[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 207 (Monday, October 26, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67818-67903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22385]
[[Page 67817]]
Vol. 85
Monday,
No. 207
October 26, 2020
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 139
Vessel Incidental Discharge National Standards of Performance; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 67818]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 139
[EPA-HQ-OW-2019-0482; FRL-10015-54-OW]
RIN 2040-AF92
Vessel Incidental Discharge National Standards of Performance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is publishing
for public comment a proposed rule under the Vessel Incidental
Discharge Act that would establish national standards of performance
for marine pollution control devices for discharges incidental to the
normal operation of primarily non-military and non-recreational vessels
79 feet in length and above into the waters of the United States or the
waters of the contiguous zone. The proposed national standards of
performance were developed in coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG) and in consultation with interested Governors. The proposed
standards, once finalized and implemented through corresponding USCG
regulations addressing implementation, compliance, and enforcement,
would reduce the discharge of pollutants from vessels and streamline
the current patchwork of federal, state, and local vessel discharge
requirements. Additionally, EPA is proposing procedures for states to
follow if they choose to petition EPA to issue an emergency order, to
review any standard of performance, regulation, or policy, to request
additional requirements with respect to discharges in the Great Lakes,
or to apply to EPA to prohibit one or more types of vessel discharges
proposed for regulation in this rulemaking into specified waters to
provide greater environmental protection.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 25, 2020. Under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or
before November 25, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments to the public docket for this proposed
rule, identified by Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2019-0482, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. All submissions received must include the Docket ID No. for
this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``General Information''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Out
of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the
EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are closed to the public, with
limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our
Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer service
via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the public to submit
comments via https://www.regulations.gov or email, as there may be a
delay in processing mail and faxes. Hand deliveries and couriers may be
received by scheduled appointment only. For further information on EPA
Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us online
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Faulk at (202) 564-0768;
[email protected] or Katherine Weiler at (202) 566-1280;
[email protected] of the Oceans and Coastal Management Branch
(4504T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information is organized
as follows:
I. Public Participation
A. How should I submit written comments?
II. Legal Authority
III. Executive Summary
IV. Background
A. Clean Water Act
B. Additional U.S. and International Authorities
C. Environmental Impacts of Discharges for Which Technology-
Based Standards Would Be Established by This Rule
V. Scope of the Regulatory Action
A. Waters
B. Vessels
C. Incidental Discharges
D. Emergency and Safety Concerns
E. Effective Date
VI. Stakeholder Engagement
A. Informational Webinars and Public Listening Session
B. Post-Proposal Public Meetings
C. Consultation and Coordination With States
VII. Definitions
VIII. Development of National Discharge Standards of Performance
A. Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--
General Standards
1. General Operation and Maintenance
2. Biofouling Management
3. Oil Management
4. Training and Education
B. Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--
Specific Standards
1. Ballast Tanks
2. Bilges
3. Boilers
4. Cathodic Protection
5. Chain Lockers
6. Decks
7. Desalination and Purification Systems
8. Elevator Pits
9. Exhaust Gas Emission Control Systems
10. Fire Protection Equipment
11. Gas Turbines
12. Graywater Systems
13. Hulls and Associated Niche Areas
14. Inert Gas Systems
15. Motor Gasoline and Compensating Systems
16. Non-Oily Machinery
17. Pools and Spas
18. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
19. Seawater Piping
20. Sonar Domes
C. Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--
Federally-Protected Waters Requirements
D. Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--
Previous VGP Discharges No Longer Requiring Control
IX. Procedures for States To Request Changes to Standards,
Regulations, or Policy Promulgated by the Administrator
A. Petition by a Governor for the Administrator To Establish an
Emergency Order or Review a Standard, Regulation, or Policy
B. Petition by a Governor for the Administrator To Establish
Enhanced Great Lakes System Requirements
C. Application by a State for the Administrator To Establish a
State No-Discharge Zone
X. Implementation, Compliance, and Enforcement
XI. Regulatory Impact Analysis
XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in
[[Page 67819]]
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
XIII. References
I. Public Participation
A. How should I submit written comments?
EPA solicits comment on the proposed rule during the public comment
period. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2019-0482, at https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from the docket. EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's docket at
https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. To facilitate the processing
of comments, commenters are encouraged to organize their comments in a
manner that corresponds to the outline of this proposal; clearly
explain why they agree or disagree with the proposed language; suggest
alternative language; and include any technical or economic data to
support their comment. For comments to be considered during the
development of the final rule, comments must be received before the end
of the comment period.
EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents
located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
EPA is temporarily suspending its Docket Center and Reading Room
for public visitors, with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of
transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide
remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the
public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov as there may
be a delay in processing mail and faxes. Hand deliveries or couriers
will be received by scheduled appointment only. For further information
and updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us online at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area
health departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond
rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.
II. Legal Authority
EPA proposes this rule under the authority of Clean Water Act
Sections 301, 304, 307, 308, 312, and 501 as amended by the Vessel
Incidental Discharge Act. 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1317, 1322, and 1361.
III. Executive Summary
Discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, also
referred to as ``incidental discharges'' or ``discharges'' in this
rulemaking, can have adverse impacts on aquatic ecosystems and other
potential impacts such as to human health through contamination of food
from aquaculture/shellfish harvesting areas because the discharges may
contain pollutants such as aquatic nuisance species (ANS), nutrients,
bacteria or pathogens (e.g., Escherichia coli and fecal coliform), oil
and grease, metals, as well as other toxic, nonconventional, and
conventional pollutants (e.g., organic matter, bicarbonate, and
suspended solids). These pollutants can have wide-ranging environmental
consequences that vary in degree depending on the type and number of
vessels operating in a waterbody and the nature and extent of the
discharge.
The Clean Water Act (CWA), the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance
Prevention and Control Act (NANPCA), the Act to Prevent Pollution from
Ships (APPS), and several other federal, state, local, and
international authorities have established over time various
requirements for both domestic and international vessels. To clarify
and streamline existing requirements, in December of 2018, the
President signed into law the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (VIDA).
33 U.S.C. 1322(p). The VIDA established a new CWA Section 312(p) titled
``Uniform National Standards for Discharges Incidental to Normal
Operation of Vessels.'' The VIDA consolidates and restructures the
existing regulatory framework for non-military (vessels of the Armed
Forces) and non-recreational vessels; clarifies current and future
regulatory coverage for different types of vessels; and, requires EPA
and the USCG to establish national standards of performance for marine
pollution control devices and corresponding implementing regulations,
respectively, to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants from
vessels.
More specifically, the new CWA Section 312(p) directs the
Administrator of EPA (Administrator) to develop national standards of
performance in consultation with interested Governors and with the
concurrence of the Secretary of the department in which the USCG is
operating (Secretary) by December 2020. With limited exceptions, the
VIDA requires that the standards be at least as stringent as EPA's 2013
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Vessel General
Permit (VGP) requirements established under CWA Section 402. See 33
U.S.C. 1322(p)(4)(B)(iii) (EPA standards); id. (5)(A)(ii) (USCG
requirements). The VIDA also requires that the standards be technology-
based using a similar approach to that outlined by the CWA for setting,
among other things, effluent limitation guidelines. Additionally, the
VIDA requires the USCG to develop corresponding implementation,
compliance, and enforcement regulations within two years after EPA
publishes the national standards of performance. The USCG implementing
regulations may also include requirements governing the design,
construction, testing, approval, installation, and use of devices to
achieve EPA national standards of performance. Importantly,
requirements of EPA's VGP and the USCG's requirements under Section 110
of NANPCA remain in place until these new EPA and USCG regulations
under CWA Section 312(p) are final, effective, and enforceable. In
addition, the VIDA repealed the 2014 EPA NPDES Small Vessel General
Permit (sVGP) and established that neither EPA nor the states shall
require an NPDES permit for any discharge incidental to the normal
operation of a vessel, other than ballast water, from a small vessel or
fishing vessel, effective immediately upon enactment of the VIDA.
The proposed rule would establish both general and specific
discharge standards of performance for approximately 82,000
international and domestic non-military, non-recreational vessels
operating in the waters of the United States or the waters of the
contiguous zone. The types of vessels intended to be covered under the
proposed rule include, but are not limited to, public vessels of the
United States, fishing vessels (for ballast water only), passenger
vessels such as cruise ships and ferries, barges, tugs and tows,
offshore supply vessels, mobile offshore drilling units, tankers, bulk
carriers, cargo ships, container ships, and
[[Page 67820]]
research vessels. While most provisions are intended to apply to a wide
range of vessels, the VIDA specified that fishing vessels would only be
subject to ballast water provisions. 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(2)(B)(i)(III).
The general discharge standards of performance are designed to
apply to all vessels and incidental discharges covered by the rule, as
appropriate, and are organized into three categories: (1) General
Operation and Maintenance, (2) Biofouling Management, and (3) Oil
Management. The general discharge standards of performance are
preventative in nature and require best management practices (BMPs) to
minimize the introduction of pollutants into the discharges, as well as
the volume of discharges.
The specific discharge standards of performance would establish
requirements for 20 separate discharges incidental to the normal
operation of a vessel from the following pieces of equipment and
systems: Ballast tanks, bilges, boilers, cathodic protection, chain
lockers, decks, desalination and purification systems, elevator pits,
exhaust gas emission control systems, fire protection equipment, gas
turbines, graywater systems, hulls and associated niche areas, inert
gas systems, motor gasoline and compensating systems, non-oily
machinery, pools and spas, refrigeration and air conditioning, seawater
piping, and sonar domes. These discharge-specific requirements are
based on best available technology economically achievable, best
conventional pollutant control technology, and best practicable
technology currently available, including the use of BMPs, to prevent
or reduce the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the United
States or the waters of the contiguous zone.
Pursuant to the VIDA, the proposed discharge standards of
performance are proposed to be at least as stringent as the VGP, with
some exceptions discussed below. However, the proposed standards do not
incorporate the VGP requirements verbatim. EPA is proposing changes to
the VGP requirements to transition the permit requirements into
national technology-based standards of performance, improve clarity,
enhance enforceability and implementation, or incorporate new
information and technology. In some cases, this resulted in EPA
consolidating or renaming the VGP requirements to comport with the
VIDA. As proposed, the similarities and differences between the
requirements in the proposed discharge standards of performance and the
requirements in the VGP can be sorted into three distinct groups. The
first group consists of 13 proposed discharge standards that are
substantially the same as the requirements of the VGP: Boilers,
cathodic protection, chain lockers, decks, elevator pits, fire
protection equipment, gas turbines, inert gas systems, motor gasoline
and compensating systems, non-oily machinery, pools and spas,
refrigeration and air conditioning, and sonar domes. These 13 proposed
discharge standards encompass the intent and stringency of the VGP but
include other changes in response to the VIDA (e.g., extent of
regulated waters, consistency across discharge standards,
enforceability and legal precision, as well as minor clarifications).
The second group consists of two proposed discharge standards that are
consistent but slightly modified from the VGP to expand controls or
provide greater language clarifications: Bilges and desalination and
purification systems. The third group consists of five proposed
discharge standards which contain the greatest modifications from the
VGP: Ballast tanks, exhaust gas emission control systems, graywater,
hulls and associated niche areas, and seawater piping. In addition, EPA
is proposing to modify slightly the requirements as they apply in
federally-protected waters for five discharges: Chain lockers, decks,
hulls and associated niche areas, pools and spas, and seawater piping.
These modifications are being proposed to address specific VIDA
requirements as well as incorporate new information that has become
available since the issuance of the VGP.
CWA Section 312(p) also directs EPA to establish additional
discharge requirements for vessels operating in certain bodies of
water, to include: The ``Great Lakes,'' the ``Pacific Region,'' and
waters subject to Federal protection, in whole or in part, for
conservation purposes (``federally-protected waters''). The proposed
rule would establish place-based requirements to further prevent or
reduce the discharge of pollutants into these waterbodies that may
contain unique ecosystems, support distinctive species of aquatic flora
and fauna, contend with more sensitive water quality issues, or
otherwise require greater protection.
Finally, as required under CWA Section 312(p), EPA is proposing
specific procedural requirements for states seeking to petition EPA to
establish different discharge standards, issue emergency orders, or
establish no-discharge zones.
This proposed rule, once finalized, will fulfill EPA's requirements
under CWA Section 312(p) to establish technology-based national
standards of performance for discharges incidental to the normal
operation of primarily non-military, non-recreational vessels 79 feet
in length and above. EPA solicits public comments on this proposal and
the associated regulatory impact analysis, which can be found in the
rulemaking docket.
IV. Background
A. Clean Water Act
EPA's regulatory regime under the CWA to address vessel discharges
has changed over the years due to EPA regulations, court decisions, and
new legislation. The first sentence of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, commonly known as the CWA,\1\ states,
``[t]he objective of [the Act] is to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.'' 33 U.S.C.
1251(a). Section 301(a) of the CWA provides that ``the discharge of any
pollutant by any person shall be unlawful'' unless the discharge is in
compliance with certain other sections of the Act. 33 U.S.C. 1311(a).
Among its provisions, the CWA authorizes EPA and other federal agencies
to address the discharge of pollutants from vessels. As such, EPA
established regulations to address vessel discharges authorized under
CWA Section 311 (addressing oil), Section 312 (addressing sewage and
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel of the Armed
Forces), and Section 402 (pursuant to which EPA established the NPDES
VGP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The FWPCA is commonly referred to as the CWA following the
1977 amendments to the FWPCA. Public Law 95-217, 91 Stat. 1566
(1977). For ease of reference, the agencies will generally refer to
the FWPCA in this notice as the CWA or the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From 1972 to 2005, EPA vessel regulations were primarily limited to
addressing the discharge of oil and sewage under CWA Sections 311 and
312, respectively. In December of 2003, a long-standing exclusion of
discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels from the CWA
Section 402 NPDES permitting program became the subject of a lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Nw.
Envtl. Advocates v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. C-03-05760-SI, 2005
WL 756614). The lawsuit arose from EPA's September 2003 denial of a
January 1999 rulemaking petition submitted to EPA by parties concerned
about the effects of ballast water discharges. Prior to the lawsuit,
EPA, through a 1973 regulation, had excluded discharges incidental to
the normal
[[Page 67821]]
operation of vessels from the CWA Section 402 permitting program. See
38 FR 13528, May 22, 1973. The petition asked the Agency to repeal its
regulation at 40 CFR 122.3(a) that excludes certain discharges
incidental to the normal operation of vessels from the requirement to
obtain an NPDES permit. The petition asserted that vessels are ``point
sources'' requiring NPDES permits for discharges to U.S. waters; that
EPA lacks authority to exclude point source discharges from vessels
from the NPDES program; that ballast water must be regulated under the
NPDES program because it contains invasive plant and animal species as
well as other materials of concern (e.g., oil, chipped paint, sediment,
and toxins in ballast water sediment); and that enactment of CWA
Section 312(n) (Uniform National Discharge Standards, also known as the
UNDS program) in 1996 demonstrated Congress' rejection of the
exclusion.
In March 2005, the court determined the exclusion exceeded the
Agency's authority under the CWA and subsequently in 2006 declared that
``[t]he blanket exemption for discharges incidental to the normal
operation of a vessel, contained in 40 CFR 122.3(a), shall be vacated
as of September 30, 2008.'' Nw. Envtl. Advocates v. U.S. Envtl. Prot.
Agency, C 03-05760 SI, 2006 WL 2669042, at *15 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18,
2006), aff'd 537 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2008). Shortly thereafter,
Congress enacted two pieces of legislation to exempt discharges
incidental to the normal operation of certain types of vessels from the
need to obtain a permit. The first of these, entitled the Clean Boating
Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-288, July 28, 2008), amended the CWA to
provide that discharges incidental to the normal operation of
recreational vessels are not subject to NPDES permitting, and created a
new regulatory regime to be implemented by EPA and the USCG under a new
CWA Section 312(o). The second piece of legislation provided for a
temporary moratorium on NPDES permitting for discharges, excluding
ballast water, subject to the 40 CFR 122.3(a) exclusion from (1)
commercial fishing vessels (as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101 and regardless
of size) and (2) those other non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet
in length. S. 3298, Public Law 110-299 (July 31, 2008).
In response to the court decision and the legislation, EPA issued
the first VGP in December 2008 for discharges incidental to the normal
operation of non-recreational, non-military vessels 79 feet in length
and above. See 73 FR 79473, December 29, 2008. Additionally, in
September 2014, EPA issued the sVGP for discharges from non-
recreational, non-military vessels less than 79 feet. See 79 FR 53702,
September 10, 2014. Upon expiration of the 2008 permit, EPA issued the
second VGP in 2013. See 78 FR 21938, April 12, 2013.
After the EPA issuance of the VGP under the CWA and the USCG
promulgation of regulations under the NANPCA, the vessel community
expressed concerns regarding the lack of uniformity, duplication, and
confusion associated with the vessel regulatory regime. See Errata to
S. Rep. No. 115-89 (2019) [hereinafter VIDA Senate Report], at 3-5
(discussing these and similar concerns), available at https://www.congress.gov/115/crpt/srpt89/CRPT-115srpt89-ERRATA.pdf. In
response, members of Congress introduced various pieces of legislation
to modify and clarify the regulation and management of ballast water
and other incidental vessel discharges. In December 2018, President
Trump signed into law the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act
of 2018, which included the VIDA. Public Law 115-282, tit. IX (2018)
(codified primarily at 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)). The VIDA restructures the
way EPA and the USCG regulate incidental vessel discharges from non-
military, non-recreational vessels and amended CWA Section 312 to
include a new Subsection (p) titled ``Uniform National Standards for
Discharges Incidental to Normal Operation of Vessels.'' CWA Section
312(p), among other things, repeals EPA's 2014 sVGP effectively
immediately and requires EPA and the USCG to develop new regulations to
replace the existing EPA VGP and USCG vessel discharge requirements.
The VIDA also specifies that, effectively immediately upon enactment of
the VIDA, neither EPA nor NPDES-authorize states may require, or in any
way modify, a permit under the NPDES program for any discharge
incidental to the normal operation of a vessel from a small vessel
(less than 79 feet in length) or fishing vessel (of any size).
Specifically, CWA Section 312(p)(4) directs the Administrator, with
concurrence of the Secretary and in consultation with interested
Governors, to promulgate national standards of performance for marine
pollution control devices for each type of discharge incidental to the
normal operation of non-recreational and non-military vessels.\2\ CWA
Section 312(p)(5) also directs the Secretary to develop corresponding
implementing regulations to govern the implementation, compliance, and
enforcement of the national standards of performance. Additionally, CWA
Section 312(p) generally preempts states from establishing more
stringent discharge standards once the USCG implementing regulations
required under Section 312(p)(5)(A)-(C) are final, effective, and
enforceable. However, the VIDA includes several exceptions to this
expressed preemption (33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(9)(A)(ii)-(v); VIDA Senate
Report at 15 (discussing these exceptions)), a savings clause (33
U.S.C. 1322(p)(9)(A)(vi)), and provisions for states working directly
with EPA or the USCG to seek and obtain additional requirements,
including the establishment of no-discharge zones for one or more
incidental discharges (33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(10)(D)). Although not part of
CWA Section 312(p), the VIDA also establishes several programs to
address invasive species, including the establishment of the ``Great
Lakes and Lake Champlain Invasive Species Program'' research and
development program and the ``Coastal Aquatic Invasive Species
Mitigation Grant Program.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ CWA Section 312(b) provides authority for EPA to establish
federal standards of performance for sewage from vessels within the
meaning of ``sewage'' as defined in section 312(a)(6). Thus, the
discharge of sewage from vessels, is not included in this CWA
section 312(p) rulemaking, except when commingled with other
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, as
authorized in CWA section 312(p)(2)(A)(ii). EPA and the USCG
regulate sewage from vessels under CWA section 312(b) as codified in
40 CFR part 140 (marine sanitation device standard) and 33 CFR part
159 subparts A-D (requirements for the design, construction,
certification, installation, and operation of marine sanitation
devices).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Additional U.S. and International Authorities
During the development of the proposed rule, EPA reviewed other
U.S. laws and international authorities that address discharges
incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. The requirements
established under these authorities are currently being met and
implemented and therefore are technologically and economically
practicable and achievable. As appropriate, EPA considered these
requirements while developing this proposed rule.
