and will provide vessel operators with better guidance on what types of
discharges are likely to "endanger health or the environment." 3. Notice of intent must require
more information the notice of intent (NOI) is an key opportunity for EPA to collect much
needed information on the discharges of the fleet regulated under the permit. For this reason,
EPA must require submission of more specific information about all discharges. The checkbox
format EPA proposes is not sufficiently detailed to generate useful information about the
quantity and characteristics of vessel discharges. At a minimum, the NOI should require the
following information: • flag under whose authority the ship operates; • vessel age; • the volume
(estimated daily and maximum) of all discharges; • seasonality of voyages, if any (e.g., for cruise
ships and ferries); • the type and design of any onboard treatment systems for any waste stream; •
the intended (i.e., naval architect specifications) design capacity of any treatment system and the
actual treatment capacity; • discharge locations; • the type and design capacity of any waste
tanks, what waste streams are stored in the tanks, and the estimated number of days of waste the
tanks can hold; • the use of any one type of tank for other purposes (e.g., cargo used for ballast);
• the type and number of marine sanitation device or advanced wastewater treatment system
installed for treatment of sewage and/or graywater, the capacity of the systems, and effluent
4-11
quality designed and/or achieved; • the method of handling and disposal of sludge from the
treatment of graywater and/or sewage; • the method and frequency of disposing of ballast
sediment; • ballast water engineering diagrams; • number of overnight berths, for passengers and
crew; • maximum passenger capacity and maximum crew capacity; • the type of anti-fouling
coating used on the hull and when it was applied; • the vessel's hull husbandry practices; • the
existence of a source reduction plan to reduce pollutants in discharges, if any; • any civil or
criminal prosecution of the vessel in the last five years for violation of environmental laws; •
sources of ballast water (port name and location) and the salinity of the ballast source water; •
locations where ballast water will be discharged in the U.S. and their expected salinity; • volume
of ballast water discharged treated, if any; • volume of ballast water discharge untreated, if any; •
type and location of ballast water treatment and associated piping, if any, expected effluent
quality, actual effluent quality, and results of residual biocide monitoring; • if transiting the Great
Lakes, in which lakes does the vessel operate, does it exit the St. Lawrence seaway, does it exit
the eez? • whether the vessel already has a ballast water management plan; • the language spoken
by the majority of crew members; • the number, location, and capacities of all oily water
separators/oil content meters; • location of sampling ports for all effluent streams; and • last drydocking and schedule for next dry-docking; all if this information should readily be available to
the vessel owners and operators and much is currently required to be submitted under existing
state programs. California, for example, requires completion of a brief hull husbandry form 107
/_107 California state lanes commission, marine invasive species program, hull husbandry
reporting form, http://www.slc.ca.gov/spec_pub/mfd/ballast_water/ documents/
attachment_b_hullform.doc. /_107 and Alaska requires detailed information about wastewater
discharges as part of its NOI for cruise ships. 108 /_108 Alaska department of environmental
conservation, notice of intent form, http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/cruise_ships/gp/
2008_cpvec_NOI.doc. /_108 Michigan, Minnesota, and Maine are other states that require
submission of information. 4. Monitoring and metering must be required for ballast water
exchange or salt water flushing EPA must consider that it currently has no method, nor has it
proposed any in the draft permit, to ensure that the required ballast water exchange and salt water
flushing are performed. There are both near term and longer term methods of addressing this
issue. For ships which have loaded freshwater or near-freshwater ballast, measuring the salinity
of the ballast prior to discharge into U.S. waters are a rough indication of whether and how much
of an exchange was done in salt water. Such monitoring should be required in the permit both to
assess compliance and to obtain information in any instance where it applies. This will assist in
providing protection for freshwater receiving waters, such as the Great Lakes. However, for
ships that load ballast water from marine and brackish ports and discharge to the other marine or
brackish ports, the measurement of salinity is not adequate. For this reason, EPA must develop
other methods of assessing the degree to which ballast exchange or salt water flushing has taken
place. Metering, rather than monitoring, devices might be a low-cost method. 5. Recordkeeping
and reporting are both key to enforcement in sec. 6.3 of its fact sheet, EPA states its desire to
“streamline” the paperwork which it claims will “increase compliance and allows EPA to
achieve both permit enforcement and environmental protection goals.” It goes on to say that
inspection reports “may be kept in any form provided they can be made available to the EPA . . .
. There do not need to be multiple copies of the records.” The stated goals of streamlining
paperwork and meeting environmental protection are not consistent with regard to an industry
that heretofore has not been regulated. By, in the first instance, limiting the information that
vessel operators are required to record and, in the second instance, limiting the amount of
information vessel operators are required to report, EPA has effectively restricted its own ability
to enforce the permit, its ability to analyze the efficaciousness of its permit, and the ability of
4-12
states and citizens to enforce the permit’s terms or to judge whether a vessel is discharging
without permit coverage (i.e., has not submitted an NOI as required). EPA has not explained any
policy rationale why ships that discharge contaminated and frequently untreated or under-treated
effluent should be held to lesser standards of recordkeeping and reporting than this country’s
municipal and industrial sources which are also regulated under NDPEs permits. Its fact sheet
does not explain how streamlined requirements will result in either more compliance or more
enforcement. In this regard, EPA may be confusing its role in assuring compliance with the
Clean Water Act with the more limited role of the Coast Guard in assuring compliance with its
regulations, which are simply not the equivalent of the act and the requirements that attach to the
NPDES program. EPA undermines the ability of any agencies or third parties to enforce the
terms of the permit by ignoring the recent history of enforcement actions against ocean-going
vessels. Specifically, while EPA claims that there need not be multiple records, it is paperwork
that has allowed the U.S. department of justice to successfully prosecute numerous instances of
egregious ocean dumping. To make our point on the importance of paperwork, we quote the
following text from an insurance company that advises ship owners: we wish to draw attention to
a number of high profile cases in the USA, where the authorities have successfully prosecuted
shipowners and mariners for breaches of Marpol regulations in respect of the operation of oily
water separators and entries in oil record books. We have heard about engine room pipe work
arranged so that the separator has been bypassed or the sensor fooled and false entries made in
the oil record book. Criminal fines running into millions of dollars have been levied. In some
cases shipowners have additionally been placed under probation for periods of three to five years
at risk of suspended fines being imposed if there are any further Marpol breaches and also
members of the crew have been sentenced to imprisonment. The problem. Although the US
authorities have no jurisdiction over unauthorized discharges of oil and oily water by foreign
flagged ships in international waters outside the US exclusive economic zone (EEZ), the US
Coast Guard (USCG) has launched a campaign of strict inspections of the ships calling at US
ports in respect of the operation of the oily water separator and entries in the oil record book.
Actions by the crew or owners to conceal Marpol violations, for example by false entries in the
oil record book, uncovered during the course of a US investigation will result in criminal
liability. Under US law it is a felony to knowingly make or present false statements to USCG
investigators . . . .109 /_109 the britannia steam ship insurance association limited, the problem
of oily water separators, 10 risk watch 1, February 2003 at 1-2. /_109 very few, if any, of these
prosecutions could take place in the absence of the recordkeeping that both creates the authority
for us criminal prosecution and demonstrates the violations of existing Marpol regulations. EPA
should pursue the same line of reasoning in determining what records must be maintained for
purposes of demonstrating compliance with the NPDES permit terms as well as the benefits of
requiring that these records be reported. For example, if reports do not match later false entries
into record books, EPA has a basis for enforcement action. This should serve as a deterrent to
both violating permit terms and making false entries. Similarly, the reporting itself is a basis for
enforcement action which should serve as a deterrent to violating the permit terms. 6. EPA
should enhance information-gathering for enforcement recognizing that whistleblowers are on
the frontlines of environmental enforcement, EPA should establish a 24-hour hotline to accept
information on compliance violations for vessel discharges. The permit should require the
posting of placards with this phone number in prominent locations on vessels and dockside. The
information should be provided in languages likely to be spoken by the majority of crew
members of international vessels.
4-13
Response: As commenter notes, 40 C.F.R. 122.44(i)(2) states that requirements to report
monitoring results shall generally be established on a case-by-case basis with a frequency
dependent on the nature and effect of the discharge, but in no case less than once a year.”
However, the regulation goes on to state that “permits which do not require submittal of
monitoring reports at least annually shall require that the permittee report all instances of
noncompliance under 122.41(l)(1), (4), (5), and (6) at least annually.” 40 C.F.R. 122.44(i)(5).
Therefore, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 122.44(i)(5), the VGP requires submission by permittees of all
instances of noncompliance regarding planned changes, monitoring reports, compliance
schedules, and twenty-four hour reporting at least once a year, in accordance with 122.41(l). See
Part 4.4.1 of the VGP, which requires that all instances of noncompliance be reported at least
annually.
In prescribing the monitoring and reporting provisions of the VGP, EPA balanced the need for
obtaining relevant information from vessels about their discharges with the administrative
burdens associated with submitting and receiving information from the entire universe of
permittees under the VGP, which is estimated to be about 70,000 vessels. Because vessels that
discharge ballast water are already required to submit information to the Ballast Water
Clearinghouse and EPA can readily access the information provided on the forms submitted to
the Clearinghouse, it is not necessary to have vessel owner/operators also submit those forms to
EPA. In terms of the estimated volume of discharges, the NOI requires submission of this
information, and it is not necessary to receive this information annually because it is unlikely that
those estimates from a vessel will vary greatly from year to year.
Commenter incorrectly states that noncompliance must only be reported in a timely manner if it
may endanger health or the environment. The VGP also requires that any other instances of
noncompliance, including violations of provisions regarding ballast water, be reported annually.
This is consistent with the NPDES regulations, and the requirement for such a submission is a
clear mandate to permittees. If permittees do not comply with these provisions, they are violating
the CWA. See Part 1.4 of the VGP regarding permit compliance.
Commenter does not demonstrate how vessels covered by the VGP are subject to ‘lesser
standards’ than “this country’s municipal and industrial sources which are also regulated under
NPDES permits.” Furthermore, vessels do not have the broad flexibility that stationary sources
have, such as the ability to conduct extensive lab tests for monitoring and reporting purposes.
EPA does not need multiple records in order to inspect vessels for compliance and enforce the
terms and conditions of the VGP. For the most part, the VGP tracks existing recordkeeping
requirements, and EPA has the authority to access, review, and inspect those records. The
commenter does not point to any records that should be kept by vessels that are missing from the
recordkeeping requirements.
Several topics have been added to the NOI, including dry dock information, year vessel was
built, onboard treatment systems installed on the vessel, ballast water management practices, and
hull husbandry practices. Please see Part 10 of the VGP and Section 10 of the Fact Sheet.
To the extent that this comment suggests the establishment of a new 24-hour hotline specific to
vessel discharges, that is a request for a new program, which is outside the scope of this permit.
We further note EPA’s website includes a link to report possible violations of environmental
4-14
laws or regulations. See http://www.epa.gov/enforcement/complaints/index.html. For a response
to commenter’s suggestion of using placards, see, e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW2008-0055-0309.1, excerpt 25.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Nina Bell, J.D., Executive Director
Northwest Environmental Advocates, et al
Environmental Group
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0309.1
22
No
Comment: Sec. 1.5.1 how to obtain authorization we support EPA’s requirement that vessel
owners submit NOIs within six months of the permit issuance date with a three month grace
period. Sec. 1.5.1.1 vessels required to submit notices of intent (NOIs) we support EPA’s cut-off
for vessels required to submit NOIs at 8 cubic meters of ballast or greater than or equal to 300
gross registered tons. We are pleased that EPA will create a publicly available electronic system
for NOI submission. EPA notes in its fact sheet that NOIs are useful for information gathering
and we urge the agency to require more information from dischargers covered by this provision
both at the NOI stage and subsequent monitoring and reporting. EPA should strongly consider
requiring individual permits for large cruise ships as they are the equivalent of a small
municipality in the volume and quality of wastes produced onboard. Alternatively, EPA could
issue general permits by region for large cruise ships if it determined that the impacts of the
discharges were different. For example, discharges from cruise ships in Puget Sound, which is
both enclosed and subject to many other sources of pollution, may require a greater level of
restriction than elsewhere. Areas of shellfish harvesting similarly could require more stringent
effluent limits. EPA has adopted this regional type of general permitting for offshore oil and gas
facilities in different regions of the country (i.e. the gulf of Mexico has two different general
permits, one for region 6 and one for region 4; California has a general permit for offshore
facilities; and EPA has issued three different general permits for offshore facilities in Alaska –
north slope, cook inlet, & arctic).
Response: As noted in the response to Excerpt 6, EPA believes the NOI form will provide EPA
with useful information about vessels and their discharges. EPA intends to use the NOI
information gathered to inform decisions that will be made regarding the second iteration of the
permit. Also, additional categories of information have been added to the NOI form. NOIs are
required of all vessels that are 300 or more gross tons or that can carry or discharge more than 8
cubic meters of ballast water. For information on the NOI requirements, please see Section 3.7 of
the fact sheet. Rather than require individual permits for large cruise ships, EPA has included in
the VGP additional permit requirements that are specific to the unique nature of cruise ships.
Please see Part 5.1 and 5.2 of the permit and Section 7.1 and 7.2 of the fact sheet for additional
information.
4-15
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Alan L. Bish, Port Captain
Reinauer Transportation Companies, LLC
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0313.1
6
No
Comment: There should be a provision for establishing a fleet wide NOI option for vessels of a
like class. * barges should be excluded from the NOI requirement due to their unmanned status
and minimal discharge. (ballast regulated by USCG. * at present there are 28 listed discharges on
the NOI. There should be some provision that would allow additional sources of discharge to be
added to the permit in the future without penalty as this process evolves. Industry should not be
penalized if in the future additional sources of incidental discharge are revealed.
Response: For information regarding why a vessel owner/operator must submit an NOI for each
vessel which meets the requirements of Part 1.5.1.1 and not for an entire fleet, see, e.g., response
to Comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0271, Excerpt 1.
For information on the NOI requirements and how they affect unmanned barges please see
response to Comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0283, Excerpt 2.
If, in the future, additional discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel which
require permit coverage are brought to EPA’s attention, EPA has the option to re-open the permit
to include effluent limits and best management practices, as appropriate, that pertain to that
discharge. Additional discharges can not be added to the list of permitted discharges by the
permittee alone. Future modifications to the permit would generally require an additional public
notice and comment period. However, at this time, EPA believes it has addressed all relevant
discharges, including any that were brought to EPA’s attention through the public comment
period. If there are specific discharges that the commenter believes should be in the permit which
EPA has not included in the permit, those could have been raised in comments to EPA submitted
during the public comment period.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Barbara A. Carroll PE, Vice President, Health, Safety and
Environmental Affairs
Rowan Companies, Inc
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0314.1
5
No
Comment: Section 3.9.2 when to submit a notice of termination rowan believes that further
clarification is required to address the issue of termination of the permit when "operation of the
vessel has ceased in waters subject to the permit." numerous vessel types, both foreign and
domestic, trade outside the U.S. territorial seas on a routine basis, often for prolonged periods of
time, yet are expected to return to the U.S. territorial seas. Rowan does not believe that it is
reasonable to require repeated filing of notices of intent and termination for such vessels. Rowan
recommends addition of the following text to this section: termination of the permit is not
4-16
required when a vessel departs the waters subject to the permit when it is known or intended that
the vessel will return to waters subject to the permit within the period of validity of the permit.
Response: EPA notes the commenter is correct in that the permittee does not need to submit a
notice of termination (NOT) and a new notice of intent (NOI) every time the vessel leaves or reenters waters subject to this permit. As the VGP states, one of the circumstances in which an
NOT must be submitted is when “you have permanently ceased operating the vessel in waters
subject to this permit and there are no longer vessel discharges.” See Part 1.6.1.2 of the VGP
(emphasis added). For information on the applicability of the VGP to vessels the frequently leave
and re-enter U.S. waters, see, e .g., the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0319.1,
excerpt 3 and EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0328.1, excerpt 4.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Barbara A. Carroll PE, Vice President, Health, Safety and
Environmental Affairs
Rowan Companies, Inc
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0314.1
14
No
Comment: 1.6.1.2 when to submit a notice of termination rowan believes that the provisions of
the permit regarding operation outside waters subject to the permit need to be clarified.
Accordingly, rowan suggests the following change: you have ceased operating the vessel in
waters subject to this permit and do not intend for the vessel to return to waters subject to this
permit and there are no longer vessel discharges; or you have obtained vessel-specific coverage
for the vessel under an individual or alternative general permit for all discharges required to be
covered by an NPDES permit, unless you were directed to obtain this coverage by EPA in
accordance with part 1.8. 1.6.1.3 suspension of the permit rowan recommends the addition of a
new section addressing suspension of the pennit for those periods when a vessel may be in
waters subject to the permit, but is temporarily covered by another NPDES permit. Rowan
suggests the addition of the following: 1.6.1.3 suspension of the permit the permit is
automatically suspended when the vessel is placed under the coverage of: an NPDES permit for
energy or mining facilities, storage facilities, seafood processing facilities, or vessels that are
secured to a storage facility or a seafood processing facility, or when secured to the bed of the
ocean, contiguous zone, or water of the United States for the purpose of mineral or oil
exploration or development for which an NPDES permitting program had been developed prior
to September 29,2008; or an NPDES permit for a shipyard or ship repair facility. The suspension
applies for the duration of the period of coverage under the other permit. An entry in the vessel's
official log or other recordkeeping document shall be made identifying the permit under which
the vessel was placed and the duration of coverage.
Response: It is unnecessary to make the changes suggested by commenter. Part 1.6.1.2 of the
permit provides conditions that, if met, require the permittee to submit an NOT, including if the
owner/operator has “permanently ceased operating the vessel in waters subject to this permit and
there are no longer vessel discharges.” Please see the response to Comment EPA-HQ-OW-20080055-0319.1, excerpt 3 for information regarding the applicability of the permit to vessels while
operating outside waters subject to the permit and those vessels that frequently leave and re-enter
4-17
waters subject to this permit. This comment response also addresses commenter’s suggestion
about suspending the permit coverage when operating outside waters subject to the permit, which
is unnecessary.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
David C. Hanby, Jr., President & Chief Operating Officer
(COO)
McDonough Marine Service
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0317
2
No
Comment: With respect to submittal of notices of intent and notices of termination, our
company regularly charters barges for short term uses. We suspect the EPA has not realized the
workload that will be generated by the current proposed system. It will not be surprising to find
that EPA has not processed the NOI/not submittals by the time some of our charters have
finished. With respect to ballast water management, these barges operate within similar
geographic environments, making them less likely to transfer aquatic nuisance species of the
vessels being regulated. We suggest that unmanned barges be exempted from submittal of
NOI/not regulations.
Response: With respect to submission of an NOI for charter situations, see, e.g., EPA-HQ-OW2008-0055-0317, excerpt 3. As the Fact Sheet notes, because of the large number of vessels that
will be required to submit NOIs and the number of discharges from those vessels, the permit
includes provisions that delay submission of an NOI for a six to nine month period after the
permit is issued. This period of time will provide EPA with time to develop an appropriate and
effective electronic system to receive and process NOIs for this new universe of NPDES
permittees. See, e.g., response to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0274.1, Excerpt 2 and
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0277.1, Excerpt 10 for information on the applicability of the VGP to
different classes of vessels. For more information on the NOI submission requirements, see Part
1.5 of the Permit and Section 3.5 of the Fact Sheet. See, e.g., response to comment 283 excerpt 2
for a discussion of the applicability of the NOI requirements to unmanned barges that are either
larger than 300 gross tons or have the ability to hold or discharge at least 8 cubic meters of
ballast water.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Charles F. Nalen, Vice President, Environmental, Safety and
Quality Assurance
Crowley Maritime Corporation
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0319.1
8
No
Comment: Also given the range of vessels that crowley operates we recommend that the EPA:
* establish a fleet notice of intent (NOI) option, allowing vessel owners to submit a single NOI
covering the entire listed fleet. Provisions should be added to make it simple for an owner to add
4-18
new vessels to the fleet NOI, either prospectively or retroactively. * exclude unmanned barges
from the requirement to submit an NOI to be covered by the vessel general permit. Unmanned
barges not only have less potential to discharge the number and volumes of toxic and
conventional pollutants that the permit is designed to control, but are also typically operated in
ways incompatible with the structure of the NOI and notice of termination (not) requirements as
drafted. * exclude self-propelled vessels under 300 gross tons that are currently subject to the
NOI requirement because they have the capacity to carry 8 cubic meters or more of ballast water,
provided they meet certain operational conditions. Current U.S. Coast Guard regulations for
ballast water reporting exempt from coverage vessels that employ certain operational conditions
to minimize or eliminate the potential for introduction of aquatic nuisance species, such as using
only water from commercial or municipal sources for ballast or taking on and discharging ballast
water in the same location. EPA should review these Coast Guard-recognized conditions and
exempt vessels that meet them from the requirement to submit a NOI. * amend the NOI so that
coverage of all 28 listed discharges is assumed, unless a vessel owner affirmatively excludes a
listed discharge. Because a vessel may be outfitted with different equipment or enter a different
service in the course of the permit’s validity period, this will prevent unnecessary paperwork
violations of the permit terms. As long as the best management practices in the permit are
complied with, the environmental protection objectives of the permit will have been met.
Response: This comment is identical to comment 283 excerpt 2. Please see response to that
comment.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs and Joseph J.
Angelo, Deputy Managing Director
Chamber of Shipping of America and INTERTANKO
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1
44
No
Comment: 11. 14. Adjustments should be made to the notice of intent submittal process to
enable filing and coverage under the permit of more than one vessel. In this case, the vessels to
be included would be provided by the owner to the EPA within the body of the NOI. Providing
this alternative to filing an individual NOI for each vessel would greatly streamline the EPA
permitting and coverage process.
Response: For information on why EPA is not establishing a fleet-wide NOI option, see, e.g.,
the response to Comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0271, excerpt 1.
4-19
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Scott Davis, Safety Systems Manager
Washington State Ferries, Washington State Department of
Transportation
State Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0321
2
No
Comment: given the impetus for this permitting change, WSF encourages the EPA to limit
notice of intent (NOI) paperwork to only those vessels that carry more than eight cubic meters of
ballast water. Under the draft permit WSF will have to file NOI paperwork for 20 of its 22
operating vessels. This adds a financial burden to an agency that is already struggling to meet its
current financial and human resource needs. Furthermore, it appears to us that filing of a NOI
will not provide any benefit to the protection of the waters covered in the permit. WSF will be
subject to the permit whether the NOI paperwork is filed or not, so it seems like an unnecessary
step if the ultimate goal is compliance.
Response: EPA disagrees that the filing of an NOI will not provide any benefit to the waters
covered by the permit, because the NOI will provide information helpful to manage vessels and
to better protect those waters in future permit iterations. Information provided through this
process may also be useful for the purposes of enforcing the terms of the VGP. EPA finds that it
is appropriate to require NOIs from vessels greater than 300 gross tons for many reasons,
including that the 300 gross ton cut-off for NOI submission is consistent with U.S. Coast Guard
requirements for environmental pollution control. For more information on why NOIs are
required for vessels greater than 300 gross tons as well as for vessels with the capacity to hold or
discharge 8 cubic meters of ballast water, please see Section 3.7 of the Fact Sheet. Please note
that EPA has changed the permit so that it now requires NOIs of all vessels that are 300 or more
gross tons or that can carry or discharge more than 8 cubic meters of ballast water.
Moreover, EPA has broad authority for collecting information under Section 308 of the Clean
Water Act whenever required to carry out the objective of the Act, including, among other
things, for “developing or assisting in the development of any effluent limitation, or other
limitation, prohibition, or effluent standard, pretreatment standard, or standard of performance
under this chapter” and “carrying out Section 402 of the Act.”
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John P. Wronowski, Owner and President
Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0322.1
6
No
Comment: Requests to EPA regarding specific sections of VGP 1.5 authorization under this
permit 1.5.1.1 vessels required to submit notices of intent – request that vessels 1,600 gross
registered tons or less that operate solely within the same interconnected lakes, bays, and sounds
(as defined by the US Coast Guard) of a particular geographical region that does not include
waters listed in part 12 of the VGP be exempt from these regulations.
4-20
Response: EPA has changed the permit so that it now requires NOIs of all vessels that are 300
or more gross tons or that can carry or discharge more than 8 cubic meters of ballast water. For
information on the NOI requirements, please see Section 3.7 of the fact sheet. In addition, please
note that the VGP recognizes the unique operational nature of vessels that operate solely within
one COTP zone in regards to ballast water requirements in the context of invasive species. For
more information see Section 4.4.3 of the Fact Sheet. Also, EPA notes that the commenter gave
no basis for why EPA should consider or prefer a threshold of 1600 gross registered tons for
submission of an NOI. See also responses to other similar comments in this document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kenneth R. Wells, President
Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA)
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0323.1
12
No
Comment: 1.5.1.1 – we are unclear as to the purpose of requiring larger vessels to apply for a
permit when smaller vessels that are not required to file for the permit still must comply with all
of the requirements of the permit. If all vessels must meet the same high standard, why require
larger vessels to go through the additional burden of applying for the permit. Why not simply do
away with the apparently unnecessary step of applying for a permit and simply focus on helping
all vessels comply? We would also like some clarity as to when vessels would be required to
have a permit. The first paragraph of this section says vessel owners must be in compliance with
a permit six months after the permit issuance date. However, “table 1” of that section says
vessels delivered to the owner prior to June 30th face a deadline nine months after the effective
permit date. Finally, vessels would be required to submit notices of intent based on a “capacity”
to discharge more than 8 cubic meters of ballast water. Given the unique engineering and
operation of vessels, this may capture a number of vessels that have that capacity, but never use
those spaces for ballast or don’t use them to carry 8 cubic meters of ballast water. More properly,
this provision should hinge on actual discharge amounts of ballast, not theoretical ones. It is also
worth noting that the definition of a ballast tank found in 33cfr 151.1504 is “any tank or hold on
a vessel used for carrying ballast water, whether or not the tank or hold was designed for that
purpose.” Clearly, if the tank is not actually used for ballasting, it should not be included. By
inference, if the tank is not being used to carry more than 8 cubic meters of ballast water, the
EPA should use the actual discharge amount, not the theoretical tank capacity.