As expressly provided in the VIDA, this proposed rule would not
affect the requirements for vessels established under any other
provision of Federal law. 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(9)(B). EPA provides a short
summary of these U.S. authorities as well as some international
authorities below.
[[Page 67822]]
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships,
the Act To Prevent Pollution From Ships, and Implementing Regulations
The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships (MARPOL 73/78) is an international treaty that regulates certain
discharges from vessels. MARPOL Annexes regulate different types of
vessel pollution; the United States is a party to Annexes I, II, III,
V, and VI. MARPOL is primarily implemented in the United States by
APPS, 33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq. The USCG is the lead agency for APPS
implementation and issued implementing regulations primarily found at
33 CFR part 151. Those requirements already apply to many of the
vessels covered by the proposed rule.
APPS regulates the discharge of oil and oily mixtures, noxious
liquid substances, and garbage, including food wastes and plastic. With
respect to oil and oily mixtures, the USCG regulations at 33 CFR 151.10
prohibit ``any discharge of oil or oily mixtures into the sea from a
ship'' except when certain conditions are met, including a discharge
oil content of less than 15 parts per million (ppm) and that the ship
operates oily water separating equipment, a bilge monitor, a bilge
alarm, or a combination thereof.
Substances regulated as noxious liquid substances under APPS are
divided into four categories based on their potential to harm marine
resources and human health. Under 46 CFR 153.1128, discharges of
noxious liquid substances residues at sea may only take place at least
12 nautical miles (NM) from the nearest land. Given this requirement,
the proposed rule would also prohibit the discharge of noxious liquid
substances within 12 NM from the nearest land.
MARPOL Annex III addresses harmful substances in packaged form and
is implemented in the United States by the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Authorization Act of 1994, as amended (49 U.S.C. 5901 et
seq.), and regulations appearing at 46 CFR part 148 and 49 CFR part
176. The regulatory provisions establish labeling, packaging, and
stowage requirements for such materials to help avoid their accidental
loss or spillage during transport. The proposed rule does not regulate
loss or spillage of transported materials; however, the proposed rule
would establish BMPs to help reduce or prevent the loss of materials
and debris overboard.
Oil Pollution Act (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.)
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and the associated USCG implementing
regulations at 33 CFR parts 155 and 157 also address oil and oily
mixture discharges from vessels. These regulations establish and
reinforce the 15 ppm discharge standard under APPS for oil and oily
mixtures for seagoing ships and require most vessels to have an oily
water separator. Oceangoing vessels of less than 400 gross tonnage as
measured under the Convention Measurement System of the International
Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships (GT ITC) (400 gross register
tonnage (GRT) if GT ITC is not assigned) must either have an approved
oily water separator or retain oily water mixtures on board for
disposal to an approved reception facility onshore. Oceangoing vessels
of 400 GT ITC (400 GRT if GT ITC is not assigned) and above, but less
than 10,000 GT ITC (10,000 GRT if GT ITC is not assigned), except
vessels that carry ballast water in their fuel oil tanks, must be
fitted with ``approved 15 parts per million (ppm) oily-water separating
equipment for the processing of oily mixtures from bilges or fuel oil
tank ballast.'' 33 CFR 155.360(a)(1). Oceangoing ships of 10,000 gross
tonnage and above and oceangoing ships of 400 gross tonnage and above
that carry ballast water in their fuel oil tanks, must be fitted with
approved 15 ppm oily water separating equipment for the processing of
oily mixtures from bilges or fuel oil tank ballast, a bilge alarm, and
a means for automatically stopping any discharge of oily mixture when
the oil content in the effluent exceeds 15 ppm. 33 CFR 155.370. 33 CFR
part 155 also references oil containment and cleanup equipment and
procedures for preventing and reacting to oil spills and discharges.
The proposed rule references or incorporates the existing requirements
for fuel and oil established under the Oil Pollution Act and APPS and
prohibits the discharge of oil greater than 15 ppm.
Clean Water Act Section 311 (33 U.S.C. 1321)
CWA Section 311, Oil and Hazardous Substances Liability Act, states
that it is a policy of the United States that there should be no
discharges of oil or hazardous substances into the waters of the United
States, adjoining shorelines, and certain specified areas, except where
permitted under Federal regulations (e.g., the NPDES program). As such,
the Act prohibits the discharge of oil or hazardous substances into
these areas in such quantities as may be harmful. Further, the Act
states that the President shall, by regulation, determine those
quantities of oil and any hazardous substances that may be harmful if
discharged. EPA defines the discharge of oil in such quantities as may
be harmful as those that violate applicable water quality standards or
``cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the surface of the
water or adjoining shorelines or cause a sludge or emulsion to be
deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon adjoin shorelines.''
40 CFR 110.3. Sheen is clarified to mean ``an iridescent appearance on
the surface of the water.'' 40 CFR 110.1. The proposed rule would
prohibit the discharge of oil, including oily mixtures, in such
quantities as may be harmful.
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et
seq.).
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
regulates the distribution, sale, and use of pesticides. One of the
primary components of FIFRA requires the registration and labeling of
all pesticides sold or distributed in the United States, ensuring that,
if pesticides are used in accordance with the specifications on the
label, they will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on humans or
the environment. The proposed rule would reiterate from the VGP that
any registered pesticide must be used in accordance with its FIFRA
label for all activities that result in a discharge into the waters of
the United States or the waters of the contiguous zone. The proposed
rule does not negate the requirements under FIFRA and its implementing
regulations to use registered pesticides consistent with the product's
labeling. In fact, the discharge of pesticides used in violation of
certain FIFRA requirements could also be a violation of these standards
and therefore a violation of the CWA (e.g., exceeding hull coating
application rates).
National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq. and
Implementing Regulations Found at 15 CFR Part 922 and 50 CFR Part 404)
The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) authorizes the
designation and management of National Marine Sanctuaries to protect
marine resources with conservation, education, historical, scientific,
and other special qualities. Under NMSA, additional restrictions and
requirements may be imposed on vessel operators who boat in and around
National Marine Sanctuaries. Consistent with the VGP, the proposed rule
would
[[Page 67823]]
establish additional restrictions and requirements for certain
discharges for vessels that operate in and around National Marine
Sanctuaries as these areas are included in the definition of federally-
protected waters in the proposed rule as designated in Appendix A of
Part 139. Pursuant to CWA Sections 312(9)(B) and (E), discharge
requirements established by regulations promulgated by the Secretary of
Commerce under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act would continue to
apply to waters under the control of the Secretary of Commerce (e.g.,
National Marine Sanctuaries) in addition to the standards and
requirements established in this proposed rule.
C. Environmental Impacts of Discharges for Which Technology-Based
Discharge Standards Would Be Established by This Rule
Discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels can have
significant adverse impacts on aquatic ecosystems and other potential
impacts such as to human health through contamination of food from
aquaculture/shellfish harvesting areas through the addition of
pollutants (e.g., metals, nutrients, bacteria, viruses, ANS). The
adverse environmental impacts vary considerably based on the type and
number of vessels, the size and location of the port or marina, and the
condition of the receiving waters. These adverse impacts are more
likely to occur when there are significant numbers of vessels operating
in receiving waters with limited circulation or if the receiving waters
are already impaired. As a result of this variation, protecting U.S.
waters from vessel-related activities poses unique challenges for
local, state, and federal governments. Targeted reduction of certain
discharges or constituents of concern can significantly benefit
receiving waters.
The information below provides an overview of the environmental
impacts associated with the pollutants addressed in this proposed rule:
ANS, nutrients, pathogens (including Escherichia coli and fecal
coliform), oil and grease, metals, toxic and nonconventional pollutants
with toxic effects, and other nonconventional and conventional
pollutants.
Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS)
ANS are a persistent problem in U.S. coastal and inland waters. ANS
can include invasive plants, animals, and pathogens. The VIDA
specifically includes ANS in the category of nonconventional pollutants
to be regulated through the application of best available technology
and best practicable technology. 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(4)(B)(i).
ANS may be incidentally discharged or released from a vessel's
operations through a variety of vessel systems and equipment, including
but not limited to ballast water, sediment from ballast tanks, vessel
hulls and appendages, seawater piping, chain lockers, and anchor
chains. ANS pose severe threats to aquatic ecosystems, including
outcompeting native species, damaging habitat, changing food webs, and
altering the chemical and physical aquatic environment. Furthermore,
ANS can have profound and wide-ranging socioeconomic impacts, such as
damage to recreational and commercial fisheries, infrastructure, and
water-based recreation and tourism. Once established, it is extremely
challenging and costly to remove ANS and remediate the impacts. It has
become even more critical to control discharges of ANS from vessel
systems and equipment with the increase in ship traffic due to
globalization and increased trade.
Nutrients
Nutrients, including nitrogen, phosphorus, and other micro-
nutrients, are constituents of incidental discharges from vessels.
Though often associated with discharges from sewage treatment
facilities and other sources such as runoff from agricultural and urban
stormwater sources, nutrients are also discharged from vessel sources
such as runoff from deck cleaning, graywater, and bilgewater.
Increased nutrient discharges from anthropogenic sources are a
major source of water quality degradation throughout the United States
(U.S. Geological Survey, 1999). Generally, nutrient over-enrichment of
waterbodies adversely impacts biological diversity, fisheries, and
coral reef and seagrass ecosystems (National Research Council, 2000).
One of the most notable effects of nutrient over-enrichment is the
excess proliferation of plant life and ensuing eutrophication. A
eutrophic system has reduced levels of dissolved oxygen, increased
turbidity, and changes in the composition of aquatic flora and fauna.
Such conditions also fuel harmful algal blooms, which can have
significant adverse impacts on human health as well as aquatic life
(National Research Council, 2000; Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute,
2007).
Pathogens
Pathogens are another constituent that can be found in discharges
from vessels, particularly in graywater and ballast water discharges.
Discharges of pathogens into waterbodies can adversely impact local
ecosystems, fisheries, and human health. Pathogens found in untreated
graywater are similar to, and in some cases may have a higher
concentration than, domestic sewage entering land-based wastewater
treatment plants (U.S. EPA, 2008). Specific pathogens of concern found
in graywater include Salmonella spp., Escherichia coli, enteroviruses,
hepatitis, and pathogenic protists (National Research Council, 1993).
Additional pathogen discharges have also been associated with
ballasting operations, including Escherichia coli, intestinal
enterococci, Vibrio cholerae, Clostridium perfringens, Salmonella spp.,
Cryptosporidium spp., Giardia spp., and a variety of viruses (Knight et
al., 1999; Reynolds et al., 1999; Zo et al., 1999). Pathogens can
potentially even be transported in unfilled ballast water tanks
(Johengen et al., 2005). Under the VIDA, bacterial and viral pathogens
can qualify as ``aquatic nuisance species.'' 33 U.S.C. 1312(p)(1)(A),
(Q), (R) (defining the related terms ``aquatic nuisance species,''
``nonindigenous species,'' and ``organism'').
Oil and Grease
Vessels can discharge a variety of oils during normal operations,
including lubricating oils, hydraulic oils, and vegetable or organic
oils. A significant portion of the lubricants discharged from a vessel
during these normal operations directly enters the marine environment.
Some types of oil and grease can be highly toxic and carcinogenic, and
have been shown to alter the immune system, reproductive abilities, and
liver functions of many aquatic organisms (Ober, 2010). Broadly, the
toxicity of oil and grease to aquatic life is due to reduced oxygen
transport potential and an inability of organisms to metabolize and
excrete them once ingested, absorbed, or inhaled.
The magnitude of impact of oils differs depending on the chemical
composition, method of exposure, concentration, and environmental
conditions (e.g., weather, salinity, temperature). It can therefore be
difficult to identify one single parameter responsible for negatively
impacting aquatic life. However, studies have shown that compounds with
hydrocarbon chains are consistently associated with harmful impacts.
Hydrocarbon chains contain strong hydrogen bonds, which do not readily
break down in water. Such oils can then accumulate in the tissues of
aquatic organisms and cause toxic effects.
[[Page 67824]]
Aromatic hydrocarbon compounds, commonly present in fuels,
lubricants, and additives, are consistently associated with acute
toxicity and harmful effects in aquatic biota (Dupuis and Ucan-Marin,
2015). Impacts are observed in both developing and adult organisms, and
include reduced growth, enlarged livers, fin erosion, reproduction
impairment, and modifications to heartbeat and respiration rates
(Dupuis and Ucan-Marin, 2015). Laboratory experiments have shown that
fish embryos exposed to hydrocarbons exemplify symptoms collectively
referred to as blue sac disease (BSD). Symptoms of BSD range from
reduced growth and spinal abnormalities, to hemorrhages and mortality
(Dupuis and Ucan-Marin, 2015). Oils can also taint organisms that are
consumed by humans, resulting in economic impacts to fisheries and
potential human health effects.
In establishing the VGP, EPA considered the research efforts
focused on the development of environmentally acceptable lubricants
(EALs). Production of EALs focuses on using chemicals with oxygen
atoms, which, unlike hydrocarbons, makes them water soluble. The
solubility of EALs increases their biodegradability, thereby decreasing
their accumulation in aquatic environments. The solubility of EALs also
makes it easier for aquatic life to metabolize and excrete these
chemicals (U.S. EPA, 2011). Overall, EALs reduce bioaccumulation
potential and toxic effects to aquatic life.
Metals
Vessel discharges can contain metal constituents from a variety of
on-board sources, including graywater, bilgewater, exhaust gas emission
control systems, and firemain systems. While some metals, including
copper, nickel, and zinc, are known to be essential to organism
function when present at certain levels, many others, including
thallium and arsenic, are non-essential and/or are known to have only
adverse impacts. Even essential metals may harm organism function in
sufficiently elevated concentrations. Some metals may also
bioaccumulate in the tissues of aquatic organisms, intensifying toxic
effects. Through a process called biomagnification, concentrations of
some metals can increase up the food chain, leading to elevated levels
in commercially harvested fish species (U.S. EPA, 2007).
Vessel hulls and appendages are frequently coated in metal-based
biocides to prevent
biofouling. The most widely-used metal in biocides is copper. While
it is an essential nutrient, copper can be both acutely and chronically
toxic to fish, aquatic invertebrates, and aquatic plants at higher
concentrations. Elevated concentrations of copper can adversely impact
survivorship, growth, and reproduction of aquatic organisms (U.S. EPA,
2016). Copper can inhibit photosynthesis in plants and interfere with
enzyme function in both plants and animals in concentrations as low as
4 [micro]g/L (U.S. EPA, 2016).
Other Pollutants
Vessel discharges can contain a variety of other toxic,
conventional, and nonconventional pollutants. This rule would help to
prevent and control the discharge of certain pollutants that have been
identified in the various discharges. For example, graywater can
contain phthalates phenols, and chlorine (U.S. EPA, 2008). These
compounds can cause a variety of adverse impacts on aquatic organisms
and human health. Phthalates are known to interfere with reproductive
health, liver, and kidney function in both animals and humans.
(Sekizawa et al., 2003; DiGangi et al., 2002). Chlorine can cause
respiratory problems, hemorrhaging, and acute mortality to aquatic
organisms even at relatively low concentrations (U.S. EPA, 2008).
Vessel discharges may also contain certain biocides used in vessel
coatings, which can be harmful to aquatic organisms. For example,
cybutryne, also commonly known as Irgarol 1051, is a biocide that
functions by inhibiting the electron transport mechanism in algae, thus
inhibiting growth. Numerous studies indicate that cybutryne is both
acutely and chronically toxic to a range of marine organisms, and in
certain cases, more harmful than tributyltin (Carbery et al, 2006; Van
Wezel and Van Vlaardingen, 2004).
Some vessel discharges are more acidic or basic than the receiving
waters, which can have a localized effect on pH (Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation, 2007). For example, exhaust gas emission
control systems remove sulfur dioxide in exhaust gas and dissolve it in
washwater, where it is then ionized and produces an acidic washwater.
Research has shown that even minor changes in ambient pH can have
profound effects, such as developmental defects, reduced larval
survivorship, and decreased calcification of corals and shellfish (Oyen
et al., 1991; Zaniboni-Filho et al., 2009, Marubini and Atkinson,
1999).
V. Scope of the Regulatory Action
A. Waters
The proposed rule would apply to incidental discharges from non-
military, non-recreational vessels operating in the waters of the
United States or the waters of the contiguous zone. 33 U.S.C.
1322(p)(8)(B). Sections 502(7), 502(8), and 502(9) of the CWA define
the terms ``navigable waters,'' ``territorial seas,'' and ``contiguous
zone,'' respectively. The term ``navigable waters'' means the waters of
the United States including inland waters and the territorial seas,
where the United States includes the 50 states, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands,
Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
and the Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands. The term
``territorial seas'' means the belt of seas that extends three miles
seaward from the line of ordinary low water along the portion of the
coast in direct contact with the open sea and the line marking the
seaward limit of inland waters. The term ``contiguous zone'' means the
entire zone established or to be established by the United States under
Article 24 of the Convention of the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous
Zone.
B. Vessels
The proposed rule would apply to discharges incidental to the
normal operation of a vessel as set forth in CWA Section 312(p)(2). The
proposed rule would not apply to discharges incidental to the normal
operation of a vessel of the Armed Forces subject to CWA Section
312(n); a recreational vessel subject to CWA Section 312(o); a small
vessel less than 79 feet in length or a fishing vessel, except that the
proposed rule would apply to any discharge of ballast water from a
small vessel or fishing vessel; or a floating craft that is permanently
moored to a pier, including a floating casino, hotel, restaurant, or
bar. The types of vessels intended to be covered under the proposed
rule include, but are not limited to, public vessels of the United
States, commercial fishing vessels (for ballast water only), passenger
vessels such as cruise ships and ferries, barges, tugs and tows,
offshore supply vessels, mobile offshore drilling units, tankers, bulk
carriers, cargo ships, container ships, and research vessels. EPA
estimates that the domestic and international vessel population that
would be subject to the proposed national standards of performance is
approximately 82,000 vessels. The proposed rule also would not apply to
[[Page 67825]]
a narrow category of ballast water discharges that Congress believed do
not pose a risk of spreading or introducing ANS (VIDA Senate Report, at
10), or to any discharges that result from (or contain material derived
from) an activity other than the normal operation of a vessel (33
U.S.C. 1322(p)(2)(B)(iii)). Unless otherwise provided by CWA Section
312(p), any incidental discharges excluded from regulation in the VIDA
remain subject to the pre-enactment status quo (e.g., State law, NPDES
permitting, etc.). VIDA Senate Report, at 10.
The national standards of performance proposed herein apply equally
to new and existing vessels except in such cases where the proposed
rule expressly distinguishes between such vessels as authorized by CWA
Section 312(p)(4)(C)(ii).
C. Incidental Discharges
EPA proposes to establish general as well as specific national
standards of performance for discharges incidental to the normal
operation of a vessel described in CWA Section 312(p)(2). The general
standards would be applicable to all vessels and incidental discharges
subject to the proposed rule to the extent that the requirements are
appropriate for each incidental discharge. The specific standards would
be applicable to specific incidental discharges from the normal
operation of the following types of vessel equipment and systems:
Ballast tanks, bilges, boilers, cathodic protection, chain lockers,
decks, desalination and purification systems, elevator pits, exhaust
gas emission control systems, fire protection equipment, gas turbines,
graywater systems, hulls and associated niche areas, inert gas systems,
motor gasoline and compensating systems, non-oily machinery, pools and
spas, refrigerators and air conditioners, seawater piping, and sonar
domes.
D. Emergency and Safety Concerns
The VIDA recognizes that safety of life at sea and other emergency
situations not resulting from the negligence or malfeasance of the
vessel owner, operator, master, or person in charge may arise, and that
the prevention of loss of life or serious injury may require operations
that would not otherwise be consistent with these standards. Therefore,
it is reasonably likely that no person would be found to be in
violation of the proposed rule under the affirmative defense described
in CWA Section 312(p)(8)(C). The corresponding USCG implementing
regulations would include language to address vessel emergency and
safety considerations.