Response: For information on why EPA is requiring NOIs from certain vessels and not from
others, please see Section 3.7 of the Fact Sheet. EPA believes it will be useful to have additional
information to effectively manage vessels under this permit which meet the NOI requirements in
Part 1.5.1. The NOI requirements strike a reasonable balance between gathering useful
information and imposing an administrative burden on vessel owner/operators.
The permit does not state that vessels must be in compliance with the permit as of six months
from the permit issuance date. Vessel owner/operators are not required to submit an NOI until
between 6 and nine months after the permit is issued, in order to continue permit coverage, but
they are still responsible for being in compliance with the permit requirements between
December 19, 2008 and the date on which they submit an NOI. Vessels not in compliance with
4-21
the permit that are discharging into waters of the United States between December 19, 2008 and
September 19, 2009 are in violation of the permit. Vessels that are required to submit an NOI but
fail to do so before September 19, 2009 and continue to discharge into waters subject to the
permit will be doing so in violation of the Clean Water Act. Table 1 in the permit has been
updated to make these requirements more clear.
EPA disagrees that the commenter’s assertion that if a tank is not actually used for ballasting, it
should not be covered by the VGP. See, e.g., response to comment 283, excerpt 2 which
discusses the rationale for the 8-cubic meter ballast water capacity criteria. In addition, please see
Section 3.7.1 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Lynn J. Tomich Kent, Director
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC),
Division of Water
State Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0324.1
14
No
Comment: 3.8.1 no requirement to submit a notice of intent (NOI) for certain commercial
vessels EPA proposes to require NOIs only for vessels over 300 gross tons or that carry over 8
cubic meters of ballast water. In another section of the permit (4.3.1.5 compliance with other
statutes and regulations applicable to vessel discharges) EPA notes that vessels over 400 gross
tons are subject to the oil pollution control act (33 usc 2710 et seq.) Considering the effort EPA
will need to set up an electronic NOI system. Adec recommends that the threshold for
submission of an NOI be set at 400 gross tons and to consider phasing in NOIs for smaller
vessels in the next iteration of the permit. EPA has precedence in the stormwater construction
general permits for phasing in a program (in the case of that permit, acreage affected by
construction). EPA has made a credible effort to estimate the number of vessels that could be
affected by the VGP. Working with the larger vessels first, with higher risks of pollution, will
allow EPA to put the tracking and enforcement mechanisms in place and to phase in smaller
vessels in reissued permits. In this section, EPA specifically requests comment on whether
vessels should submit NOIs six or nine months after issuance of the permit. Adec recommends
the nine month timetable as both EPA and the vessel owners/operators need time to develop a
response to the VGP. Key documents (acmp consistency review, biologic opinions, the response
to comments) are not yet available which further supports a nine month period.
Response: For information on the gross tonnage threshold for NOI submission please see
Section 3.7 of the Fact Sheet; for information on the gross tonnage threshold for bilgewater
requirements, see Section 4.4.2 of the Fact Sheet. In addition, EPA has changed the language for
requiring NOI to 300 gross tons, rather than gross registered tons. For more information on this
change, please see Section 3.7.1 of the fact sheet.
While NOIs will not be required of the relevant vessels until between 6 and 9 months after the
VGP was enacted, all vessels seeking coverage under the VGP will be required to comply with
the applicable provisions as of the day the vacatur takes effect, December 19, 2008. If a vessel is
not in compliance with the VGP during this 6-9 month window, it is still in violation of the
4-22
permit. If the vessel is required to submit an NOI but does not do so by September 19, 2009, and
continues to discharge into waters of the United States, that vessel will be in violation of the
Clean Water Act. For additional information on the NOI requirements, see Section 3.7 of the
Fact Sheet. Regarding commenter’s discussion of the stormwater program, EPA notes that
Congress amended the Clean Water Act to add Section 402(p), which specifically allowed for a
phase-in over time of NPDES permits based on the size and type of stormwater discharge. EPA
has no such authority for discharges incidental to normal operation of vessels. Moreover, EPA’s
decision to regulate storm water discharges from construction sites disturbing less than five acres
in the Phase II storm water regulations arose in part out of the 9th Circuit’s decision in NRDC V.
EPA, 966 F.2d 1292 (9th Cir. 1992). See 64 Fed. Reg. at 68732-68733 (December 8, 1999). EPA
notes that the VGP allows between 6 and nine months for submission of an NOI, therefore, the
permittees may take up to nine months, which is the timeframe the commenter supports.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs
Shipping Federation of Canada
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0327.1
7
No
Comment: Part 1.5.1.1 notice of intent: we appreciate that the proposed permit provides for an
automatic authorization for vessels to discharge pending the submission of a notice of intent
(NOI) six to nine months after the effective date of the permit. However, we believe that there
should be a different requirement for foreign-flagged vessels which transit U.S. waters on an
irregular basis (these vessels, which are often referred to as “tramp shipping,” are available on
the open market for charter). Such situations are not acknowledged in the proposed vessel
general permit; if the permit is to be effective, it needs to adequately cover the foreign-flagged
vessels and various types of international traders transiting in U.S. waters. This procedure
underscores the point made earlier with regard to the applicability of the NPDES program to
marine mobile sources of discharges, where the submission procedure for a NOI has been
designed for stationary sources of discharges with predictable discharge schedules. As such, we
do not think that the procedure of submitting an NOI is useful in its current form.
Response: For information regarding vessels that leave and re-enter waters of the United States
frequently, please see, e.g., the responses to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0319.1,
Excerpt 3 and EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0328.1, excerpt 4.
In addition, the VGP applies to all vessels, foreign or domestic flagged, operating in waters
subject to the permit, which are all waters of the United States (See Permit Part 1.2.1 and Fact
Sheet Section 3.1 for the geographic scope of the permit).
4-23
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs
Shipping Federation of Canada
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0327.1
8
No
Comment: With respect to the draft notice of intent for (pages 63-64 of the permit proposal),
we have the following comments to make: - Section A: there is a need to clearly identify the
party who is responsible for completing the notice of intent application. Given that the vessel
owner and the vessel operator may be two different entities, we recommend that this
responsibility be given to the company which has operational responsibility of the vessel as per
article 1.1.2 of the ISM (International Safety Management) code. In addition, the form should be
designed to allow entries from owners and operators located in countries outside of the U.S. Section B: in the section entitled “vessel information”, item 2 (“vessel id / registered number”)
should be replaced by “vessel IMO number” in conformity with international reference methods.
- Section C: the “vessel voyage” information required in this section is difficult for international
traders to complete, as voyages are not planned on a five year basis. Thus, questions 1 and 2 are
impossible to answer, especially for traders which do not regularly call U.S. ports - Section E:
the declaration required under the “certifier name” and “title” headings could potentially make
the signatory criminally responsible for any non-compliance with the permit. In our opinion, this
is an extremely onerous criterion that should be reviewed accordingly. Publication of the notice
of intent: /_4proposed vessel general permit fact sheet, Section 3.8.2.1: “EPA considered
delaying the discharge authorization date for an additional 30 days after posting of the NOI on
EPA’s website for these existing vessels.” We derive from this sentence that all notices of intent
will be available on the EPA’s website for review. This is further confirmed with provision under
Section 3.11.1 which states that interested parties may petition EPA to require coverage under an
alternative permit. /_4 the notice of intent will be published on the EPA website for a 30-day
period, during which time the EPA will review the application and determine whether an
individual application is necessary, while also making the NOIs available for public review. We
recommend that the EPA should keep the same level of confidentiality as that currently granted
by the seaway corporations and the u.s Coast Guard.
Response: The responsibility for filling out and submitting the NOI form lies with the
owner/operator, as defined in Part 7, Appendix A of the permit. That definition places
responsibility for obtaining NPDES permit coverage on the operator, where the owner and
operator are distinct entities. See, e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0317,
excerpt 3.
Several changes have been made to the NOI form, including adding a space for the
owner/operator to enter the country. The IMO number is an acceptable entry in the space titled
“Vessel ID/Registered Number.” For vessel voyage, EPA is not expecting this information to be
complete or precise, but is simply looking for, based on previous years, what ports the vessel
frequently visits. As the commenter notes, the signatory may be subject to criminal penalties for
any non-compliance with the permit requirements. For more information please see 40 CFR
122.22(d). The commenter correctly notes that all NOIs received by EPA will be publicly
available on the EPA website. The NOI does not contain any confidential business information
or other information considered too sensitive to make available for review. If the owner/operator
4-24
wishes to claim any information on the NOI as confidential business information, please follow
the applicable regulations at 40 CFR 122.7. However, this regulation also specifies certain
categories of information that can not be claimed as CBI, such as name, address, permit
applications, permits, and effluent data.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Charles Diorio
World Shipping Council
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0328.1
11
No
Comment: 9. The council requests clarification on notice of intent (NOI) procedures for
existing vessels that do not commence U.S. vessel calls until after nine months following the
effective date of the permit. A vessel may not know it will call the United States far in advance.
Under the proposed permit, it is unclear when an existing vessel, without a change in operator or
ownership, must submit a NOI. A solution would be to add a category on to table 1 which deals
with a vessel’s first call in the United States and authorizes discharges as of the date the NOI is
filed. 10. The notice of termination (not) form should be valid as of the earlier of date of
termination on the not or the effective date of a new NOI. Section 1.6 requires an owner to file
an not within 30 days of a change in ownership or termination of operation. The owner is
responsible for discharges until the not is filed and posted on the EPA website. That approach
should work when a vessel leaves service of the U.S. trades. As written, however, these rules
may cause confusion in the case of the transfer of a vessel that will continue to serve the U.S.
because the new owner should have filed its NOI prior to operation, the previous owner should
only be responsible up to the effective date of the new owner’s NOI, provided the old owner
timely files its not. Put differently, the vessel’s new NOI would invalidate the old NOI when the
new NOI is filed with EPA. These rules would eliminate the possibility of overlapping effective
NOI’s, a situation that could undermine compliance and complicate enforcement. In addition, it
is inequitable to have the effective date of an not determined by the date it is posted on the EPA
website, because the filer has no control over the date of posting (provided the filed not is
complete), only the date of filing. 11. The notice of intent (NOI) (10.2) form should be changed
to include also the option of using metric measurements.
Response: The categories in Table 1 have been updated to more clearly state the NOI
submission requirements. In addition, the permit has been updated to reflect the fact that permit
coverage for an original owner terminates on the earlier of either the date an NOT is filed or the
date on which EPA receives a new NOI from the new owner/operator. Based on past experience
with NOI systems for other NPDES general permits, EPA anticipates that that time for posting
NOTs on its website, in general, will be approximately one day after receipt of a completed NOT
for any electronic submittals.
4-25
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Michael F. Vitt, General Counsel
E.N. Bisso & Son, Inc.
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0331.1
2
No
Comment: Before offering support for each of these points, we first would like to address the
specific questions posed by the agency in the June 17,2008 edition of the Federal register: first,
what approach should be used for requiring NOIs for commercial vessels? Since vessel
characteristics can vary in as many ways as there are vessels, we support the establishment of a
fleetwide NOI. This will allow vessel owners and operators to submit a single no1 for the entire
fleet, rather than submitting a no1 for each covered vessel.
Response: For information on why EPA is not establishing a fleet-wide NOI option, see, e.g.,
response to Comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0271, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Marcie Keever, Clean Vessels Campaign Director
Friends of the Earth
Environmental Group
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0332.1
13
No
Comment: 3. Notice of intent must require more information the notice of intent (NOI) is a key
opportunity for EPA to collect much needed information on the discharges of the vessel fleet
regulated under the permit. For this reason, EPA must require submission of more specific
information about all discharges. The checkbox format EPA proposes is not sufficiently detailed
to generate useful information about the quantity and characteristics of vessel discharges. At a
minimum, the NOI should require the following information: . • flag under whose authority the
ship operates; . • vessel age; . • the volume (estimated daily and maximum) of all discharges; . •
seasonality of voyages, if any (e.g., for cruise ships and ferries); . • the type and design of any
onboard treatment systems for any waste stream; . • the intended (i.e., naval architect
specifications) design capacity of any treatment system and the actual treatment capacity; . •
discharge locations; . • the type and design capacity of any waste tanks, what waste streams are
stored in the tanks, and the estimated number of days of waste the tanks can hold; . • the use of
any one type of tank for other purposes (e.g., cargo used for ballast); . • the type and number of
marine sanitation device or advanced wastewater treatment system installed for treatment of
sewage and/or graywater, the capacity of the systems, and effluent quality designed and/or
achieved; . • the method of handling and disposal of sludge from the treatment of graywater
and/or sewage; . • the method and frequency of disposing of ballast sediment; . • ballast water
engineering diagrams; . • number of overnight berths, for passengers and crew; . • maximum
passenger capacity and maximum crew capacity; . • the type of antifouling coating used on the
hull and when it was applied; . • the vessel’s hull husbandry practices; . • the existence of a
source reduction plan to reduce pollutants in discharges, if any; . • any civil or criminal
prosecution of the vessel in the last five years for violation of environmental laws; . • sources of
ballast water (port name and location) and the salinity of the ballast source water; . • locations
4-26
where ballast water will be discharged in the U.S. and their expected salinity; . • volume of
ballast water discharged treated, if any; . • volume of ballast water discharge untreated, if any; . •
type and location of ballast water treatment and associated piping, if any, expected effluent
quality, actual effluent quality, and results of residual biocide monitoring; . • if transiting the
Great Lakes, in which lakes does the vessel operate, does it exit the st. Lawrence seaway, does it
exit the eez? . • whether the vessel already has a ballast water management plan; . • the language
spoken by the majority of crew members; . • the number, location, and capacities of all oily
water separators/oil content meters; . • location of sampling ports for all effluent streams; and . •
last drydocking and schedule for next drydocking. All if this information should readily be
available to the vessel owners and operators and much is currently required to be submitted
under existing state programs. California, for example, requires completion of a brief hull
husbandry form27 /_27
http://www.slc.ca.gov/spec_pub/mfd/ballast_water/documents/attachment_b_hullform.doc. /_27
and Alaska requires detailed information about wastewater discharges as part of its NOI for
cruise ships.28 /_28 http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/cruise_ships/gp/2008_cpvec_NOI.doc.
/_28 Michigan, Minnesota, and Maine are other states that require submission of information.
Response: EPA has incorporated several suggestions from the commenter into the NOI form,
including year vessel was built (vessel age), onboard waste management systems, and hull
husbandry practices. Please see Part 10 of the Permit for these additions. States are free to
impose their own requirements on these discharges, pursuant to Section 510 of the CWA.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Michael Borgstrom, President
Passenger Vessel Association (PVA)
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0334.1
6
No
Comment: We support the proposed general permit as it gives automatic coverage to a vessel of
no more than 300 gross tons or that has a ballast water storage capacity of no more than 8 cubic
meters. There needs to be no notice or application to the EPA for the operator of such a vessel to
take advantage of the general permit. Nearly all u.s.-flagged commercial passenger vessels fall
under these thresholds. Therefore, very few operators of commercial passenger vessels will have
to file with EPA a notice of intent to take advantage of the general permit.
Response: Thank you for your comment. For further information on the NOI and NOT
requirements, please see Part 1.5 of the VGP and Section 3.7 of the Fact Sheet.
4-27
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Steve Collins, CHMM (Certified Hazardous Materials
Manager), Director Environmental and Health Programs
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0337.1
31
No
Comment: Part 1.6 terminating coverage cruise vessel deployments are typically scheduled 1836 months in advance. Vessels can be and are redeployed throughout the world to address market
conditions, security requirements and innumerable other contingencies. It is appropriate for EPA
to develop a process in which the general permit is suspended rather than terminated, in those
cases where a vessel may be temporarily deployed out of waters subject to the permit. In doing
so, EPA should take the opportunity to describe applicability of monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements during those times when vessels are not sailing in permit covered waters.
For example, suppose a vessel submits an NOI but then sails outside U.S. waters for 36 months,
by when would the one time report be due, if at all? Suspension rather than termination may be a
consideration. These are practical considerations that should be addressed by the general permit.
Part 1.6.1.2 when to submit a notice of termination this part deals with when to submit a notice
of termination. One of the conditions described in the part is “you have ceased operating the
vessel in waters subject to this permit and there are no longer vessel discharges.” (emphasis
added) the provision highlighted in bold above is not necessary and should be deleted. Part 1.6.2
has a similar provision to part 1.6.1.2.the change requested for part 1.6.1.2 is also recommended
for 1.6.2.
Response: Comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0337.1, Excerpt 31:
For information on the applicability of the permit to vessels covered by the VGP while operating
outside waters subject to the permit, see, e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-00550319.1, Excerpt 3. This comment response also addresses commenter’s suggestion about
suspending the permit coverage when operating outside waters subject to the permit, which is
unnecessary.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Steve Collins, CHMM (Certified Hazardous Materials
Manager), Director Environmental and Health Programs
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0337.1
69
No
Comment: Part 10 appendix e. Notice of intent (NOI) part 10.2 draft NOI form. The category
“graywater mixed with sewage” should be deleted from Section 1 on page 64. Graywater mixed
with sewage is sewage and should not be a subject of this general permit. Other categories of
discharges need to be added to this form, and some categories can be simplified to an inclusive
category, such as “hull seals” instead of identifying individual types of hull seals such as rudder
bearings. EPA should consider allowing the NOI to be submitted inclusive on an
owner/operator’s fleet in lieu of each individual ship.
4-28
Response: EPA has retained the category “graywater mixed with sewage” on the NOI form
because it is an information gathering tool that will allow EPA to learn more information about
how many and what type of vessels have onboard systems which mix graywater and sewage.
EPA disagrees that graywater mixed with sewage “is sewage.” Because it is impossible to
sEPArate out which constituents within the commingled effluent are from graywater and which
are from sewage, the VGP requires that such discharges are required to meet the relevant
standards contained within the VGP for graywater. For further information on how the permit
regulates graywater mixed with sewage, please see, e.g., response to comments EPA-HQ-OW2008-0055-0320.1, excerpt 71 and EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0337.1, excerpt 11. Additionally,
please see Part 2.2.25 of the VGP and Section 4.4.25 of the Fact Sheet. In addition, the
categories of discharges listed on the NOI form correspond to the categories of discharges
covered by the VGP. Based on this and other comments, EPA has consolidated certain discharge
types. See response to comment XXXX for additional discussion. Those changes are reflected in
the NOI form. For information on why NOIs must be submitted for each vessel, and not for an
entire fleet, see, e.g., the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0271, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
James N. Christman, Hunton & Williams
Utility Water Act Group (UWAG)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0342.1
7
No
Comment: Also, UWAG agrees with comments we expect will be submitted by the American
waterways operators. We particularly agree that: • barges should not be required to submit an
NOI; • the NOI should be revised so that coverage of all 28 listed discharges is assumed unless
the vessel owner affirmatively excludes one or more of them.
Response: See, e.g., response to comment 283, excerpt 2 for a discussion of why certain barges
are required to submit NOIs, and also for a discussion of why it is unnecessary to revise the NOI
form so that coverage of all listed discharges is assumed. For information on the NOI
requirements, please see Part 1.5 of the VGP and Section 3.7 of the Fact Sheet. All discharges
listed on the NOI will be covered by an NOI submission, whether or not the owner/operator
selects each discharge. The list is an information-gathering tool for EPA. For more information
please see Section 3.7.2.1.
4-29
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President - National
Advocacy
The American Waterways Operators
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0343.1
12
No
Comment: In addition to the general comments above, we offer the following specific
recommendations for changes to the proposed VGP to better reflect the realities of tugboat,
towboat and barge operations. Notice of intent (Section 1.5) first, we urge EPA to modify the
notice of intent (NOI) requirements to avoid imposing overly burdensome administrative
requirements that do not increase the degree of environmental protection provided by the
permitting program, but serve only to add administrative complexity and increase the likelihood
of paperwork violations. Specifically, we urge the agency to: • exclude barges from the
requirement to submit a notice of intent to be covered by the vessel general permit. As EPA
acknowledges, 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)(v) allows that some dischargers may, at the agency’s
discretion, “be authorized to discharge under a general permit without submitting a notice of
intent where the director finds that a notice of intent would be inappropriate.”/_8 vessel general
permit fact sheet, page 35. /_8 in making such a determination, the agency must consider such
factors as the type, expected nature and volume of the discharge and the potential for toxic and
conventional pollutants in the discharges. EPA has used these criteria to exclude self-propelled
vessels under 300 gross tons from the NOI requirement, based on the assumption that smaller
vessels will produce smaller volumes of discharges and pollutants therein. This tonnage
threshold is a poor fit for barges (and especially unmanned barges), the vast majority of which
will exceed that measurement but produce smaller volumes of discharges and pollutants than
self-propelled vessels. Barges are also typically operated in ways incompatible with the structure
of the NOI and notice of termination (not) requirements as drafted. For example, a barge may be
chartered to multiple operators in a relatively short period of time, following the model of a car
rental company. Under this business model, the proposed NOI/not submission process is unduly
cumbersome and burdensome. We urge EPA to exempt barges from the requirement to submit a
notice of intent to be covered by the vessel general permit. Barge operators would, obviously,
still be required to operate in compliance with the requirements of the permit. • exclude selfpropelled vessels under 300 gross tons that are currently subject to the NOI requirement because
they have the capacity to carry eight cubic meters or more of ballast water, provided they meet
certain operational conditions. Current U.S. Coast Guard policy/_9 navigation and vessel
inspection circular (nvic) 07-04, “ballast water management for the control of aquatic nuisance
species in the waters of the United States.” /_9 implementing regulations for ballast water
reporting exempts from coverage vessels that employ certain operational procedures to minimize
or eliminate the potential for introduction of aquatic nuisance species, such as using only water
from commercial or municipal sources for ballast or taking on and discharging ballast water in
the same location. EPA should review these Coast Guard-recognized conditions and exempt
vessels that meet them from the requirement to submit an NOI. • establish a fleetwide NOI
option, allowing vessel owners to submit a single NOI covering the entire listed fleet. Provisions
should be added to make it simple for an owner to add new vessels to the fleetwide NOI, either
prospectively or retroactively. . • amend the NOI so that coverage of all 28 listed discharges is
assumed, unless a vessel owner affirmatively excludes a listed discharge. Because a vessel may
be outfitted with different equipment or enter a different service in the course of the permit’s
4-30
validity period, this will prevent unnecessary paperwork violations of the permit terms. As long
as the BMPs in the permit are complied with, the environmental protection objectives of the
permit will have been met.
Response: EPA has selected NOI requirements that will provide useful data and notice to EPA
while not overly burdening the permittee. For information on the NOI requirements, please see
Section 3.7 of the Fact Sheet. Vessels able to hold or discharge more than 8 cubic meters of
ballast water must submit an NOI, even if they would otherwise be exempt from certain
requirements, such as vessels operating only within one Captain of the Port Zone. See response
to comment 283 excerpt 2 for a discussion of the NOI requirements with respect to barges. The
NOI provides notice to EPA of vessel permit coverage and allows EPA to collect data on what
types of vessels produce which discharge types or carry certain types of discharge treatment
systems. This information will allow EPA to improve the targeted requirements in the next
permit iteration. For information on why EPA is not setting up a fleetwide NOI, please see the
response to comment -0271, excerpt 1. All discharges listed on the NOI will be covered by an
NOI submission, whether or not the owner/operator selects each discharge. The list is an
information-gathering tool for EPA. For more information please see Section 3.7.2.1 of the Fact
Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John Berge, Vice President
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0345.1
10
No
Comment: Need for flexibility between parties responsible for permits and NOI there are many
different scenarios where the proposed requirements for submission of the notice of intent (NOI)
and responsibility for permit compliance does not accommodate existing trade practices. 1) a
vessel owner may provide a vessel to an operator through a charter agreement, at which point the
operator may be responsible for the operation of the vessel and compliance with permit
requirements. EPA should provide clarifying language that is such situations, the operator of the
vessel is the responsible party in obtaining and complying with the permit. 2) the requirement for
submission of an NOI during change of ownership does not provide sufficient time for
compliance. A new owner is not eligible to pursue an NOI prior to taking ownership of a vessel,
and the existing permit would no longer be valid upon ownership change. If such a change in
ownership occurred within US waters after June 30, 2009, the vessel would be in violation on the
date of ownership until 30 days after such time as the NOI was received by EPA. Under the best
circumstances this would leave the vessel out of compliance for at least 30 days. EPA should
grand the vessel a grace period of at least 30 days, during which time the vessel could comply
with existing BMP. 3) similarly, a vessel not normally trading in US ports may be unexpectedly
directed to a US port with less than 30 days notice of arrival. After June 30, 2009, the vessel
would have to delay arrival until at least 30 days after NOI submission. This would pose a
substantial impediment to international trade and commerce. EPA should accommodate such
circumstances in their permit application.
4-31
Response: With respect to submission of an NOI for charter situations, see, e.g., EPA-HQ-OW2008-0055-0317, excerpt 3. The requirements for NOI and NOT submission during a change of
ownership have been revised in the final permit. Please see Section 3.7 of the Fact Sheet for
more information. However, EPA has not changed the 30 day waiting period. This 30 day
waiting period gives EPA the opportunity to review the NOI and determine whether the VGP is
an appropriate permit for the vessel. EPA has the authority to specify date of NOI submission
and date of authority to discharge under 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)(iv).
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Christine A. Fazio, Counsel, Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP
Polska Zegluga Morska (POLSTEAM)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0349.1
4
No
Comment: Polsteam agrees that that the requirement to file "notices of intent" should apply to
larger vessels only (those greater than 300 gross tons or that carry more than 8 cubic meter of
ballast water) and not smaller vessels. Polsteam also supports the six-month grace period for
larger vessels to file notices of intent. Moreover, polsteam agrees with the one time reporting
over the five-year permit period.
Response: Thank you for your comments.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kendra L. Martin, Director, Maritime and Corporate Affairs
American Petroleum Institute (API)
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0354.1
8
No
Comment: Api supports the proposed approach of filing a NOI within six months of the
effective date of the regulation (73 Federal register 34298). However, we are concerned that
foreign flag carriers may not have sufficient time to comply with the new requirements,
particularly if they are unexpectedly diverted to the U.S. and are required to file an NOI before
entering U.S. waters for the first time. We encourage EPA to develop and implement an outreach
program to communicate the regulatory requirements of the VGP to all foreign flag carriers that
may be affected by this rule. This outreach may require EPA to extend the filing notice up to a
full 12 months from the effective date of the regulations. ? Api does not agree with the
requirement that EPA must review the NOIs for vessels delivered after June 30, 2009. The
objective of a general permit is that it is self-executing. Submission of an NOI is an
acknowledgment that the conditions of a general permit are applicable to the proposed discharge,
and that the applicant agrees to comply with the conditions of this general permit. EPA should
eliminate this provision for new vessels. The VGP should also set a time frame for obtaining
coverage that should be no greater than 48 hours following submittal of the NOI.
4-32
Response: The permit requires certain vessels to file an NOI between 6 and 9 months after the
permit is finalized. For more information please see Section 3.7 of the Fact Sheet. After
September 19, 2009, there will be a 30 day waiting period between when an NOI is submitted
and when the owner/operator is authorized under the permit. This waiting period allows EPA to
review the NOI submitted for accuracy and completeness, and if the VGP is not an appropriate
permit for the vessel, to require an individual permit. The CWA implementing regulations
specify that the Agency may specify a deadline for submission of an NOI and a separate date for
discharge authorization. Please see 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)(iii). The commenter is incorrect about
the nature of general permits. General permits are not self-executing. Dischargers seeking
coverage under a general permit are required to submit a written notice of intent to be covered,
except as otherwise described in Section 3.7.1 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kendra L. Martin, Director, Maritime and Corporate Affairs
American Petroleum Institute (API)
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0354.1
19
No
Comment: The VGP should allow vessels to add incidental streams not specifically identified
to the permit by listing them in the NOI, provided that the streams are not prohibited by the
permit.
Response: The permit addresses discharge streams incidental to the normal operation of a
vessel, as identified. Permittees may not add discharge streams to the permit coverage by listing
them in the NOI. Please see 40 CFR 122.28. In addition, EPA specifically requested comment on
additional discharges. The commenter had the opportunity to submit additional discharge streams
to EPA for consideration and inclusion in the final permit. EPA considered the suggestions made
by the commenter and included those that EPA felt were appropriate discharges to address.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Thomas O. Lind, General Counsel and Secretary
Canal Barge Company, Inc. (CBC)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0355.1
2
No
Comment: Notice or intent first, we urge EPA to modify the notice of intent requirements to
avoid imposing overly burdensome administrative requirements oil inland marine operations. In
particular, we urge the agency to: * exclude barges from the requirement to submit a notice of
intent to be covered by the vessel general permit. Unmanned barges have less potential to
discharge the number and volumes of toxic and conventional pollutants that the permit is
designed to control, and their operation is incompatible with the structure of the NOI and notice
of termination requirements as drafted. A barge may be chartered to multiple operators in a
relatively short period of time, making compliance with proposed NOI/not submission process
cumbersome at best, and nearly impossible at worst. * exclude self-propelled vessels under 300
4-33
cross tons that are currently subject to the NOI requirement due to their ballast water capacity,
provided they meet certain operational conditions. Current us. Coast guard regulations for ballast
water reporting exempt vessels that use certain operational techniques to minimize or eliminate
the potential for introduction of aquatic nuisance species, such as using only water from
commercial or municipal sources for ballast or taking on and discharging ballast water in the
same location. EPA should review these Coast Guard-recognized conditions and exempt vessels
that meet those conditions from the requirement to submit a notice of intent * establish a fleet
wide NOI option. Vessel owners and operations should be able to submit a single NOI covering
their entire fleet. Provisions should be added to make it simple for an owner to add new vessels
to the fleetwide NOI, either prospectively or retroactively. Again, this will bring the proposed
rule into alignment with the realities of the inland marine industry. * amend the not so that
coverage of all listed discharges is assumed, unless a vessel owner affirmatively excludes a listed
discharge. Because a vessel may he outfitted with different equipment or enter a different service
in the course of the permit validity period, such an amendment would prevent unnecessary
paperwork violations of the permit term. As long as the best management practices in the permit
are complied with, the environmental protection objectives of the permit will have been met.
Response: This comment is identical to comment 283 excerpt 2. Please see response to that
comment.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Gerald A. Gallion, Corporate Counsel
Kirby Corporation
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0361.1
3
No
Comment: 2. The mechanism for applicability of the draft VGP seems somewhat backwards,
with the owner/operator of most vessels being forced to "opt in" to the coverage of the permit,
rather than the permit covering all vessels which aren't excluded for certain reasons or which
"opt out." in addition, the thresholds used (300 gross tons ("gt) or 8 cubic meters of ballast water
capacity) are seemingly arbitrary and are not relevant to any real operational thresholds for the
inland barge and towing industry. The notice of intent ("NOI") form calls for the vessel's
''weight" in gross registered tons. Gross registered tonnage is not related to weight and is, rather,
a unit of regulatory "admeasurement." EPA seems to perceive gross tonnage as a relative
measure of size, which it really is not. Gross tonnage varies depending on the service of the
vessel and the regulations to which it was built. Historically, commercial vessels have often been
designed and built, according to the applicable tonnage admeasurement system, to avoid
tonnage-based regulations. All of kirby's 921 inland tank barges are greater than 300 gt (in fact,
all are 500 gt or greater). By contrast, all but 17 of kirby inland marine's 158 owned towing
vessels are less than 300 gt. If a tonnage threshold is to be used as an applicability trigger for the
- VGP, it should be one with some relevance to actual vessel operations. Clearly, the thresholds
in the proposed VGP focus on blue water operations and not the significantly different operations
of the inland barge and towing industry. However, the extremely low threshold for ballast water
capacity (8 cubic meters or 21 13 gallons) triggers the VGP requirement for submission of an
no1 for all of kirby's towing vessels and tank barges. Ballast water management is a primary
focus of the draft VGP. The definitions employed in the VGP track the broad definitions and
4-34
usage of "ballast water" and "ballast tank," employed by the Coast Guard in its ballast water
discharge reporting and ballast water management regulations in 33 CFR part 151. As a practical
matter, whether or not a towing vessel or barge actually uses its void space(s) to carry water for
ballast, the simple presence of the void spaces triggers the applicability of the permitting
requirements. A vessel owner/operator can minimize the restrictive impact of the Coast Guard's
ballast water related regulations by instituting operational procedures which prohibit or limit
ballasting and deballasting, operations which can be more readily avoided in inland barge and
towing operations. Such procedures typically require such practices as ballasting only with
municipal water, deballasting only at shipyard facilities ashore, and ballasting and deballasting
with river/sea water only at the same location. However, the draft VGP's applicability is based on
the mere presence in a vessel of tanks that could be used to carry ballast. Despite the wording of
the definitions, the VGP itself provides, in part 1.5.1.1, "if your vessel . . . Has the capacity to
hold or discharge more than 8 cubic meters (21 13 gallons) of ballast water, you must submit a
complete and accurate no1 ..." the VGP and related requirements should be revised to permit a
vessel owner/operator, by establishing Coast Guard accepted operational procedures which
prohibit or limit ballast/deballasting operations by a vessel, to cause the vessel to "automatically
receive coverage under the permit" as provided in part 1.5.1.2 of the VGP. 3. The proposed VGP
contains no mechanism for an owner/operator of numerous vessels to submit nols or to
otherwise, in a simpler and less administratively burdensome fashion, ensure coverage of the
VGP for its vessels on a fleet basis. With a fleet of nearly 1100 vessels likely subject to the
coverage of the VGP, this represents a significant administrative burden for kirby. The VGP
should be revised to establish a simple mechanism for a vessel owner/operator to submit a single,
fleet no1 and to easily manage changes to that fleet. 4. The no1 form requires that the vessel
owner/operator select which of the 28 types of discharges may be generated by the vessel. If the
VGP covers all 28 discharge types, the form should default to all 28 discharges unless the vessel
owner/operator expressly excludes one or more.
Response: At least initially, all vessels must “opt-in” to the VGP in order to receive permit
coverage, however, only vessels meeting the requirements of Part 1.5.1.1 must submit an NOI
and comply with all permit requirements in order to receive permit coverage. Vessels that do not
have to submit an NOI must meet the eligibility requirements and comply with all permit
requirements to receive coverage. For more information, please see Section 3.7 of the Fact Sheet.
The permit has been revised and NOI requirements are now based on 300 gross tons, rather than
300 gross registered tons, in addition to the requirement relating to the ability to carry more than
8 cubic meters of ballast water. See, e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0283,
excerpt 2 for discussions regarding the 8 cubic meter ballast water cut-off. Please see response to
comments EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0334.1, excerpt 24, EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0276
excerpt 3 and EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0322.1, excerpt 10 for discussions regarding the
applicability of certain ballast water provisions to vessels on local or regional routes. EPA
supports the methods discussed by the commenter such as using municipal water for ballast or
ballasting and deballasting in the same locations and believes these are viable practices to
include in ballast water management plans. For information on why an NOI is required for each
individual vessel and can not be submitted for an entire fleet, see, e.g., the response to comment
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0271, excerpt 1. All discharges listed on the NOI will be covered by
an NOI submission, whether or not the owner/operator selects each discharge. The list is an
4-35
information-gathering tool for EPA. For more information please see Section 3.7.2.1of the Fact
Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
James H. I. Weakley, President
Lake Carriers' Association (LCA)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0362.1
37
No
Comment: * The notice of intent submittal process should allow for filing and coverage of
more than one vessel.
Response: For information on why an NOI is required for each individual vessel and why one
can not submit a single NOI for an entire fleet, see, e.g., the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW2008-0055-0271, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Lawrence I. Kiern, Winston & Strawn, LLP
Liberty Maritime Corporation (Liberty)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0363.1
7
No
Comment: Liberty opposes requiring notices of intent (NOI) because discharges from liberty
vessels into the navigable waters of the United States are de minimis. Accordingly, EPA's final
NPDES general permit should not require filing NOIs, for vessels such as liberty's fleet.
Response: For information on discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel and the
lawsuit that spurred the vacatur of the previous CWA exemption for these discharges, please see
Section 2 of the Fact Sheet. The CWA regulates discharges from point sources into waters of the
U.S., regardless of their volume. For information regarding the vessels required to submit an
NOI, please see Section 3.8 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Lawrence I. Kiern, Winston & Strawn, LLP
Liberty Maritime Corporation (Liberty)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0363.1
16
No
Comment: 6. EPA should not require notices of intent (NOI) for certain commercial vessels.
EPA's rule specifically requests comments about its approach requiring NOIs for commercial
vessels. As explained herein, discharges from liberty's vessels into the navigable waters of the
United States are de minimis. In its recreational general permit, the EPA has not required
4-36
recreational boaters to file NOIs because EPA has concluded that discharges from these vessels
are de minimis, that is, because they "generate smaller volumes of effluent." see EPA NPDES
recreational vessel general permit fact sheet, Section 3.1. Therefore, liberty recommends the
same treatment of commercial vessels with only de minimis discharges, such as its fleet.
Response: The commenter states that its vessel fleet produces only “de minimis” discharges,
but does not provide any substantive information which demonstrates that fact. For information
on the NOI requirements, please see Section 3.8 of the Fact Sheet. See also, e.g., response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0363.1, Excerpt 7.
Furthermore, the RGP is not being finalized due to recently passed legislation by Congress. See
Section 2.5 of the Fact Sheet for further information on the legislation.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Public Hearing Comments
Various
Various
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0365
12
No
Comment: First, we would urge EPA to modify the notice of intent requirements, to avoid
imposing overly burdensome administrative requirements on tugboat, towboat, and barge
industry operations. In particular, we would urge you to exclude barges from the requirement to
submit a notice of intent to be covered by the vessel general permit. Unmanned barges not only
have less potential for discharge, the number and volumes of toxic and conventional pollutants
that the permit is described to control, but are often typically operated in ways incompatible with
the structure of the NOI and notice of termination requirements as drafted. A barge may be
chartered to multiple operators in a relatively short period of time, making the proposed NOI/not
submission process cumbersome and burdensome. We urge you to exclude self-propelled vessels
under 300 gross tons that are currently subject to the NOI requirement only because they have
the capacity to carry 8 cubic meters more of ballast water, provided they meet certain operational
conditions. Current Coast Guard policy guidance implementing that agency's ballast water
reporting regulations exempts from coverage vessels that employ certain operational conditions,
such as using only water from municipal or commercial sources for ballast or taking on a
discharge of ballast water in the same location. EPA should review these conditions and exempt
vessels that meet them from the requirement to submit an NOI. Establish a fleet-wide NOI
option, allowing vessel owners to submit a single NOI covering an entire listed fleet. Provisions
should be added to make it simple for a new current owner to add new vessels, either
prospectively or retroactively. Amend the NOI, so that coverage of all 28 listed discharges is
assumed, unless the vessel owner affirmatively excludes the listed discharge. A vessel may be
outfitted with different equipment or enter a different service in the course of the permit's
validity period. This will prevent unnecessary paperwork violations of the permit terms. As long
as the BMPs are complied with, the environmental protection objectives will have been met.
Response: This comment is identical to comment 283 excerpt 2. Please see response to that
comment.
4-37
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Public Hearing Comments
Various
Various
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0365
16
No
Comment: We believe that the issues of detail concerning the NPDES and the NOI registration
process can be addressed in due course to cover the normal operating discharges in order to
comply with the judicial ruling at issue.
Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. For information on discharges incidental to the
normal operation of a vessel and the lawsuit that spurred the vacatur of the previous CWA
exemption for these discharges, please see Section 2 of the Fact Sheet. For information regarding
the vessels required to submit an NOI, please see Section 3.8 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Public Hearing Comments
Various
Various
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0365
24
No
Comment: I would turn now to three specific comments i want to make on the actual permit
system, two of them related to the NOI. The first is, as has been mentioned by Jennifer, it
appears to us that our members would have to submit an NOI for each individual ship. So we
would like to suggest rather than doing it that way, allow the owner to submit an NOI for all the
ships that they own that may be coming to the United States. We think that would make it easier
for the ship owner. Second comment. The majority of our members are foreign flag operators,
and so when they get to the NOI and they see where it reads "home port" or "port most visited by
the United States," they are really not going to know what they fill in there because our tankers
are charted by the oil companies, and the oil is traded probably five or six times from when it's
loaded to when it's delivered. So they don't know where the ship is going to go until the last
minute. At this point, i don't have a solution on this one. I would just ask you to look at that
aspect of it to see if there is a way it could be simplified in allowing owners an easier way if you
really need that information for foreign owners.
Response: For information on why an NOI is required for each individual vessel and why one
can not submit a single NOI for an entire fleet, please see the response to comment EPA-HQOW-2008-0055-0271, excerpt 1.
4-38
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Adam Wronowski, Owner and Managing Member
Block Island Ferry Services, LLC (BIFS)
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0368.1
6
No
Comment: Requests to EPA regarding specific sections of VGP 1.5 authorization under this
permit 1.5.1.1 vessels required to submit notices of intent – request that vessels 1,600 gross
registered tons or less that operate solely within the same interconnected lakes, bays, and sounds
(as defined by the US Coast Guard) of a particular geographical region that does not include
waters listed in part 12 of the VGP be exempt from these regulations.
Response: Vessels that operate solely within one Captain of the Port zone are exempt from
certain ballast water related requirements. For information on the NOI requirements, including
the threshold of 300 gross tons, please see, e.g., response to comment 283 excerpt 2, as well as
Part 1.5 of the VGP and Fact Sheet Section 3.7.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John P. Wronowski, Owner and President
Thames Towboat Company, Inc. (TTB)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0371.1
6
No
Comment: Requests to EPA regarding specific sections of VGP 1.5 authorization under this
permit 1.5.1.1 tugs required to submit notices of intent – request that tugs 1,600 gross registered
tons or less that operate solely within the same interconnected lakes, bays, and sounds (as
defined by the US Coast Guard) of a particular geographical region that does not include waters
listed in part 12 of the VGP be exempt from these regulations.
Response: Vessels that operate solely within one Captain of the Port zone are exempt from
certain ballast water related requirements. For information on the NOI requirements, including
the threshold of 300 gross tons, please see permit Part 1.5, or Fact Sheet Section 3.7.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Susan Hayman, Vice President, Environmental and Corporate
Development
Foss Maritime Company
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0376.1
7
No
Comment: We would also suggest that the EPA review the notice of intent (NOI) requirements
to reduce the administrative complexity of the process. For example, barges do not mesh well
with the NOI and notice of termination (not) requirements as currently drafted. Often tugs
4-39
provide the motive power for barges but the tug and barges can and often do have different
ownership and can be chartered to different parties on a short term basis. It would also seem to
make more sense for a vessel owner to provide a fleet list and have one NOI to cover the entire
listed fleet. Provisions could be added to allow for changes in the fleet list. This would be a
simpler method and would reduce the paperwork and record retention burden.
Response: For information on the applicability of the NOI requirements to barges, including
unmanned barges, see, e.g., response to Comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0283, excerpt 2. For
information on why an NOI is required for each individual vessel and why a single NOI can not
be submitted for an entire fleet, see, e.g., the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-00550271, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
David Sehrt, Senior Vice President, Chief Operations Officer
Ingram Barge Company (Ingram Barge)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0378.1
4
No
Comment: General comments in its June 17, 2008 notice, EPA sought comments on all aspects
of the two proposed general permits and the accompanying fact sheets. Ingram’s comments
concerning the VGP and related documents are provided below. 1. EPA should reduce the
regulatory burden of the VGP by allowing companies to submit a single, fleet-wide notice of
intent. Ingram barge would urge EPA to consider ways to ensure that implementation of, and
compliance with, the VGP is not unduly burdensome or costly. As the Ninth Circuit noted,
“obtaining a permit under the CWA need not be an onerous process.” Northwest environmental
advocates, slip op. At 9029 (emphasis added). For example, EPA should exempt all unmanned
vessels (including barges) from the requirement of submitting NOIs and should allow companies
to submit a single, fleet-wide NOI to establish VGP coverage for motor vessels (including
towboats). As currently proposed by EPA, we estimate that submittal of the NOI forms alone
would, for ingram’s fleet, consume at least 1,000 man hours in the first year of implementation,
and a similar amount of time each year thereafter since forms would need to be filed anytime a
vessel is bought or sold or chartered to a third party. Maintaining the documentation related to
the NOIs would also require significant resources. This issue is made even more important since
every NOI, not, and related documents must be certified in accordance with part 1.7 of the VGP,
meaning that a comprehensive system will need to be in place to ensure full, accurate, and
complete compliance. While using electronic means for submitting NOIs would be helpful,
especially if those forms are self-populating, those tools alone will not sufficiently reduce the
administrative burden associated with this new program. In addition, we would urge EPA to
expressly provide in the VGP that the NOI and other related permitting documents do not need to
be maintained aboard a vessel; instead, those documents could be maintained at a corporate,
shore-based facility or other central location, or perhaps retained by electronic means.
Response: For information on why an NOI is required for each individual vessel and why a
single NOI can not be submitted for an entire fleet, see, e.g., the response to comment EPA-HQOW-2008-0055-0271, excerpt 1. For information on the applicability of the NOI requirements to
barges, including unmanned barges, please see response to Comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-00554-40
0283, excerpt 2. As described in Section 6.3 of the Fact Sheet, records may be kept on the vessel,
or, in the case of a barge, on the accompanying tug.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
David Sehrt, Senior Vice President, Chief Operations Officer
Ingram Barge Company (Ingram Barge)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0378.1
7
No
Comment: 4. EPA should raise the gross tonnage threshold for submitting NOIs from 300 to at
least 500 gross registered tons. VGP part 1.5.1.1 provides that vessels greater or equal to 300
gross registered tons or with capacity to hold or discharge more than 8 cubic meters (2113
gallons) of ballast water must submit an NOI. In addition to exempting all barges from filing
NOIs, we would urge EPA to raise the threshold from 300 to at least 500 gross registered tons.
We would also urge EPA to delete the reference to the vessel’s ballast water capacity and allow
the gross tonnage of the vessel alone to be the triggering element for the NOI requirement.5 /_5
EPA also noted in part 1.5.1.1 that “authorization to discharge will not be retroactive” in the
event a particular NOI is filed late. We would ask EPA to kindly reconsider that position,
especially since the dynamics of managing thousands of vessels makes it possible that situations
would arise where NOIs could be filed late. We would suggest that EPA delete that particular
reference and simply state: “late NOIs will be accepted, but authorization to discharge will only
be granted retroactive status on a case by case basis.”/_5 5. EPA should extend the time to
submit a notice of termination. VGP part 1.6.1.2 would require a permittee to submit a notice of
termination within 30 days after one of the qualifying conditions occurs. We would ask that EPA
provide a longer period of at least 60 days, as that would be more manageable for the regulated
community, would provide EPA with sufficient notice, and would take into account the dynamic
nature of the barge industry where boats and barges are frequently purchased, sold, or chartered
to other entities.
Response: Please note that in the final VGP, the tonnage threshold for submitting an NOI has
been changed from 300 Gross Registered Tons to 300 Gross Tons. EPA disagrees that the
threshold for submitting an NOI should be changed to 500 gross registered tons, as commenter
suggests. EPA determined that 300 gross tons was the appropriate cut-off for NOI submission,
and that this cut-off is consistent with relevant Coast Guard regulations. For more information,
see Section 3.7 of the Fact Sheet. For information on the NOI requirements for vessels capable of
carrying or discharging more than 8 cubic meters of ballast water, please see Section 3.7.1 of the
Fact Sheet. The CWA and implementing regulations do not contemplate retroactive permit
coverage. In most cases, permit coverage is granted 30 days after the complete NOI has been
received by EPA. The NOT must be submitted within 30 days after one of the qualifying
conditions occurs. The NOT is a short form which will not be a burden for permittees to
complete. The permittee continues to be responsible for the conditions of the permit until
coverage has been terminated by submission of an NOT.
4-41
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Arthur J. Volkle, Jr., Vice President & General Counsel
Marine Resources Group (MRG)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0379.1
4
No
Comment: 3. Barges should be excluded from the requirement to submit an no1 to be covered
by the general permit. 4. EPA specifically asked for comments on its proposal to delay
requirements for submission of an NOI. We strongly agree with this approach. As noted above,
we operate literally hundreds of vessels and the administrative burden of compliance will be
substantial. 5. Self-propelled vessels under 300 gross tons that are currently subject to the no1
requirement because they have the capacity to carry eight cubic meters or more of ballast water
should be excluded from the no1 requirement, provided they meet certain operational conditions.
This is consistent with treatment under Coast Guard regulations. As noted by AWO, current us.
Coast guard policy implementing regulations for ballast water reporting exempts from coverage
vessels that employ certain operational procedures to minimize or eliminate the potential for
introduction of aquatic nuisance species, such as using only water from commercial or municipal
sources for ballast or taking on and discharging ballast water in the same location.^^^ should
review these Coast Guard-recognized conditions and exempt vessels that meet them from the
requirement to submit an NOI . 6. The permit should provide a fleet-wide NOI option (similar to
the fleet-wide registration option provided by the Coast Guard for certificates of financial
responsibility under the oil pollution act of 1990), with simple procedures for adding or deleting
vessels. 6. EPA should amend the permit so that coverage of all 28 listed discharges is assumed,
unless a vessel owner affirmatively excludes a listed discharge.
Response: For information on the applicability of the NOI requirements to barges, including
unmanned barges, please see response to Comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0283, excerpt 2.
For information on the NOI requirements for vessels capable of carrying or discharging more
than 8 cubic meters of ballast water, please see Section 3.7.1 of the Fact Sheet. For information
on why an NOI is required for each individual vessel and why a single NOI can not be submitted
for an entire fleet, please see the response to comment -0271, excerpt 1. All discharges listed on
the NOI will be covered by an NOI submission, whether or not the owner/operator selects each
discharge. The list is an information-gathering tool for EPA. See response to comment 283.2
excerpt 2 for a discussion of why it is unnecessary to amend the list of discharges in the NOI
form to provide up-front coverage. For more information please see Section 3.7 of the Fact
Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Paul Eger, Assistant Commissioner
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
State Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0380.1
2
No
Comment: 1. 1. Vessels not required to submit notices ofintent (part 1.5.1.2) the MPCA
supports the proposed requirement for submittal of a notice of intent (nol) only by those vessels
4-42
capable of carrying more than 8 cubic meters of ballast water and that have a gross registered
tonnage of 300 tons or more. The MPCA agrees with EPA that the larger vessels are most like
lyto have large quantity discharges of pollutants due to a number of factors and that greater
scrutiny should be given to these larger vessels rather than the smaller vessels covered under this
permit.
Response: Please note that the threshold for submitting an NOI is vessels that are either 300 or
more gross tons or capable of carrying more than 8 cubic meters of ballast water. A vessel of less
than 300 gross tons may still be required to submit an NOI if it is capable of carrying or
discharging more than 8 cubic meters of ballast water.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Ramin Pejan, Assistant Corporation Counsel, Environmental
Law Division
The City of New York Law Department
Local Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0383.2
2
No
Comment: I) the approach for requiring notice of intents (“NOIs”) the city has no objection to
the approach of requiring NOIs, which would apply to a limited number of the city’s vessels.
Response: Thank you for your comment.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Mark Sales, Regulatory and Systems Engineer
Tidewater Marine, LLC
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0387.1
6
No
Comment: We believe the approach for requiring NOIs for commercial vessels may well prove
unworkable as currently drafted. We have included one example earlier in this letter of our
perceived difficulties with this system. The six month initial grace period could well mislead
some operators into believing that the RPG format governs. We see no way under the proposal,
as written, of signing up a fleet (multiple vessels operated by a single agent/manger/operator or
organization) and maintaining a current list of the vessels on file/record somewhere. Using some
kind of fleet listing would present the best method of managing what we think is the intent of the
NOI system. This permitting could then be more vessel-type specific in this manner. An agent
(or any other organization), for example, could register an arriving (foreign) vessel and
acknowledge forwarding to the master latest or up to the minute requirements (Federal and local)
during a single process. On vessel departure (or clearing the three mile limit) the same agent
could un-register or close the loop on this process. Conversely other vessels, operating on out
and back routes on (but not beyond) the continental shelf, within 200 nm, might have differing
requirements (for example by remaining in the same general body of water, this would obviate
4-43
ground-tackle & anchor rigorous washing requirements since migrating marine species would
present the same opportunities for parasitic transport into estuarine bodies of water).