E. Effective Date
The proposed national standards of performance, once finalized,
would become effective beginning on the date upon which the regulations
promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to CWA Section 312(p)(5)
governing the implementation, compliance, and enforcement of the
national standards of performance become final, effective, and
enforceable. Per CWA Section 312(p)(3)(c), as of that date, the
requirements of the VGP and all regulations promulgated by the
Secretary pursuant to Section 1101 of the NANPCA (16 U.S.C. 4711) (as
in effect on December 3, 2018), including the regulations contained in
subparts C and D of part 151 of title 33, Code of Federal Regulations,
and 46 CFR 162.060 (as in effect on December 3, 2018), shall be deemed
repealed and have no force or effect. Similarly, as of that same date,
any CWA Section 401 certification requirement in Part 6 of the 2013
VGP, shall be deemed repealed and have no force or effect.
VI. Stakeholder Engagement
During the development of the proposed rule, EPA and the USCG
reached out to other federal agencies, states, tribes, non-governmental
organizations, and the maritime industry. Detailed documentation of the
stakeholder outreach prior to the proposal is in the public docket for
the proposed rulemaking. EPA also intends to hold stakeholder
engagement opportunities during the proposed rule public comment
period. General summaries of the outreach are included in this section
and in section XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.
A. Informational Webinars and Public Listening Session
EPA, in coordination with the USCG, hosted two informational
webinars on May 7 and 15, 2019 to enhance public awareness about the
VIDA and provide opportunity for engagement. During the webinars, EPA
and the USCG provided a general overview of the VIDA, discussed interim
and future discharge requirements, described future state and public
engagement opportunities, and answered clarifying questions raised by
the audience. The webinar recordings and presentation material are
available at https://www.epa.gov/vessels-marinas-and-ports/vessel-incidental-discharge-act-vida-engagement-opportunities.
Additionally, EPA, in coordination with the USCG, hosted a public,
in-person listening session at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy in New
York on May 29-30, 2019. At the listening session, EPA with the support
of the USCG, provided an overview of the VIDA, described the interim
requirements and the framework for the future regulations, and
conducted sessions on key vessel discharges to provide an opportunity
for public input. Fifty-two individuals from a variety of stakeholder
groups attended and provided input. Public input largely centered on
ballast water management systems, including testing methods and
monitoring requirements. Stakeholders requested harmonization of
domestic regulations with those of the International Maritime
Organization (IMO), such as standards for exhaust gas emission control
systems. Input was also received on challenges with compliance and
reporting under the VGP and the USCG ballast water regulations. The
meeting agenda and a summary of the comments received are available in
the public docket for this proposed rulemaking.
B. Post-Proposal Public Meetings
During the public comment period for this proposed rule, EPA
intends to hold public meetings to provide an opportunity for
stakeholders to ask questions about the proposed rule and describe
procedures for submitting formal comments on the rule. Details for
these public meetings will be made available at https://www.epa.gov/vessels-marinas-and-ports/vessel-incidental-discharge-act-vida-engagement-opportunities.
C. Consultation and Coordination With States
1. Federalism Consultation
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 13132, on July 9, 2019 in
Washington, DC, EPA and the USCG conducted a Federalism consultation
briefing to allow states and local officials to have meaningful and
timely input into EPA rulemaking for the development of the national
standards of performance. Additional information regarding the VIDA
Federalism Consultation can be found in section XII. Statutory and
Executive Order Reviews.
2. Governors Consultation
CWA Section 312(p)(4)(A)(iii)(II) directs EPA to develop a process
for soliciting input from interested Governors to allow interested
Governors to inform the development of the national standards of
performance, including sharing information relevant to the process. On
July 10 and 18, 2019, EPA and the USCG, with the support and assistance
of the National
[[Page 67826]]
Governors Association, held meetings with Governor representatives to
provide an overview of the VIDA, discuss state authorities under the
VIDA, and solicit input on a process that would meet both the statutory
requirements and state needs. Based on this input, EPA developed its
``Governors' input process'' for this rulemaking. Thirteen states
(Alaska, California, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York,
North Carolina, Ohio, Puerto Rico, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin)
participated in the process as did representatives from the Western
Governors Association, the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission,
and the All Islands Coral Reef Committee.
EPA developed the VIDA Governors' input process to outline EPA's
intended approach to engage with the states and address their expressed
interest for multiple enhanced engagement opportunities (possibly
regionally-based), additional details regarding the direction of the
proposed standards, and ultimately, more involvement in the development
of the national standards of performance.
The Governors' input process included three regional, web-based
forums for Governors and their representatives to inform EPA on the
challenges and concerns associated with existing requirements under the
VGP and to discuss potential considerations for key discharges of
interest. The three regional, web-based forums were held on September
10 (Western States), September 12, (Great Lakes States) and September
19 (All States), 2019. During each forum subject-matter experts from
EPA provided a brief background on the VIDA followed by organized
discussions regarding the key discharges identified by the regional
representatives prior to the forum. During the organized discussions,
interested Governors' representatives commented on the presentation
content, shared applicable scientific or technical information, and
provided suggested options for EPA to consider during the development
of the national standards of performance. In addition to the verbal
input provided during the three regional, web-based forums, EPA
accepted written comments. Copies of those written comments are
included in the public docket for this proposed rule.
Additionally, EPA held two follow-up calls with representatives
from the Great Lakes states on December 18, 2019. During each call, EPA
addressed the comments that had been submitted by Great Lakes states,
including comments on specific requirements of the VIDA, non-ballast
water discharges, and best available technology as it relates to
ballast water treatment systems. Representatives from Michigan, New
York, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Minnesota, and Ohio attended
the calls.
EPA also held a follow-up call with representatives from the West
Coast states on January 15, 2020. During the call, EPA addressed the
comments that had been submitted by West Coast states, including
comments on outreach and engagement, the best available technology
analysis for ballast water treatment systems, and regulation of
biofouling and in-water cleaning and capture devices. Representatives
from the states of California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington, as well
as representatives from the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
and the Western Governors Association attended the call.
In conjunction with the requirement to engage states in the
development of the proposed standards, CWA Section
312(p)(4)(A)(iii)(III) provides for governors to formally object to a
proposed national standard of performance. As detailed in CWA Section
312(p)(4)(A)(iii)(III), an interested Governor may submit to the
Administrator a written, detailed objection to the proposed national
standard of performance, describing the scientific, technical, and
operational factors that form the basis of the objection. Before
finalizing a national standard of performance for which there has been
an objection from one or more interested Governors, the Administrator
shall provide a written response to the objection detailing the
scientific, technical, or operational factors that form the basis for
that standard.
To be considered an objection by the Administrator under CWA
Section 312(p)(4)(A)(iii)(III)(aa), an objection letter from the
Governor must:
Be submitted in writing to the Administrator;
Be signed by the Governor;
Clearly state the proposed standard that is the subject of
the objection;
Describe the scientific, technical, or operational factors
that indicate why the proposed standard does not represent the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT), best
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT), and/or best available
technology economically achievable (BAT) to address the conventional
pollutants, toxic pollutants, and nonconventional pollutants contained
in the discharge; and
Include the scientific, technical, or operational factors
that indicate what BPT, BCT, and BAT is available that should be
included in the proposed standard to address the conventional
pollutants, toxic pollutants, and nonconventional pollutants contained
in the discharge.
In addition, to facilitate EPA's due consideration of any
objections within a timeframe that would enable EPA to meet its
statutory deadline for this rulemaking, EPA requests that any
Governor's objection be submitted within 60 days of the published
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Pursuant to CWA Section 312(p)(4)(A)(iii)(III)(bb), the
Administrator's response would:
Be provided in writing to each interested Governor prior
to publication of the final rule;
Be signed by the Administrator; and
Include the scientific, technical, or operational factors
that form the basis for the proposed standard.
3. Comments (Federalism Consultation and Governors' Consultation
Comments)
During the engagement with states, EPA received pre-proposal
comments from states, governors, and governors' representatives. EPA
received comments submitted by representatives from Hawaii, Guam,
American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Florida, California, Washington,
Oregon, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, and the Western Governors
Association. The pre-proposal comments primarily focused on ballast
water, biofouling, and the state engagement process. These comments can
be found in the public docket for this proposed rule.
VII. Definitions
The proposed rule includes definitions for several statutory,
regulatory, and technical terms. These definitions apply solely for the
purposes of the proposed rule and do not affect the definition of any
similar terms used in any other context. By including these
definitions, EPA has, where possible, relied on existing definitions
from other laws, regulations, and the VGP to provide consistency with
existing requirements. Many of the proposed definitions are taken
either verbatim or with minor clarifying edits from the VIDA, the
legislation upon which this proposed rule is based. This includes
definitions for: ANS, ballast water, ballast water exchange, ballast
water management system, Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone, commercial
vessel--as that term is used for vessels operating within the Pacific
Region, empty ballast tank, Great Lakes State, internal waters, live or
living, marine pollution control device, organism, Pacific Region, port
or
[[Page 67827]]
place of destination, render nonviable, saltwater flush, Secretary,
small vessel or fishing vessel (and the term ``fishing vessel'' to
direct the reader to the definition of ``small vessel or fishing
vessel''), and VGP.
To provide additional clarity for certain proposed standards, if
terms were not defined in the VIDA, the proposed rule includes
definitions from other sections of the CWA, USCG regulations, the VGP,
and other regulations. Additionally, EPA is proposing to include new
definitions for federally-protected waters, fouling rating, marine
growth prevention system, mid-ocean, and oil-to-sea interface. Terms
not defined in the proposed rule have the meaning defined under the CWA
and any applicable regulations.
VIII. Development of National Discharge Standards of Performance
The CWA established a two-step process for implementation of
increasingly stringent limitations. The first step, to be accomplished
by July 1, 1977, required compliance with standards based on ``the
application of the best practicable control technology currently
available [BPT] as defined by the Administrator. . . .'' 33 U.S.C.
1311(b)(1)(A). The second step, to be accomplished by July 1, 1987,
required compliance with standards based on application of the ``best
available technology economically achievable [BAT] for such category or
class. . . .'' 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(A). The CWA, as amended in 1977,
replaced the BAT standard with a new standard, ``best conventional
pollutant control technology [BCT],'' but only for certain so-called
``conventional pollutants'' (i.e., total suspended solids, oil and
grease, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), fecal coliform,
and pH). 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(E) (1976 ed., Supp. III). Section
312(p)(4)(B)(i) of the VIDA requires the national standards of
performance promulgated for conventional pollutants, toxic pollutants,
and nonconventional pollutants (including ANS) be developed using the
same statutory framework as applied to the VGP. Specifically, the
national standards of performance developed under the VIDA for all
categories and classes of vessels must require the application of best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT) for
conventional, toxic, and nonconventional pollutants; best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT) for conventional pollutants; and
best available technology economically achievable (BAT) for toxic and
nonconventional pollutants (including ANS), which will result in
reasonable progress toward the national goal of eliminating the
discharge of all pollutants. 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(4)(B)(i). The VIDA
specifically adopts by reference the existing BPT, BCT, and BAT
standards defined elsewhere in the CWA at Sections 301(b) and 304(b).
33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(1)(F), (G), (I). CWA Section 312(p)(4)(B)(ii) also
directs EPA to use BMPs to control or abate any discharge incidental to
the normal operation of a vessel if numeric discharge standard
standards are infeasible or if the BMPs are reasonably necessary to
achieve the standards or to carry out the purpose of reducing and
eliminating the discharge of pollutants.
In addition, CWA Section 312(p)(4)(B) establishes minimum
requirements for the national standards of performance such that, ``the
combination of any equipment or best management practice . . . shall
not be less stringent than'' the effluent limits and related
requirements established in parts 2.1, 2.2, or 5 of the VGP. 33 U.S.C.
1322(p)(4)(B)(iii). Thus, while the statute directs EPA to set the
national standards of performance at the level of BPT/BCT/BAT,
depending on the pollutant, it also creates a presumption that those
standards would provide protection at least equivalent to the VGP
requirements absent one of the exceptions at CWA Section
312(p)(4)(D)(ii)(II) for situations where either new information
becomes available that ``would have justified the application of a
less-stringent standard'' or ``if the Administrator determines that a
material technical mistake or misinterpretation of law occurred when
promulgating the existing standard.'' Absent one of those exceptions,
the statute directs that EPA ``shall not revise a standard of
performance . . . to be less stringent than an applicable existing
requirement.'' 33 U.S.C. 312(p)(4)(D)(ii)(I).
EPA endeavored to identify instances where the BPT/BCT/BAT level of
control called for new, more stringent options for the national
standards of performance; however, where EPA identified no such new
information or options, EPA is continuing to rely on the BPT/BCT/BAT
analysis that led to the development of the VGP requirements. This
approach is consistent with EPA's obligations under CWA Section
312(p)(4) for the following reasons. The effluent limits that EPA
adopted in the VGP were already the product of a BPT/BCT/BAT analysis
described in the permit fact sheets for both the 2008 and 2013
iterations of the VGP and corresponding supporting materials. The text
of CWA Section 312(p)(4)(D)(ii) prohibits EPA from ``revis[ing] a
standard of performance. . . to be less stringent than an applicable
existing requirement.'' There is a narrow exception for instances where
EPA identifies absent new information or technical or legal error in
the VGP analysis. Absent such exception, the VIDA prohibits EPA from
identifying a less stringent option as BPT/BCT/BAT. Indeed, by
identifying the VGP as the minimum requirements for the national
standards of performance and then expressly identifying the
circumstances under which EPA could select a different, less stringent
standard (i.e., new information or error), the text and legislative
history of the VIDA show that Congress intended to preserve the
existing VGP requirements as a regulatory floor. VIDA Senate Report, at
12 (``The exceptions to this provision [for new information and
technical or legal error] would provide the sole basis for the
Administrator to weaken standards of performance compared to the legacy
VGP requirements. . . .''). Moreover, Congress did not intend for EPA
to depart from the considerations that informed the VGP. To the
contrary, although the VIDA is a permit-less regime, Congress defined
BPT, BCT, and BAT with ``intentional[] cross-reference[s]'' to where
those terms are used elsewhere in the CWA ``to ensure that the
Administrator makes identical considerations when setting the standards
of performance under CWA Section 312(p) as the Administrator was
previously required to do when setting technology-based effluent limits
for permits'' like in the VGP. VIDA Senate Report, at 11. It is
significant that Congress gave EPA only a two-year deadline to develop
the national standards of performance for marine pollution control
devices for each type of discharge incidental to the normal operation
of a vessel that is subject to regulation under the VIDA. The VGP
requirements address more than 30 such discharges and given the short
timeframe that Congress set forth for this task, EPA did not think it
was necessary or appropriate to re-analyze the marine pollution control
device standards for which there have not been meaningful changes in
technology or practice since EPA last undertook a BPT/BCT/BAT analysis.
In contrast to this initial promulgation of standards, Congress
established a significantly longer five-year cycle for review and, if
appropriate, future revision of the initial standards. 33 U.S.C.
1322(p)(4)(D)(i).
While EPA is, for most of the discharges addressed in this
[[Page 67828]]
rulemaking, relying on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that was performed to
develop the VGP, EPA is not incorporating the VGP requirements
verbatim. In many cases, EPA proposes change to translate the VGP
discharge requirements into national standards of performance or
otherwise improve the clarity to enhance implementation and
enforceability. As the proposed changes do not materially differ from
the requirements established in the VGP, EPA can reasonably rely on the
BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that supported the VGP to develop the new proposed
standards under the VIDA.
Where EPA research identified new alternatives or new options for
marine pollution control devices, EPA evaluated those options as
candidates for new BPT/BCT/BAT requirements. The CWA requires
consideration of BPT for conventional, toxic, and nonconventional
pollutants. CWA Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as
conventional pollutants: Biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended
solids, fecal coliform, pH, and any additional pollutants defined by
the Administrator as conventional. The Administrator designated oil and
grease as an additional conventional pollutant on July 30, 1979. 40 CFR
401.16. Toxic pollutants (e.g., toxic metals such as arsenic, mercury,
selenium, and chromium; toxic organic pollutants such as benzene,
benzo-a-pyrene, phenol, and napthalene) are those outlined in CWA
Section 307(a) and subsequently identified in EPA regulations at 40 CFR
401.15 and 40 CFR part 423 Appendix A. All other pollutants are
nonconventional.
In determining BPT, under CWA Sections 301(b)(1)(A) and
304(b)(1)(B), and 40 CFR 125.3(d)(1), EPA evaluates several factors.
EPA first considers the cost of application of technology in relation
to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency also considers the age
of equipment and facilities, the processes employed, engineering
aspects of various types of control technologies, process changes, non-
water quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements),
and such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate. If,
however, existing performance is uniformly inadequate within an
industrial category, EPA may establish limitations based on higher
levels of control if the Agency determines that the technology is
available in another category or subcategory and can be practically
applied to this industrial category.
The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent
reduction levels for conventional pollutants associated with BCT for
discharges from existing industrial point sources. 33 U.S.C.
1311(b)(2)(E); 1314(b)(4)(B); 40 CFR 125.3(d)(2). In addition to
considering the other factors specified in CWA Section 304(b)(4)(B) to
establish BCT requirements, EPA also considers a two-part ``cost-
reasonableness'' test. EPA explained its methodology for the
development of BCT requirements in 1986. See 51 FR 24974, July 9, 1986.
For toxic pollutants and nonconventional pollutants, EPA
promulgates discharge standards based on BAT. 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(A);
1314(b)(2)(B); 40 CFR 125.3(d)(3). In establishing BAT, the technology
must be technologically ``available'' and ``economically achievable.''
The factors considered in assessing BAT include the cost of achieving
BAT effluent reductions, the age of equipment and facilities involved,
the process employed, potential process changes, non-water quality
environmental impacts, including energy requirements, and other such
factors as the Administrator deems appropriate. EPA retains
considerable discretion in assigning the weight accorded to these
factors. See Weyerhaeuser Co v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1045 (D.C. Cir.
1978). BAT discharge standards may be based on effluent reductions
attainable through changes in a facility's processes and operations.
Where existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may reflect a
higher level of performance than is currently being achieved within a
subcategory based on technology transferred from a different
subcategory or category. Am. Paper Inst. 5 V. Train, 539 F.2d 328, 353
(D.C. Cir. 1976); Am. Frozen Food Inst. V. Train, 539 F.2d 107, 132
(D.C. Cir. 1976). BAT may be based upon process changes or internal
controls, even when these technologies are not common industry
practice.
The proposed rule contains discharge standards that correspond to
required levels of technology-based control (BPT, BCT, BAT) for
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, as required
by the CWA. As noted above, some discharge standards have been
established by examining other existing laws and requirements (e.g.,
Oil Pollution Act, APPS, and the Clean Hull Act). Where these laws
already exist, it was deemed feasible for the operators to implement
these practices as part of the proposed standards because these are
demonstrated practices that EPA found to be technologically available
and economically practicable (BPT) or achievable (BAT). For example,
the proposed standards reaffirm requirements of the Clean Hull Act that
coating on vessel hulls must not contain TBT or any other organotin
compound used as a biocide. In some cases, such as with certain
discharges of oils, graywater from passenger vessels, and ballast
water, numeric discharge standards are being proposed. In assessing the
availability and achievability of the technologies discussed herein, in
addition to the rationale for the VGP effluent limits, EPA considered
studies and data from both domestic and international sources including
studies and data from foreign-flagged vessels as appropriate.
Additionally, EPA is proposing that two of the VGP-named discharges
do not require specific discharge requirements beyond the general
discharge requirements in Subpart B. EPA acknowledges that discharges
from motor gasoline and compensating systems and inert gas systems are
indeed discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel;
however, EPA determined that the requirements outlined in the general
discharge standards section in Subpart B of the proposed rule are
sufficient and at least as stringent as the VGP.
A. Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--General
Standards
This section describes the proposed national standards of
performance associated with the general discharge requirements proposed
in 40 CFR part 139, subpart B. These proposed standards are designed to
apply to all vessels and incidental discharges subject to the proposed
rule to the extent the requirements are appropriate for each incidental
discharge. These proposed standards are proactive and preventative in
nature and are designed to minimize the introduction of pollutants into
the waters of the United States and the waters of the contiguous zone.
These proposed standards are based on EPA's analysis of available and
relevant information, including available technical data, existing
statutes and regulations, statistical industry information, and
research studies included in the public docket for this proposed rule.