Response: The VGP does not provide a “six month initial grace period” for permittees; instead,
permittees must comply immediately with the requirements of the permit. It is not until between
six and nine months after permit issuance that certain permittees must obtain permit coverage by
submitting an NOI. See Section 3.7.1 of the Fact Sheet for more details about the decision to
delay submission of an NOI for a six to nine month period after the permit is issued. In addition,
EPA disagrees that this structure for delayed submission of an NOI “could well mislead some
operators into believing that the RGP format governs.” The VGP and RGP are mutually
exclusive; they by their very definition and scope apply to different sets of permittees, per the
clearly articulated terms and conditions of each permit. Furthermore, the RGP is not being
finalized due to recently passed legislation by Congress. See Section 2.5 of the Fact Sheet for
further information on the legislation. For information on why an NOI is required for each
individual vessel and why a single NOI can not be submitted for an entire fleet, please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0271, excerpt 1. For a discussion of why vessels
are not required to submit a Notice of Termination each time they leave waters subject to this
permit, see, e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0354.1, excerpt 13.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Mark Sales, Regulatory and Systems Engineer
Tidewater Marine, LLC
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0387.1
18
No
Comment: 4. 1.5.1 we have several concerns, as noted earlier, with the NOI process. Since the
NOI process seems to imply an agreement to abide by the terms of the VGP, we wonder why an
NOI is being required. Our reasoning is that any given time the person who signed the NOI is
unlikely to be directly in command of that particular vessel (unless it is the intent of this
rulemaking to require a new NOI on every occasion where the master is relieved). So it would
not be logical to suppose that that individual would be the person held accountable for a permit
violation on a vessel that was under the command of (another) mariner. Since the log would
determine, under the owner, any responsible persons on board especially for recordkeeping
infractions; we have grave reservations concerning any prosecutions given the (as yet) vague
nature of some of the descriptions of proscribed activities and requirements. 1.5.1.1 we assume
the 300 gross registered ton threshold is based on vessel regulatory tonnage. However it should
be pointed out there are variations, mostly predicated on age and differing tonnage
admeasurement systems that could impede clarity in this requirement; particularly for smaller
commercial workcraft. Furthermore there is a question concerning your use of the word
‘capacity’ in regard to ballast water. Is this intended to convey that overboard discharge pumping
or piping capabilities exist; or is the existence of any floodable void space (meeting the 8 cubic
meter volume) warrant inclusion under this article? With respect to validity, we respectfully
submit that there are any number of occasions when a given vessel might in the water and yet
unmanned. An example of this is when vessels are laid-up; a single caretaker may make rounds
of a number of vessels to ensure their security and soundness; but they would not be considered
in operation, only available for return to operating condition. Conversely prior to delivery (and
4-44
the interval may vary widely with the type of craft) the new construction yard will float the
vessel in order to carry on the installation of machinery or other systems. Even at this stage there
may be sea-trial activities under a yard-hired or partial crew. Owners representatives,
classification surveyors and Coast Guard inspectors routinely participate as part of their duties in
overseeing compliance with other requirements. Since many systems are either un-tested or
undergoing trials, whose is the responsibility? As we read this article, if it is within 30 days of
projected (formal) delivery the owner is required to submit the NOI (presupposing a post June
2009 delivery); will this make owner responsible for any violations of the permit. If so, it should
be pointed out that owner has been paying money to the builder but as yet has no direct control
of the property. We propose, therefore, there be an automatic sixty day grace period in which to
submit NOI after any change of ownership or permit coverage should exist as for article 1.5.1.2
for vessels under the threshold(s). 1.6 in our general concerns earlier in this letter we mentioned
a question regarding the limits of the validity of this permit. The concern dovetails into a
procedural question; if a vessel departs U.S. waters for an overseas contract of; would
submission of a notice of termination (not) be appropriate? We believe this to be the case,
however clarification would be beneficial. Reinstatement by later NOI upon her proposed return
to U.S. waters is not described under current proposal.
Response: A Notice of Intent to be covered by the permit is required by the Clean Water Act
regulations, except in certain circumstances, as described in Section 3.7 of the Fact Sheet and 40
C.F.R. 122.28. In addition, the regulations require that the owner or operator of the vessel sign
and submit the NOI. See Part 7 of the VGP for the definition of owner/operator. EPA disagrees
that the requirements of the VGP are vague, and commenter provides no specifics regarding
what requirements are allegedly vague. In the final VGP, the tonnage threshold for submitting an
NOI has been changed from 300 Gross Registered Tons to 300 Gross Tons. For more
information, see Section 3.7 of the Fact Sheet. For information on the NOI requirements for
vessels capable of carrying or discharging more than 8 cubic meters of ballast water, please see
Section 3.7.1 of the Fact Sheet. For information on the applicability of the VGP to vessels that
are operating other than as a means of transportation, such as when they are in dry dock, please
see response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0274.1, excerpt 2 and comment EPA-HQOW-2008-0055-0277.1, excerpt 10. In addition, Section 3.5.2 of the Fact Sheet discusses the
discharges from a vessel under construction, and notes that when such become incidental to the
normal operation of a vessel, for example, when a vessel is engaged in sea trials which result in
operational discharges, the vessel is eligible for coverage under the VGP. It is unnecessary to
have “an automatic sixty day grace period” to submit an NOI after a change in ownership. See
response to comment 395.1 excerpt 11 for more discussion of why a “grace period” is not
necessary. In addition, please note the requirements for submitting an NOI when a vessel is new
or when ownership is transferred have been clarified. Please see Table 1 of the VGP. See
response to comment XXX, which clarifies that an owner/operator does not need to resubmit an
NOI if it departs, and later re-enters, waters subject to the VGP, and does not need to submit a
NOT upon leaving U.S. waters if a return visit is anticipated. For more information on the
applicability of the VGP to vessels that leave and re-enter waters subject to the permit, please
see, e.g., the response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0328.1 , excerpt 4.
4-45
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Cynthia L. Brown, President
American Shipbuilding Association (ASA)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0392.2
2
No
Comment: Otherwise, if EPA believes there is any possibility or intent to regulate vessels of the
armed forces through NPDES permits in either the near or foreseeable future, then the agency
should at the very least clarify that these vessels are transportation vessels. As such, if they are
required to have permits under this proposal during construction and sea trials, shipyards should
be allowed to file a one-time notice of intent (NOI) for them as a homogenous class of vessels to
receive coverage under the VGP during construction and sea trials. The coverage should include
floating dry docks utilized for the construction, maintenance, repair, or overhaul of the vessels.
The NOI should apply to any subsequent vessels of the armed forces, which should be covered
by the VGP until they become subject to UNDS. The Coast Guard already regulates such
vessels, however, under 33 C.F.R. §§ 151-136.
Response: The exclusion of discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel of the
Armed Forces (as defined in CWA Sections 312(a)(12) and (14)) from NPDES permitting is by
statute (CWA Section 502(6)(A)), and EPA does not believe there is any possibility or intent to
regulate discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel of the Armed Forces through
NPDES permits, unless Congress were to amend the statute for some reason. For information on
vessels under construction or in sea trials, please see response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-20080055-0274.1, Excerpt 2 and Comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0277, Excerpt 10. See Section
3.5 of the Fact Sheet for more information on vessels covered by the permit. For information on
the applicability of the VGP to vessels that are operating other than as a means of transportation,
such as when they are in dry dock, please see response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-00550274.1, excerpt 2 and comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0277.1, excerpt 10.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William R. Williams, Captain U.S. Navy (Retired), Vice
President Health, Safety, Environment and Quality
A.P. Moller - Maersk Group
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0395.1
9
No
Comment: 9. Metric units. We request that the NOI form be edited to include the submittal of
vessel information in metric units. This will facilitate accurate completion of the form for the
numerous internationally flagged vessels operating under the metric system. 10. Notice of intent
(NOI) submission deadlines for vessels changing ownership too stringent. The proposed NOI
submission and discharge authorization dates (provided below) are not realistic or achievable
within the regulations governing the sale of vessels. An alternative proposal is below. Table:
proposed NOI submission deadlines/discharge authorization dates see dcn:EPA-HQ-OW-20080055-0395.1 in fact, a new owner cannot submit a NOI prior to obtaining ownership of the
vessel, and simultaneously, any discharge permit is rendered invalid upon change of ownership.
4-46
This essentially means that a ship changing ownership in a US port must shut down all
discharges immediately upon change of ownership, until such time the new owner has obtained
the necessary information to submit a NOI to EPA. Ceasing discharges could result in either
unsafe conditions or would be a violation of the regulations. We propose that EPA grant a 60day automatic authorization to these vessels, allowing adequate time to submit the NOI. The new
operator would be required to comply with the BMPs and other permit conditions until the NOI
is submitted and discharge authorization is granted. This is consistent with the permitting
strategy proposed for vessels delivered to owner or operator on or before June 30, 2009.
Similarly, owners taking delivery of new ships after June 30, 2009 could easily violate permit
conditions due to the ship being in US waters prior to the 30-day requirement. In fact, the VGP
appears to result in owners taking delivery of a ship from a US shipyard would not being able to
operate the ship for the first month.
Response: Based on this and other comments, the NOI form has been edited to include metric
units. After September 19, 2009, certain vessel owner/operators must submit a NOI 30 days prior
to receiving authorization to discharge in accordance with the terms of the permit. This 30 day
period allows EPA to review the application and require the owner/operator to apply for
individual permit coverage if the VGP is not an appropriate fit for the vessel. Commenter is
incorrect in stating that the VGP is “rendered invalid upon change of ownership.” The vessel
owner/operator may submit an NOI prior to the date s/he receives ownership of the vessel. In
addition, please note the dates and deadlines associated with submitting an NOI, as listed in
Table 1 in the VGP, have been clarified for the categories of a new vessel delivered to the
owner/operator after September 19, 2009 and existing vessels delivered to the owner/operator
after September 19, 2009 that were not previously authorized under the VGP.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
William R. Williams, Captain U.S. Navy (Retired), Vice
President Health, Safety, Environment and Quality
A.P. Moller - Maersk Group
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0395.1
11
No
Comment: 12. Vessels with unscheduled or short-notice visits to US ports. Occasionally, a
vessel may be redeployed to include a US port call at short notice. The reasons this may happen
include incentives or market conditions, the operational failure of a vessel on an assigned trade
route that requires substitution, or force majeure. In these circumstances, a vessel will not have
30-days prior notice to obtain authorization to discharge (i.e., NOI submitted 30 days prior to
discharge; authorization date 30 days after complete NOI received). We request that EPA
provide a discharge authorization upon receiving the NOI. 13. Notice of termination (not). The
not provision in Section 1.6.1.2 of the proposed permit states that a notice of termination must be
submitted within 30 days after one or more of the termination conditions are met, including a
new owner taking over responsibility for the vessel. We request that EPA clarify that the new
owner/operator’s obligation for permit compliance starts at the point of sale and that the seller of
a vessel is relieved of any responsibility at the point of handing over the vessel to the new owner.
As earlier, we suggest this is complimented by a 60-days automatic authorization for new
owners.
4-47
Response: Table 1 of the VGP has been clarified to add the categories of a new vessel delivered
to the owner/operator after September 19, 2009, and an existing vessel delivered to the
owner/operator after September 19, 2009 and which was not previously authorized under the
VGP. For these categories, after September 19, 2009, a vessel that is required to submit an NOI
will receive permit authorization 30 days after the complete NOI is received by EPA. The 30 day
review period allows EPA to review the information submitted in the NOI for both completeness
and accuracy, and to require the vessel owner/operator to apply for individual coverage or
alternative permit coverage if it is determined that the VGP is not appropriate for the vessel.
When a vessel is sold, the seller’s permit coverage ends on the earlier of submission of a
complete NOT or the submission of a new NOI by the new owner. Therefore, it is unnecessary to
give new owners a “60-day automatic authorization” to discharge, as commenter suggests. For
more information on NOI and NOI see Section 3.7 and 3.8 of the Fact Sheet. In addition, EPA is
authorized to set dates for NOI submittal and discharge authorization pursuant to 40 CFR
122.28(b)(2)(iv).
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Francis Zagorski, Environmental Engineer III
New York State Department of Conservation
State Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0419.1
11
No
Comment: • The approach for requiring NOIs for commercial vessels. EPA’s proposed
approach for NOIs appears reasonable. The regulatory burden should be proportionate to the
quantity and especially the risk associated with a vessel’s discharges. Focusing on the largest
vessel dischargers is appropriate, and the NOI is a good way to obtain this information.
Response: Thank you for your comment.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Keri A. Christ
Southold Citizens for Safe Roads (SCSR), the Group for the
East End (GEE) and North Fork Environmental Council
(NFEC)
Environmental Group
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0433.1
7
Yes
Comment: The NOI should be submitted before the 2009 summer season when vessel usage is
most intense on long island.
Response: For information on why certain vessels are not required to submit an NOI as well as
information on the delay in submission deadline for those that do have to submit an NOI, please
see Section 3.7.1 of the Fact Sheet. In addition, see, e.g., response to comment 433.1 excerpt 3,
4-48
that discusses that vessels must be in compliance with the permit’s requirements immediately
upon permit issuance.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Keri A. Christ
Southold Citizens for Safe Roads (SCSR), the Group for the
East End (GEE) and North Fork Environmental Council
(NFEC)
Environmental Group
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0433.1
15
Yes
Comment: B. • the approach for requiring NOIs for commercial vessels. Under part 1.5.1.2 of
the proposed permit, a notice of intent (NOI) must be filed by owners of vessels that are greater
than 300 gross registered tons or which have the capacity to hold and discharge more than 8
cubic meters (2113 gallons) of ballast water in order to discharge under the permit. The NOI
requires the vessel owner to select each applicable discharge type that the vessel may create and
answer questions related to residual biocide discharge and certify the accuracy and completeness
of the information. The NOI must be submitted no later than 9 months after the “permit effective
date” if the vessel is delivered to the owner or operator on or before June 30, 2009. According to
the national ferry census, only half of CSF’s eight vessels are greater than 300 gross tons. This
ferry operation, one of the largest in the country is therefore not fully regulated under the
existing NOI requirements. We question the NOI approach on two levels- categorical and
temporal. First, the NOI is only required to be submitted by vessels of a certain size without
reference to number of passengers or vehicles carried. Per our discussion above, the 300 gross
registered tons cutoff strikes us as arbitrary. A more reasonable method to determine the universe
of vessels that should be covered by the NOI so as to limit the discharge of pollutants into US
waters would be to take into consideration the total number of passengers and vehicles carried on
an annual basis. This information is readily available from the national ferry database. Second,
under the decision in northwest environmental advocates, the vacatur of the exemption of
discharges incidental to vessel and the effective permit date should coincide on September 30,
2008, triggering an NOI submission deadline of on or before June 30, 2009. This would allow
for transparency of information and suitable regulation prior to the summer months, during
which the most intensive use of the long island ferries take place and when discharges are
greatest. However, if the permit effective date is moved to anytime after September 20, 2008
(e.g. December 19, 2008) for purposes of the NOI, this would effectively permit another summer
season of improperly regulated ferry discharges on long island. We strongly object to any further
delays. Given the 35-year illegal exemption of such discharges and the impaired state of many
U.S. waters, not one more year should be allowed to pass before these discharges are accurately
and completely detailed and regulated.
Response: EPA notes that this comment is late. However, the Agency responds by noting that
EPA has a sound rationale for the 300 gross tons cut-off for NOI submission in its VGP Fact
Sheet. For information on the NOI requirements, including information on why certain vessels
are not required to submit an NOI and the delay in deadlines for submitting an NOI, see Section
3.7.1 of the Fact Sheet. That rationale is tied to, in part, the larger range and volume of pollutants
and constituents of concern potentially discharged by vessels greater than 300 gross tons. Please
4-49
note that whether or not a vessel owner/operator is required to submit an NOI has no bearing on
the responsibility to meet the permit requirements. All vessels seeking coverage under the VGP
must meet all applicable permit requirements, regardless of whether or not they are required to
submit an NOI. In addition, please note that large ferries are required to meet additional permit
requirements found in Part 5.3 of the VGP.
4-50
5.
IMPLEMENTATION/COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John H. Hight
Pierre Area Chamber of Commerce
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0276
2
No
Comment: We feel an alternative would be individual permits issued to every operator without
the application process. The application process would entail even more paperwork for the
government, which means more of our tax dollar wasted. The vast majority of operations
affected by this are already inspected and regulated by the USCG. Being as we are a small tour
enterprise administered by the local chamber of commerce, we are already subsidized by city tax
dollars. Some years the funds taken in by the boat’s operation does not cover expenses, which
requires more tax dollars being spent. This is increasingly seen with the current economy and
fuel prices. Now I realize that with the size of our vessel, notice of intent does not have to be
filed. But how long will it be before things come down to the smaller vessels and create even
more of an economic burden. Therefore, we strongly urge the support of recommended practices,
not mandatory requirements that incur more burdensome fees. We urge support of the draft
general permit’s statement that provisions stating the 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. We feel that EPA should retain this statement in the
permit.
Response: For information on why EPA is issuing a general permit rather than individual
permits for the thousands of vessels eligible for coverage under the VGP, See e.g., response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0382.1, Excerpt 1 (APP). For information on which vessels
are required to submit a Notice of Intent and which are not, please ee e.g., Part 1.5 of the Permit
and Section 3.7 of the Fact Sheet. For information on vessels which are exempt from NPDES
permitting due to Congressional action, see e.g., Section 2.5 of the Fact Sheet. When appropriate,
EPA has retained permit language that “recommends” the permittee take certain actions, but does
not require the permittee to take those actions. For additional information on provisions that state
“EPA recommends” see e.g., Part 1.1 of the Permit. Suggestions that EPA should replace
mandatory requirements with recommendations throughout the permit are addressed elsewhere
in this response to comment document.
Commenter Name: W. P. Rybka, Erie Maritime Museum Administrator & Senior Captain
U.S. Brig NIAGARA
Commenter Affiliation:
Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission
Commenter Type:
Passenger Vessels
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0278
Comment Excerpt Number:
1
Late Comment?
No
Comment: The impact of the proposed regulations as written will impose an onerous,
impractical, and potentially devastating burden on the operation of two classes of USCG
5-1
inspected vessels, sailing school vessels (SSV) and sail and auxiliary sail vessels operating under
Subchapter T (small passenger vessels under 100 gross tons), for no measurable gain in pollution
reduction. SSV is limited to under 500 gross tons (GRT), the majority are under 300 GRT, and
carry less than 100 persons onboard, most carry less than 50. Sailing vessels under subchapter t
(less than 100grt) likewise generally have fewer than 100 persons onboard, and most often under
50. There are a few sail only vessels, the overwhelming majority of vessels in these inspection
regimes are auxiliary sail. All are primarily dependent upon wind propulsion and the reason the
public embarks on these vessels is to experience, in many cases with hands-on participation,
being under sail. The general characteristics of sailing vessels pertinent to this discussion are: 1.
The relatively low power of sail requires slim, easily driven hulls, of small volume. These
vessels do not have water ballast tanks, typically have small fuel tanks and sewage holding tanks,
and no room for gray water tankage. 2. These vessels are not carrying cargo and therefore have
no residue on deck issues 3. Compared to a power driven vessel, a sailing vessel requires a larger
crew for managing the sailing rig, and instructing/supervising the passengers or students. The
crew requirements are established by USCG, and the crew are generally fully occupied on deck
dealing with the rig and keeping passengers/students safe. The voyages or trips are typically
short and frequent, placing significant burdens on crew for inspections, orientations, instructions
to passengers/students. In short, the crews are constantly in demand on deck and keeping even
minimal log books is often a struggle. 4. Many of these vessels have wood hulls which are a
source of frequent, if not constant, low volume leakage, best removed promptly. 5. The majority
have wood decks which both for cleanliness and to keep them swelled tight are hosed down
often, sometimes two or three times per day, most often without any soap and using water from
immediately overside via ship’s fire pump. 6. Sailing vessels, often with a primary mission of
providing the public an up-close first hand experience of the beauty of the marine environment,
with no water ballast tanks, no cargo holds, small auxiliary power plants, low numbers of
passengers, are off the bottom end of the scale as pollution sources compared to freighters and
cruise ships. The sailing fleet is already in compliance in preventing discharge of oil, holding
sewage, and logging waste disposals ashore. 7. Implementing the record keeping requirements of
the proposed regulation on vessels that hose decks frequently, and typically have numerous small
gray water discharges, would be disproportionately burdensome on sailing vessel crew who
already have extensive demands on their time. 8. By applying the same record keeping
requirements across the spectrum of commercial vessel operations, the same burden of
documentation falls on the crew of a 90 ft. Schooner, say 8 professionals and 40 passengers, as
will apply to a 900ft. Cruise ship with hundreds of crew serving thousands of passengers. The
worst consequence is that the schooner captain, with no change in operation, will now potentially
face criminal charges and/or fines, with all the catastrophic consequences to business and family
entailed, prosecuted at no small public expense, for failure to (while navigating in piloting waters
with all hands employed in sailing the vessel) faithfully record entries such as: - 0800 crew
washed down decks, estimate 500 gal harbor water recycled with addition of one cup of
biodegradable soap. - 0810 three gallons of dishwater from galley sink - 0817 to 0830, several
discharges of water about 8 ounces each containing unknown amount of toothpaste. -0835
estimated (flow meter broken) 2 gallons from automatic bilge pump in forepeak the above
hypothetical entries would be typical of activity on most sailing vessels. I see no public benefit,
and significant detriment, in imposing this record keeping liability on a few hundred small
businesses already struggling to run a clean ship on small profit margins. I submit that sailing
school vessels, sailing vessels under subchapter t be exempted from the requirements of the
proposed regulations.
5-2
Response: The VGP is an NPDES general permit, not a regulation. See e.g., Section 2 of the
Fact Sheet for a discussion of NPDES general permits. For background information on the Clean
Water Act and NPDES permitting, see e.g., Section 2 of the Fact Sheet. For information on
which vessels are eligible for coverage under the VGP, see e.g., Part 1.2 of the Permit and
Section 3 of the Fact Sheet. EPA notes that due to congressional action, recreational vessels are
exempt from NPDES permitting, and, except for ballast water, commercial fishing vessels, and
non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet are subject to a temporary moratorium on NPDES
permitting. See e.g., Section 2.5 of the Fact Sheet for more details about congressional action.
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 VGP
does not have any ballast tanks, then the owner/operator is not required to meet the ballast water
discharge requirements of Part 2.2.3.
EPA does not have a record on which to base a de minimis exclusion from the CWA NPDES
permitting requirement for the discharges 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.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Loren Gerhard, Vice President - Marine Operations
Four Seasons Marine Services
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0279.1
1
No
Comment: We are a passenger vessel operator with 12 commercial vessels in use in
Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii. Our vessels range in size from 55 to105 feet long, and with
capacities ranging from 49 passengers to 250. They all admeasure less than 100 tons for U.S.
Coast Guard tonnage calculations. We use our vessels as ferries and for tour excursions. We are
a privately held business, with a combined employment of about 50 people in season. A number
of our vessels are leased to other operators. We urge you to slow down the application of any
permit requirements, especially on the vessels in our size range and vessel class. We understand
there is some deadline associated with September 30th of this year, which is only two months
away. Most operators like ourselves are very busy in these summer months with our seasonal
spike in business, and do not have the time or staff to deal with new regulations on such short
notice. Our understanding is that the genesis of these proposed new regulations is based on the
need to regulate ballast water. We understand and appreciate the threat to our national waters
from untreated ballast water promoting invasive species and other problems, and concur that it
needs to be addressed and controlled. None of our vessels carry ballast water. That is typical of
vessels in this size range and service. Our routes in operation are typically no more than 20 miles
from a point of origin. So the primary reason for these new regulations has no definable
relationship to our vessel class or operations. As so often occurs, the well intentioned purpose of
laws passed to address known problems result in regulations that extend too far, overreaching
their basic goal, and causing multiple forms of new hardships and costs to doing business. Our
5-3
sector of maritime industry recently got pulled into onerous new requirements for security
credentials from the transportation security administration, adding cost and complication to our
operation, while having very little effect on security. The law was passed to protect large
container ship facilities with hundreds of truckers unknown to the operator in the facility each
day. At our operating sites we typically have no more than 20-30 employees, and they are all
well known to each other, so there is no point or security enhancement in requiring the
credential. That regulation reached too far down into vessels and operations in our size range,
has no discernable benefit to security, but adds yet another layer of government intervention and
cost into our business. That’s just one example, and there are others. This proposed set of
requirements strikes me as yet another form of overreach, with no real benefit to the country or
our marine environment. The success of our tour operations depends on the preservation of our
maritime ecosystem, and so we too are concerned with the cumulative effects of ballast water
problems, or other large discharges from ships that can materially affect water quality.
Regulating minute quantities of gray water or deck run off from vessels in our size range will
have no measurable effect, other than to make it more difficult and costly to operate our
business.
Response: The VGP is an NPDES general permit, not a regulation. For a discussion of NDPES
general permits, see e.g., Section 2.6 of the Fact Sheet. The scope of the permit includes all
discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels (including ballast water) operating in a
capacity as a means of transportation, and is being issued in light of a court decision vacating
EPA’s regulatory exclusion for those discharges from NPDES permitting. For information on the
Clean Water Act, NPDES permitting, and the lawsuit which led to this action, including the
December 19, 2008 deadline, see e.g., Section 2 of the Fact Sheet. Please note that vessels which
do not create one of the eligible discharges, such as ballast water, are not required to meet those
effluent limits. See e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0278, Excerpt 1 (IMP)
for more information. 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.
EPA does not have a record on which to base a de minimis exclusion from the CWA NPDES
permitting requirement for the discharges 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.
For information on additional permit requirements that apply to large ferries, see Part 5.3 of the
Permit and Section 7.3 of the Fact Sheet. For information on ballast water requirements, see e.g.,
Part 2.2.3 of the Permit and Section 4.4.2 of the Fact Sheet.
5-4
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Sean D. Logan, Director
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
State Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0281.1
4
No
Comment: According to the information presented by the USEPA during the webcast
conducted on July 2nd, discharges and standards developed through the uniform national
discharge standards (UNDS) program will be used as the framework for further implementation
of discharge regulations. However, at this time, no guidance has been made available describing
the planned timeline for requiring the implementation of MPCD standards once they have been
adopted. We eagerly await further guidance on this program so that we are able to quickly and
fully implement the standards.
Response: EPA notes that, while information from the UNDS process was among the
information used to help identify discharges, UNDS was not used as a template for the VGP as
the UNDS statutory framework (CWA § 312(o)) is unique to Vessels of the Armed Forces. The
timeline for implementation of the UNDS Marine Pollution Control Discharge (MPCD)
Standards is outside of the scope today’s action.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Stanley F. Chelluck
Bouchard Transportation
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0283
1
No
Comment: Bouchard Transportation operates 45 vessels on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts
transporting petroleum products. We are a member of AWO and an avid supporter of their safety
and environmental initiatives. We must however, join with AWO and object to the new
interpretation of the Clean Water Act that imposes onerous and excessively burdensome
regulatory requirements on our industry. Our industry is already burdened with regulatory
oversight from numerous agencies including the United States Coast Guard, state and local
environmental agencies, international safety management certifying agencies, insurance
underwriting audits, major oil company audits, and other regulatory bodies. The goal of the
Clean Water Act, which is the basis of this legislation, is to make our waterways cleaner. We do
not believe that the added administrative burden of the pending legislation would significantly
reduce the amount of discharges into the waterways from vessels and thus would have little or no
impact on making our waterways cleaner. The permit system as it is proposed today is not an
effective tool for waterborne traffic. The EPA acknowledges that the NPDES program is a
program designed for shore based facilities not mobile facilities that operate in interstate
commerce. A vessel on a single voyage can pass through the jurisdiction of many states and
localities that may impose their own unique regulations on our vessels. Although we are hopeful
that the appeal process currently under way is successful in returning to the system that which
has worked for the last thirty years, we recognize that the EPA must be prepared for an
alternative outcome. Therefore, we herby submit our comments to the rule making docket
5-5
describing specific changes to the proposed permit to better reflect the operational realities of the
tug and barge business. Below are the changes proposed by the AWO that we fully support.
However; by submitting these recommendations for changing the permit requirements we do not
want this to be construed as our acceptance of the NPDES program but rather as improvements
to the administrative burden that the current proposal would place on our industry.
Response: The VGP is an NPDES general permit, not a regulation. For responses to
commenter’s concerns, see responses to comments from the organizations to which commenter
refers. For information on the lawsuit that led to this permit, as well as information on the Clean
Water Act and NPDES permitting, see e.g., Section 2 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Captain Duran Larsen, Human Resources Director
Argosy Cruises
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0289
7
No
Comment: We are asking for you to consider the negative economic impact of these excessive
regulations that are not reasonable or realistic. To burden the small business of locally operated
and run tour companies with the same regulations of large ocean going vessels and companies is
neither fair nor will be effective. The one-size fits all approach to these regulations simple do not
make good sense or policy. We strongly urge you to consider a single industry-wide "general
permit" that would automatically be granted to all locally operated passenger commercial vessel
operators.
Response: The VGP is an NPDES general permit, not a regulation. See Section 2.6 of the Fact
Sheet for a discussion of NPDES general permits. EPA disagrees that the VGP has a “negative
economic impact.” For information on the economic costs associated with the VGP, see e.g., the
Economic Analysis and response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1, Excerpt 26
(ECON). The commenter’s concerns about a one-size-fits-all approach is similar to other
comments on that matter, and are addressed elsewhere in this response to comment document.
The VGP does take into account different classes of vessels. See Part 5 of the Permit and Section
7 of the Fact Sheet for additional information about the VGP’s vessel class-specific
requirements. For information on which vessels are required to submit a Notice of Intent to
receive permit coverage, see Part 1.5 of the Permit and Section 3.7 of the Fact Sheet.
5-6
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Maurya B. Falkner
California Marine Invasive Species Program, Marine Facilities
Division (MFD), California State Lands Commission
State Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0292.1
2
No
Comment: 3) Since the EPA has chosen a general permit vehicle, fees will not be collected.
The CSLC wishes to know how EPA plans to handle the significant increase in paperwork
associated with the implementation of this permit. Who within EPA will enforce the permit
requirements? It is clear that at the national level, the USCG will "oversee" ballast water, but
what about the other newly regulated discharges. The permit appears to be a “paper tiger.”
Response: With respect to “paperwork associated with the implementation of this permit,” as
the Fact Sheet notes, “because of the large number of vessels that will be required to submit
NOIs and the number of discharges from those vessels, the permit includes provisions that delay
submission of an NOI for a six to nine month period after the permit is issued. This period of
time will provide EPA with time to develop an appropriate and effective electronic system to
receive and process NOIs for this new universe of permittees.” See Section 3.7 of the Fact
Sheet. EPA disagrees that the VGP is a “paper tiger,” and notes that it contains all relevant
requirements for an NPDES general permit, pursuant to the CWA and implementing regulations.
Enforcement is outside the scope of this action, but EPA notes that as with all NPDES permits,
EPA has enforcement authority for all aspects of the VGP. For information on enforcement of
the VGP see e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0313.1, Excerpt 4 (EN).
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Michael Borgstrom, President
Passenger Vessel Association (PVA)
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0297
6
No
Comment: Passenger vessel owners and operators generally are small businesspersons. In
addition, many ferries are operated by governmental entities at public expense. These operators
face numerous financial and operational challenges. Many are seeing revenue drops as
Americans curtail their discretionary spending in these tough economic times. More than most
entities, they are directly affected by the staggering rise in fuel costs. In California and
elsewhere, they are under pressure to spend large sums to replace existing engines with loweremission models. The last thing they need to contend with is a mandate from the Federal
government to apply and pay a fee for a permit for vessel discharges that are incidental to the
normal operation of a vessel. Why should they go through such an unnecessary exercise when it
has not been demonstrated that the incidental discharges h m the typical passenger vessel may
cause any ham whatsoever? With respect to obtaining authorization for customary incidental
discharges, the proposed general permit has the virtue of avoiding the imposition of an
aggravating burden.
5-7
Response: There is no fee for receiving authorization to discharge under the VGP. For a
discussion of why EPA has issued today’s permit, see Sections 2.3 and 2.4 of the Fact Sheet. For
information on obtaining authorization to discharge pursuant to the VGP, see Part 1.5 of the
Permit and Section 3.7 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dr. Ralph G. Appy, Ph.D., Director of Environmental
Management Division
City of Los Angeles Harbor Department (LAHD)
Local Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0301.1
2
No
Comment: It is strongly recommended that the EPA establish an educational outreach
campaign regarding the requirements of the RPG and VGP and the need for commercial vessel
owners and operators to register their vessel with EPA. Recreational and fishing boat owners and
small international shipping companies do not monitor the Federal register. Therefore, it is
incumbent upon EPA to develop an outreach campaign to ensure that the entities now regulated
via the NPDES process are informed of the requirements. The LAHD and other port authorities
can be important resources to EPA to assist in such an education outreach effort.
Response: EPA will conduct appropriate outreach to vessel owner/operators subject to the
requirements of the VGP.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dr. Ralph G. Appy, Ph.D., Director of Environmental
Management Division
City of Los Angeles Harbor Department (LAHD)
Local Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0301.1
5
No
Comment: Education outreach campaign required it is strongly recommended that the EPA
establish an educational outreach campaign regarding the requirements of the RPG and VGP and
the need for commercial vessel owners and operators to register their vessel with EPA.
Recreational and fishing boat owners and small international shipping companies do not monitor
the Federal register. Therefore, it is incumbent upon EPA to develop an educational outreach
campaign to ensure that the entities now regulated via the NPDES process are informed of the
permit requirements. It is suggested that the EPA and US. Coast Guard jointly develop
educational brochures/materials, presentations, and programs. Educational brochures/materials
should be distributed by EPA to recreational boat sale and repair facilities, marinas, port
authorities, boating associations, etc. For distribution. Further, EPA, in coordination with the US.
Coast Guard should schedule presentations and programs in areas with large recreational and/or
commercial ship operations, including the ports of Los Angeles and long beach. Finally, it is
recommended that the EPA request the U.S. Coast Guard to include information regarding the
appropriate management, and associated regulatory requirements, for discharges incidental to
5-8
normal boat operations into its various boating safety and other classes. The LAHD can be a
valuable resource in assisting EPA in its education outreach responsibilities and stands ready to
work in partnership with EPA to educate vessel owners regarding the new NPDES for vessel
discharges.
Response: The VGP does not apply to recreational vessels or, except for ballast water, to nonrecreational vessels of less than 79 feet. For more information, see Section 2.5 of the Fact Sheet.
EPA will conduct appropriate outreach to vessel owner/operators subject to the requirements of
the VGP.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dr. Ralph G. Appy, Ph.D., Director of Environmental
Management Division
City of Los Angeles Harbor Department (LAHD)
Local Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0301.1
24
No
Comment: In the event that EPA continues to propose to regulate municipal boats operated
within local waters as commercial ocean going vessels under the VGP, boat modifications or
development and implementation of new infrastructure or significant procedures will be required
by municipal boat fleet operators. The proposed VGP regulations would then need to provide a
compliance lead time of at least 18-months. The 2008-2009 fiscal year budget for LAHD has
been established. In this current time of rising fuel and other operational costs, the
implementation of vessel retrofits, new infrastructure, and significant changes in operations
required by the VGP could not be absorbed with the LAHD's existing budget. Therefore,
additional funding would be required to be budgeted in the fiscal year 2009-2010 for
implementation of any such required changes, making the financial resources needed for
implementation of new/additional VGP requirements beyond existing regulations and best
management practices available at the earliest in July 2009. Therefore, initiation of procurement
of needed equipment and other resources could not begin until late summer 2009.
Response: As noted elsewhere in this response to comments document, this commenter’s
vessels appear to be subject to the moratorium on NPDES permitting contained in PL 110-299.
For further discussion of the substantive concerns raised, see e.g., response to comment EPAHQ-OW-2008-0055-0307.1, excerpt 4.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Tim Young
Sause Bros., Inc.
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0307.1
1
No
Comment: Sause Bros., Inc. Is a U.S. West Coast-based operator of both oceangoing tugs and
barges and harbor vessels. As such, EPA’s proposed rulemaking on NPDES general permits for
5-9
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel stands to make a significant impact on
our operations. We therefore request the Environmental Protection Agency to carefully consider
the following five recommendations:
Response: The VGP is an NPDES general permit, not a regulation. See Section 2 of the Fact
Sheet for background information on the Clean Water Act and NPDES permits. For a discussion
of the economic impact on all entities from issuance of the VGP, see e.g., Section 2.9 of the Fact
Sheet and the Economic Analysis. Commenter’s specific recommendations are responded to
elsewhere in this document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Tim Young
Sause Bros., Inc.
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0307.1
4
No
Comment: 4. We request that EPA consider allowing the maritime industry a one year phase-in
period, with full compliance required by September 30, 2009. This provides for the completion
of the five steps outlined below. 5. Implementation of permit requirements will require
addressing the following five general phases, a process that cannot be realistically completed by
September 30, 2008. A. The development of best management practices (BMP’s) for applicable
permit requirements. Companies must determine which permit requirements are applicable to
their respective vessels and then research, develop, and document those practices that will allow
them to achieve compliance. B. Conduct training with affected personnel. Within the maritime
industry it is common to structure employee work periods on a rotational basis. Employees
typically work for a certain period of time at sea, then return home for a period of time. Thus, on
any given day a significant number of a firm’s employees will be on time off. Those that are
working are, in most cases, dispersed over a broad area on various vessels. Employee training in
the maritime industry is logistically difficult at best; to train all affected employees in permit
requirements, BMP’s, monitoring processes, and recordkeeping requirements is a task that
cannot be accomplished in a short period of time. C. Recordkeeping and monitoring systems
must be developed. To ensure adequate regulatory compliance, and to provide EPA with
required data, systems must be developed to both monitor BMP’s and ensure the collection and
storage of information for each vessel. D. Implementation of BMP’s on each vessel. Because of
the wide variation present on vessels within the maritime industry it is safe to assume that in
most cases vessel-specific practices must be developed and implemented. In addition to the
significant training component present, the implementation of vessel-specific requirements can
be expected to be time-consuming, with varying degrees of success. E. The assessment of BMP
success. Following the implementation of BMP’s a period of assessment will be necessary to
determine the success of those practices on each vessel. It is likely that revisions—and in some
cases significant revisions—may be necessary to achieve full and final compliance.
Response: EPA cannot provide for a one-year phase-in period of the permit because under the
court order in the NWEA litigation, the existing vessel permit exclusion is vacated as of
December 19, 2008, and we thus are not empowered to extend that date. With respect to
providing additional time for compliance, we note that under the court order in the NWEA
5-10
litigation, the existing vessel permit exclusion is vacated as of December 19, 2008, and we thus
are not empowered to extend that date. If the commenter is suggesting that the VGP embody
schedules for compliance, note that the Clean Water Act contains a statutory deadline of March
31, 1989 for compliance with technology based effluent limits. Therefore, EPA can not place
compliance schedules in permits to allow an extension of time to meet technology-based effluent
limitations. See Section 301(b) of the CWA and Section 8.1.4 at page 148 of the USEPA Permit
Writers’ Manual for additional explanation regarding compliance schedules and technology
based effluent limits. Nor is it appropriate for EPA to include a compliance schedule in the VGP
generally extending the date for compliance with the permit’s narrative water quality-based
effluent limit. With respect to compliance schedules for water quality-based effluent limits, such
compliance schedules are only allowed for water quality-based effluent limits implementing
water quality standards adopted or revised after July 1, 1977, and only if authorized by the
particular state. In the Matter of Star-Kist Caribe, Inc., 3 E.A.D 172, 177 (1990). Moreover, in
those states in which it is effective, the VGP regulates twenty-six different types of discharges,
each with various, and perhaps differing, constituents of concern. Given that this Federal permit
establishes a narrative water quality-based effluent limit that is applicable in a host of states with
(1) differing water quality standards, (2) differing pre- and post-1977 adoption and revision
dates, (2) differing compliance schedule authorizing authorities, and that the permit applies to
twenty-six types of discharges addressing various constituents of concern, it is not feasible for
EPA to establish an "appropriate" compliance schedule in the VGP to implement the permit's
narrative water quality-based effluent limit for all covered dischargers in the various states. 40
CFR 122.47.
While EPA cannot extend the compliance date for effluent limits, EPA has provided, in response
to comments received, additional compliance time in VGP Part 1.1 for inspections, training,
recordkeeping, and reporting imposed by EPA in this permit. That provision would not apply to
any conditions imposed by Part 1.13 (Standard Permit Conditions) or conditions in Part 6 of
today’s permit (conditions added by States and Tribes pursuant to their CWA Section 401
certification or their concurrence on EPA’s consistency determination under the CZMA). Note
that because most of the commenters asked for broader compliance date relief, some of the
responses in this document state broadly that EPA cannot provide such relief; such responses
should be read in light of the relief discussed in this response.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Captain Nico Corbijn, Executive Vice President - Operations
Majestic America Line and Windstar Cruises
Commerical Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0308.1
2
No
Comment: Proposed amendments to VGP (1) phased or tiered implementation - adopt a phased
(or tier) approach to full implementation similar to the EPA’s recent final rule on national
emission standards for marine diesel engines larger than 600kw. This will allow companies (such
as Majestic America Line) time to fully research, engineer and budget the modifications and
installations necessary to meet the strict VGP discharge standards. Applying a broad permit
blanket over all vessels (small, medium, and large) and expecting instant compliance with all
elements of these restrictive and strict discharge standards is unrealistic and if implemented as
5-11
currently written, will likely lead to the elimination of the vast majority of the us flagged inland
passenger vessel industry. The intent of the court ruling and the original law suit was to address
ballast water discharge from vessels on international voyages in order to curb infestation of
national waters by invasive species. The EPA could consider for instance a phased approach
based on either discharge stream, or alternatively, on vessel size.
Response: For a discussion of why EPA cannot extend the compliance date for effluent
limitations see e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0307.1, excerpt 4. However,
as noted in that response, based on this and other comments, EPA has provided additional time
where it can for compliance with inspection, training, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
of the permit. EPA notes the VGP is an NPDES general permit, and not a rule, such as the one
commenter suggests. The VGP does take into account differences in vessel type and size. For
more information see Part 5 of the Permit and Section 7 of the Fact Sheet. In addition, note that
the VGP does not apply to recreational vessels or, except for ballast water, to non-recreational
vessels of less than 79 feet. See Section 2.5 of the Fact Sheet for additional information. For
information on the court ruling, see Section 2.4 of the Fact Sheet. EPA believes the VGP effluent
limits and BMPs meet all applicable requirements of the Clean Water Act. For additional
information on CWA requirements, see e.g., Section 4.1 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Captain Nico Corbijn, Executive Vice President - Operations
Majestic America Line and Windstar Cruises
Commerical Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0308.1
5
No
Comment: (7) Other comments – following our review, Majestic America Line came up with a
multitude of other comments and remarks pertaining to the current structure and content of the
proposed draft VGP. (The vast administrative and reporting burden, as well as the cumbersome
inspection regimes imposed on small cruise lines with minimal shore and vessel staff being some
of these.) However, we acquiesce to our trade associations, CLIA and PVA, to further detail
these remarks in their industry-specific responses. In closing we would urge the EPA to give
careful thought to Majestic America Line’s proposal, for the simple reason that if the draft
general vessel permit is passed without further consideration for the distinctive nature of river
cruise vessels, it is altogether likely that this particular mode of American leisure travel will be
unnecessarily burdened and potentially eliminated come September 30, 2008.
Response: For information on inspection, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, see e.g.,
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0277.1, Excerpt 34 (IMRR), comment EPA-HQOW-2008-0055-0283, Excerpt 4 (IMRR), Part 4 of the Permit and Section 6 of the Fact Sheet.
Based on this and other comments, EPA has clarified the VGP’s requirements for medium cruise
ships unable to voyage 1nm, see e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0308.1,
Excerpt 3 (Vess1B).
5-12
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Dennis J. Phelan, Vice President
Pacific Seafood Processors Association (PSPA)
Commercial Fishing
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0312
1
No
Comment: on July 22, the house and senate both passed and sent to the President Legislation
(H.R. 2766) which would exempt recreational vessels from the proposed incidental discharge
regulations. At the same time, congress passed and sent to the President s. 3298. These bills have
now been signed into law. S. 3298 imposes a two year moratorium on imposition of the
incidental discharge regulations on fishing vessels of any size, and for commercial vessels under
79 feet. During this period the EPA is to gather information on these incidental discharges,
analyze their environmental effects, and report to congress. PSPA, along with many other fishing
industry organizations, actively supported this bill and stands ready to work with EPA during the
two year period to carry out the required study. In the meantime, however, there are two small
classes of fishing industry vessels which may have fallen outside the terms of the moratorium as
crafted by Congress in s. 3298. The first category consists of floating fish processing vessels.
There are approximately nine such vessels in the North Pacific/Bering Sea region which process,
but do not catch, fish. Because these vessels may not be deemed "fishing vessels" under the title
46 definition used in the bill, they could still be subject to the proposed VGP regulations for
incidental discharges. The second category of vessels is fish tenders. Fish tenders are transport
vessels which pick up fish from harvesting vessels and then deliver it to either a processing ship
or to an onshore processing plant. In the majority of cases, tender vessels are, or have been, fish
harvesting vessels. This makes them “fishing vessels” under the title 46 definition used in s.
3298 and brings them under the terms of the congressional NPDES permit moratorium.
However, there is a class of dedicated tender vessels which have never been used to harvest fish
and which may fall outside the scope of the moratorium. We would roughly estimate that there
may be 30 to 40 such boats. These two categories of vessels, floating processors and dedicated
fish tenders, may still be required to obtain an NPDES incidental discharge permit as of
September 30, 2008, depending on EPA's interpretation of the title 46 definition used in the bill.
In the case of floating processors, these vessels are already a part of the NPDES permit program
since they hold permits for the discharge of seafood processing waste. It seems logical to us that
in order to minimize the regulatory burden EPA should create a system whereby these vessels’
existing permits can be amended to cover their incidental discharges, as opposed to obtaining a
second permit. We also request that in amending the existing permits EPA minimize the burdens
of compliance by using the companies system of best management practices since the activities
conducted by these vessels and the resulting discharges are no different than those of their
counterparts in the catcher-processor fleet -- a group which falls under the congressional
moratorium because of their status as “fishing vessels”. In the case of dedicated fish tender
vessels, we again hope that the EPA would use its discretion to minimize the regulatory impact
caused by the new incidental discharge NPDES permit. In many cases these vessels are owned
by individuals or family-run businesses and they have neither the experience with the NPDES
permitting program nor the financial/manpower resources to easily comply. And, as is the case
with floating processors, we would again point out that tender vessels’ incidental discharges are
no different from, and could be even smaller than, those of the thousands of fishing vessels
covered by the congressional exemption under s. 3298. We anticipate that once the EPA finishes
and submits the study mandated under s. 3298, congress will enact legislation containing
5-13
standards which will cover all fishing industry vessels, including, harvesters, floating processors,
catcher-processors, and dedicated tenders. For this reason, we hope that the EPA will find a way
to minimize the regulatory burden for this small subset of vessels which may have fallen outside
the moratorium. No purpose will be served by imposing stringent new rules on a very small
group of vessel operators when those rules are certain to be replaced by congressional action in
two years after completion of the study.
Response: For information on the applicability of the VGP to vessels operating other than as a
means of transportation see e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0274.1, Excerpt
2 (APP), comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0277.1, Excerpt 10 (APP) and Section 3.5.2.1 of
the Fact Sheet.
As commenter correctly notes, S.3298 (P.L.110-299) imposes a temporary moratorium on
NPDES permit requirements for “fishing vessels” of any size, as defined in 46 USC 2101, as
well as on non-recreational vessels of less than 79 feet, except for ballast water. The definition of
“fishing vessel” provided in 46 USC 2101 states that they are “a vessel that commercially
engages in the catching, taking, or harvesting of fish or an activity that can reasonably be
expected to result in the catching, taking, or harvesting of fish.” Thus, vessels that meet that
definition are subject to the moratorium in S.3298. With respect to fish tender vessels, we note
that those vessels are separately defined in 46 USC 2101(11)(c) in a way that does not fall within
the definition of fishing vessels, as defined above. Thus, unless less than 79 feet in length, fish
tender vessels that do not engage in the activities described in the 46 USC 2101 definition of a
fishing vessel would not be subject to the moratorium. We note that permitting is not a “rule”,
but an NPDES permit is an authorization to discharge in accordance with the permit’s terms and
conditions; failure to provide coverage under the VGP for vessels subject to NPDES permitting
would mean that those vessels would be discharging without a permit in violation of CWA
Section 301(a). While we understand commenter’s concerns, we are not free to simple exclude a
class of vessels from permitting, absent statutory authorization. In addition, please note that the
results of the S. 3298 study are not predetermined, and those results will not be known until the
study and analysis is completed.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Alan L. Bish, Port Captain
Reinauer Transportation Companies, LLC
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0313.1
5
No
Comment: * A deadline of September 30, 2008 is not realistic based on the crew training,
compliance paperwork, and physical change to vessels that may he required.
Response: For information on the December 19, 2008 deadline and the court decision, see
Section 2.4 of the Fact Sheet. See e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0307.1,
excerpt 4 for a discussion of why EPA cannot extend the compliance date for effluent limits, but
has provided additional time where it can for compliance with inspection, training,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the permit.
5-14
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
David C. Hanby, Jr., President & Chief Operating Officer
(COO)
McDonough Marine Service
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0317
1
No
Comment: Our Company’s business is to charter barges for use throughout the US, similar to
the way rental car companies rent out their cars. We do not know where or how our barges are
used on a daily basis, except in the most general terms. Our fleet consists of mainly unmanned
deck barges that carry no cargo below deck. While only one of the barges in our fleet is built
specifically with ballast tanks, most of the other barges in our fleet can and have held ballast or
leak water in their void tanks. Since most of our barges are over 79' and most are over 300 gross
tons and can carry more than 8 cubic feet of ballast, we expect we will fall under these
regulations. As owners, we think it is impractical, if not impossible, that we will be able to
compile any record of regular (daily?) Inspections, training, documentation, etc. For each vessel,
from each charterer (operator). We suspect that EPA's ability to confirm compliance with the
regulations will be through the vessel records themselves, thus placing the burden solely on the
owner. Since we have no actual control or role in day-to-day operations, we find this
unworkable.
Response: For information on the applicability of the VGP recordkeeping requirements to
unmanned barges, see, e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0277.1 Excerpt 34
(IMRR), Part 4 of the Permit and Section 6 of the Fact Sheet. For information on the routine
visual inspection requirements, see, e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0283,
Excerpt 4 (IMRR). For information on the responsible party during lease or charter situations see
e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0317, Excerpt 3 (RES).
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs and Joseph J.
Angelo, Deputy Managing Director
Chamber of Shipping of America and INTERTANKO
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1
4
No
Comment: C. The EPA should return to the District Court and seek additional time to develop
and implement this massive program. For the reasons discussed in these comments, we
respectfully request EPA to return to the District Court and seek additional time to enable the
type of analysis and assessment that is required by law prior to promulgation of a final VGP. /_2
we have alternatively suggested that the agency could finalize the draft permit with significant
changes, and provide itself and the regulated community with additional time to develop and
implement best management practices, just as it did for the consolidated animal feeding
operations (“CAFO”) program. See discussion below at Section VI.C. /_2 in requesting
additional time from the District Court, we urge EPA to make the following points. First,
acknowledging the fact that some of these discharges are quite likely to be found de minimis,
5-15
EPA should focus first on actual discharge streams from vessels that contain pollutants. Many of
those listed in the proposed VGP are unlikely to contain pollutants or if they do, contain them at
concentrations that would be found to be de minimis under current EPA assessment protocols.