1. General Operation and Maintenance
The first category of proposed national standards of performance
would establish requirements associated with the general operation and
maintenance vessel practices that are designed to eliminate or reduce
the discharge of pollutants. EPA considers these proposed requirements
to be consistent with the VGP requirements
[[Page 67829]]
and provides a consolidation of requirements from many subparts within
Part 2 of the VGP. The first requirement proposes that all discharges
covered under this rulemaking be minimized. For purposes of this
proposed rule and consistent with the technology-based requirements of
the CWA, EPA is proposing to clarify the term ``minimize'' to mean to
reduce or eliminate to the extent achievable using any control measure
that is technologically available and economically practicable and
achievable and supported by demonstrated BMPs such that compliance can
be documented in shipboard logs and plans as determined by the
Secretary (that is, the Secretary of the department in which the USCG
is operating). The ``minimize'' requirement is included pursuant to the
CWA Section 312(p)(2)(H) definition of BMP within the technology-based
BPT/BCT/BAT analysis. Minimizing discharges provides a reasonable
approach by which EPA, the regulated community, and the public can
determine and evaluate appropriate control measures for vessels to
control all specific discharges identified in 40 CFR part 139, subpart
B of this proposed rulemaking. To minimize discharges, operators should
consider the use of reception facilities, storage onboard the vessel,
or reduced production of pollutants to be discharged. For some vessel
discharges, such as for graywater, minimization of pollutants in those
discharges can be achieved without using highly engineered, complex
treatment systems. Other vessel discharges, such as ballast water, may
require more complex behavioral practices such as saltwater flushing or
ballast water exchange.
The proposed general operation and management standard would also
include provisions from the VGP (Parts 2.2.2 and 5.3.1.2) that are
intended to minimize the discharges from vessels to nearshore waters by
requiring, to the extent practicable, that vessels discharge while
underway and as far from shore as practical.
The proposed general operation and management standard also would
include requirements that limit the types and quantities of materials
discharged. For one, EPA is clarifying that the addition of any
materials to an incidental discharge, other than for treatment of the
discharge, that is not incidental to the normal operation of the
vessel, is prohibited as is using dilution to meet any effluent
discharge standards. EPA is also proposing a requirement specifying
that only the amount of a material (e.g., disinfectant, cleaner,
biocide, coating, sacrificial anode) necessary to perform its intended
function is authorized to be used if its residue could be discharged
and that any such materials used do not contain biocides or toxic or
hazardous materials banned for use in the United States. Also, EPA is
proposing to prohibit the discharge of any material used that will be
subsequently discharged that contains any materials banned for use in
the United States. For any pesticide products (e.g., biocides, anti-
microbials) subject to FIFRA registration, vessel operators must follow
the FIFRA label for all activities that result in a discharge into the
waters of the United States or the waters of the contiguous zone.
The presence or use of toxic or hazardous materials may be
necessary for the operation of vessels. For purposes of the proposed
rule, the term ``Toxic or Hazardous Materials'' means any toxic
pollutant identified in 40 CFR 401.15 or any hazardous material as
defined in 49 CFR 171.8. EPA is proposing requirements for how toxic or
hazardous materials are managed to minimize the potential for discharge
of these materials. Toxic or hazardous material containers must be
appropriately sealed, labeled, and secured, and located in an area of
the vessel that minimizes exposure to ocean spray and precipitation
consistent with vessel design. Materials that may not be considered
toxic in small concentrations could pose an environmental threat if
significant amounts are washed overboard, particularly in shallow or
impaired waters. Wastes should be managed in accordance with any
applicable local, state, and federal regulations, which are outside of
the scope of this proposed rule. For example, the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) governs the generation, transportation,
storage, and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes.
Therefore, the proposed rule would require that all vessel
operators practice good environmental stewardship by minimizing any
exposure of cargo or other onboard materials that may be inadvertently
discharged by containerizing or covering materials with a tarp, and
generally limiting any exposure of these materials to wind, rain, or
spray. The proposed rule acknowledges that these requirements would
apply unless the vessel operator reasonably determines this would
interfere with essential vessel operations or safety of the vessel or
doing so would violate any applicable regulations that establish
specifications for safe transportation, handling, carriage, and storage
of toxic or hazardous materials. Also, to avoid discharges and prevent
emergency or other dangerous situations, the proposed standard would
require that containers holding toxic or hazardous materials not be
overfilled and incompatible materials not be mixed in containers.
Like the requirements related to toxic and hazardous materials, the
proposed standard would also require control measures to prevent or
minimize the overboard discharge of cargo, on-deck debris, garbage, and
residue and would prohibit the jettisoning of cargo or toxic or
hazardous materials. EPA proposal would also require vessel operators
to clean out cargo residues (i.e., broom clean or equivalent) from any
cargo compartment or tank prior to discharging washwater from such
areas overboard. EPA is proposing that these material management
measures be followed to minimize the discharge of pollutants.
The proposed rule would also require vessel operators to maintain
their topside surface (i.e., outer surfaces above the waterline) in a
manner that minimizes the discharge of rust (and other corrosion by-
products), cleaning compounds, paint chips, non-skid material
fragments, and other materials associated with exterior topside surface
preservation. Additionally, this EPA standard proposes that coating
techniques selected for any topside surfaces must minimize the residual
paint and coating entering the water and that the discharge of any
unused paints and coatings is prohibited.
The last proposed general operation and maintenance requirement
specifies that any equipment that is expected to release, drip, leak,
or spill oil or oily mixtures, fuel, or other toxic or hazardous
materials that may be discharged or drained or pumped to the bilge,
must be maintained regularly to minimize the discharge of pollutants.
As with other requirements in the proposed general operation and
maintenance standard, EPA considers this requirement to be consistent
with the bilgewater requirements in Part 2.2.2 of the VGP.
2. Biofouling Management
Vessel biofouling is the accumulation of aquatic organisms such as
plants, animals, and micro-organisms on vessel equipment or systems
submerged or exposed to the aquatic environment. Biofouling can be
broadly separated into microfouling, which consists of microscopic
organisms including bacteria and diatoms, and macrofouling, which
consists of large, distinct multicellular organisms visible to the
[[Page 67830]]
human eye, such as barnacles, tubeworms, or fronds of algae. Studies
suggest that biofouling on vessel equipment and systems is one of the
main vectors for the introduction and spread of ANS (Drake and Lodge,
2007; Gollasch, 2002; Hewitt and Campbell, 2010; Hewitt et al., 2009).
Biofouling also produces drag on a vessel hull and protruding niche
areas, requiring greater fuel consumption and increased greenhouse gas
emissions. It can additionally result in hull corrosion and blockage of
internal piping, such as the engine cooling and firemain systems,
thereby degrading the integrity of the vessel structure and impeding
safe operation.
EPA understands the statutory definition of ``discharge incidental
to the normal operation of a vessel'' (incidental discharge) at 33
U.S.C.1322(a)(12) to include any discharge of biofouling organisms from
vessel equipment and systems. Consistent with the VGP discharges of
biofouling organisms from vessel equipment and systems while the vessel
is immersed or exposed to the aquatic environment are incidental to the
normal operation of a vessel. Such discharges during normal operation
of the vessel include, but are not limited to, those from maintenance
and cleaning activities of hulls, niche areas, and associated coatings.
EPA included management requirements to minimize the discharge of
biofouling organisms from vessel equipment and systems in both the VGP
and the discharge regulations for the vessels of the Armed Forces. 33
U.S.C. 1322(n)). The VGP in Parts 2.2.23 and 4.1.3, respectively,
required that vessel operators minimize the transport of attached
living organisms and conduct annual inspections of the vessel hull,
including niche areas, for fouling organisms. Part 4.1.4 of the VGP
also required vessel operators to prepare drydock inspection reports
noting that the vessel hull and niche areas had been inspected for
attached living organisms and those organisms had been removed or
neutralized and make these reports available to EPA or an authorized
representative of EPA upon request. With one of the legislative
purposes of the VIDA being to establish uniform national incidental
discharge regulations that are as stringent as the VGP, except in those
circumstances specified by the VIDA in CWA Section
312(p)(4)(D)(ii)(II), EPA is proposing to include requirements for the
discharge of biofouling organisms from vessel equipment and systems in
this rulemaking.
The proposed rule would require each vessel to develop and follow a
biofouling management plan with a goal to prevent macrofouling, thereby
minimizing the potential for the introduction and spread of ANS. A
biofouling management plan that would be consistent with the VGP and
fulfill the purpose of the proposed rule is one that provides a
holistic strategy that considers the operational profile of the vessel,
identifies the appropriate antifouling systems, and details the
biofouling management practices for specific areas of the vessel. The
details of the plan will be established by the Secretary, although the
plan elements must prioritize procedures and strategies to prevent
macrofouling.
While the VGP does not explicitly require a biofouling management
plan, it requires the majority of the components of the proposed
biofouling management plan individually, such as the consideration of
vessel class, operations, and biocide release rates and components in
the selection of antifouling systems, an annual inspection of the
vessel hull and niche areas for assessment of biofouling organisms and
condition of anti-fouling paint, a drydock inspection report noting
that the vessel hull and niche areas have been inspected for biofouling
organisms and those organisms have been removed or neutralized,
reporting of cleaning schedules and methods, and appropriate disposal
of wastes generated during cleaning operations. Additionally, according
to the Clean Hull Act of 2009, every vessel engaging in one or more
international voyages is required to carry an antifouling system
certificate that contains the details of the antifouling system.
Moreover, under the National Invasive Species Act, the USCG requires
the individual in charge of any vessel equipped with ballast water
tanks that operates in the waters of the United States to maintain a
ballast water management plan that has been developed specifically for
the vessel and that will allow those responsible for the plan's
implementation to understand and follow the vessel's ballast water
management strategy and comply with the requirements. The ballast water
management plan must also include detailed biofouling maintenance and
sediment removal procedures (33 CFR 151.2050(g)(3)). According to
guidance issued by the USCG on these regulations, such procedures
constitute a ``Biofouling Management and Sediment Plan.'' Under this
guidance, the USCG advised that IMO Resolution Marine Environment
Protection Committee (MEPC) 207(62) provides a basis for developing and
implementing a vessel-specific biofouling management plan.
Developing individual biofouling management plans for vessels is
important because vessels can vary widely in operational profile and,
therefore, in the extent and type of biofouling. EPA recognizes,
however, that vessels with similar operational profiles, such as
vessels that cross the same waterbodies, travel at similar speeds, and
share the same design, may also employ the same management measures,
such as selecting the same types of antifouling systems, and applying
the same inspection and cleaning schedules. EPA anticipates that fleet
owners may develop a biofouling management plan template that can be
readily adapted into a vessel-specific biofouling management plan.
3. Oil Management
The proposed rule aims to minimize discharges of oil, including
oily mixtures. The proposed standard would require vessel operators to
use control and response measures to minimize and contain spills and
overflows during fueling, maintenance, and other vessel operations.
Also, the proposed standard specifies that the discharge of used or
spent oil no longer being used for its intended purpose would be
prohibited, including any used or spent oil that may be added to an
incidental discharge that is otherwise authorized to be discharged.
Discharges of small amounts of oil, including oily mixtures, incidental
to the normal operation of a vessel are permissible provided such
discharges comply with the otherwise applicable existing legal
requirements. For example, consistent with the CWA and as implemented
by the 2013 VGP, this standard would prohibit the discharge of oil in
such quantities as may be harmful, as defined in 40 CFR 110.3.
Section 139.3 of the proposed rule specifies that, except as
expressly provided, nothing in this part would affect the applicability
of any other provision of Federal law as specified in several statutory
and regulatory citations. Two of those citations are to CWA Section 311
and to APPS. Those two laws address discharges of oil. Under CWA
Section 311, any oil, including oily mixtures, other than those
exempted in 40 CFR 110.5, may not be discharged in such quantities as
``may be harmful,'' which is defined to include those discharges that
violate applicable water quality standards or ``cause a film or sheen
upon or discoloration of the surface of the water or adjoining
shorelines or cause a sludge
[[Page 67831]]
or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon
adjoining shorelines.'' Discharges that are not included in the
description of ``may be harmful'' include discharges of oil from a
properly functioning vessel engine (including an engine on a public
vessel) and any discharges of such oil accumulated in the bilges of a
vessel discharged in compliance with 33 CFR part 151, subpart A; other
discharges of oil permitted under MARPOL 73/78, Annex I, as provided in
33 CFR part 151, subpart A; and any discharge of oil explicitly
permitted by the Administrator in connection with research,
demonstration projects, or studies relating to the prevention, control,
or abatement of oil pollution. Regarding the APPS (33 U.S.C. 1901 et
seq.), the United States enacted it to implement the obligations under
MARPOL 73/78. The USCG is the lead agency for APPS implementation and
issued implementing regulations primarily found at 33 CFR part 151.
Those APPS requirements already apply to many of the vessels that would
be covered by the proposed rule. Among other things, APPS regulates the
discharge of oil and oily mixtures. Generally, these requirements
prohibit ``any discharge of oil or oily mixtures into the sea from a
ship'' except when certain conditions are met, including a discharge
oil content of less than 15 ppm and that the ship operates oily-water
separating equipment, an oil content monitor, a bilge alarm, or a
combination thereof.
Additionally, the proposed rule would require measures during
fueling, maintenance and other vessel operations to control and respond
to spills and overflows, such as may occur from human error or improper
equipment use. These proposed requirements reinforce existing
requirements that require taking immediate and appropriate corrective
actions if an oil spill is observed as a result of vessel operations.
This includes maintaining appropriate spill containment and cleanup
materials onboard and using such immediately in the event of any spill.
The proposed rule also includes requirements for oil-to-sea
interfaces. Specifically, the proposed standard would require use of
EALs for such oil-to-sea interfaces unless technically infeasible and
sets out a series of mandatory BMPs for minimizing lubricant discharges
during maintenance.
Oil-to-sea interfaces are seals or surfaces on ship-board equipment
where the design is such that small quantities of oil can escape into
the surrounding sea during normal vessel operations. For example,
below-water seals frequently use lubricating oil mechanisms that
maintain higher pressure than the surrounding sea to ensure that no
seawater enters the system and compromises the unit's performance.
During normal operation, small quantities of lubricant oil in those
interfaces are released into surrounding waters. Above-deck equipment
can also have oil-to-sea interfaces when portions of the machinery
extend overboard, thereby allowing lubricant oil to be released
directly into surrounding waters. Constituents of conventional
hydraulic and lubricating oils vary by manufacturer, but may include
copper, tin, aluminum, nickel, and lead. In addition, traditional
mineral oils have a small biodegradation rate, a high potential for
bioaccumulation and a measurable toxicity towards marine organisms. In
the case of a controllable pitch propellers (CPP), up to 20 ounces of
such oils could be released for every CPP blade that is replaced, with
blade replacement occurring at drydock intervals or when the blade is
damaged. When the blade replacement includes removal of the blade port
cover (generally occurring infrequently, less than once per month), up
to five gallons of oil could be discharged into surrounding waters
unless the service is performed in drydock.
Additionally, many ocean-going ships operate with oil-lubricated
stern tubes and use lubricating oils in much of the other machinery
both on-deck and underwater. Oil leakage from stern tubes, once
considered a part of normal ``operational consumption'' of oil, has
become an issue of global concern and is now treated as oil pollution.
A 2001 study commissioned by the European Commission DG Joint Research
Centre concluded that routine unauthorized operational discharges of
oil from ships into the Mediterranean Sea created more pollution than
accidental spills (Pavlakis et al., 2001). Similarly, an analysis of
data on oil consumption sourced from a lubricant supplier indicated
that daily stern tube lubricant consumption rates for different vessels
could range up to 20 liters per day (Etkin, 2010). This analysis
estimated that operational discharges (including stern tube leakage)
from vessels add between 36.9 million liters and 61 million liters of
lubricating oil into marine port waters annually.
Vessels use lubricants in a wide variety of ship-board
applications. Examples of lubricated equipment with oil-to-sea
interfaces include:
Stern tube: A stern tube is the casing or hole through the
hull of the vessel that enables the propeller shaft to connect the
vessel's engine to the propeller on the exterior of the vessel. Stern
tubes contain seals designed to keep the stern tube lubricant from
exiting the equipment array and being discharged to waters at the
exterior of the vessel's hull.
Controllable pitch propeller: Variably-pitched propeller
blades are for changing the speed or direction of a vessel and
supplementing the main propulsion system. Controllable pitch propellers
also contain seals that prevent the lubricant from exiting the
equipment array.
Rudder bearings: These bearings allow a vessel's rudder to
turn freely; they also use seals with an oil-to-sea interface.
On-deck equipment: Hose handling cranes, hydraulic system
prov cranes, hydraulic cranes, and hydraulic stern ramps are examples
of machinery with the potential for above-water discharges of
lubricants. When vessels are underway, this equipment is often not
operational, and any lubricant losses are typically captured during
deck washdown and treated as part of deck washdown wastewater. However,
discharges can occur when portions of the machinery such as booms or
jibs, trolleys, cables, hoist gear, or derrick arms are in use and
extend over the side of vessel.
The EAL portion of the proposal provides that the EAL would need to
meet three criteria; it must be ``biodegradable,'' ``minimally-toxic,''
and ``not bioaccumulative'' as defined in the proposed rule.
The proposed standard for oil-to-sea interfaces is slightly
different from what was required for oil-to-sea interfaces in the VGP.
EPA is proposing four changes. First, for clarity, EPA moved the EAL
requirements to a general standard for oil management applicable to any
specific discharge that may have an oil-to-sea interface rather than a
specific discharge standard as was done in Part 2.2.9 of the VGP, and
eliminated the specific discharge category, identified in Part 2.2.9 of
the VGP as ``Controllable Pitch Propeller (CPP) and Thruster Hydraulic
Fluid and other Oil-to-sea Interfaces including Lubrication Discharges
from Paddle Wheel Propulsion, Stern Tubes, Thruster Bearings,
Stabilizers Rudder Bearings, Azimuth Thrusters, and Propulsion Pod
Lubrication and Wire Rope and Mechanical Equipment Subject to
Immersion.'' The change demonstrates that the standard covers all oil-
to-sea interfaces on vessels rather than just the interfaces listed in
the name of that section of the VGP. EPA notes that
[[Page 67832]]
certain types of seals used on below-deck equipment such as air seals
are based on designs that use an air gap or other mechanical features
to prevent oils from reaching waters at the exterior of the vessel's
hull. To the extent that these seals do not allow the lubricant to be
released under normal circumstances, they are not considered to be oil-
to-sea interfaces. Second, the VGP included specific criteria for
demonstrating that use of an EAL was ``technically infeasible.'' Under
the VIDA delineation of responsibilities between EPA and the USCG,
determinations of technical infeasibility regarding the use of an EAL
are most properly treated as a matter of implementation and as such,
would be addressed as part of the implementing regulations to be
developed by the USCG. Third, EPA made minor revisions to the wording
of the standard to clarify that the scope of this discharge category
extends to all types of equipment with direct oil-to-sea interfaces,
including any on-deck equipment where lubricant losses can occur when
portions of the machinery extend over the side of the hull. Fourth, the
VGP provided two ways that a lubricant could be classified as an EAL:
the EAL must be ``biodegradable,'' ``minimally-toxic,'' and ``not
bioaccumulative'' as defined in the VGP; or, the EAL must be labeled
under a defined list of labeling programs (e.g., the European Union's
European Ecolabel and Germany's Blue Angel). EPA is proposing to remove
the list of acceptable labeling programs acknowledging that the
requirements of these different labeling programs are established by
organizations for which neither EPA nor the USCG have control over any
modifications to the criteria these organizations may make to identify
acceptable products for labeling. The expectation is that all or most
of the labeling programs identified in the VGP meet the EAL criteria in
the proposed rule and as such would provide a comparable list of
options from which vessel operators could select appropriate
lubricants. This provides a clear delineation of expectations for any
institution interested in establishing a labeling program if that
program demonstrates products that are labeled based on criteria that
are at least as stringent as those in the proposed rule for
biodegradability, toxicity, and bioaccumulation.
Although certification programs to label lubricants as
``environmentally acceptable lubricants'' have existed for some time,
the VGP was one of the first regulatory programs to require use of
EALs. Today, more than sixteen manufacturers produce EALs for the
global shipping community, giving vessel operators a wide array of
choices for optimizing lubricant technical performance. Most major
marine equipment manufacturers have approved EALs for use in their
machinery, and new equipment is being introduced commercially such as
air seals, composite bearings, electric motors, and synthetic line. The
market for EALs continues to expand around the world, particularly in
Europe where the use of such lubricants is promoted through a
combination of tax breaks, purchasing subsidies, and national and
international labeling programs.