The current accelerated process did not provide sufficient time for this type of assessment to be
conducted. EPA should point out that while it tried to jump start this process using the
experiences gained from the evaluation of military vessels under the UNDS process, it has
learned that this effort though laudable, is not enough to ensure that the permit program focuses
on discharges that are of legitimate concern. Second, despite best efforts to do so, the proposed
VGP contains provisions that are either ambiguous or operationally unrealistic with regard to
normal vessel operations and thus will make compliance with the requirements problematic at
best. We comment extensively on those provisions in the appendix included as part of this
submission.
Response: EPA notes that this comment has been responded to in other comments from the
same commenter, including EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1, excerpts 7, 13, 20, 30, 34. In
addition, for more information on the December 19, 2008 deadline, see Section 2.4 of the Fact
Sheet. For information on regulation of discharges under the Clean Water Act, see e.g., response
to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0363.1, Excerpt 7 and Excerpt 16 (AUTH). For a
response to the commenters’ discussion of the CAFO rule, see e.g., response to comment EPAHQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1, Excerpt 31 (IMP).
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs and Joseph J.
Angelo, Deputy Managing Director
Chamber of Shipping of America and INTERTANKO
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1
6
No
Comment: Finally, the District Court should be made aware of the simple reality that once the
discharges are identified and BMPS established, some reasonable period of time is needed to
allow the shipping industry to establish and implement these practices. It is unreasonable for the
agency to announce new practices on September 30, 2008 and demand that each and every one
be incorporated and operational on October 1, 2008. Congress never intended or required such a
result when it enacted the Clean Water Act.
Response: Comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1, Excerpt 6:
For a response to comments regarding appeal and request for an extension of the September 30,
2008 vacatur deadline, see e.g., response to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0287.1, excerpt
1 and EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0298, excerpt 1. Also see response to comment EPA-HQ-OW2008-0055-0307.1, excerpt 4 for a discussion of why EPA cannot extend the compliance date for
effluent limits, but has provided additional time where it can for compliance with inspection,
training, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the permit.
5-16
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs and Joseph J.
Angelo, Deputy Managing Director
Chamber of Shipping of America and INTERTANKO
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1
14
No
Comment: C. EPA must ensure that the regulated community has been given proper notice of
the standards it is expected to meet. The agency must sufficiently identify and specify effluent
limits (BMPS or otherwise) for each waste stream in order to give the regulated community
adequate notice of the standard it is expected to meet. Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution, a person is protected against a deprivation of his life, liberty, or
property without “due process of law.” “traditional concepts of due process incorporated into
administrative law preclude an agency from penalizing a private party for violating a rule
without first providing adequate notice of the substance of the rule.” Satellite Broadcasting Co.,
Inc. V. Federal Communications Comm’n, 824 f.2d 1, 3 (D.C. Cir. 1987). /_5 in Satellite
Broadcasting Co., Inc. V. Federal Communications Comm’n, 824 f.2d 1, 3 (D.C. Cir. 1987), the
FCC dismissed satellite’s application for a microwave radio station because it was filed in
Washington, D.C., not in Gettysburg, PA., as the FCC determined the regulations required. But
the specific regulation governing the appropriate location to file, and other regulations, offered
“baffling and inconsistent” advice. Id. At 2. Assuming Arguendo that the FCC’s interpretation
was reasonable, the court ruled that the FCC should not have dismissed satellite’s application:
“[t]he commission through its regulatory power cannot, in effect, punish a member of the
regulated class for reasonably interpreting commission rules .... The agency’s interpretation is
entitled to deference, but if it wishes to use that interpretation to cut off a party’s right, it must
give full notice of its interpretation.” Id. At 4 (emphasis added). /_5 “the due process clause thus
prevents deference [to the agency’s interpretation of its regulations] from validating the
application of a regulation that fails to give fair warning of the conduct it prohibits or requires.”
General Electric Co. V. EPA, 53 f.3d 1324, 1328 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (indications of quotation
omitted).
Response: Comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1, Excerpt 14:
We believe that as written, the effluent limits contained in the VGP are sufficiently clear to put
the regulated community on notice of the requirements they must comply with, and most
certainly are not so vague as to create the kinds of constitutional concerns that the commenter
raises. As explained in VGP Fact Sheet Part 4.2, the VGP uses numeric effluent limits and
narrative BMPs when calculation of a numeric limit was not feasible. Commenter does not raise
vagueness concerns with respect to VGP’s numeric limits so these will not be further discussed
in this response.
With respect to non-numeric limits, we note that requirements related to ballast water
management in VGP Part 2.2.3 are primarily based upon existing regulatory requirements with
which mariners are duly familiar. See, VGP Fact Sheet Part 4.4.3. With respect to non-numeric
limits for oil (stated as prohibitions against discharge of “oil in quantities that may be harmful”),
we note that this standard, too, is already applicable to vessels under CWA § 311, and that VGP
5-17
Appendix A defines the term “oil in quantities that may be harmful” by using the existing CWA
§ 311 definition contained in 40 CFR 110.3 with which mariners also are duly familiar.
With respect to other non-numeric BMPs, we note with respect to those which are phrased as an
obligation to “minimize” certain discharges, the factors and considerations relevant to meeting
such obligation are set out in VGP Part 2. We further note that in response to other comments on
the VGP seeking clarification of certain terms, we have added appropriate definitions to provide
further clarity. See e.g., definitions for “control measure,” “deck,” “in port,” “non-toxic,”
“phosphate free,” “toxic and hazardous materials” in Final VGP Appendix A.
We believe that BMPs in the VGP reflect a reasonable balance of the need to provide flexibility
to accommodate the diverse and varied array of vessels and discharges which the VGP needs to
address in light of the NWEA court’s vacatur of the NPDES permit exclusion in 40 CFR
122.3(a), while still providing industry with adequate notice of the requirements that must be met
to comply with the BMPs. See also, response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1,
excerpt 16.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs and Joseph J.
Angelo, Deputy Managing Director
Chamber of Shipping of America and INTERTANKO
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1
16
No
Comment: The D.C. circuit’s decision in General Electric Co., provides a useful illustration of
the application of this legal principle to the proposed VGP. In General Electric Co., EPA fined
general electric for distilling used solvents and incinerating only the contaminated portion
instead of immediately incinerating the entire solution. Id. At 1326-27. /_6 GE and EPA agreed
that the regulations required the incineration of the solvent. They disagreed about whether GE’s
intervening distillation and recycling process violated the regulations. EPA argued that its
regulations required GE to dispose of all the dirty solvent by immediate incineration. GE did not
think that the regulations prohibited it from taking intermediate steps like distillation prior to
incineration. To GE, other regulatory provisions authorized intermediate processing “for
purposes of disposal” - processing such as distillation - as long as it complied with applicable
regulatory requirements. EPA did not alleged that GE’s distillation process failed to comply with
those requirements. In fact, as the ALJ later concluded, distillation reduced the amount of
contaminated materials, thus producing environmental benefits. Id. /_6 general electric argued
that the regulation at issue did not provide it with reasonable notice of EPA’s expectation that it
immediately incinerate the entire solution. The relevant inquiry, the D.C. circuit explained, was:
whether the regulated party received, or should have received, notice of the agency’s
interpretation in the most obvious way of all: by reading the regulations. If, by reviewing the
regulations and other public statements issued by the agency, a regulated party acting in good
faith would be able to identify, with ascertainable certainty, the standards with which the agency
expects parties to conform, then the agency has fairly notified a petitioner of the agency’s
interpretation. 53 f.3d at 1329. The D.C. circuit held that the regulation could be interpreted in
the manner suggested by EPA, but nevertheless held that EPA could not fine general electric for
5-18
its failure to comply with an interpretation that was “so far from a reasonable person’s
understanding of the regulations that [the regulations] could not have fairly informed GE of the
agency’s perspective.” Id. At 1330; see also United States V. Chrysler Corporation, 158 f.23d
1350, 1354-57 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (holding that agency failed to provide fair notice of specific
requirements of compliance testing and government therefore could not seek an automobile
recall on the ground that Chrysler had failed to properly to perform testing); Rollins Envtl. Svcs.
(NJ) Inc. V. EPA, 937 f.2d 659, 653 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (rescinding fine assessed by EPA because
regulation was ambiguous). In other words, the court in general electric refused to permit an
agency to sanction a company based on the failure of the company to comply with an expectation
held by the agency but not shared with the regulated public. Here, as in general electric, EPA’s
proposed permitting program does not provide the regulated community with constitutionally
adequate notice of the expectations that provide the basis for the sanctions EPA may impose.
Take, for example, the following vague BMPS imposed by the proposed permit: . • “consistent
with good marine practices that prevents excessive discharge….” . • “minimize by practicing
proper maintenance” . • “owner/operators must use these non-fluorinated substitutes for training
when practicable and achievable” . • “not all biodegradable soaps are appropriate” . • “most
effective BMP is to conduct maintenance and training activities as far from shore as possible” . •
“vessels that generate wet exhaust must be maintained in good operating condition” to correct
these and other amorphous BMPS throughout the proposed VGP, EPA should conduct a more in
depth survey to identify particular and specific industry standards and practices that it can refer
to in the proposed permit. Some of those standards are provided in these comments, but because
of the short time afforded the regulated community to comment, it is not possible to catalogue
the variety and depth of training, maintenance and other practices that might meet the general
BMPS that are proposed in the VGP. In addition, the EPA has a 200-page guidance document on
the development of BMPS. See guidance manual for developing Best Management Practices,
833-b-93-004, EPA Office of Water (1983). The agency should provide a clear explanation: (a)
as to whether, and how, it relied upon this guidance in the development of the BMPS imposed by
the proposed permit; and (2) of the extent to which the regulated community can rely upon this
guidance to develop BMPS.
Response: We note that the case discussed above involved a fact-specific application of the
regulation in question. While commenter has asserted its desire for greater specificity in the
VGP, although it will be more difficult in some cases than others to determine what measures
can be taken to implement the BMPs, in many cases an acceptable approach will be readily
apparent. For example, VGP Part 2.2.2 provides examples of how to minimize bilgewater
discharges. In other cases appropriate implementing steps will be apparent without specific
examples in the permit (e.g., implement the VGP Part 2.2.7 direction to minimize flaking of
large, corroded portions of anodes by inspecting and replacing anodes that are corroded and
flaking; implement VGP 2.2.20 direction to use the minimum amount of biofouling chemicals
needed to keep fouling under control by following the antifouling products’ labels and directions
for use). We further note that commenter does not claim that the lack of specificity has precluded
its ability to undertake measures and practices to come into compliance with the VGP, but notes
to the contrary: “Oceangoing vessels currently have safety and environmental management
systems replete with specific operational procedures regarding most if not all tasks and
discharges included in the VGP.” (comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1, excerpt 41;
emphasis added).
5-19
With respect to the specific examples raised in this comment, we note these quotations are from
the VGP Fact Sheet and not the VGP itself. Moreover, with respect to “good marine practices” or
“proper maintenance,” we note that vessel owners and operators are well versed in maintaining
vessels in accordance with class and regulatory requirements and would have an understanding
of what good marine practice and proper maintenance entails.
With respect to the 1993 BMP Guidance (publication number 833-B-93-004) the commenter
refers to, the Agency did not “rely” on that guidance, as the manual primarily was written to
provide guidance to NPDES permittees in development of BMPs (1993 BMP Guidance at pg 11). As to the extent to which the regulated community can “rely” upon that guidance, we note,
that as stated in 40 CFR 122.44(k), the manual is informational in nature, not binding, and not
intended to have mandatory regulatory effect. We further note that at the time the manual was
written (1993), discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels were excluded from
NPDES permitting by 40 CFR 122.3(a) and that the thus manual was written with stationary
industrial sources in mind. Commenters are free to consult the manual to determine if the
information it contains might still be useful to them in coming into compliance with the VGP.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs and Joseph J.
Angelo, Deputy Managing Director
Chamber of Shipping of America and INTERTANKO
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1
29
No
Comment: VI. The regulated community must be given reasonable time to achieve compliance
with the permit requirements the Ninth Circuit invited the agency to petition the District Court if
the agency believed more time was needed beyond September 30, 2008 to develop a permit
program. In light of the serous deficiencies in the proposed VGP, we urge EPA to accept the
Ninth Circuit’s invitation to request an extension of the September 30, 2008 deadline from the
District Court for two reasons. First, congress expressly recognized, when it passed the Federal
water pollution control act amendments of 1972, pub. L. No. 92-500, 86 stat. 816 (1972), that it
would take time to develop and implement NPDES permitting programs and standards governing
discharges. Second, the concerns that EPA has expressed about the soundness of its efforts in
this short time, have come to fruition. A. The Clean Water Act supports EPA seeking an
extension of time before the vacatur order becomes effective. As a result of the District Court’s
vacatur of the 30-year-old vessel discharge exception, EPA and the regulated vessel community,
as of September 30, 2008, will effectively find themselves where they would have been at the
adoption of the Federal water pollution control act amendments of 1972 – having to regulate for
the first time, certain kinds of discharges from certain sources. When it passed the 1972
amendments, congress expressly recognized that, as a practical matter, it would take time to
initially implement the permit provisions of the 1972 amendments. Specifically, § 1342(K)
provides that: until December 31, 1974, in any case where a permit for discharge has been
applied for pursuant to this section, but final administrative disposition of such application has
not been made, such discharge shall not be a violation of (1) Section 1311, 1316, or 1342 of this
title, or (2) Section 407 of this title, unless the administrator or other plaintiff proves that final
administrative disposition of such application has not been made because of the failure of the
5-20
applicant to furnish information reasonably required or requested in order to process the
application. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(K). Congress expected that it would take at least a full two years
after adoption of the 1972 amendments just to process and issue permit applications. For
example, in the house debates on the conference report, Representative Clark commented:
Section 402(K) states that until December 31, 1974, a discharge shall not be in violation of law if
a permit has been applied for, and the applicant has furnished all information reasonably required
or requested. Hopefully, the program will be in the hands of the states by December 31, 1974,
and permits will be issued. But, if not, congress may have to extend this date. 1 A legislative
history of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 at 274 (Environmental Policy
Div., Congressional Research Serv. Ed., 1973) (house consideration of the conference report). In
the same vein, the citizen suit provision states that a citizen may bring an action against a person
allegedly committing an unlawful act under § 1311(a) “effective July 1, 1973.” 33 U.S.C. §
1365(f)(1). The legislative history expressly states that congress delayed the availability of a
citizen suit based on an allegedly unlawful act under § 1311(a) in order to give EPA, states, and
the regulated community time to issue all of the permits required by the Clean Water Act:
authority granted to citizens to bring enforcement actions under this section is limited to effluent
standards or limitations established administratively under the act. Such standards or limitations
are defined in subsection (f) of [§ 1365] to include the enforcement of an unlawful discharge
under [§ 1311(a)], effective after July 1, 1973. By limiting the effective date of citizens suits for
violation of this provision the committee believes sufficient time is available for the state and
Federal governments to develop fully, and execute the authority contained in [§ 1342, which
provides for NPDES permits]. S. Rep. No. 414, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. 81 (1971). Congress, by the
foregoing provisions, recognized that it was necessary to prevent the use of enforcement
mechanisms before the agency had sufficient time to put a new, significant program in place.
Congress recognized that permitting enforcement by EPA or citizens against the regulated
community before such a program could be crafted and practically implemented served no valid
purpose. As recognized by the Ninth Circuit, and the District Court’s underlying decision, courts
may leave an agency action in place when equity so demands. The Clean Water Act clearly
anticipated that the regulated community would be given more time to comply with new
requirements and those equitable considerations should apply here.
Response: For a response to the comments regarding appeal and request for an extension of the
September 30, 2008 vacatur deadline, please see e.g., responses to comment numbers 0287.1
excerpt 1 and 0298, excerpt 1. See response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1,
excerpt 31 for discussion of 33 U.S.C. § 1342(k )(CWA § 402(k)). In addition, see response to
comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0307.1, excerpt 4 for a discussion of why EPA cannot
extend the compliance date for effluent limits, but has provided additional time where it can for
compliance with inspection, training, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the permit.
5-21
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs and Joseph J.
Angelo, Deputy Managing Director
Chamber of Shipping of America and INTERTANKO
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1
31
No
Comment: C. Section 402(K) authorizes the EPA to give the regulated community reasonable
time to meet the new program requirements. The history of the development of effluent
standards, including BMPS, for other industries demonstrates that substantially more time is
needed than has been provided for by the District Court’s order. EPA’s recent experience with
effluent limits and permitting requirements for concentrated animal feeding operations, or
CAFOS, is illustrative. A final rule issued July 24, 2007 (72 fed. Reg. 40248) extends the
deadline, establishing February 27, 2009 as the new date for newly defined CAFOS to seek
NPDES permit coverage and for permitted CAFOS to develop and implement nutrient
management plans (NMPS) as required by EPA’s 2003 CAFO rule. In a February 2006
rulemaking, EPA extended the same compliance dates to July 31, 2007 (71 Fed. Reg. 6978).
EPA revised the dates to allow time to finalize the regulations in response to the second circuit
court of appeals decision in Waterkeeper Alliance et al. V. EPA, 399 f.3d 486 (2nd cir. 2005).
The deadline extensions are, according to EPA, necessary to allow EPA time to respond
adequately to an array of public comments on issues raised by the second circuit’s decision
before certain compliance dates take effect. According to the agency, the February 27, 2009,
deadlines will provide additional time, after the final rule in response to waterkeeper is
promulgated, to allow states, the regulated community, and other stakeholders the opportunity to
adjust to the new regulatory requirements. 72 Fed. Reg. 40248. EPA’s 2003 CAFO rule further
supports reliance on Section 402(k) of the Clean Water Act to seek more time from the District
Court for implementation of the proposed VGP. EPA reasoned in the 2003 CAFO rule, and
reiterated in the February 2006 date change rule, that allowing newly regulated entities three
years to come into compliance was consistent with congressional intent, as expressed in Section
402(K) Clean Water Act with respect to newly established point sources. Moreover, the agency
stated that the three-year timeframe was necessary for states authorized to administer the NPDES
permit program to provide permit coverage for CAFOS that were not previously required to be
permitted and to revise state regulatory programs. See 68 fed. Reg. 7204. If EPA stays on its
current course, then it must give the regulated community reasonable time to adjust to, and
achieve compliance with, the new regulatory requirements. BMPS are schedules of activities,
prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or
reduce the pollution of “waters of the United States.” BMPS also include treatment requirements,
operating procedures, and practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste
disposal, or drainage from raw material storage. 40 C.F.R. § 122.2. By definition, therefore,
BMPS will take some reasonable period of time to establish and implement. It would be arbitrary
and capricious for the agency to announce the BMPS on September 30 and demand instant
compliance with those ‘practices’ on October 1. EPA can exercise the discretion it showed in
connection with the 2003 CAFO rule and cure this potential problem by amending the
“corrective action” provisions of the proposed permit to provide the regulated community with
reasonable time in which to implement the BMPS once the permit becomes final.
5-22
Response: CWA Section 402(k) does not provide a basis on which to delay the duty to comply
with effluent limitations in today’s permit; like the dates for the achievement of technology and
water-quality based effluent limits in CWA Section 301(b), the period of delay granted by
Section 402(k) was expressed as a date certain and that date has passed. (The CAFO preamble
cited by commenter does not say anything to contrary – it simply stated that granting the
extensions at issue was consistent with Congressional intent as expressed by Section 402(k)).
EPA does not expect to “demand instant compliance with those practices” on December 19; EPA
notes that as discussed elsewhere in this permit, EPA generally focuses on outreach initially, and
EPA’s citizen suit provision provides adequate time for vessels to come into compliance and
avoid suit (see further discussion of these matters in, for example, response to comment EPAHQ-OW-2008-0055-0307.1, excerpt 3. For a response to the comments regarding appeal and
request for an extension of the September 30, 2008 vacatur deadline, please see e.g., responses to
comment numbers EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0287.1 and EPA –HQ-OW-2008-0055-0298,
excerpt 1. See also response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0307.1, excerpt 4 for a
discussion of why EPA cannot extend the compliance date for effluent limits, but has provided
additional time where it can for compliance with inspection, training, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements of the permit.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs and Joseph J.
Angelo, Deputy Managing Director
Chamber of Shipping of America and INTERTANKO
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1
46
No
Comment: 13. 16. With regard to various training requirements referenced through the VGP,
use of the broad term “crew” is too broad a term, and creates an unnecessary burden on the
vessel and shoreside management. For large ocean going vessels the majority of the crew is not
involved with any of the decisions on how these discharges are managed. It is therefore
recommended that where the term “crew” is used in the training context, it be replaced by “and
crew members that actively take part in the management of the discharge.”
Response: Based on this and other comments, EPA has changed the language in the relevant
Permit sections to require training for “crew members who actively take part in the management
of the discharge or who may affect the discharge.”
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John P. Wronowski, Owner and President
Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0322.1
1
No
Comment: The proposed VGP would impose significant substantial economic and operational
burdens on CSF while producing little if any direct social environmental benefits related to
5-23
CSF’s vessel operations. These economic and operational burdens are far beyond those
purported in the deeply flawed economic and benefits analysis of the proposed vessel general
permit (“EBA”)1 and will be further described below as will be the lack of environmental
benefits that the VGP would achieve relative to CSF’s operations and many other ferry
operations. Requests to EPA regarding overall design and implementation of VGP cross sound
strongly requests that the Federal government act to enable commercial vessels to keep operating
past September 30, 2008 without being branded as lawbreakers. The passenger vessel industry
has relied on EPA’s regulatory exemption in good faith for 35 years and it would be inequitable
to force the industry into non-compliance because of an unrealistic deadline. Implementation
and/or enforcement of the VGP should be delayed until a thorough and statistically accurate and
justifiable assessment of the impacts and benefits of the VGP is performed.
Response: See e.g., the response to comment number 320.1, excerpt 31 and other responses to
similar requests for a delay in implementation of the VGP. See also response to comment EPAHQ-OW-2008-0055-0307.1, excerpt 4 for a discussion of why EPA cannot extend the
compliance date for effluent limits, but has provided additional time where it can for compliance
with inspection, training, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the permit.
For information on the deadline and court decision, see Section 2.4 of the Fact Sheet. For
information on the CWA, the history of the exclusion of vessels from the NPDES permitting
program, and general permits, see Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.6 of the Fact Sheet. For a response to
the commenter’s economic concerns, see e.g., response to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2008-00550320.1, Excerpt 26 (ECON) and EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0322.1, Excerpt 2 (ECON).
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John P. Wronowski, Owner and President
Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0322.1
3
No
Comment: Once a thorough and statistically accurate and justifiable assessment of the impacts
and benefits of the VGP is performed and the VGB is finalized, CSF requests that
implementation and/or enforcement of the VGP should be delayed sufficiently to allow operators
to come into compliance within a reasonable time-frame. CSF requests a two-year compliance
deadline for the VGP as drafted. Furthermore, cross sound strongly requests that the EPA create
a single industry-wide “general permit” automatically granted to every ferry vessel that operates
within the same interconnected bodies of water. As drafted, the proposed VGP would require
CSF to submit an application and a notice of intent (as well as many other burdensome forms of
paperwork and recordkeeping), both of which would impose an unnecessary governmental
paperwork burden on CSF. CSF requests that there be no fees associated with this permit, as any
fees would be economically burdensome, especially in light of significantly increased energy
costs and newly imposed US Coast Guard regulations.
Response: EPA cannot provide “a two-year compliance deadline for the VGP” because, among
other things, under the court order in the NWEA litigation, the existing vessel permit exclusion is
vacated as of December 19, 2008, and we are not empowered to extend that date. See also
5-24
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0307.1, excerpt 4 for a discussion of why EPA
cannot extend the compliance date for effluent limits, but has provided additional time where it
can for compliance with inspection, training, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the
permit.
For a discussion of why EPA cannot automatically provide separate permit coverage or an
exclusion for ferry vessels that operate within the same interconnected bodies of water, see, e.g.,
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0322.1, excerpt 4. For a response to the
commenter’s economic concerns, see e.g., response to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2008-00550320.1, Excerpt 26 (ECON) and EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0322.1, Excerpt 2 (ECON).
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John P. Wronowski, Owner and President
Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0322.1
21
No
Comment: Summary in summary, the VGP as drafted will create a tremendous burden to the
entire passenger vessel industry, and we request the following: 1. Implementation and/or
enforcement of the VGP should be delayed until a thorough and statistically accurate assessment
of the impacts and benefits of the VGP is performed. Following this, once the VGP is finalized,
implementation and/or enforcement of the VGP should be delayed sufficiently to allow operators
to come into compliance within a reasonable time-frame. CSF requests a two year compliance
deadline for the VGP as drafted. 2. Vessels that operate and exist solely within the same
interconnected lakes, bays, and sounds in a particular geographical region that does not include
waters listed in part 12 of the VGP, should be exempt from all aspects and requirements of the
VGP related to ballast water and all other provisions related to invasive species. Without this
exemption, there is no environmental benefit to offset the additional financial and manpower
costs incurred if we have to meet these proposed regulations as drafted. 3. All provisions of the
VGP that are already regulated by the USCG or the individual states be removed from the VGP.
4. The VGP be modified in accordance with our section-specific comments as detailed above in
the body of this document.
Response: As the comment notes, this is a summary, and therefore, commenter’s more detailed
comments are addressed elsewhere in this document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kenneth R. Wells, President
Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA)
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0323.1
3
No
Comment: Simplify the process with a goal of achieving greater compliance. While the permit
process is long-established for many sectors of industry, the maritime industry has had very little
5-25
exposure to the process. With this one rulemaking, EPA is imposing a very complex legal
framework on the owners and crewmembers of thousands of vessels with little time to prepare
and adapt to it. The key goal is to achieve meaningful compliance among the broadest population
of vessels. The proposal contained in the June 17th Federal Register announcement is so
complex and requires so much reporting that will be very difficult for companies to administer.