In the analysis EPA completed for the VGP, the Agency found that
product substitution of EALs for other lubricants in oil-to-sea
applications (unless technically infeasible) together with the required
BMPs for maintenance represents BAT. As the Agency described when it
issued the VGP, use of EALs in lieu of conventional formulations for
oil-to-sea interfaces can offer significantly reduced discharges of
pollutants of concern (U.S. EPA, 2011).
As part of the BAT analysis for the VGP, EPA considered the
processes employed and potential process changes that might be
necessary for vessels to use EALs. As EPA explained at the time, EALs
are readily available and their use is economically achievable for most
applications (U.S. EPA, 2011). New vessels in particular can select
equipment during design and construction that is compatible with EALs.
Furthermore, vessel operators can design additional onboard storage
capacity for EALs if they choose to use traditional mineral-based oil
for engine lubrication (thereby needing two types of oils on-hand). The
extra storage capacity needed would be minor. EPA, however, continues
to believe that the use of EALs in all applications is not practicable
or achievable, therefore this proposed rule retains the provision from
the VGP oil-to-sea interface requirements that allows for a claim of
``technically infeasible.''
The Agency considered several other approaches for regulating oil-
to-sea interfaces in the proposed rule. For one, the most recent
version of the European Ecolabel program has a modified definition of
what constitutes an ``environmentally acceptable lubricant'' in that it
now allows for ``small quantities'' (i.e., <0.1 percent) of
bioaccumulative substances in lubricant formulations. EPA considered
revising the definition of ``biodegradable'' to bring the terminology
more in line with current European Ecolabel requirements for a 10-day
test pass window rather than a 28-day test pass window for achieving
specific levels of degradation. EPA notes that stakeholders involved in
the European Ecolabel program felt strongly that this change in the
test pass window would significantly reduce the number of lubricant
formulations available on the market. To ensure widespread installation
and use of EALs by vessels that operate in the waters of the United
States or the waters of the contiguous zone, EPA is retaining the
definition of biodegradable as used in the VGP.
4. Training and Education
The proposed rule does not include training and education
requirements. CWA Section 312(p)(5)(A)(ii)(III) requires the USCG to
promulgate training and educational requirements that are not less
stringent than those contained in the VGP.
B. Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--Specific
Standards
This section describes the proposed national standards of
performance for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a
regulated vessel. The proposed national standards of performance would
apply to regulated vessels operating within the waters of the United
States or the waters of the contiguous zone. The proposed rule would
require that a discharge comprised of two or more regulated incidental
discharges must meet the national standards of performance established
for each of those commingled discharges.
1. Ballast Tanks
i. Applicability
Ballast water is any water, suspended matter, and other materials
taken on-board a vessel to control or maintain trim, draught,
stability, or stresses of the vessel, regardless of the means by which
any such water or suspended matter is carried; or during the cleaning,
maintenance, or other operation of a ballast tank or ballast management
system of the vessel. The term ``ballast water'' does not include any
substance that is added to the water that is directly related to the
operation of a properly functioning ballast water management system. As
defined in the proposed standards, a ballast tank is any tank or hold
on a vessel used for carrying ballast water, regardless of whether the
tank or hold was designed for that purpose. Fresh water, sea water, or
ice carried onboard a vessel for food safety and product quality
purposes is not
[[Page 67833]]
considered ballast water and, as such, would not be subject to the
ballast water requirements in the proposed rule. Ballast water
discharge volumes and rates vary significantly by vessel type, ballast
tank capacity, and type of deballasting equipment for the universe of
vessels covered under the VGP and VIDA. Most passenger vessels have
ballast capacities of less than 5,000 cubic meters (approximately 1.3
million gallons) of water. Cargo/container ships generally have ballast
capacities of 5 to 20 thousand cubic meters (more than 1.3 to 5.3
million gallons) of water while some bulk carriers and tankers have
ballast capacities greater than 40 thousand cubic meters (over 10
million gallons) of water.
Ballast water may contain toxic and nonconventional pollutants such
as rust inhibitors, epoxy coating materials, zinc or aluminum (from
anodes), iron, nickel, copper, bronze, silver, and other material or
sediment from inside the tanks, pipes, or other machinery. More
importantly, ballast water may also contain marine and freshwater
organisms that originate from where the water is collected. When
ballast water is discharged, these organisms may establish new
populations of ANS in the receiving waterbodies. Ballast water
discharged from vessels has been, and continues to be, a significant
environmental concern because it can introduce and spread ANS that
threaten the diversity and abundance of native species, threaten the
ecological stability of our Nation's waters, and threaten the
commercial, agricultural, aquacultural, and recreational use of those
waters.
Currently, ballast water discharges are regulated by multiple
federal and state laws and regulations. The USCG regulates ballast
water discharges under the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention
and Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA), and amendments thereto by the
National Invasive Species Act (NISA) of 1996 (33 CFR part 151 subparts
C and D). Starting in 2009, EPA regulated ballast water discharges
under the NPDES program authorized under CWA Section 402; however, the
VIDA requires that ballast water be regulated as an incidental
discharge under CWA Section 312. The VIDA set as a minimum baseline the
VGP/NPDES requirements previously developed under CWA Section 402.
Additionally, several states (California, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio,
Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin) previously used their certification
authorities under CWA Section 401 or under stand-alone state
authorities to impose additional, state-specific requirements that
would apply to commercial vessels operating within their state waters.
Such additional stand-alone State standards will no longer be
permissible under the VIDA once EPA has established national standards
and the USCG has promulgated implementing regulations that are final,
effective, and enforceable. [33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(9)(A)(i)].
The proposed standards for ballast water reflect BAT and consider
the previous requirements established in the 2013 VGP and 33 CFR part
151 subparts C and D, the BAT factors as specified in Section 304(b) of
the Clean Water Act, as well as the new requirements established in the
VIDA. The analysis described herein is based largely on information
gathered and included in the public docket for this proposed rulemaking
and includes information on the United States and international
requirements surrounding ballast water discharges and the candidate
control technologies (both best management practices and treatment
technologies).
ii. Exclusions
The proposed standards for ballast water apply to any vessel
equipped with one or more ballast tanks that operates in the waters of
the United States or waters of the contiguous zone, except as excluded
by statute or regulation. Pursuant to the VIDA in CWA Section
312(p)(2)(B)(ii), the proposed rule would exclude the following five
discharges from the CWA Section 312(p) ballast water standards.
A. Vessels That Continuously Take on and Discharge Ballast Water in a
Flow-Through System
The proposed rule would exclude discharges of ballast water from a
vessel that continuously takes on and discharges ballast water in a
flow-through system, if the Administrator determines that the system
cannot materially contribute to the spread or introduction of an ANS
from ballast water into waters of the United States or the contiguous
zone, acknowledging that such a flow-through system may have additional
areas on the hull (e.g., niches) requiring more rigorous biofouling
management. EPA is unaware of any such vessels currently in commercial
operation, but theoretically a vessel could be designed to have ambient
water flow through the hull for vessel stability without retaining any
of that water in such a way that it would be transported. Should any
such vessel begin commercial operation, EPA expects that it would
evaluate the ballasting configuration to determine if the vessel meets
the statutory description, in which case it would be excluded from the
ballast water discharge standards. In that instance, the Administrator
would notify the vessel owner or operator of such a determination. [33
U.S.C. 1322(p)(2)(B)(ii)(I)]
B. Vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet Scheduled for Disposal
The proposed rule would exclude discharges of ballast water from a
vessel that is in the National Defense Reserve Fleet that is scheduled
for disposal, if the vessel does not have an operable ballast water
management system.
C. Vessels Discharging Ballast Water Consisting Solely of Water Meeting
the Safe Drinking Water Act Requirements
The existing USCG regulations (33 CFR 151.2025) allow vessels to
use, as ballast water, water from a U.S. public water system (PWS), as
defined in 40 CFR 141.2, that meets the requirements of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) at 40 CFR parts 141 and 143. In plain terms,
this means finished, potable water as opposed to untreated water that
is owned or operated by a PWS but not necessarily potable. Those USCG
regulations specify that vessels using water from a PWS as ballast must
maintain a record of which PWS they received the water from as well as
a receipt, invoice, or other documentation from the PWS indicating that
water came from that system. Furthermore, vessels must certify that the
ballast tanks have either previously cleaned (including removing all
residual sediments) and not subsequently introduced ambient water, or
never introduced ambient water to those tanks and supply lines. The
existing EPA requirements in the VGP similarly allow vessels to use
water, not only from a U.S. public water system, but also from a
Canadian drinking water system, as defined in Health Canada's
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality.
As specified by Congress in the VIDA, the proposed rule would
exclude a vessel that discharges ballast water consisting solely of
water taken onboard from a public or commercial source that, at the
time the water is taken onboard, meets the applicable requirements of
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.) at 40 CFR
parts 141 and 143. As provided in the existing VGP, EPA proposes that
this exclusion also applies to water taken on board that meets Health
Canada's Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality because EPA has
evaluated these Guidelines and found them to be consistent with the
applicable requirements of the SDWA. Canada's drinking water treatment
processes
[[Page 67834]]
require a high degree of disinfection and, in many cases filtration,
which would make the likelihood of loading ANS into a vessel's ballast
tank highly unlikely. Further, as under existing requirements, EPA
proposes that this exclusion applies only if the ballast tanks have
either been previously cleaned (including removing all residual
sediments) and not subsequently loaded with ambient water; or, if the
ambient water has never been introduced to the ballast tanks and supply
lines. Note that EPA considered whether use of a potable water
generator installed onboard the vessel should be covered under this
exclusion; however, pursuant to CWA Section 312(p), this exclusion is
only available to ballast water that is taken onboard from a public or
commercial source that is compliant with SDWA requirements at the time
it is taken aboard the vessel (U.S. EPA, 2015).
D. Vessels Carrying All Permanent Ballast Water in Sealed Tanks
The proposed rule would exclude discharges of ballast water from a
vessel that carries all permanent ballast water in sealed tanks that
are not subject to discharge. This exclusion is consistent with the
previous requirements of the VGP and was specified by Congress under
the VIDA.
This exclusion is different from the proposed ballast water
exchange and saltwater flushing exemptions (described in VIII.B.1.ix.
Ballast Water Exchange and Saltwater Flushing) for ballast contained in
sealed tanks, which EPA proposes to be for ballast tanks that are not
permanently sealed.
E. Vessels Discharging Ballast Water Into a Reception Facility
The proposed rule would exclude discharges of ballast water from a
vessel that only discharges ballast water into a reception facility
(which could include another vessel for the purpose of storing or
treating that ballast water). This exclusion would carry forward the
existing VGP requirements and USCG regulation (33 CFR 151.2025) that
allow discharges to a reception facility as an eligible ballast water
management method. In such instances, once the ballast water is
offloaded to a reception facility, that ballast water would be subject
to regulation if discharged from that facility. Consistent with the
rationale provided in the VGP fact sheet, EPA would continue to expect
that all vessel piping and supporting infrastructure up to the last
manifold or valve immediately before the reception facility manifold
connection, or similar appurtenance, prevent untreated ballast water
from being discharged. Any such discharge not meeting this requirement
would be expected to meet the discharge standards in the proposed rule.
iii. Exclusion Not Continued From Existing USCG Regulations for Crude
Oil Tankers
Crude oil tankers engaged in coastwise trade are excluded from the
existing USCG regulation (33 CFR 151.2015(b)), consistent with Section
1101(c)(2)(L) of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C.
4711). However, these same vessels are not excluded from meeting the
ballast water requirements in the VGP and are not exempted under the
VIDA. Therefore, pursuant to CWA Section 312(p)(4)(B)(iii), which
requires this proposed rule to be at least as stringent than specified
parts of the VGP, EPA proposes that crude oil tankers engaged in
coastwise trade not be excluded from meeting the ballast water
requirements set forth in the proposed rule. Such vessels are not
inherently unable to perform ballast water exchanges and other ANS
management practices that their currently non-exempt counterparts
routinely carry out. EPA expects this proposal to impose no additional
costs given that the requirements are presently in effect under the
VGP.
iv. Ballast Water Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Pursuant to CWA Section 312(p)(4)(B)(ii), EPA is proposing BMPs to
control or abate ballast water discharges from all vessels equipped
with ballast tanks. Following the requirement of the VIDA that EPA
requirements must not be less stringent than the VGP unless a less
stringent requirement is justified, EPA proposes to retain many of the
BMPs in the VGP as they were designed to reduce the number of living
organisms taken up and discharged in ballast water. At present, these
BMPs are widely followed and implemented, thus technologically
available and economically achievable. They have no unacceptable non-
water quality environmental impacts (e.g., energy requirements, air
impacts, solid waste impacts, and changes in waters use). They are
proposed to be carried forward from both the existing EPA requirements
in the VGP and USCG regulations (33 CFR part 151 subpart D). Discussion
of BMPs not proposed to be carried forward from the VGP and USCG
regulations is included in VIII.B.1.iv.H. Best Management Practices Not
Continued from Existing Requirements. The proposed BMPs are described
below.
A. Clean Ballast Tanks Regularly
As required under the VGP and USCG regulations, the proposed rule
would require ballast tanks to be flushed regularly and cleaned
thoroughly at every scheduled drydock to remove sediment and biofouling
organisms. Residual sediment left in ballast tanks can negatively
affect the ability of a vessel to meet discharge standards, even when a
ballast water management system (BWMS) is properly operated and
maintained. Such sediments may pose a risk of spreading ANS as
organisms can survive in ballast sediment for prolonged periods of time
in resting stages.
B. Use High Sea Suction
Consistent with EPA requirements under the VGP, the proposed rule
would require that, when practicable and available, high sea suction
sea chests must be used when at a port or where clearance to the bottom
of the waterbody is less than 5 meters to the lower edge of the sea
chest. As an example of when use of high sea suction may not be
practicable is to avoid ice or algae, or other biofilm on the water
surface. This BMP minimizes the potential for uptake of bottom-dwelling
organisms, suspended solids, particulate organic carbon, and turbidity
into the ballast tanks.
C. Use Ballast Water Pumps When in a Port
As previously required under the VGP, the proposed rule would
require that when practicable, ballast water must be discharged in port
using pumps rather than using gravity to drain tanks. This BMP has been
shown to increase the mortality rate of living organisms in the ballast
water during discharge, particularly zooplankton and other larger
organisms, that would otherwise be discharged, given the physical
action of the pumps (e.g., cavitation, entrainment, and/or
impingement).
D. Maintain Sea Chest Screens
The proposed rule would require that the sea chest screen(s) must
be maintained and fully intact. This BMP is consistent with an EPA
requirement under the VGP for existing bulk carriers operating
exclusively in the Laurentian Great Lakes, also known as ``Lakers,''
but EPA proposes to expand it to all vessels with ballast tanks. These
screens are designed to keep the largest living organisms, such as
fish, as well as bacteria and viruses associated with these organisms,
out of ballast tanks.
[[Page 67835]]
This BMP may reduce the risk of spreading ANS. Adequately maintaining
sea chest screens is a simple technology-based practice that is
available, economically achievable, and beneficial to all vessels to
reduce the threat of ANS dispersal.
E. Prohibit Ballast Tank Cleaning Discharges
As described above, the proposed rule would require ballast tanks
to be periodically flushed and cleaned to remove sediment and
biofouling organisms; however, the proposed rule also would prohibit
the discharge of residual sediment or water from ballast tank
cleanings. Rather, these wastes should be disposed of in accordance
with any applicable local, state, and federal regulations, which are
outside of the scope of this proposed rule.
F. Avoid Ballast Water Discharge or Uptake in Areas With Coral Reefs
The proposed rule would require vessel owners and operators to
avoid the discharge or uptake of ballast water in areas with coral
reefs. This BMP is consistent with the VGP requirements. The VGP also
included similar prohibitions for ``marine sanctuaries, marine
preserves, marine parks, . . . or other waters'' listed in Appendix G.
The proposed rule also would prohibit the discharge and uptake of
ballast water in those areas but under a separate section of the
proposed rule specific to activities in federally-protected waters as
described in VIII.B.1.xiii. Additional Considerations in Federally-
Protected Waters.
Further, consistent with a USCG Marine Safety Information Bulletin
(Ballast Water Best Management Practices to Reduce the Likelihood of
Transporting Pathogens That May Spread Stony Coral Tissue Loss Disease;
Marine Safety Information Bulletin, OES-MSIB Number: 07-19, September
6, 2019), ballast water discharges should be conducted as far from
coral reefs as possible, regardless of whether the reef is inside or
outside of 12 NM from shore (USCG, 2019a).
EPA is seeking input for the development of the final rule
regarding: (1) How best to define areas with coral reefs, and (2)
public availability of navigational charts that can be used for
identifying areas with coral reefs.
G. Develop a Ballast Water Management Plan
Like the previous requirements of the VGP and the USCG regulations,
the proposed rule would require that any vessel with one or more
ballast tanks develop and follow a vessel-specific ballast water
management plan (BWMP) to minimize the potential for the introduction
and spread of ANS. Such a BWMP should employ a holistic strategy that
considers the operational profile of the vessel and the appropriate
ballast water management practices and systems. Details of such a plan
will be detailed in the corresponding implementation regulation to be
promulgated by the Secretary as specified in section 139.1(e) of the
proposed rule.
H. Best Management Practices Not Continued From Existing Requirements
The proposed rule would not include one BMP that is currently
included as a measure in both the VGP and USCG regulations at 33 CFR
part 151 subparts C and D. These practices were adopted from the
voluntary ``Code of Best Practices for Ballast Water Management'' of
the Shipping Federation of Canada dated September 28, 2000, for vessels
operating in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway and codified in
the VGP and USCG regulations (Shipping Federal of Canada, 2000).
EPA proposes not to continue the requirement that vessel operators
must minimize or avoid uptake of ballast water in the following areas
and situations:
Areas known to have infestations or populations of harmful
organisms and pathogens (e.g., toxic algal blooms);
Areas near sewage outfalls;
Areas near dredging operations;
Areas where tidal flushing is known to be poor or times
when a tidal stream is known to be turbid;
In darkness, when bottom-dwelling organisms may rise in
the water column
Where propellers may stir up the sediment; and
Areas with pods of whales, convergence zones, and
boundaries of major currents.
The proposed deletion is based on the finding that such measures
are not practical to implement. These conditions are usually beyond the
control of the vessel operator during the uptake and discharge of
ballast water and thus it is not an available measure or practice to
minimize or avoid uptake of ballast water in those areas and
situations. 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(B). In lieu of these measures, the
VIDA and the proposed rule contain several provisions that can help
address some of the situations identified above. For example, in cases
of a known outbreak of harmful algal blooms or viral hemorrhagic
septicemia, a state can submit a petition to EPA or the USCG requesting
EPA to issue an emergency order as provided for in CWA Section
312(p)(7)(A)(i). The emergency order provision in the VIDA acknowledges
that when a water quality or invasive species issue is identified in a
geographic area, EPA will identify appropriate BMPs to address that
concern and impose specific requirements on the universe of vessels
(and potentially others) as necessary. 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(4)(E)(i).
v. Numeric Ballast Water Discharge Standard
Pursuant to CWA Section 312(p)(4)(B)(iii), the proposed rule would
continue, as a numeric discharge standard, the numeric discharge
limitations previously contained in the VGP, to include:
For organisms greater than or equal to 50 micrometers in
minimum dimension: Discharge must include less than 10 living organisms
per cubic meter of ballast water.
For organisms less than 50 micrometers and greater than or
equal to 10 micrometers: Discharge must include less than 10 living
organisms per milliliter (mL) of ballast water.
Indicator microorganisms must not exceed:
[cir] Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (serotypes O1 and O139): A
concentration of less than 1 colony forming unit (cfu) per 100 mL.
[cir] Escherichia coli: A concentration of less than 250 cfu per
100 mL.
[cir] Intestinal enterococci: A concentration of less than 100 cfu
per 100 mL.
The proposed rule would define ``living'' using the CWA Section
312(p)(6)(D) clarification that the terms `live' and `living' shall not
include an organism that has been rendered nonviable; or preclude the
consideration of any method of measuring the concentration of organisms
in ballast water that are capable of reproduction. However, it is
important to recognize that as of the time of the proposed rule, the
USCG has not identified any testing protocols, based on best available
science, that are available for use to quantify nonviable organisms in
ballast water. As such, compliance with the proposed discharge standard
requires the use of test methods as detailed in the 2010 EPA Generic
Protocol for the Verification of Ballast Water Treatment Technology
that do not consider non-viable organisms as part of the test protocol.
Should the USCG identify one or more testing protocols that enumerate
nonviable organisms, such methods would be acceptable for demonstrating
compliance with the proposed numeric
[[Page 67836]]
ballast water discharge standard (U.S. EPA, 2010).
In addition, the proposed rule would continue the numeric discharge
limitations as a numeric standard for four biocide parameters contained
in the VGP, namely:
For any BWMS using chlorine dioxide, the chlorine dioxide
must not exceed 200 [micro]g/L;
For any BWMS using chlorine or ozone, the total residual
oxidizers must not exceed 100 [micro]g/L; and
For any BWMS using peracetic acid, the peracetic acid must
not exceed 500 [micro]g/L and the hydrogen peroxide must not exceed
1,000 [micro]g/L.
The standard for both the organisms and biocide parameters
represents instantaneous maximum values not to be exceeded.
The proposed rule would continue the requirement contained in the
VGP and USCG regulations at 33 CFR part 151 that, prior to the
compliance date for the vessel to meet the discharge standard, ballast
water exchange must be conducted as required in section 139.10(e) of
the proposed rule, or the applicable regional requirements in sections
139.10(f) and 139.10(g) of the proposed rule, for any vessel subject to
the ballast water discharge standard. As directed in the VIDA, the USCG
will include requirements regarding compliance dates in its proposed
regulation. 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(5)(A)(iv).
A. BAT Rationale for Standard Pursuant to VIDA
1. Types of Ballast Water Management Systems Determined To Represent
BAT
The treatment technologies used for ballast water management
representing BAT typically have three processes: Physical separation,
disinfection, and neutralization. For physical separation, filtration
is used most often as a pre-treatment by removing large organisms and
particles (down to about 40-50 [micro]m) from ballast water. Filtration
improves the efficiency of subsequent disinfection processes by
lowering the amount of chemicals or ultraviolet (UV) light needed.
Filtration is also important for chemical disinfection because
chemicals are relatively ineffective against organisms buried in
sediment, especially invertebrates in resting stages (U.S. EPA, 2011a).
Disinfection is the effect of a chemical (e.g., an oxidant) or
physical action (e.g., UV irradiation, heat, shear force, etc) that
kills organisms or renders them no longer able to reproduce. The types
of disinfection processes of a BWMS broadly includes UV radiation,
electrochlorination, chemical addition, ozonation, heat and
deoxygenation. Disinfection using UV radiation is currently the most
common disinfection technology used in BWMS and is typically combined
with filtration during ballasting. The UV light is emitted from a
mercury arc lamp, and the rays transfer electromagnetic energy through
the organism's cell membrane to chemically alter DNA in its nucleus
which kills the organism or terminates its ability to reproduce. A UV-
based BWMS often includes a second round of UV treatment when
deballasting.
Electrochlorination (or electrolysis) systems are the second most
common type of disinfection system used to treat ballast water.
Electrochlorination creates hypochlorous acid, the active substance, by
running an electric current through saltwater. The two primary
requirements for treatment are a minimum salinity in the ambient water
for the reaction to occur and a power source with direct current to run
the electrolyzer. Two design options for electrochlorination systems
are used in BWMS: In-line and side-stream treatment. Both systems
undergo the same chemical reaction in an electrolyzer but vary in the
concentrations of active substance created and in the volume of water
dosed. Chemical addition (e.g., liquid sodium hypochlorite), ozonation,
and deoxygenation are other types of ballast water disinfection
technologies that have been developed and type-approved; although, use
of these systems is far less common than UV and electrochlorination
systems.
Neutralization is the addition of a neutralizing agent that reacts
with excess disinfection chemicals to eliminate their toxicity at
discharge. Neutralization is an important step in chemical ballast
water treatment to avoid excess chemicals, residual oxidizers, and
disinfection by-products from entering and impairing the water at the
point of discharge. As required in the 2013 VGP, the proposed rule
includes a numeric standard for residual biocides which can be met
through neutralization of treated ballast water.
2. Justification for the Numeric Ballast Water Discharge Standard
i. Type-Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems is a Well-
Established and Demonstrated Process for Selection of Technologies
As a preliminary matter, EPA notes that the establishment of a
ballast water discharge standard for vessels (both domestic and
international) using technology based criteria pursuant to the CWA
poses challenges that are not present for stationary facilities for
which EPA routinely establishes national discharge effluent limitations
guidelines and standards based on BAT under the effluent limitation
guidelines program. Importantly, it is impractical to conduct routine
monitoring and analysis of the discharged ballast water from vessels to
assess the ability of an installed BWMS onboard a ship to meet the
numerical discharge standard for biological parameters. Rather, the
biological efficacy of any BWMS is best demonstrated through a series
of land-based and shipboard trials performed specific to each BWMS.
Such a system, when selected, installed, and operated consistent with
the manufacturer's specifications, as tested in those land-based and
shipboard trials, and ``type-approved'' by an Administration (i.e., the
federal agency responsible for approvals) is then expected to meet the
discharge standard for biological parameters in the proposed rule.
The BWMS type-approval process was first developed as part of the
IMO International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships'
Ballast Water and Sediments (i.e., the BWM Convention), an
international treaty developed with a goal of establishing an
international standard for the management of ballast water (IMO, 2004).
The BWM Convention was adopted in 2004 after more than 14 years of
complex negotiations between IMO member states and entered into force
in 2017, 12 months after ratification of the BWM Convention by a
minimum of 30 member states, representing at least 35 percent of world
merchant shipping tonnage. Regulation D-2 of that BWM Convention
established the ballast water discharge performance standard as
follows:
Organisms greater than or equal to 50 micrometers in
minimum dimension--less than 10 viable organisms per cubic meter;
Organisms less than 50 micrometers in minimum dimension
and greater than or equal to 10 micrometers in minimum dimension--less
than 10 viable organisms per milliliter;
Indicator microbes:
[cir] Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (O1 and O139): Less than 1 colony
forming unit (cfu) per 100 milliliters or less than 1 cfu per gram (wet
weight) zooplankton samples;
[cir] Escherichia coli: Less than 250 cfu per 100 milliliters; and
[cir] Intestinal enterococci: Less than 100 cfu per 100
milliliters.
Regulation D-3 requires that any BWMS used to meet the standard be
approved in accordance with specific IMO procedures, which had
initially
[[Page 67837]]
been adopted as guidelines (Guidelines for Approval of Ballast Water
Management Systems, or more commonly referred to as ``G8'' for being
the eighth in a series of BWM Convention guidelines) but subsequently
adopted into the BWM Convention as mandatory (IMO, 2008; IMO, 2016).
The approval process includes detailed requirements for BWMS vendors to
submit BWMS for both land-based and shipboard testing by independent
third-party test facilities to demonstrate that the BWMS can meet the
D-2 standard following technical specifications detailed in the Code
for Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems (BWMS Code, Resolution
MEPC.300(72; 13 April 2018, effective October 13, 2019) (IMO, 2018a).
Upon a successful demonstration that a BWMS can meet the D-2 standard,
such a system is approved (``type-approved'') for use onboard a ship.
Adoption of the BWM Convention in 2004 prompted development of ballast
water management systems (BWMS) that could demonstrate compliance with
the D-2 standard. In this approach, unlike how EPA develops effluent
limitations guidelines and standards based on demonstrated treatment
system effectiveness, the BWM Convention establishes a standard, then
vendors develop systems to be demonstrated and approved as meeting that
standard. As of October 2019, the IMO recognizes 80 BWMS approved by
one or more administrations as capable of meeting the D-2 standard
(IMO, 2019).
While the United States is not party to the BWM Convention, the
USCG developed domestic regulations with the intent to harmonize as
closely as possible with the adopted BWM Convention, and established a
discharge standard to be met using a BWMS that has been demonstrated as
capable of meeting that standard through a USCG type-approval process.
Criteria for the USCG type-approval are detailed in regulations at 46
CFR 162.060, Ballast Water Management Systems and address BWMS design,
installation, operation, and testing to ensure any type-approved system
meets both performance and safety standards. The USCG type-approval
testing requirements were widely accepted as having been more complex
and rigorous than those of the IMO (although this is not necessarily
still the case since adoption of the BWMS Code). The USCG regulations
provide for temporary use of foreign type-approved BWMS in the United
States for up to five years after the vessel is required to comply with
the ballast water discharge standard.
Type-approval is a critical step in verifying that a BWMS, when
tested under standardized and relatively challenging conditions, is
capable of consistently meeting the discharge standard. In the USCG
type-approval testing process to determine biological efficacy, careful
analyses are employed to (1) assure the source water for testing meets
a threshold concentration of organisms to meaningfully challenge the
BWMS, and (2) to quantify (ideally, sparse) concentrations of living
organisms in treated and untreated (i.e., control) discharge water. As
part of its type-approval procedure, the USCG regulations require BWMS
land-based testing to be conducted pursuant to the ETV Protocol (i.e.,
the 2010 Generic Protocol for the Verification of Ballast Water
Treatment Technology, developed under the now defunct EPA Environmental
Technology Verification Program) that outlined the experimental design,
sampling and analysis protocols, test, and reporting requirements (U.S.
EPA, 2010).
The USCG type-approval process contrasts with the typical approach
when EPA develops a numeric discharge effluent limitations guideline or
standard under the effluent limitation guidelines program. There, EPA
does not also specify the technology that must be used; rather, EPA
identifies one or more technologies that have been demonstrated as
being capable of meeting the discharge standard and the discharger
selects one of those technologies. EPA typically establishes numeric
effluent discharge limits based on a daily maximum and long-term (i.e.,
monthly) average to reflect pollution control that reflects BAT,
including accounting for variability at well-operated systems.
Compliance with such effluent limits is demonstrated through routine
self-monitoring by the discharger. Because of the challenges with
collecting and testing representative samples of ballast water at the
time of discharge, regulating discharged ballast water sourced from
around the world has required a different approach. Namely, EPA adopted
the USCG and IMO approach over the last decade by not only setting the
numeric discharge limitations, but also specifying the technologies
deemed to meet the limitations through the type-approval process.
Currently, for vessels operating in waters of the United States and
contiguous zones, compliance with the key biological parameters (i.e.,
organisms in the 10-50 microns and greater than 50 microns ranges) is
achieved largely through demonstrating that any installed BWMS is
operated and maintained consistent with the criteria under which that
system received USCG type-approval, acknowledging that discharges are
required to meet the discharge standard as well.
The proposed ballast water discharge standard reflects EPA's BAT
analysis that any USCG type-approved BWMS kill, render harmless, or
remove living organisms from ballast water. These approved technologies
have been demonstrated to achieve the existing requirements, and
therefore are technologically available; for the reasons set out in the
2013 VGP Fact Sheet, they are also economically achievable and have no
unacceptable non-water quality environmental impacts. The USCG type-
approved its first BWMS in 2016 and to date, more than two dozen
systems have received USCG type-approval (USCG, 2019).
ii. International Nature of Vessel Operations Dictates Consideration of
IMO Discharge Standard
When developing the VGP, EPA established the numeric ballast water
effluent limits equivalent to the standard in the USCG regulations (33
CFR 151.1511 and 151.2030) and generally consistent with the BWM
Convention. In establishing those effluent limits, EPA demonstrated it
was critical to consider that BWM Convention. As described above, the
United States is not a party to the BWM Convention; however, both the
USCG (serving as the lead for the U.S. delegation) and EPA were
actively involved in the standard setting discussions that led to the
BWM Convention numeric discharge standard which entered into force in
September 2017. Worldwide, it is estimated that approximately 34,000-
70,000 commercial vessels are required to meet a ballast water
discharge standard (IMO, 2016a; King and Hagan, 2013). Vessels from IMO
member countries that have signed onto the BWM Convention are required
to comply with both the BWM Convention and U.S. ballast water
regulations when operating in U.S. waters. Similarly, U.S.-flagged
vessels must meet the BWM Convention requirements when operating in any
countries that are a signatory of that BWM Convention (e.g., a U.S.-
flagged vessel will be required to comply with Canadian regulations
developed pursuant to the BWM Convention when in Canadian waters).
Based on the most recent five years of VGP annual reports submitted
to EPA, over 75 percent of vessels discharging ballast water spent 25
percent or less of
[[Page 67838]]
their time (and nearly 60 percent of those vessels that discharged
ballast water spent less than 10 percent of their time) operating in
waters of the United States or waters of the contiguous zone (U.S. EPA,
2020). As of October 31, 2019, 81 IMO member countries representing
more than 80 percent of the world merchant fleet by tonnage have
ratified the BWM Convention, thus requiring vessels either flying the
flag of those countries or operating in those countries to comply with
that BWM Convention (IMO, 2020). Thus, vessels comprising 80 percent of
the world merchant fleet by tonnage are obligated to comply with the
BWM Convention anywhere they operate in the world, including while
operating in the United States. The movement of vessels through
international waters, the need to comply with any international
pollution control standard, and the great variability in source water
quality among all the ports where vessels operate presents process and
engineering challenges that are unique to the vessel community. This is
particularly true of BWMS where the physical scale of such systems
relative to the vessels themselves often makes it impossible to
accommodate redundant systems or potentially even two different systems
to be used depending on where the vessel may be ballasting. These
practical challenges relate to the technical availability of such
requirements where the relationship between U.S. and other
international requirements may limit the ability of the vessel to
select and install technologies capable of complying with multiple sets
of requirements where that vessel is intending to voyage. With that in
mind, it is important that EPA considers the implications for the
entire universe of vessels that may operate in waters of the U.S. and
waters of the contiguous zone. So, while the U.S. requirements do not
have to be identical to the BWM Convention, it is important that, to
the extent possible, U.S. requirements do not conflict with
international obligations for the vessels of flag states that have
signed onto that BWM Convention.
In 2015, in Nat. Res. Def. Council, et al. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot.
Agency, et al., 808 F.3d 556 (2d Cir. 2015), the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit found, among other things, that EPA
acted arbitrarily and capriciously in the 2013 VGP because EPA failed
to address why it did not select technologies that could have resulted
in a more stringent limitation than the technologies underlying the IMO
Standard. The court stated that there are shipboard technologies
capable of surpassing the international standard and that EPA failed to
demonstrate why limits based on these technologies were not considered.
The information cited by the court is the 2011 Science Advisory Board
(SAB) report that showed that nine BWMS representing five types of
systems had data generated during their IMO type-approval testing
demonstrating that these systems can meet a standard between the IMO/
USCG standard and 10 times the standard for one or more organism sizes
(U.S. EPA, 2011b).
Establishing a discharge standard necessarily based on the most
stringent of type-approved systems, as implied by the court's decision,
is not required where mitigated by one of the factors relevant to BAT
under CWA Section 304(b), therefore EPA does not believe the Second
Circuit's decision must dictate the outcome of the agency's analysis.
As discussed above, the BAT factors, particularly with respect to
process considerations and engineering challenges, weigh in favor of
maintaining the proposed ballast water standard at a level of
consistency with the IMO standard. This is not to say that U.S.
requirements must or should always be identical with the international
standard. However, particularly for ballast water discharges, which are
frequently significant in scale and expensive to control and which are
intrinsic to the long-distance movement of vessels through
international waters, EPA places value on being consistent with
international obligations, when reasonably possible, in establishing
BAT. Here, it is neither reasonable nor appropriate for the universe of
vessels that would be regulated under the proposed ballast water
discharge standard to not consider the international obligations for
those vessels. The current world economic and trade system is
predicated on timely and efficient maritime transportation, a
significant proportion of which operates globally where trade takes it.
Many of the vessels that are subject to the U.S. discharge standard
spend most of their time outside of waters of the United States and
waters of the contiguous zone, are operating under international
ballast water obligations, which for the most part is the IMO standard
established in the BWM Convention.
The record for this proposed rulemaking demonstrates that the
proposed standard reflects BAT in that the current technology, USCG
type-approved BWMS, are technologically available, safe, effective,
reliable, and commercially available for shipboard installation. Also,
the record indicates that their use is economically achievable. These
technologies have been shown (i.e., through shipboard type approval
testing) to substantially reduce the concentration of living organisms
in ballast water discharges (and achieve the IMO and USCG/EPA discharge
standards) compared to mid-ocean exchange or discharges of unexchanged
ballast water.
iii. Proposed Standard Accounts for Multiple Sources of Variability
The proposed standard successfully accounts for various sources of
variability inherent in addressing ANS in ballast water, including:
Vessel size, operational profile (e.g., voyage lengths,
volumes of ballast water, ballast water flow rates, etc.) and class and
flag state;
Ballast water management system (BWMS) performance in
diverse environments; and
Discharge monitoring (i.e., sampling and analysis).
This variability in addressing ANS dictates that different BWMS
options are needed to account for differences in vessels such as
different voyage patterns (in marine, brackish, or fresh waters),
ballasting rates, architectural characteristics of the vessel such as
space constraints or the need to locate the BWMS in a hazardous
location onboard the vessel, and BWMS vendor support availability at
locations around the world where that vessel intends to voyage. That
is, a BWMS that is technically and operationally appropriate for one
vessel may not be so appropriate for a different vessel, or even a
similar vessel with a different operating profile. EPA analysis for the
proposed rule is based on a similar determination that a wide range of
available systems is necessary to accommodate technical and operational
differences of varying vessel types, sizes, operating profiles, classes
and flag states. The existing discharge standard has promoted through
the type-approval process a range of types of BWMS disinfection
technologies (including UV, electrochlorination, chemical addition,
ozonation, and deoxygenation) that operate under a wide range of
conditions allowing vessel operators to select a system that is most
appropriate for that vessel, considering factors such as:
The vessel's ballast tank(s), pump(s), and piping
configuration;
Temperature, salinity, and turbidity range of uptake water
in areas where the vessel voyages;
Duration of voyages and segments of each voyage that can
affect the
[[Page 67839]]
necessary holding time for certain systems;
Ballast water capacity and required uptake and discharge
pumping rates;
Treatment system weight and space considerations,
including accessibility and acceptability for use in hazardous spaces;
Availability of service, support, replacement parts,
supplies, etc. in areas where the vessel voyages;
Compatibility of treatment with vessel construction (e.g.,
corrosivity concerns);
Power demand and energy consumption to pump ballast and
operate treatment system; and
Safety concerns (e.g., explosivity risks, particularly on
oil and chemical carriers).
Certain systems may be more advantageous for certain types of
vessels. For example, the choice of many shipowners may be limited to
UV systems as compared to chemical-based systems for those vessels that
operate in ports around the world that ban or impose very low discharge
limits on certain hazardous chemicals (i.e., treatment chemicals) used
by certain BWMS. In addition, it may be difficult or impossible for a
vessel operator to obtain specific chemicals for certain BWMS in
certain ports around the world. Similarly, a vessel owner may choose a
chemical-based system because they do not have the electrical
generation capacity (or room to add such capacity) onboard to support a
UV system. Shipowners' decisions may also be based on the ease of
operational and maintenance requirements. As such, it is critical that
a range of BWMS be available to the global shipping industry to reduce
ANS discharge under a variety of operational and environmental
conditions.
Variability is inherent to all well-operated treatment systems.
When EPA establishes BAT, it must consider the variability at a well-
operated treatment system to ensure that the standard is
technologically available. EPA's approach to providing for some
variability for well-operated systems in establishing BAT limits in
effluent limitations guidelines rulemakings has been upheld by the
courts several times. See for example, Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. U.S.
Envtl. Prot. Agency, 286 F.3d 554, 572 (D.C. Cir. 2002), which upheld
EPA's decision to set the monthly average at the 95th percentile by
stating that EPA has considerable discretion in determining a technical
approach that will ensure that the effluent limitations reasonably
account for the expected variability in plant operations while still
maintaining an effective level of control. See also Chemical Mfrs.
Ass'n v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 229 (5th Cir. 1989), where it is upheld
that the purpose of these variability factors is to account for routine
fluctuations that occur in plant operation, not to allow poor
performance. As is typically the case in the effluent guidelines
program, operators design pollution control systems to achieve results
below the discharge standard on a long-term basis to account for normal
variability at well-operated systems.