Unfortunately one of the maxims of public policy is that, the more complex the requirements, the
more they invite non-compliance. A simplified, more straightforward approach will be necessary
if the entire industry is to be brought on board.
Response: The VGP is an NPDES general permit, and not a rule. See Section 2 of the Fact
Sheet for additional information. EPA believes the application process and permit requirements
are straightforward and will not be burdensome for permittees to implement. The commenter did
not specify where and how these requirements could be appropriately simplified; EPA thus did
not make changes in response to this comment. In addition, EPA notes that many of the
requirements contained within the permit incorporate, and are substantially similar to, existing
requirements applicable to vessels under existing law.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kenneth R. Wells, President
Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA)
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0323.1
6
No
Comment: By the same token, the rulemaking does not present foreign vessel owners with a
practical, workable approach to compliance. Assuming that foreign owners are made aware of
the new requirement by the September deadline, the permitting process and reporting
requirements will be difficult to meet for vessels which only make occasional voyages to U.S.
waters. This is another argument for simplifying the entire process in the interests of increasing
compliance.
Response: EPA disagrees with the suggestion that the VGP “does not present foreign vessel
owners with a practical, workable approach to compliance,” and notes that a presentation was
made on October 7, 2008 at the 58th meeting of the International Maritime Organization’s
Marine Environment Protection Committee, notifying the foreign vessel community in advance
about EPA’s intent to issue the VGP. In addition, notification of the draft permit was proposed in
the Federal Register and EPA notes the World Shipping Council and other international
organizations have submitted comments to this docket. We also note, that as explained elsewhere
in this response to comment document, many of the VGP provisions are drawn from existing
international and domestic requirements applicable to vessels. For information on the
applicability of the VGP to vessels that make occasional voyages to waters subject to the permit,
see e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0319.1, excerpt 3.
5-26
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs
Shipping Federation of Canada
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0327.1
6
No
Comment: Comments on the proposed vessel general permit coverage under the vessel general
permit Part 1.4 permit compliance: as indicated in Part 1.4 of the permit proposal, noncompliance with the permit’s provisions constitutes a violation of the Clean Water Act that is
punishable by fines or imprisonment. It is also our understanding that the Best Management
Practices applied by the permit holder are to become part of the permit conditions and therefore
mandatory and criminally enforceable. Given the foregoing, the criminal liability attached to the
“duty to comply” (40 CFR 122.41(a)) in applying best management practices can be interpreted
as an excessive burden (and a personal threat) for operators who transit U.S. waters to call
Canadian ports, as well as for the operators who call U.S. ports only occasionally. We believe
this concern to be particularly relevant, given that the U.S. court of appeals (Ninth Circuit)
decision specifically states that “obtaining a permit under the CWA need not be an onerous
process.” /_3 see U.S. court of appeals for the Ninth District decision. /_3
Response: For a discussion of the recordkeeping requirements for vessels “who call U.S. ports
only occasionally,” see e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0328.1, excerpt 4.
The process for receiving permit coverage is not onerous, and EPA notes that certain vessel
owner/operators do not have to file an NOI to receive coverage under the VGP. For more
information on how to receive permit coverage, see Part 1.5 of the Permit and Section 3.7 of the
Fact Sheet.
With respect to commenter’s statement means that “the best management practices applied by
the permit holder are to become part of the permit conditions and therefore mandatory and
criminally enforceable.” EPA that EPA, not the permittee, established the narrative effluent
limits (BMPs) that are set out in the VGP and are enforceable conditions of today’s permit.
Commenter is correct that the CWA does contain civil and criminal enforcement provisions, as
do other statutes including the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (see 33 USC § 1908).
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Caroline Gravel, Director, Environmental Affairs
Shipping Federation of Canada
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0327.1
31
No
Comment: Additional concerns we are concerned that the inspection and reporting
requirements proposed by the EPA render such practices enforceable, thereby transforming them
into new regulatory requirements. Another aspect of the permit program that is worrisome is the
short timeframe in which the program must be developed and implemented. Indeed, given the
ongoing uncertainties regarding the permit’s requirements and application, we believe that the
September 30th deadline for the program’s implementation is unrealistic. Let us not forget that
5-27
ships transiting to U.S. waters must not only be aware of all the program’s requirements by
October 1st, they must also ensure that their management and documentation systems have been
programmed and amended accordingly. This is an enormous task, and one which we simply do
not believe can be effectively carried out within the timeframe that remains. We therefore
support the chamber of shipping of America that the EPA submit a request to the District Court
to extend the September 30th deadline by three years to develop and establish the program, and
for industry to then implement it before enforcement begins. We also take this opportunity to
express our general support for the comments submitted jointly by the chamber of shipping of
America and Intertanko. We agree with several of the points raised in their analysis, particularly
with regard to their concerns about the factual basis underlying the proposed vessel general
permit and the 28 waste streams that would be regulated, the necessity of giving the regulated
community proper notice of the standards it is expected to meet, the need to recognize
differences in industry sectors, the uncertainties associated with the proposed best management
practices (both in terms of the wording and compliance) and comments on the economic analysis
provided by the EPA. It is our hope that the EPA will take these comments into account and
petition the District Court for an extension. *********
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0307.1, excerpt 4 for a
discussion of why EPA cannot extend the compliance date for effluent limits, but has provided
additional time where it can for compliance with inspection, training, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements of the permit.
For information on inspection and reporting requirements, see Section 6 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter correctly notes that inspection and reporting requirements are enforceable permit
conditions. For information on the Clean Water Act, NPDES permitting, and the court decision,
including the December 19, 2008 deadline, see Section 2 of the Fact Sheet. In addition, please
note the delayed timeframe for submitting a Notice of Intent. See Part 1.5 of the Permit and
Section 3.5 of the Fact Sheet. For information on the basis for each discharge stream eligible for
coverage under the VGP, see Section 3.5 of the Fact Sheet and Section 4.4 of the Fact Sheet. For
a response to commenter’s assertions regarding proper notice of the VGP’s requirements, see
e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1, excerpt 16 (IMP). For a response to
the commenter’s economic concerns, see e.g., response to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2008-00550320.1, Excerpt 26 (ECON) and EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0322.1, Excerpt 2 (ECON). EPA has
taken into consideration the unique nature of several different vessel types. See Part 5 of the
Permit and Section 7 for additional information. Commenter’s additional concerns, including its
support for concerns raised by the Chamber of Shipping and INTERTANKO are addressed
elsewhere in this document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Michael F. Vitt, General Counsel
E.N. Bisso & Son, Inc.
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0331.1
1
No
Comment: We respectfully submit that the proposed rule for complying with the vessel general
permit (VGP) should first seek to minimize the economic, operational and administrative burden
5-28
placed on businesses. The VGP, in its current draft form, is unrealistic, if not impossible, based
on the following points: the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) economic analysis is
flawed. Compliance will produce significant and unprecedented economic, operational, and
administrative burdens not only on businesses like e.n. Bisso & Son, but also on those who
depend on our services. Compliance with the VGP will threaten the safety of the vessel, its crew
and the environment. The science does not yet exist to support this type of permitting regime and
the technology to capture, measure, monitor, sample and control the types of discharges covered
under the permit does not exist. The resulting benefit of this permitting regime can't be
quantified. The VGP, in its current form, conflicts with existing and forthcoming regulation of
commercial vessels.
Response: The VGP is an NPDES permit, not a rule. EPA notes that each of these comments
were more fully explained later in the commenter’s letter and have been responded to in other
sections of this response to comment document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Mark Vinsel, Executive Director
United Fisherman of Alaska (UFA)
Commercial Fishing
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0333.1
3
No
Comment: In our 2007 comment letter we also requested that the EPA conduct a cost benefit
analysis of the enormous paperwork, manpower, and energy that would be required to conduct
and enforce this level of regulations, and proceed only with regulations that can be expected to
provide a net benefit to the waters on which we depend for our livelihoods. We are aware of
congressional action that allows for a two year moratorium on regulations for commercial fishing
vessels to allow study of the types and effects of incidental discharges in normal operation. We
look forward to helping further these studies in cooperation with the EPA, in the interest of
protecting the ocean resources upon which all fisheries depend.
Response: For a response to the commenter’s economic concerns, see e.g., response to
comments EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1, Excerpt 26 (ECON) and EPA-HQ-OW-2008-00550322.1, Excerpt 2 (ECON). For additional information on the legislation, see Section 2.5 of the
Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Steve Collins, CHMM (Certified Hazardous Materials
Manager), Director Environmental and Health Programs
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0337.1
10
No
Comment: General scope & applicability does not recognize the inherent problems with
applying a permit program designed for stationary sources, to mobile sources the distinguishing
5-29
characteristic of discharges from vessel point sources vis-à-vis all other dischargers is that they
are mobile. Cruise vessels, as are all vessels operating in international trade, are regulated under
a variety of authorities and regulatory schemes, starting with the international maritime
organization’s MARPOL 73/78, as well as laws and regulations administered by flag states, port
states and local jurisdictions. As such, three major operational factors, unique to vessels and
completely outside the experience of regulating stationary land based sources, will have a
significant bearing on the requirements of this general permit. These are: 1. The great majority of
ocean going vessels subject to this permit are non-U.S. registered. While EPA undoubtedly has
the authority to regulate discharges into U.S. territorial waters, the approach taken is to
specifically mandate best management practices, equipment-specific performance criteria, ship
modifications and possibly equipment arrangements (including hull coatings, piping, pumps,
tankage), and dry-docking procedures which may exceed EPA’s authority to regulate –
particularly as most of those construction or operational activities and the attendant governing
regulations would be outside the jurisdiction of the United States. 2. Vessels will routinely transit
into and out of the jurisdiction of this vessel general permit, often several times within the same
day, much less within the same voyage, complicating adherence to specific recordkeeping and
tracking when those activities are only in waters subject to the permit. This is complicated by
EPA’s 401-certification process where a myriad of jurisdictions can layer additional
requirements on those subject to the vessel general permit. 3. Discharges from large ocean going
vessels are subject to rapid and immediate dilution, significantly mitigating the concentration of
constituents in the receiving waters.
Response: For information on the court decision which lead to the vacatur of the previous
NPDES exclusion see Section 2.4 of the Fact Sheet. For information on the applicability of the
VGP to foreign vessels or vessels which occasionally operate outside waters subject to this
permit, see, e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0319.1, Excerpt 3 (APP).
The VGP’s effluent limitations and requirements apply within waters subject to this permit, i.e.,
inland waters and within the 3 mile territorial sea. As explained in other responses to comments,
the effluent limitations in the permit are largely drawn from existing requirements, supplemented
by additional requirements when necessary to ensure compliance with the CWA. These
additional requirements are typically stated as flexible best management practices. We do not
agree that the permit imposes extra-territorial obligations.
For information on the 401 certification process and why EPA cannot prevent states from
imposing additional permit conditions, see e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-00550287.1, excerpt 13. See Section 8 of the Fact Sheet. For information on the dilution of vessel
discharges and mixing zones see e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0337.1,
Excerpt 11 (VESS1A).
5-30
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Steve Collins, CHMM (Certified Hazardous Materials
Manager), Director Environmental and Health Programs
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0337.1
12
No
Comment: The general permit is too complex and there is insufficient time to address permit
issues. Given the number of discharges considered in the vessel general permit, it is
understandable that it will be complex. This is all the more reason to try to simplify the permit
wherever possible, and reduce the number of records to be maintained or violation reports
triggered with their attendant corrective actions generated. Between Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.1 of
the vessel general permit, there are over 200 “shall”, “must”, “may not” and “will not”
statements that pertain to the permitted vessels. Each of these is a compliance requirement in the
permit for which noncompliance will constitute a violation of the Clean Water Act under the
draft general permit, potentially subjecting the vessel to the penalties described in Part 1.4.
Although EPA may not choose to enforce each of these conditions strictly (and indeed, given the
number of vessels involved in the general permit, such enforcement would be near impossible),
each of these permit conditions could result in citizen suit enforcement actions. Vessels subject
to this general permit will need to track their compliance with each and every one of these
statements and as Part 4.4.1 requires, reporting of all instances of noncompliance with this
permit at least once per year. There is significant enormity to this task, as well as a substantial
liability exposure. The number of these statements needs to be greatly reduced. In some cases,
substitution with the non-mandatory “should” is appropriate at this stage, with the understanding
that in subsequent permitting as the scientific basis evolves EPA could upgrade the requirement
to a “shall”.
Response: EPA believes the permit is straightforward and will not be overly burdensome for
permittees to implement. In addition, note that EPA has provided a basis sufficient to meet Clean
Water Act standards for each permit requirement. See Section 4.1 of the Fact Sheet for
information on setting technology-based effluent limitations.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Steve Collins, CHMM (Certified Hazardous Materials
Manager), Director Environmental and Health Programs
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0337.1
22
No
Comment: The implementation schedule is too short recognizing that the court ordered
schedule has compressed EPA’s schedule in developing this general permit, the international
maritime community is none-the-less faced with an impossibly short time frame in which to
develop and implement programs to satisfy requirements of the general permit. If this permit is
to take effect September 30, 2008, all vessels will be subject to a significant new regulatory
framework that will require rapid development of new procedures, modification of existing
5-31
procedures, and training with regard to both. Any fleet subject to the ISM code will have to
integrate these new requirements of the vessel general permit into their existing SMS. In
addition, a new training regime will be necessary for the crew as well as either a new or at least
updated passenger education program. For a permit inclusive of citizen suit provisions, it is not
reasonable to require that vessel operators make all changes necessary to implement the general
permit terms by September 30, 2008. Considering the discussion in the recent Ninth Circuit court
decision, it is appropriate for EPA to request an extension for implementation of the VGP to
allow for thorough review and implementation that applies a common sense approach and
analysis of discharge effects. Therefore, it is also appropriate for EPA to include a compliance
schedule granting development time and opportunity to fully implement the requirements of any
final general permit. CLIA recommends a compliance schedule with time frames equivalent to
the notice of intent submission deadlines found in 1.5.1.1 of the VGP based on a good faith effort
to implement the requirements of the general permit.
Response: For information on the court decision, including the December 19, 2008 vacatur
date, see Section 2.4 of the Fact Sheet. At this time, EPA does not have the authority to extend
that date or allow for additional implementation time to comply with effluent limits. See also
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0307.1, excerpt 4 for a discussion of why EPA
cannot extend the compliance date for effluent limits, but has provided additional time where it
can for compliance with inspection, training, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the
permit.
For information on the Clean Water Act see Section 2.1 of the Fact Sheet. For information on
NPDES General Permits see Section 2.6 of the Fact Sheet. For information on the submission
deadlines for submitting a Notice of Intent, see Part 1.5 of the Permit and Section 3.7 of the Fact
Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Steve Collins, CHMM (Certified Hazardous Materials
Manager), Director Environmental and Health Programs
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0337.1
30
No
Comment: Part 1.4 Permit Compliance this section of the general permit provides relatively
standard language incorporated into most shore-based permits. Discussion regarding ongoing
separate violations, non-compliance, schedule for repairs, etc., does not adequately describe
circumstances in which a vessel intermittently traverse into or out of waters subject to the permit.
EPA must provide further clarification in both the fact sheet and the general permit.
Additionally, applicability of these requirements to ships traveling in innocent passage9 /_9
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December 1982, describes duties of the
coastal state (nation) with respect to vessels engaged in transit and innocent passage. Particular
attention to article 24 may be warranted and to the extent that U.S. State companion permits may
follow, with accompanied permit fees, attention to article 26 may be warranted./_9 through
waters subject to the permit must be further addressed in both the general permit and the fact
sheet. If there are provisions in this general permit that will require time to come into compliance
5-32
with, then there must be a provision allowing for a reasonable compliance schedule. A
compliance schedule in an NPDES permit protects a permittee from liability for permit
conditions covered by the compliance schedule. 40 CFR 122.47 pertains. Compliance schedule
needs may vary from vessel to vessel, and by vessel types as well. One approach would be to
include in the NOI a section in which a party applying for coverage under the general permit
may identify specific requirements for which they will need a compliance schedule, and the party
can propose a compliance schedule for each of those requirements. For simplicity, the proposed
compliance schedule will become a part of the vessels general permit unless EPA specifically
responds in writing, rejecting the compliance schedule, or provides a different compliance
schedule. Any compliance schedule proposed must adhere to requirements laid out in 40 CFR
122.47, which includes reporting requirements. Another alternative would be for EPA to provide
all vessels with a one year compliance schedule for compliance with all provisions of the general
permit, and a means by which individual vessels may request different compliance schedules
specific to their situation.
Response: As commenter notes, the language found in Part 1.4 of the Permit is similar to what
is found in the standard permit conditions. See Section 3.6 of the Fact Sheet for additional
information. With respect to vessels in innocent passage, in response to this and other comments,
we have added language to VGP Part 1.1 addressing vessels in innocent passage. For information
on the court decision, including the December 19, 2008 vacatur date, see Section 2.4 of the Fact
Sheet. EPA does not have the authority to extend that date. See also response to comment EPAHQ-OW-2008-0055-0307.1, excerpt 4 for a discussion of why EPA cannot extend the
compliance date for effluent limits, but has provided additional time where it can for compliance
with inspection, training, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the permit.
EPA does not agree that it may allow a party to propose a discharger-specific compliance
schedule that would become part of the VGP without express approval and inclusion in the
permit by EPA. Nor for the following reasons is it appropriate for EPA to provide all vessels
with a uniform one-year compliance schedule. With respect to compliance schedules for water
quality-based effluent limits, such compliance schedules are only allowed for water qualitybased effluent limits implementing water quality standards adopted or revised after July 1, 1977,
and only if authorized by the particular state. In the Matter of Star-Kist Caribe, Inc., 3 E.A.D
172, 177 (1990). Moreover, in those states in which it is effective, the VGP regulates twenty-six
different types of discharges, each with various, and perhaps, differing constituents of concern.
Given that this Federal permit establishes a narrative water quality-based effluent limit that is
applicable in a host of states with (1) differing water quality standards, (2) differing pre- and
post-1977 adoption and revision dates, (2) differing compliance schedule authorizing authorities,
and that the permit applies to twenty-six types of discharges addressing various constituents of
concern, it is not feasible for EPA to establish an "appropriate" compliance schedule in the VGP
to implement the permit's narrative water quality-based effluent limit for all covered dischargers
in the various states. 40 CFR 122.47.
5-33
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Joe Burgard, Vice President of Operations
Red and White Fleet
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0338
2
No
Comment: Nonetheless, as a small company we find ourselves struggling to maintain the
administrative component of many regulations. Adding another layer of reporting requirements
to the USCG, OSHA, California Air Resources Board, EPA, California Water Resources Board
to name a few of the regulatory agency under which we operate, would be unduly burdensome as
would be yet another permit fee.
Response: The reporting and recordkeeping requirements found in the VGP may be kept as part
of logs or records which are already kept, and do not require duplication of existing records or
reports. For additional information on inspection, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements see Section 6 of the Fact Sheet. Also, note that there are no fees associated with the
VGP.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
James N. Christman, Hunton & Williams
Utility Water Act Group (UWAG)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0342.1
3
No
Comment: UWAG is sympathetic to the fact that EPA IS required by the court to regulate
commercial vessels (at least vessels 79 feet and longer), and general permits are an appropriate
way to deal with this requirement. Nevertheless, complying with the proposed VGP will be
difficult and create enormous administrative burdens. The problems with the proposed permit
are, in general, that (1) the burdens of compliance, especially for small companies and individual
proprietors, will be unreasonable and (2) the permit requirements are mostly unnecessary
because the Coast Guard already regulates discharges from vessels. We provide a few examples
and details below. I. Many vessel operators are small businesses or individual proprietors the
proposed permit would be a great burden to companies, especially small ones, that operate
tugboats and other commercial vessels. Many of these boats are operated by single proprietors or
small companies. It will be difficult to get the word out to those operators that they are subject to
this new permit and what its requirements are. The permit will also be burdensome to the EPA
regional offices that administer the permit. They are unlikely to have the resources for effective
oversight. These problems could be eased in part by relying more on existing Coast Guard
regulations, as we recommend below.
Response: EPA believes the VGP is straightforward and will not be overly burdensome for
permittees to comply with. For information on the Clean Water Act and NPDES general permits,
see Sections 2.1 and 2.6 of the Fact Sheet. EPA will continue to conduct appropriate outreach to
vessel owner/operators to inform them of the VGP and the applicable permit requirements. Note
that EPA has relied on existing laws and regulations, including Coast Guard regulations, in the
5-34
permit where appropriate, and also note that the VGP does not relieve permittees of their
responsibility to meet requirements of other applicable laws and regulations.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
James N. Christman, Hunton & Williams
Utility Water Act Group (UWAG)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0342.1
5
No
Comment: II. Operators will need large amounts of information about the history of the vessel
and the regulatory status of waters in which it sails a troubling feature of the permit is that it
would require operators to have more information than they are likely to have. They will have to
know the regulatory status of whatever waters they use and the history of their boats. It is
unlikely that boat operators will have enough information to comply with the permit. For
example, if a vessel hull has been covered with a coating containing Tributyltin (TBT), it must
be over coated so that no TBT leaches from the hull, or else the TBT coating must be removed (§
2.2.4). Vessel operators will not know, unless they have complete historical records, what
chemicals are in the paint that was once applied to the hull. Some vessels will have been owned
by different companies over time and will not have records of what kinds of paint were used on
the hulls. The permit imposes detailed requirements on discharging graywater to nutrientimpaired waters (§ 2.2.15). This means the boat operator must stay constantly aware of the
regulatory status of any waters into which he ventures, particularly whether the water is listed as
impaired. Although the intention is apparently that the operator do this by checking the list at
www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels periodically (see § 2.2.15), that will still be a considerable
administrative burden. More burdensome still is the requirement that discharges be “controlled
as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards” (§ 2.3.1), and this includes not just the
waterbody in which the boat sails but downstream waters impacted by the vessel’s discharges (§
2.3.1). This includes a requirement to comply with waste load allocations (§ 2.3.2.2).
Requirements like these will force vessel operators to monitor the regulatory status of local
waters and make frequent judgments about the effect the vessel will have on instream
concentrations of pollutants. Iii. The burdens of meeting the permit requirements will be great to
control engine wet exhaust the operator will have to keep the engine tuned and functioning
according to manufacturer specifications (§ 2.2.22). This will be difficult or impossible,
especially if the engines have been modified or repowered over the years so that what
“manufacturer specifications” apply is not clear. If operating to specification requires testing, the
burden could be especially great.
Response: Operators are required to know the history of the vessel they own, however, an
exhaustive history is not required. If the entire vessel history is not known, the owner/operator
should provide as much information as is known. This, however, does not release the
owner/operator from liability should a permit violation occur. For additional information on hull
coatings that contain TBT, see, e.g., response to comment 395.1, excerpt 40. For discussion of
the VGP’s water quality based effluent limits, see response to other comments addressing water
quality based limits in this document and Section 4.5 of the Fact Sheet. For information on
engine wet exhaust see e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0389.1, Excerpt 5
(EFL 2V).
5-35
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Jennifer A. Carpenter, Senior Vice President - National
Advocacy
The American Waterways Operators
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0343.1
5
No
Comment: An extension is also necessary because the permit does not provide the regulated
community with constitutionally adequate notice of the requirements in the permit that provide
the basis for the enforcement penalties EPA is allowed to impose./_2 Under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, a person is protected against a deprivation of his
life, liberty, or property without “due process of law.” “Traditional concepts of due process
incorporated into administrative law preclude an agency from penalizing a private party for
violating a rule without first providing adequate notice of the substance of the rule.” Satellite
Broadcasting Co., Inc. V. Federal Communications Comm’n, 824 f.2d 1, 3 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
“The due process clause thus prevents deference [to the agency’s interpretation of its regulations]
from validating the application of a regulation that fails to give fair warning of the conduct it
prohibits or requires.” General Electric Co. V. EPA, 53 f.3d 1324, 1328 (D.C. Cir. 1995). /_2
The vague terms used in the BMPS leave vessel operators unable to determine how to comply
with the permit. Examples include admonitions to operate in a manner “consistent with good
marine practice”/_3 Vessel general permit fact sheet, page 63. /_3 and “conduct maintenance and
training activities as far from shore as possible.”/_4 Vessel general permit fact sheet, page 74.
/_4 it is impossible to expect a tugboat captain to know how to comply with these regulations
when he or she is working in a dynamic environment that changes by the minute. We understand
that EPA’s ability to develop more specific BMPS was constrained by the pendency of the
September 30 deadline, but unless EPA seeks and obtains an extension that allows time for a
thorough analysis of the effects of vessel discharges and the effectiveness of proposed measures
to reduce them, it will be impossible for the agency to develop BMPS that are both non-arbitrary
and specific enough to facilitate compliance. Additionally, more time is necessary in order for
the regulated community to prepare to comply with the permit by September 30. The constrained
timetable imposed by the District Court means that it will not be possible for EPA to finalize the
permit far enough in advance of the deadline for vessel owners to take the actions necessary to
ensure compliance. EPA simply will not have time to read and analyze public comments on the
proposed VGP, make necessary revisions, and issue a final permit more than a few days or, at
best, a few weeks before the deadline. Vessel owners will need more time to incorporate the new
standards and requirements into their operations and train their crews. Given the penalties for
non-compliance, as well as the prospect of citizen suits, this is a serious matter. Industry must
have adequate time to develop effective mechanisms to ensure compliance with the permit.
Response: This comment is virtually identical to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1,
excerpt 16 (IMP). See response to that comment.
5-36
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John Berge, Vice President
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0345.1
5
No
Comment: Timeline does not allow for adequate notification under the existing timeline, EPA
will promulgate particulars of the VGP between August 1, 2008 when the public comment
period ends, and September 30, 2008 when the existing exemption is vacated (unless court action
is taken). Based on the expected volume of comments that this rulemaking will generate and
EPA must address, it is most likely that release of the final VGP at best will occur sometime in
late September. We view this as unacceptably short notice for such an important and far reaching
rulemaking. The timeline is also in conflict with existing international procedures and treaties.