The goal of the USCG type-approval process is to demonstrate that a
BWMS can treat ballast water such that organism concentrations in
discharged water are sufficiently low to meet the discharge standard
(e.g., less than 10 organisms per cubic meter of ballast water as an
instantaneous maximum) for a given number of consecutive valid tests.
The individual test results are reflective of the conditions of the
water quality at the land-based and ship-based testing facility at the
time. The type-approval process acknowledges that there will be
variability in how systems are tested but establishes an instantaneous
maximum value to verify BWMS performance using a set of challenging,
but not rare, water quality conditions representative of the natural
environment. Comparing type-approval data for different systems would
only be appropriate if all other variables were held constant or under
complete control during the test. However, that is not the case. For
example, as required in the USCG type-approval process, shipboard
testing occurs on systems for a period of six months in the locations
where that vessel voyages during that time period, regardless of where
else that vessel has voyaged or plans to voyage in the future. As such,
the test results illustrate that BWMS manufacturers are having systems
tested in a variety of environmental conditions and locations around
the world, all with the goal of demonstrating that the BWMS can
consistently meet, not necessarily exceed, the IMO discharge standard.
Demonstrating a system can achieve this discharge standard regardless
of the environmental factors is the standard by which the USCG
evaluates these systems. [46 CFR 162.060-10(f)(2)]. To do otherwise is
to unfairly favor systems that may have had more favorable test
conditions.
Multiple sources of variability exist in type-approval sampling and
analysis that also affects the results of type-approval testing. For
example, stratification in ballast tanks, variability between tanks,
flow rates, and contamination in uptake and discharge pipes are just a
few of the considerations that may impact type-approval testing. It is
also a challenge to capture and count appropriately sized organisms and
to collect samples such that the sample collection process does not
physically damage or kill these organisms (which should be counted as
dead or nonviable only if such happens as a result of the BWMS, not
because of poor sample collection and handling practices). Currently,
the ETV Protocol is an EPA and USCG accepted method to evaluate the
performance characteristics of commercial-ready BWMS regarding factors
such as biological treatment performance, predictability/reliability,
cost, environmental acceptability, and safety. Based on the ETV
Protocol, the determination of the concentration of living organisms in
treated water is done through manual microscope counts by trained
microscopists.
The sources of uncertainty are systematic error, which is the loss
of organisms during sampling and processing, which can be substantial,
and random error, which is the difference in organism counts among
analysts and among replicate subsamples, as well as variability across
measurements of sample volumes. Counting organisms within a size class
under a microscope is also challenging. For one, it is difficult to
evaluate and count dormant or immotile organisms. Also, organisms can
have a wide variety of shapes making it difficult to assign to a size
class. For example, phytoplankton (organisms in the 10-50 micron size
class) may be combined in chains or radially and may be either
symmetrical or asymmetrical. Also, sizing generally is to be based on
the minimum diameter of width of the cell except for things such as
spikes, hair, or appendages. The Second Circuit recognized and upheld
an EPA rule that considers the margin of error inherent in measuring
aquatic organisms to allow for a standard that is not equivalent to
also represent the same level of control. See for example, Riverkeeper,
Inc. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 358 F.3d 174, 188-89 (2d Cir. 2004)
upholding EPA's Track II requirements allowing for ``substantially
similar'' reductions in impingement and entrainment at new facility
cooling water intake structures as not a less stringent standard but
the same standard accounting for the measurement margin of error when
measuring in the natural environment.
In the case of ballast water, the operators experience even greater
variability than would exist at a shoreside facility subject to a
typical effluent guideline because, rather than the numeric discharge
standard being a
[[Page 67840]]
long-term or monthly average, that standard is based on an
instantaneous maximum standard, never to be exceeded, which is the unit
of time selected for compliance monitoring because of the challenges
associated with monitoring, despite varying turbidity, salinity,
temperatures and other environmental factors. Vessel owners may have to
modify vessel operations to ensure ballast water treatment requirements
do not exceed the limitations of the BWMS. BWMS manufacturers must
account for these two conflicting challenges--continuous compliance and
inherent variability--in their system design and operation. Vendors
accomplish this by (1) designing their systems to achieve long-term
average discharge concentrations that are lower than the numeric
discharge standard, and (2) adequately controlling for variation in
BWMS performance. Designing a system to meet an instantaneous maximum
requires even a higher level of control than that necessary to meet a
daily maximum. Designing and operating BWMS to consistently achieve
levels close to the numeric discharge standard is poor practice because
even relatively slight variability would result in a high rate of non-
compliance with the instantaneous maximum numeric discharge standard
(and would not pass the USCG type-approval testing process). This
partially explains why some of the test results described by the Second
Circuit Court decision on the VGP were lower than the current standard.
Nat. Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 808 F.3d 566, 570
n.11 (2d Cir. 2015). EPA recognizes that variability in performance
around the long-term average occurs during normal operations, and that
at times even well-operated BWMS will discharge at a level that is
higher than the long-term average performance.
iv. Proposed Standard Provides a High Level of Pollutant Reduction
The record demonstrates that the proposed standard reflects BAT in
that the current technology, USCG type-approved BWMS, are
technologically available, safe, effective, reliable, and commercially
available for shipboard installation. Also, the record indicates that
their use is economically achievable. These technologies have shown to
substantially reduce the concentration of living organisms in ballast
water discharges as necessary to meet the discharge standard, beyond
the reduction achieved through mid-ocean exchange or unexchanged
ballast water.
Specifically, the current standard of 10 organisms per the
specified volume of ballast water for the two organism size classes
reflects BAT and the current technology basis, use of a USCG type-
approved BWMS, effectively removes ANS from ballast water. The Golden
Bear Research Center at the California State University Maritime
Academy, a university-government-industry partnership that provides
shipboard testing of commercial ballast water treatment technologies,
recently found BWMS that meet the proposed standard to be highly
efficient, achieving several log reductions in pollutant loadings. In
2018, the Center compiled over 100 side-by-side comparisons of the
concentrations of ``living'' organisms pumped into their test facility
during both land-based and shipboard tests in relation to the final
discharge concentration of living organisms after ballast treatment.
The order of magnitude of reduction of organisms ranged from 1,000 to
over 1,000,000 times; more than half of the comparisons fell in the
range 100,000 to 1,000,000 times, or, using the terminology of food and
drinking water management, a 5-log to 6-log reduction in targeted
organisms (in the log10 scale). In fact, the actual reduction is likely
larger because the data were conservatively calculated using fixed
minimum detection levels in treated water even when no live organisms
were observed at all. This evaluation demonstrates that type-approved
BWMS that are designed to meet the proposed standard are highly
efficient, achieving several log reductions in pollutant loadings. This
level of organism reduction approaches and even exceeds the stringency
required in drinking water testing and food management practices
(Golden Bear, 2018).
3. Available Information Does Not Justify a More Stringent Discharge
Standard
i. Data Quality of IMO BWMS Type-Approval Data Are Inadequate for BAT
Evaluation
EPA carefully considered the IMO BWMS test data in the 2011 SAB
report that the Second Circuit Court referenced in its decision on the
VGP as evidence of BWMS capability, but finds they lack the necessary
quality for EPA to develop a revised, more stringent standard for two
reasons. Nat. Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 808 F.3d
566, 570 (2d Cir. 2015). First, the data packages used in the SAB
report were from ballast water management system vendors for their IMO
type-approval packages developed under the original Guidelines for
Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems (G8) adopted in 2005 and
revised in 2008 (IMO, 2008). The SAB panel, in response to Charge
Question 1, concluded that the BWMS tested under the IMO ``will likely
meet USCG Phase I standards.'' In fact, after the SAB report, the USCG
found that not to be the case. Further, every vendor with a BWMS
requesting USCG type-approval has had to undergo a new round of testing
to demonstrate system performance to the satisfaction of the USCG. The
IMO has since updated, and codified, new type approval test
requirements (IMO, 2018a) that entered into effect in 2019 and address
many of the quality issues that limited the reliability of the IMO
type-approval data for evaluating BWMS performance.
Second, although the SAB panel determined that nine BWMS
representing five BWMS categories had reliable data, they did not fully
assess data quality. Instead, the SAB panel made a critical assumption
that all protocols and methods were followed exactly as described,
regardless of the presence or absence of Quality Assurance/Quality
Control (QA/QC) procedures and documentation. Therefore, any use of the
findings of the SAB panel must consider this lack of quality
assessment. While the USCG does accept IMO data packages for its
Alternate Management System (AMS) program, importantly, the
requirements for the USCG BWMS type-approval testing require a
different type of testing and a higher level of QA/QC than that
required by the IMO until the recent entry into effect of the BWMS
Code.
As part of the analysis for the proposed rule, EPA conducted an
independent review of BWMS performance and data quality. EPA developed
a rating system to provide an objective method for determining whether
available performance data are of acceptable quality for development of
the proposed standard. EPA found that most of the IMO data packages
lacked information on test-specific Quality Management Plans, Quality
Assurance Project Plans, and individual test results. Average data
results were frequently submitted without specific sample dates or
reporting of the individual results. While the quality of data improved
over time, many reports did not contain adequate information on field
replicate samples used for QA/QC measures or actual BWMS flow rates at
the time of samples. Also, and importantly, the IMO G8 guidelines
required five successful land-based tests as part of the type-approval
process regardless of how many tests were conducted to achieve those
five successful tests. Thus, for example, a
[[Page 67841]]
system that passed five land-based tests but also failed five tests
would be considered to have a successful land-based test for type-
approval. The IMO did recently revise the G8 guidelines to address this
issue. Now, as codified in the BWMS Code, five successful consecutive
land-based tests demonstrating compliance with the discharge standard
are necessary for type-approval.
For these reasons, EPA found that foreign type-approval data, such
as that used by the SAB in its analysis, is inadequate to assess
whether any IMO-approved BWMS can meet the proposed discharge standard
and it follows that such a testing regime would not be of sufficient
scientific rigor to be appropriate for use in a BAT analysis. In
contrast, EPA found that performance data developed consistent with the
USCG type-approval procedures and requirements provided at 46 CFR
162.060 would be of sufficient quality for use in evaluating whether a
particular BWMS meets the proposed standard.
ii. Type-Approval Data Do Not Support a More Stringent Standard
To date, more than thirty BWMS have received USCG type-approval.
The USCG treats all type-approval submissions as proprietary
information; however, EPA was provided anonymous data for 9
manufacturers (11 different BWMS) from the Ballast Water Equipment
Manufacturers Association (BEMA). EPA analyzed the data and determined
the data submission requirements of the USCG type-approval regulations
at 46 CFR 162.060 provides data of sufficient quality for EPA to
evaluate system effectiveness for a BAT determination (Ballast Water
Equipment Manufacturers Association, 2020).
EPA considers that receipt and review of additional type-approval
packages would not support a more stringent standard because these test
results are within the same order of magnitude as the current standard
and fall within the margin of error expected due to the great
variability associated with the characteristics of ballast water and
challenges associated with monitoring, analyzing, and enumerating
organisms in the different size classes. As noted above, in addressing
EPA's effluent limitation guidelines for cooling water intake systems,
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals explained that it is reasonable for
a performance standard to reflect the margin of error that is inherent
when measuring organisms in a natural environment. See Riverkeeper,
Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A., 358 F.3d 174, 188-89 (2d Cir. 2004). The type
approval data must be considered with that margin of error in mind. For
example, type approval data provided by BEMA for the 11 different BWMS
show the discharge concentrations of organisms greater than 50 microns
range from less than 1 to as high as 9.5 organisms per cubic meter, and
for organisms between 10 and 50 microns, discharges range from less
than 1 to 9.7 organisms per milliliter (mL).
In VIII.B.1.vi.A.3.i., Data Quality of IMO BWMS Type-Approval Data
are Inadequate for BAT Evaluation, EPA explains the basis for its
determination that the IMO data are not of adequate quality to base a
standard. However, to demonstrate the impact of the variability of
ballast water characteristics, EPA evaluated the court's citation to
three UV/filtration systems (Hyde Marine Guardian, Optimarin, and Alfa
Laval/Alfa Wall Pure Ballast). Nat. Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Envtl.
Prot. Agency, 808 F.3d 566, 570 n.11 (2d Cir. 2015). The court stated
EPA failed to consider the SAB data that showed these systems can meet
a standard between the current standard and 10 times the standard.
Implicit in the court's statements are that these three systems are
1.4, 3.7, 4.5, or even 7.7 times as effective as the current standard
based on the average discharge standard achieved by each BWMS. However,
that effectiveness is mischaracterized. In fact, as demonstrated in the
USCG type-approval data, simply because one type of BWMS had a lower
average discharge concentration than a second type of system did not
mean that first system had a higher treatment efficiency. Importantly,
the test results demonstrate that in some instances, BWMS achieved a
lower discharge standard than a second system during type-approval
testing but that first system had fewer organisms to treat in the
intake water than that second system. The BEMA data, as highlighted by
the examples provided above, demonstrate that performance varies even
within a single BWMS and achieving a low average discharge
concentration or high log reduction in one setting does not necessarily
mean this system is demonstrated to be a more effective system in all
situations. In any case, the effectiveness of any USCG type-approved
BMWS should not be downplayed. As demonstrated in the data provided by
BEMA, every one of the 11 systems achieved a treatment efficiency of at
least 99 percent, for both size classes and in both land-based and
shipboard testing meaning that any difference in treatment efficiency
between these systems is something less than one percent.
The test results identified by the court indicating greater removal
of organisms are not an indication that these systems can achieve a
more stringent standard in all conditions. Rather, the test results
provide a variety of situations where BWMS manufacturers are testing
their systems in a variety of environmental conditions and locations
around the world, all with the goal of obtaining USCG type approval by
demonstrating that the BWMS can consistently meet, not necessarily
exceed, the IMO discharge standard. [46 CFR 162.060-10(f)(2)].
To further demonstrate the true performance of a BWMS and to
highlight the change in treatment effectiveness associated with meeting
a more stringent discharge standard, EPA evaluated data provided
directly to EPA by the BWMS manufacturer, Alfa Laval, that had been
included as part of its type-approval package submitted to the USCG in
September 2016 for its PureBallast 3 filtration + UV BWMS, which
received USCG type-approval in December 2016. The results of EPA
analysis are presented in Table 1. Using the court's rationale, the
Alpha Laval PureBallast 3 system type-approved by the USCG demonstrates
3.7 times more effective treatment for large organisms (i.e., average
discharge concentration of 2.7) and 4.6 times more effective treatment
for medium organisms (i.e., average discharge concentration of 2.18
organisms). EPA calculated the actual treatment efficiency the Alfa
Laval system achieved as well as the efficiency the system would have
to achieve to meet the proposed discharge standard, a standard 10 times
(10x) more stringent, and a standard 100 times (100x) more stringent.
As shown in Table 1, the Alfa Laval system reduced large organisms (>50
microns in size) by 99.98 percent whereas a treatment efficiency of
99.92 percent was needed to meet the proposed discharge standard (i.e.,
the Alfa Laval system was 0.06 percent more effective). For medium
organisms (10-50 microns in size), the Alfa Laval system was 0.29
percent more efficient (Alfa Laval, 2017).
Achieving a numeric discharge standard 10x and 100x more stringent
than the proposed standard would represent an insignificant improvement
in treatment system effectiveness for both large and medium organisms.
For achieving a standard 10x more stringent, the difference is that
between 99.92 and 99.99 percent efficiency for large organisms and
97.82 and 99.78 percent for medium organisms. For achieving a
[[Page 67842]]
standard 100x more stringent, the difference is that between 99.92 and
99.999 percent efficiency for large organisms and 97.82 and 99.98
percent for medium organisms. These differences in performance are
small and within the margin of error due to the variability in ballast
water uptake and testing and does not reflect substantial improvement
in ANS removal that would warrant a revised standard inconsistent with
the international standard.
Table 1--Treatment Efficiency of the Alfa Laval PureBallast 3 USCG Type-Approved Ballast Water Management System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organisms (/m\3\) Removal efficiency (%) necessary to achieve
Size class -------------------------------- Stringency compared Removal -----------------------------------------------
Uptake Discharge to standard efficiency (%) <10/m\3\ <1/m\3\ <0.1/m\3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50 microns...................... 13,026 2.7 3.7 times........... 99.98 99.92 99.99 99.999
10-50 microns..................... 459 2.18 4.6 times........... 99.53 97.82 99.78 99.98
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Ballast Water Test Methods Do Not Allow for Establishing a
Discharge Standard 100 Times or 1,000 Times More Stringent or a ``No
Detectable Organisms'' Standard
Consideration of a standard that is less than 1 organism per volume
of ballast water for the two organism size classes (i.e., a standard 10
times more stringent than proposed), including any standard that would
be more than 10, 100, or 1,000 times more stringent, is currently not
possible because there are no performance data available at these
organism concentrations (U.S. EPA, 2011b).
As has been considered in the past by both EPA and the USCG, EPA
evaluated whether a discharge standard 100x or 1,000x more stringent
than the proposed standard is appropriate. As noted by the SAB,
``methods (and associated detection limits) prevent testing of BWTS to
any standard more stringent than the IMO D-2 standard and make it
impracticable for verifying a standard 100x or 1,000x more stringent.''
Further, the SAB concluded that no current BWMS can meet a standard
beyond 10x more stringent than the current standard (e.g., 100x or
1,000x) as even showing one organism using the current test methods
clearly exceeds that more stringent standard. As shown in the review of
publicly available USCG type approval data provided by BEMA and
evaluated by EPA, at least one living organism was identified in each
BWMS type-approval test. Thus, new or improved test methods are still
needed to support a statistical determination that technologies are
available to meet a standard 100 or 1,000 times more stringent than the
IMO discharge standard. Further, EPA has determined, consistent with
findings of the SAB, that it is unreasonable to assume that a test
result showing zero living organisms using currently available test
methods demonstrates complete sterilization if for no other reason than
a sample taken represents a very small portion of the overall discharge
and the collection of that sample may have missed the few live
organisms present in the discharge. And, collecting larger volumes of
ballast water becomes impractical. For example, the SAB estimated that
anywhere from 120-600 cubic meters of ballast would have to be
collected to meet a standard 10x more stringent (U.S. EPA, 2011b).
EPA evaluated the available USCG type-approval data and found that
these data do not show that performance better than the proposed
discharge standard is achievable in all vessel types and situations. It
is important to consider that a USCG BWMS type-approval certification
is based on its system components at the time of certification and no
changes or optimizations to the technology can be made by the vessel
operator. For example, the vessel operator cannot change the filter or
chemical concentration to improve the system's performance without the
BWMS manufacturer notifying the USCG, in accordance with 46 CFR
162.060-16.
iv. Monitoring Limitations Do Not Support a More Stringent Standard
If a more stringent standard were to be established, it would
require confidence in the ability to monitor at that lower
concentration to demonstrate both treatment effectiveness of available
technology and compliance with the discharge standard. However,
monitoring low concentrations of living organisms in ballast water (or
direct organism monitoring), by mass or any other measure, at lower
levels than necessary for demonstrating compliance with the existing
numeric discharge standard is impractical because of challenges with
collecting and analyzing ballast water to detect and quantify organisms
at those levels. In lieu of direct organism monitoring, in the VGP, EPA
developed a three-component self-monitoring program as a reliable
indicator of whether BWMS are effectively controlling the discharge of
living organisms: (1) Biological monitoring to indirectly assess the
effectiveness of reducing living organisms in the discharge, (2)
functionality monitoring of the system to assure it is operating as
designed, and (3) residual biocide/derivative monitoring for those
systems using active substances. Presently, there are no means to
routinely sample and analyze in real-time ballast water for compliance
with the discharge standard for the two largest size classes of
organisms, and while various tools are under development, there is no
widely-accepted methodology to formally evaluate and choose tools for
use in regulatory enforcement applications (Drake et al., 2014).
There is no basis either in science or the CWA's BAT factors to
assume a BWMS can achieve a higher level of treatment than is supported
by reliable data. Therefore, regulators have had to rely on indirect
indicators of compliance to ensure that any BWMS continues to perform
as demonstrated during land- and ship-based type-approval testing.