Pursuant to article 211, 6(c) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS), the provisions of which the U.S. adheres to: “if the coastal states intend to adopt
additional laws and regulations for the same area[as described in 6(a)] for the prevention,
reduction and control of pollution from vessels, they shall, when submitting the aforesaid
communication, at the same time notify the organization thereof. Such additional laws and
regulations may relate to discharges or navigational practices but shall not require foreign vessels
to observe design, construction, manning or equipment standards other than generally accepted
international rules and standards; they shall become applicable to foreign vessels 15 months after
the submission of the communication to the organization, provided that the organization agrees
within 12 months after the submission of the communication.”
Response: For information on the court decision, including the vacatur date of December 19,
2008, see Section 2.4 of the Fact Sheet. See e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-20080055-0320.1, excerpt 16 for a discussion of adequate notice to the regulated community of the
VGP’s requirements. See also response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0307.1, excerpt 4
for a discussion of why EPA cannot extend the compliance date for effluent limits, but has
provided additional time where it can for compliance with inspection, training, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements of the permit.
With respect to Article 211, 6(c) of UNCLOS, we note that the Article referred to is applicable to
the right of coastal states to adopt measures within their Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ). In
contrast, the effluent limitations established in the VGP do not apply beyond 3 miles from the
baseline of the U.S. territorial sea. We further note that VGP Part 1.1 has been drafted so as not
to prejudice exercise of a vessel’s right to innocent passage.
5-37
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Peter DiMarco, Port Captain/CSO
American Canadian Caribbean Line, Inc. (ACCL)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0353.1
1
No
Comment: ACCL as well as the rest of the passenger vessel industry has relied on EPA’s
regulatory exemption in good faith for 35 years. Should the EPA be required to withdraw this
exemption, and begin issuing permits for normal vessel discharges, small companies such as ours
will be burdened with even more regulations in an already, highly regulated industry. ACCL
appreciates the concept of the general permit that is flexible in applying best management
practices as requiring individual operator permits would create additional and unnecessary
governmental paperwork. We also recommend a phased in approach for any requirements that
may require vessel modifications. We applaud your recommendation that no fees or charges be
associated with the permit.
Response: For information on the court decision, including the December 19, 2008 vacatur
date, see Section 2.4 of the Fact Sheet. See response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-00550307.1, excerpt 4 for a discussion of why EPA cannot extend the compliance date for effluent
limits, but has provided additional time where it can for compliance with inspection, training,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the permit.
There are no fees or charges associated with the VGP because EPA does not have authority to
charge fees.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kendra L. Martin, Director, Maritime and Corporate Affairs
American Petroleum Institute (API)
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0354.1
4
No
Comment: If EPA concludes, after evaluation of the comments and collection of additional
supporting data as necessary, that a general NPDES permit, such as the proposed VGP, that is
applicable in all EPA regions and states is the only practical approach for resolving the problem,
it should request from the District Court whatever time is necessary to address the important
issues identified by commenters on the proposed VGP. Any final general permit for routine,
incidental discharges from vessels must manage such discharges in a way that protects surface
waters of the United States but also recognizes that many of these discharges from some classes
and sizes of vessels will be de minimis. Any final VGP adopted by EPA must not result in
unnecessary operational and administrative burdens on the shipping industry — the proposed
VGP does not meet this standard. Consistent with any rulemaking process, EPA should conduct
a cost/benefit analysis to eliminate any unnecessary operational and administrative burdens. ?
Compliance and enforcement issues that will arise from the proposed VGP application to foreign
flagged vessels could be significant. For example, foreign flagged vessels will seek to comply
with the program while in U.S. waters and will also need to maintain their compliance when not
5-38
in U.S. waters. (this is because the maintenance, record keeping, reporting, etc must be
performed no matter where the ship is.) However, if vessel owners and operators are subjected to
enforcement actions for instances of non-compliance for errors or omissions in the permit’s
testing, inspecting, training and reporting requirements when the vessel is not in U.S. waters,
many may consider terminating the permit when their ships depart the U.S. trade. This could
become a normal business practice for some vessel owner/operators and would result in
repetitive filings of notices of intent (NOIS) and notices of termination (NOT) for the same
vessel. This situation would result in excessive paper work for owners/operators and EPA and
would create a high potential for inaccurate records (multiple entries for the same vessels). EPA
should modify the proposed VGP to allow owners and operators to acquire, surrender, and then
later re-acquire VGP coverage, depending on whether or not they are actually engaged in trade to
the U.S.
Response: For information on the court decision, including the December 19, 2008, vacatur
date, see Section 2.4 of the Fact Sheet. See e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-00550307.1, excerpt 4 for a discussion of why EPA cannot extend the compliance date for effluent
limits, but has provided additional time where it can for compliance with inspection, training,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the permit.
See Section 2.1 of the Fact Sheet for information on the Clean Water Act. EPA believes the VGP
does not unduly burden any vessel industry. For a response to the commenter’s economic
concerns, see e.g., response to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1, Excerpt 26 (ECON)
and EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0322.1, Excerpt 2 (ECON). For information on the applicability
of the VGP to foreign flagged vessels and other vessels that sometimes operate outside of waters
subject to this permit see e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0319.1, Excerpt 3
(APP).
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kendra L. Martin, Director, Maritime and Corporate Affairs
American Petroleum Institute (API)
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0354.1
9
No
Comment: Because of the vagueness of the rules, it is unrealistic to expect that all vessels
trading to the U.S. will be in full compliance with the provisions of the proposed VGP
immediately following adoption of the final permit. API recommends that the permit provide a
minimum of six months for vessels to comply with all of the recordkeeping and inspection
requirements of the rule. Required by CWA Section 304(b) to adopt numerical effluent
limitations guidelines for incidental discharges from vessels.
Response: Commenter provides no basis for stating that the VGP is vague and other
commenter’s more specific concerns over vagueness are addressed in other responses in this
response to comment document. CWA Section 304(b) does not require EPA to adopt numerical
effluent limitations guidelines for discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels; it
simply lists the factors EPA is to consider in promulgating technology-based limitations. EPA’s
regulations specifically provide that EPA is authorized to establish narrative BMPs in lieu of
5-39
numeric limits when numeric limits are infeasible. See 40 CFR 122.44(k)(3). For a discussion of
EPA’s findings that numeric limits are infeasible, see Fact Sheet Part 4.1.2 (technology-based
limits) and 4.5 (water quality based limits). For information on why the VGP contains both
narrative and numeric effluent limits, see responses to comments in category EFL2Ca.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kendra L. Martin, Director, Maritime and Corporate Affairs
American Petroleum Institute (API)
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0354.1
18
No
Comment: EPA must be given sufficient time to develop a comprehensive outreach program to
inform international owners/operators of the VGP requirements, providing significant time for
such a program to prove effective.
Response: EPA will continue to conduct appropriate outreach to vessel owner/operators through
industry channels. For information on the court decision, including the vacatur date of December
19, 2008, see Section 2.4 of the Fact Sheet. For information on the Clean Water Act, see Section
2.1 of the Fact Sheet and for information on general permits see Section 2.6 of the Fact Sheet.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Kendra L. Martin, Director, Maritime and Corporate Affairs
American Petroleum Institute (API)
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0354.1
20
No
Comment: We believe the difficulties in developing, implementing and administering the
general permit for vessels will be both arduous and costly for the regulated community and EPA.
The administrative burden for both the states and vessel owners resulting from the court’s
decision is unlikely to yield any substantial benefits to the environment. Therefore, EPA should
continue to work with the industry to implement a permitting process that is protective of surface
waters but does not conflict with existing international and/or domestic marine regulations and is
as simple to administer and comply with as possible.
Response: For information on the Clean Water Act, the history of the NPDES exclusion for
vessels, and the court decision, see Section 2 of the Fact Sheet. EPA has worked with appropriate
agencies to ensure the VGP does not conflict with existing applicable regulations and to
streamline implementation.
5-40
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
James H. I. Weakley, President
Lake Carriers' Association (LCA)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0362.1
9
No
Comment: * The court should be made aware of the undeniable fact that once the discharges
are identified and BMPS established, some reasonable period of time is needed to allow industry
to establish and incorporate these practices into its operations. It is unreasonable for the agency
to announce new practices on September 30. 2008, and demand that each and every one be
incorporated and operational on October 1, 2008. Congress never required immediate
compliance when it enacted the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act itself would support the
EPA's request to the District Court for a further extension of the vacatur date. As a result of the
District Court's vacatur of the 30-year-old vessel discharge exemption, EPA and the regulated
vessel community, as of September 30: 2008, will effectively find themselves back at the
adoption of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. When it passed the
1972 amendments, Congress expressly recognized that as a practical matter, it would take time to
initially implement the permit provisions of the 1972 amendments. Specifically, § 1342(k)
provides that: - until December 31, 1974, in any case where a permit for discharge has been
applied for pursuant to this section, but final administrative disposition of such application has
not been made, such discharge shall not be a violation of (1) Section 1311, 1318, or 1342 of this
title, or (2) Section 407 of this title, unless the administrator or other plaintiff proves that final
administrative disposition of such application has not been made because of the failure of the
applicant to furnish information reasonably required to request in order to process the
application. * In other words, congress expected it would take at least a full two years after
adoption of the 1972 amendments just to process and issue permit applications. Congress also
recognized that it was necessary to prevent the use of enforcement mechanisms before the
agency had sufficient time to put a new; significant program in place. Congress recognized that
permitting enforcement by EPA or citizens against the regulated community before such a
program could be crafted and practically implemented served no valid purpose.
Response: This comment is substantially similar to EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0320.1, excerpt
29. See response to that comment.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Lawrence I. Kiern, Winston & Strawn, LLP
Liberty Maritime Corporation (Liberty)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0363.1
1
No
Comment: Liberty respectfully opposes key aspects of the proposed NPDES general permit for
discharges incidental to the operation of vessels. Specifically, liberty opposes EPA's proposal
concerning deck runoff, flushing of empty ballast water tanks, the requirement of additional
ballast water seals, and unnecessary and duplicative recordkeeping, all of which would impose
substantial cost and burden on Liberty's operations with no corresponding environmental benefit.
5-41
The proposed permit imposes onerous new requirements on Liberty, with little corresponding
benefit to the environment, such that the social burdens far outweigh any potential benefit.
Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and notes that commenters concerns have been
addressed in other excerpts from the same comment.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Lawrence I. Kiern, Winston & Strawn, LLP
Liberty Maritime Corporation (Liberty)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0363.1
8
No
Comment: Introduction Liberty has a long history of carrying cargo for the United States
government including military cargo for our troops overseas and food aid cargo worldwide in
support of the foreign policy of the United States government. Because Liberty performs critical
services for the United States government, the imposition of an NPDES requirement that
adversely affects vessel operations harms not only liberty, but also the United States government
programs to provide food aid abroad.
Response: Commenter provides no basis for its statement that meeting the requirements of the
VGP while operating in waters subject to the permit will adversely impact the delivery of
government aid services. To the extent that is based on other specific concerns raised by the
commenter, those concerns are addressed elsewhere in this response to comment document.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Public Hearing Comments
Various
Various
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0365
5
No
Comment: Passenger vessel owners and operators generally are small business persons. In
addition, many ferries are operated by government entities at public expense. These operators
face numerous financial and operational challenges. Many are seeing revenues drop as
Americans curtail the discretionary spending in these tough economic times. Most and more
entities, they are directly affected by the staggering rise in fuel cost. In California and elsewhere,
they are under pressure to spend large sums to replace existing engines with lower emissions
models. The last thing they need to do is contend with a mandate from the Federal government to
apply and pay for a fee to permit to discharges that are incidental to the normal operation of the
vessel.
Response: This comment is identical to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0297, excerpt 6.
5-42
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Adam Wronowski, Owner and Managing Member
Block Island Ferry Services, LLC (BIFS)
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0368.1
1
No
Comment: The proposed VGP would impose significant substantial economic and operational
burdens on BIF while producing little if any direct social environmental benefits related to BIF’s
vessel operations. These economic and operational burdens are far beyond those purported in the
deeply flawed economic and benefits analysis of the proposed vessel general permit (“EBA”)1
and will be further described below as will be the lack of environmental benefits that the VGP
would achieve relative to BIF’s operations and many other ferry operations. Requests to EPA
regarding overall design and implementation of VGP BIF strongly requests that the Federal
government act to enable commercial vessels to keep operating past September 30, 2008 without
being branded as lawbreakers. The passenger vessel industry has relied on EPA’s regulatory
exemption in good faith for 35 years and it would be inequitable to force the industry into noncompliance because of an unrealistic deadline. Implementation and/or enforcement of the VGP
should be delayed until a thorough and statistically accurate and justifiable assessment of the
impacts and benefits of the VGP is performed.
Response: This comment is identical to EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0322.1, excerpt 1. See
response to that comment.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Adam Wronowski, Owner and Managing Member
Block Island Ferry Services, LLC (BIFS)
Passenger Vessels
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0368.1
3
No
Comment: Once a thorough and statistically accurate and justifiable assessment of the impacts
and benefits of the VGP is performed and the VGB is finalized, BIF requests that
implementation and/or enforcement of the VGP should be delayed sufficiently to allow operators
to come into compliance within a reasonable time-frame. BIF requests a two-year compliance
deadline for the VGP as drafted. Furthermore, BIF strongly requests that the EPA create a single
industry-wide “general permit” automatically granted to every ferry vessel that operates within
the same interconnected bodies of water. As drafted, the proposed VGP would require BIF to
submit an application and a notice of intent (as well as many other burdensome forms of
paperwork and recordkeeping), both of which would impose an unnecessary governmental
paperwork burden on BIF. BIF requests that there be no fees associated with this permit, as any
fees would be economically burdensome, especially in light of significantly increased energy
costs and newly imposed US Coast Guard regulations.
Response: This comment is identical to EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0322.1, excerpt 21. See
response to that comment.
5-43
Commenter Name: Adam Wronowski, Owner and Managing Member
Commenter Affiliation:
Block Island Ferry Services, LLC (BIFS)
Commenter Type:
Passenger Vessels
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0368.1
Comment Excerpt Number:
21
Late Comment?
No
Comment: Summary in summary, the VGP as drafted will create a tremendous burden to the
entire passenger vessel industry, and we request the following: 1. Implementation and/or
enforcement of the VGP should be delayed until a thorough and statistically accurate assessment
of the impacts and benefits of the VGP is performed. Following this, once the VGP is finalized,
implementation and/or enforcement of the VGP should be delayed sufficiently to allow operators
to come into compliance within a reasonable time frame. BIF requests a two-year compliance
deadline for the VGP as drafted. 2. Vessels that operate and exist solely within the same
interconnected lakes, bays, and sounds in a particular geographical region that does not include
waters listed in part 12 of the VGP, should be exempt from all aspects and requirements of the
VGP related to ballast water and all other provisions related to invasive species. Without this
exemption, there is no environmental benefit to offset the additional financial and manpower
costs incurred if we have to meet these proposed regulations as drafted. 3. All provisions of the
VGP that are already regulated by the USCG or the individual states be removed from the VGP.
4. The VGP be modified in accordance with our section-specific comments as detailed above in
the body of this document.
Response: This comment is identical to EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0322.1, Excerpt 21 (IMP).
See response to that comment.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
John P. Wronowski, Owner and President
Thames Towboat Company, Inc. (TTB)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0371.1
1
No
Comment: The proposed VGP would impose significant substantial economic and operational
burdens on TTB while producing little if any direct social environmental benefits related to
TTB’s vessel operations. These economic and operational burdens are far beyond those
purported in the deeply flawed economic and benefits analysis of the proposed vessel general
permit (“EBA”)1 and will be further described below as will be the lack of environmental
benefits that the VGP would achieve relative to TTB’s operations and many other tug operations.
Requests to EPA regarding overall design and implementation of VGP Thames towboat strongly
requests that the Federal government act to enable commercial tugs to keep operating past
September 30, 2008 without being branded as lawbreakers. The towing industry has relied on
EPA’s regulatory exemption in good faith for 35 years and it would be inequitable to force the
industry into non-compliance because of an unrealistic deadline. Implementation and/or
enforcement of the VGP should be delayed until a thorough and statistically accurate and
justifiable assessment of the impacts and benefits of the VGP is performed.
5-44
Response: This comment is identical to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-368.1, excerpt 1.
See response to that comment.
Commenter Name: John P. Wronowski, Owner and President
Commenter Affiliation:
Thames Towboat Company, Inc. (TTB)
Commenter Type:
Commercial Shipping
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0371.1
Comment Excerpt Number:
3
Late Comment?
No
Comment: Once a thorough and statistically accurate and justifiable assessment of the impacts
and benefits of the VGP is performed and the VGB is finalized, TTB requests that
implementation and/or enforcement of the VGP should be delayed sufficiently to allow operators
to come into compliance within a reasonable time-frame. TTB requests a two-year compliance
deadline for the VGP as drafted. Furthermore, Thames towboat strongly requests that the EPA
create a single industry-wide “general permit” automatically granted to every tug vessel that
operates within the same interconnected bodies of water. As drafted, the proposed VGP would
require TTB to submit an application and a notice of intent (as well as many other burdensome
forms of paperwork and recordkeeping), both of which would impose an unnecessary
governmental paperwork burden on TTB. TTB requests that there be no fees associated with this
permit, as any fees would be economically burdensome, especially in light of significantly
increased energy costs and newly imposed US Coast Guard regulations.
Response: This comment is identical to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0322.1, excerpt 3.
See response to that comment.
Commenter Name: John P. Wronowski, Owner and President
Commenter Affiliation:
Thames Towboat Company, Inc. (TTB)
Commenter Type:
Commercial Shipping
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0371.1
Comment Excerpt Number:
20
Late Comment?
No
Comment: Summary in summary, the VGP as drafted will create a tremendous burden to the
entire towing industry, and we request the following: 1. Implementation and/or enforcement of
the VGP should be delayed until a thorough and statistically accurate assessment of the impacts
and benefits of the VGP is performed. Following this, once the VGP is finalized, implementation
and/or enforcement of the VGP should be delayed sufficiently to allow operators to come into
compliance within a reasonable time-frame. TTB requests a two year compliance deadline for
the VGP as drafted. 2. Tugs that operate and exist solely within the same interconnected lakes,
bays, and sounds in a particular geographical region that does not include waters listed in part 12
of the VGP, should be exempt from all aspects and requirements of the VGP related to ballast
water and all other provisions related to invasive species. Without this exemption, there is no
environmental benefit to offset the additional financial and manpower costs incurred if we have
to meet these proposed regulations as drafted. 3. All provisions of the VGP that are already
regulated by the USCG or the individual states be removed from the VGP. 4. The VGP be
5-45
modified in accordance with our section-specific comments as detailed above in the body of this
document.
Response: This comment is identical to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0322.1, excerpt 21.
See response to that comment.
Commenter Name: Captain Michael O. Jones, Director of Marine Operations
Commenter Affiliation:
Lindblad Expeditions
Commenter Type:
Commercial Shipping
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0372.1
Comment Excerpt Number:
11
Late Comment?
No
Comment: We are asking for you to consider the negative economic impact of these excessive
regulations that are not reasonable or realistic. It will be extremely burdensome and expensive to
implement these proposed requirements. We strongly urge you to consider a single industry-wide
"general permit" that would automatically be granted to all commercial passenger vessel
operators.
Response: This comment is identical to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0289, excerpt 7.
See response to that comment.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Philippe Roderbourg, Manager, Operations
Fednav International Ltd. (FIL)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0374.1
1
No
Comment: The purpose of this letter is to express our concern regarding the EPA's proposed
permit for discharges incidental to normal vessel operations. We strongly believe that ships will
encounter serious compliance issues if this permit is implemented by the planned deadline of
September 30, 2008. If this deadline remains as is, ships transiting to us, waters will not only
have to be aware of all the program's requirements by October lst, they will also have to ensure
that their management and documentation systems have been programmed and amended
accordingly. This is an enormous task, and one which we simply do not believe can be
effectively carried out within the timeframe that remains. Given the foregoing, we wish to
express our support for the points raised in the shipping federation of Canada’s submission on
the matter, and strongly encourage the EPA to petition the District Court for an extension of the
September 3on deadline. More specifically, we believe that an extension of three years would
provide the necessary amount of time to develop and establish the permit program and provide
the industry with a viable implementation window. A three-year extension would also enable the
EPA to work with the industry to find an effective and workable means of protecting U.S. waters
within the context of a sustainable marine transportation system.
5-46
Response: For a response to the comments regarding appeal and request for an extension of the
September 30, 2008 deadline, see e.g., response to comments EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0287.1,
excerpt 1, and EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0298, excerpt 1. More information regarding the efforts
EPA made throughout the litigation of 40 C.F.R. 122.3(a) to obtain additional time to finalize
today’s permit is available in the docket for today’s permit. See also response to comment EPAHQ-OW-2008-0055-0307.1, excerpt 4 for a discussion of why EPA cannot extend the
compliance date for effluent limits, but has provided additional time where it can for compliance
with inspection, training, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the permit.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Susan Hayman, Vice President, Environmental and Corporate
Development
Foss Maritime Company
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0376.1
8
No
Comment: We are also requesting more time than is currently allowed to comply with these
sweeping changes required by the permit. Our safety management system manual and many
other pieces of documentation must be revised and distributed to our crews. This is no small task
and will take resources and manpower above what is available by the September 30th deadline.
We would urge EPA to seek an extension of the September 30, 2008 deadline for vacatur of the
regulatory exemption for vessel discharges.
Response: The Court order does not allow EPA to unilaterally adjust the date of vacatur of 40
CFR 122.3(a). For a response to the comments regarding appeal and request for an extension of
the September 30, 2008 vacatur deadline, please see e.g., responses to comment numbers EPAHW-OW-2008-0055-0287.1 excerpt 1 and EPA-HW-OW-2008-0055-0298, excerpt 1. See also
response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0307.1, excerpt 4 for a discussion of why EPA
cannot extend the compliance date for effluent limits, but has provided additional time where it
can for compliance with inspection, training, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the
permit.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Arthur J. Volkle, Jr., Vice President & General Counsel
Marine Resources Group (MRG)
Commercial Shipping
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0379.1
3
No
Comment: 2. The proposed permit fails to take into account the substantial burden it imposes
upon small crews operating towing vessels, particularly vessels that operate exclusively "in
port." the permit imposes vague standards that discharges, such as graywater or wash downs,
should be "minimized" while vessels are "in port," but does not suggest how vessels that are
always "in port" should do so. For example, our harbor assist towing vessels typically have no
means to retain graywater.
5-47
Response: EPA does not believe the VGP imposes a substantial burden on permittees. For
information on vessels eligible for coverage under the VGP see Part 1.2 of the Permit, Section
2.5 of the Fact Sheet, and Section 3.5 of the Fact Sheet. In addition, note that the VGP requires
vessels to minimize the discharge of graywater in port, it does not require vessels to hold all
graywater discharges while in port. See Part 2.2.15 of the Permit and Section 4.4.15 of the Fact
Sheet for additional information. See also responses to other comments elsewhere in this
response to comment document addressing “in-port.”
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Harry T. Stewart, P.E., Director, Water Division
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
(NHDES)
State Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0382.1
2
No
Comment: 2. Though the state of New Hampshire has jurisdiction within marine boundaries
extending to 200 nautical miles from shore, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services does not have adequate resources to monitor performance or compliance with the vessel
general permit.
Response: States are not required to monitor performance or compliance with the provisions of
the VGP.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Harry T. Stewart, P.E., Director, Water Division
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
(NHDES)
State Government
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0382.1
8
No
Comment: 4. Section 3.3, deadlines for eliminating problems: the time frames given for solving
problems on the vessel should be reconsidered, particularly if the problem is associated with a
discharge of potentially dangerous substances. Shorter timeframes, such as seven days after
discovery and 30-45 days after discovery would move operators to more quickly address a
problem. If EPA wishes to grant extensions of time, it is important to initially keep the allowed
“fix” time as short as possible so that an extended time would have less potential for violations
of water quality standards.
Response: Commenter provides no specifics regarding the discharge of “potentially dangerous
substances,” nor does it provide a basis for revising the timeframes associated with corrective
actions. EPA believes the timeframes outlined in Part 3.3 for correcting problems with permit
compliance are appropriate. See, e.g., response to comment EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0292.1,
excerpt 27. In addition, note that the deadlines for eliminating problems does not relieve the
5-48
permittee of the permit violation; the permit violation continues until the problem is corrected,
even if done within the timeframes specified. See Section 5 of the Fact Sheet for more
information on Corrective Actions.
Commenter Name:
Commenter Affiliation:
Commenter Type:
Document Control Number:
Comment Excerpt Number:
Late Comment?
Mark Sales, Regulatory and Systems Engineer
Tidewater Marine, LLC
Oil and Gas
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0387.1
2
No
Comment: We strongly believe that the average mariner needs a little more guidance on
practical matters than what is given in the materials to date; especially as concerns operations to
correct stability issues in heavy weather situations and other danger situations. Since the
overarching responsibility of any mariner is to secure the safety of the persons on board and the
ship, correct procedures taken early in such evolutions generally reduce risk overall and should
be encouraged; rather than last minute, remedial actions. There should be no impediment to a
mariner in making best-judgment decisions in response to changing maritime conditions.
Response: Based on comments, EPA has clarified the VGP in a number of respects and
provided additional explanation in the final Fact Sheet to provide guidance with respect to
implementing the VGP. Commenter provides no basis for stating that the VGP is an
“impediment to a mariner in making best-judgment decisions in response to changing maritime
conditions.” EPA notes that the VGP includes numerous provisions to account for safety
concerns. See e.g., VGP Parts 2.1.4 (toxic and hazardous materials); 2.2.2 (bilgewater); 2.2.3
(ballast water); 2.2.5 (AFFF); 2.2.6 (boiler blowdown); 2.2.8 (chain locker effluent); 2.2.11
(elevator pit effluent); 2.2.12 (firemain systems).
Commenter Name:
C