``Functionality monitoring,'' as required by the VGP, is an indirect
indicator of compliance entailing the use of a variety of meters,
electronic sensors and analyzers that measure and transmit to control
systems operational data such as flow rate, pressure drops across
filters, disinfectant concentrations and energy intensity. If these
indirect measurements fall within the BWMS design operating ranges,
then it is reasonable to assume the BWMS is reducing living organisms
as required since the USCG type-approved the BWMS as being able to
achieve the living organism discharge standards when operating within
the design specifications. The lack of sampling and analysis methods
available to monitor ballast water discharges for the two largest
organism size classes at lower concentrations than the current
[[Page 67843]]
discharge standard with any statistical significance justifies EPA
proposing a discharge standard identical to the current standard.
Demonstration of a higher level of treatment effectiveness
reasonably would require testing of a different parameter for which
there is the ability to monitor, which is likely some measure of
organisms other than the two organism sizes classes (and bacteria) upon
which the current standard is based. This would require a new type-
approval process, which would result in significant delays in testing,
``approving,'' and manufacturing an adequate supply of systems
available for installation aboard the global shipping fleet.
Conversely, this would require a comprehensive evaluation and selection
of more appropriate parameters than the two organism size classes,
undertaking a comprehensive monitoring program to sample and analyze
ballast water for those new parameters to evaluate BAT for those
parameters. Without such an evaluation, EPA does not have the necessary
data to justify treatment system effectiveness associated with the
required level of pollutant control.
4. Conclusion
In summary, EPA and the USCG are committed to protecting U.S.
waters from invasive species and support a strong national and
international solution that does not disrupt the continuous flow of
maritime commerce that drives the U.S. and global economies. The
proposed rule would implement the VIDA requirement for ballast water to
establish the standard according to BAT by continuing the current EPA
and USCG standard given that the standard and the USCG type-approval
process is effective and promotes the development of highly efficient
technology to control ANS in ballast water. In the last three years,
the USCG has type-approved more than thirty ballast water management
systems (BWMS) for vessels that would meet the proposed discharge
standard, with at least half as many more under review. These systems
have provided a variety of treatment options for a breadth of national
and international vessels. The current standard continues to be
appropriate to significantly reduce invasive species transport given
the complexity of the universe of vessels that would be subject to the
proposed rule and the great variation of vessel processes and
engineering constraints of ballast water management. The current
standard is driving development of type-approved BWMS that are highly
efficient. Establishing a more stringent standard at this time would
not result in a meaningful improvement in system performance or
discharge reduction.
The challenge in ballast water management that will reduce ANS
discharges is not adopting a lower or more stringent standard, but
instead focusing on the vessel installation of available and highly
efficient BWMS; proper operation and maintenance of those systems to
achieve the treatment efficacy demonstrated as part of the USCG type-
approval testing; and the evolution of vessel ballasting practices to
minimize volumes of ballast water requiring management. Only very
recently has EPA begun to see broad compliance of the vessel community
with installation, operation, and maintenance of the range of the USCG
type-approved BWMS. To date, about one-third of vessels operating
pursuant to the requirements of the VGP have installed BWMS (U.S. EPA,
2019). In 2017, the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) conducted a
global survey of 27 shipowners with 220 vessels including bulk
carriers, tankers, containerships and gas carriers. In 2018, ABS
repeated the survey with more than double the participants of 60
shipowners and operators worldwide covering 483 BWMS installations for
seven different BWMS treatment technologies. In 2018, ABS found that 35
percent of BWMS installations were reported as operating regularly, and
the remaining systems were either inoperable or considered problematic.
Surprisingly, the survey findings show that the number of problematic
BWMS in operation increased from 29 percent in 2017 to 59 percent in
2018. It appears that many vessel operators are trying to get their
BWMS fully functional and into operation before the USCG or IMO
compliance deadlines (ABS, 2019) and in starting up and operating
installed systems, often for the first time after a period of nonuse
since installation, are finding unexpected problems. No particular
system is identified as being more or less likely to meet the discharge
standard.
Opportunities for advancement in ballast water treatment and
technology may require EPA to assist the vessel community in tackling
installation and operational challenges with the existing BWMS and
future type-approved systems and best management practices. Significant
limitations remain in ANS monitoring such that setting a different
numeric discharge standard for ANS is unlikely to result in meaningful
technological advancement. The VIDA provides EPA and the USCG with this
opportunity to streamline the ballast water regulations which should
aid with the operation of demonstrated, but not yet fully optimized,
systems and with future systems as they continue to come online.
B. Ballast Water Reception Facilities
The VIDA expressly excludes from the discharge standards ``ballast
water from a vessel . . . that only discharges water into a reception
facility.'' 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(2)(B)(ii)(V). As such, CWA Section 312(p)
does not authorize EPA to regulate the transfer of ballast water from
ships to a reception facility as part of the proposed rulemaking.
Nonetheless, for the purposes of this proposed rule and to acknowledge
the 2015 Second Circuit Court decision on the VGP, EPA reviewed and
considered whether zero discharge or a more stringent discharge
standard based on the use of a reception facility may be BAT for
ballast water discharged from regulated vessels. Nat. Res. Def. Council
v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency., 808 F.3d 566, 572-75 (2d Cir. 2015). For
the purposes of this proposed rule, unless otherwise noted, when EPA
refers to ``onshore'' or a ``reception facility,'' it refers to both
the transfer of ballast water to either an onshore reception facility
or another vessel for the purpose of storing or treating that ballast
water.
The Second Circuit Court decision stated that EPA failed to give
fair and thorough consideration to reception facilities in setting the
discharge standards in the VGP. The Second Circuit stated that a
technology is ``available'' in the following instance: ``(1) the
transfer technology must be available within the first industry: (2)
the transfer technology must be transferable to the second industry;
and (3) it must be reasonably predicable that the technology, if used
in the second industry, will be capable of removing the increment
required by the effluent standards.'' Nat. Res. Def. Council, 808 F.3d
at 572-73. The Second Circuit stated that in establishing BAT,
consideration should be given to whether a particular technology that
is being used in another industry could form that technology basis for
BAT. As part of the proposed rule, EPA evaluated several technologies
to identify whether any such technology is transferable from another
industrial sector but has not found any such technologies that would
provide a greater level of control for ballast water from vessels. This
is largely because of the unique nature of ballast water and its use
aboard ships--which are not stationary, and, many of which spend a very
small portion of their time in the United States.
In developing this proposed rule, EPA considered whether discharges
of ballast water to a reception facility could result
[[Page 67844]]
in zero discharge or a more stringent standard for ballast water
discharges than what currently exists. EPA investigated ballast water
discharges to a reception facility to better understand the
technological availability, economic achievability and the non-water
quality environmental impacts associated with limits based on its use
and explored the alternative forms of reception facilities--including
fixed treatment facilities (reception facilities or wastewater
treatment plants) and mobile, shore-based, or near-shore-based ballast
water treatment deployed on trucks, barges or boats--and feasibility
factors of the use of these facilities such as vessel and port
characteristics, economic feasibility, and treatment cost estimates.
Despite considering the potential advantages identified in recent
years for the use of ballast water reception facilities (e.g., fewer
onshore facilities than shipboard systems would be needed; fewer
physical restrictions and time limitations could lead to effective
treatment technologies), the analysis identified many challenges of
implementing a national and international network of reception
facilities. By far the most significant challenge is ensuring the
availability of reception facilities at all ports of call, because if
even one anticipated port location for a vessel does not have an
available reception facility, that vessel would need an alternative
approach, likely requiring installation of a shipboard treatment
system, deferring the discharge of ballast water, or declining to call
at that port. A search of the National Ballast Information
Clearinghouse found that between the effective date of the 2013 VGP
(i.e., December 19, 2013) and the end of 2017, vessels with ballast
water operated in approximately 700 U.S. ports and discharged ballast
water in over 400 of those ports, with individual discharges as large
as 20 million gallons (75,000 MT) and daily combined discharges of more
than 25 million gallons (100,000 MT) in a day in a single port
(National Ballast Information Clearinghouse, 2020). To meet the ballast
water discharge management needs for these vessels would require some
type of reception facility at each of those 400 ports (as well as
potentially at some of those other 300 ports where vessels operate with
ballast water onboard and may at some point have the need to discharge
ballast); otherwise, any vessel needing to discharge ballast water at
any of these ports would need a BWMS. For example, numerous ports that
were initially expecting to accept liquified natural gas, during which
ships would offset the reduced cargo weight by taking on ballast water,
are now instead planning to export that liquified natural gas, with a
consequent need for ships to discharge ballast water while loading
cargo. This analysis does not consider the universe of vessels that
also operate in other countries and a similar expectation that without
reception facility availability, these vessels would still need to
install, operate, and maintain a BWMS. The massive scale of the new
physical infrastructure that would be needed to accommodate the
systematic deployment and application of shoreside ballast water
reception facilities is another process and engineering challenge that
weighs against the selection of a zero-discharge standard based on
discharge to a reception facility as BAT for ballast water. 33 U.S.C.
1314(b)(2)(B).
Another critical challenge is retrofitting vessels with the
appropriate ballast water systems (including pipes and pumps) required
to move ballast water up from tanks and off the ship at a rate fast
enough that the vessel can perform normal cargo operations without
significant and costly delays. To date, no U.S. or international ship-
to-shore connection standard exists for non-oily ballast water
discharges. As such, vessels are not fitted with, nor would an
appropriate reception facility have, a standard size, configuration,
strength, etc. on which to base a design to ensure vessels would be
able to connect and discharge ballast water to such a facility. In a
similar situation, the IMO established connection requirements under
Regulation 13 of Annex I to MARPOL for oil mixtures, which have been
codified in USCG regulations at 33 CFR 155.430, and for which, a
similar set of requirements would be needed for non-oily ballast water
discharges. Without such an international standard for ballast water
connections, implementation of such a requirement would be impractical.
Additionally, the configurations of many ports are such that a vessel
may berth at any number of locations within the port, necessitating
that such reception connection equipment is available at each of these
berths and capable of being transferred from that point to the
reception facility. As an example of the challenge associated with such
a configuration, the Port of Duluth is a single port with 60 docks
spanning 49 miles of coastline (Lake Carriers' Association, 2016a).
Also, reception facilities may not provide a complete solution to
ballast water treatment. For example, some vessels may need to
discharge part of their ballast water before arriving in port so they
can conduct cargo operations as soon as possible following arrival at
the dock; some vessels need to discharge ballast water to reduce draft
before arriving at berth; and lightering vessels may need to discharge
ballast as they load cargo at designated anchorages or lightering
zones. In each of these instances, some type of reception facility
would be required, further complicating the necessary infrastructure to
handle discharges from such disparate locations.
The only instance of a ballast water reception facility being used
in the United States is in Alaska, specifically to remove oil from
ballast water discharges from single hull tanker vessels. Use of
facilities such as this, with modifications made specifically to remove
living organisms (e.g., filtration with second stage disinfection)
might be available for vessels sailing dedicated routes. However, many
commercial vessels do not stick to a single voyage pattern (even those
usually on dedicated routes) in all instances, which would necessitate
either finding a reception facility in the new port(s), rapidly
installing a shipboard BWMS, or likely being unable to discharge their
untreated ballast water in compliance with the VIDA requirements (which
may in effect prevent this vessel from voyaging to that port). Since
these changes in voyage patterns are often made on very short notice
(often on less than two weeks' notice), it would not be technologically
available to install a BWMS on these vessels quickly enough for that
new voyage.
EPA evaluated several studies of reception facilities in the United
States, including ports in the Great Lakes, Baltimore, MD, California,
and internationally, including ports in the Caspian Sea, Netherlands,
Brazil, and Croatia. California has led the effort nationally to
explore the possibility of reception facilities. In 2013, the
California State Lands Commission funded a study to assess ballast
water reception facility approaches in California. The report from that
study (Glosten Associates, 2018), is currently the most comprehensive
review of reception facility options in California. The authors
concluded that a network of treatment barges would be the best
reception facility approach when compared to land-based treatment to
enable vessels to meet California's interim Performance Standards.
According to the Study, such an approach would not come without impacts
or costs. A barge-based network could lead to increased air emissions
[[Page 67845]]
and congestion at California's ports. In the case of the South Coast
Air Basin, these ballast water reception facilities could increase
overall harbor craft air emissions from 2.5 to 5 percent. The 30-year
lifecycle cost of building and operating a network of treatment barges
is estimated at $1.45 billion. Marine vessel operators will bear an
additional $2.17 billion in costs to retrofit vessels to support
transfer of ballast to barges. The authors estimated that it will take
a minimum of nine years to implement such a treatment network once the
funding is secured. Possible next steps identified by the authors
include pilot-scale testing of the ballast water treatment methods and
scale-up to a treatment barge to assess system performance over various
rates of ballast water transfer. As detailed in the final report: ``The
first six years will be occupied with the study of ballast water
discharges, building and pilot testing of treatment barge prototype(s),
development of transfer station standards, communication of
requirements to marine vessels, development of the PPPs [public private
partnerships], and contracting for the design/build of the treatment
barges. Years 7, 8, and 9 will be occupied with phasing in the
treatment barge network. Importantly, Year 1 starts only after budgets
and plans have been put into place.'' Thus, in the best case, once
funding is available, implementation of a barge-based ballast water
management approach in California is still nine years away, if that the
pilot project demonstrates such an approach is viable. And importantly,
as noted in that report, as of today, no such onshore or barge-based
reception facilities currently are in operation in the United States
(King and Hagan, 2013; Hilliard and Kazansky, 2006; Hilliard and
Matheickal, 2010; Brown and Caldwell, 2007; Brown and Caldwell and Bay
Engineering, 2008; COWI A/S, 2012; Damen, 2017; Glosten Associates,
2018; Hull & Associates, 2017; Maglic et al., 2015; Pereira and
Brinati, 2012; U.S. EPA, 2011b; USCG, 2013).
Another complication of a reception facility approach is that
vessel operators in most cases are not the entities that would build
and operate such facilities. As such, these reception facilities would
likely only be created where an organization, such as a port authority
or terminal operator, identifies a financial opportunity from
constructing and operating such a facility. It would be highly
speculative that any organization would choose to do so. The scale and
cost of operating reception facilities at the hundreds of ports
nationwide that handle ballast water from tens of thousands of vessels
would require billions of dollars and weighs against finding such
technology to be available or economically achievable. It also ignores
the thousand plus ports worldwide directly or indirectly linked to many
of these same vessels that reasonably would want to be able to
discharge ballast to a reception facility at any port visited rather
than having to also install and operate a BWMS in those areas where a
reception facility is not available. As cited in the Second Circuit
decision, Nat. Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency., 808 F.3d
566 (2d Cir. 2015), the SAB scientists pointed out that: ``[S]hipboard
treatment and onshore treatment represent distinct approaches to
ballast water management that would each require different large
investments in infrastructure . . . . Thus we are almost certain to be
stuck for a very long time with whichever approach is used as the BAT
in setting discharge standards in 2013. It is thus of the utmost
urgency that a fair and thorough comparison of the two approaches be
made at this time.'' Whether the opinion of the SAB is accurate, it is
likely that selecting the reception facility approach would require
vessels to also install onboard systems for those times when the vessel
may need to discharge ballast water in a port that may not have a
functioning reception facility. A further complication here is not just
in having to install an onboard system for use only some of the time,
it is that if the onboard system is not used consistently and sits idle
for a significant portion of the time, it is unlikely to work
effectively and is more likely to experience mechanical problems due to
periods of nonuse. Conversely, a vessel with an onboard system could
operate worldwide without having to rely on others for ballast water
management. While use of a reception facility assumes a higher level of
treatment than can be achieved onboard a vessel, the specific
evaluation performed at each of these hypothetical reception facilities
may not actually result in significant discharge reductions.
Based on the record before it, EPA has determined that reception
facilities are not technologically available or economically achievable
at this time. While EPA understands that the use of reception
facilities, if available, may be a valid and effective component of
ballast water management in certain situations, the challenges in
creating such a comprehensive infrastructure nation-wide (and world-
wide) make reception facilities simply not technologically available as
defined in the CWA. It also appears to have unacceptable non-water
quality environmental impacts in some areas. It is logistically more
complex than shipboard treatment for the shipping industry to implement
and requires vessel as well as port modifications to be accommodated.
It is unlikely that ballast water reception facilities could become a
national ``one size fits all'' option for ballast water management,
principally because it cannot accommodate widely varying trade routes
without the availability of reception facilities in most ports. Port-
specific conditions may also preclude any technically available and/or
economically achievable reception facility alternatives. Integration
with port and vessel operations would require careful planning, design,
and operation. If in the future reception facilities become available
and economically achievable and have acceptable non-water quality
environmental impacts in certain locations for certain specialized
sectors of the commercial vessel industry EPA would revisit the
standards, but, for now, such an option has not been demonstrated to
reflect BAT.
C. Vessels Operating Exclusively on the Great Lakes
After careful consideration of all the relevant factors, EPA
proposes to subcategorize and not require any vessel operating
exclusively on the Great Lakes, regardless of when they were built, to
meet the numeric discharge standard and instead to continue to require
that these vessels implement best management practices. As required by
the VIDA, EPA assessed the best available technology that is
economically achievable and determined that the challenges analyzed in
the VGP remain true today. This proposed exemption is based on a set of
unique circumstances that make ballast water management especially
challenging for these vessels. The challenges include issues related to
the operational profile and design of these vessels and issues related
to the unique nature of the waters of the Great Lakes. A fuller
discussion of EPA's analysis appears below.
1. Ballast Water Management of Vessels Operating Exclusively on the
Laurentian Great Lakes
The VGP exempted vessels that operate exclusively on the Laurentian
Great Lakes, commonly referred to as ``Lakers,'' and built before 2009
from meeting the numeric discharge standard. As defined by the VGP,
this
[[Page 67846]]
includes vessels that operate upstream of the waters of the St.
Lawrence River west of a rhumb line drawn from Cap de Rosiers to West
Point, Anticosti Island, and west of a line along 63 W longitude from
Anticosti Island to the north shore of the St. Lawrence River. EPA
selected January 1, 2009 as the cutoff date because the IMO originally
established this date to require treatment for certain new build
vessels. At the time, EPA anticipated that vessels designed to enter
the market beginning in 2009 would be prepared to meet the VGP
requirements. Since that time, EPA has evaluated the few U.S. and
Canadian Lakers that had been built since 2009 and concluded that they
were also unable to meet the VGP discharge requirements. Consistent
with that conclusion, the USCG regulations do not require non-seagoing
vessels, including all Lakers, to meet the numeric discharge standard.
The proposed rule expands the VGP exemption to any vessel operating
exclusively on the Great Lakes, regardless of build date, because these
vessels share the same challenges in operating BWMS under the
environmental conditions of the Great Lakes. The exemption applies to
vessels on the Great Lakes that are 3,000 GT ITC (1,600 (GRT) if GT ITC
is not assigned) and above, as smaller vessels are exempt under
139.10(d)(2)(i) of the proposed rule as described in VIII.B.1.vii.A.
Vessels Less Than or Equal to 3,000 GT ITC (1,600 GT GRT if GT ITC is
not assigned) and That Do Not Operate Outside the EEZ. For the purposes
of the proposed rule and referred to as ``Great Lakes vessels'' in this
section, the universe of vessels operating exclusively on the Great
Lakes includes two main types of vessels. First, it includes Lakers, as
defined in the VGP, as bulk carriers and other similar vessel types
(e.g., tank barges) operating exclusively on the Laurentian Great
Lakes. Second, it includes any other large vessel, according to the
size threshold, that is 3,000 GT ITC (1,600 GRT if GT ITC is not
assigned) and above, that voyages exclusively on the Great Lakes, such
as ferries. Discussion in this section using the term ``Great Lakes
vessels'' does not include seagoing vessels that operate beyond the
boundary identified in the VGP and continued for the proposed rule,
that being vessels that operate downstream of the waters of the St.
Lawrence River west of a rhumb line drawn from Cap de Rosiers to West
Point, Anticosti Island, and west of a line along 63 W longitude from
Anticosti Island to the north shore of the St. Lawrence River.
There are approximately 150 U.S.- and Canadian-flagged Lakers, with
approximately 20 of these (mostly Canadian) constructed in 2009 or
later (Marinelog, 2016; Lake Carriers' Association, 2016). The U.S.
Lakers generally are larger than Canadian Lakers, with many of these
vessels being too large to transit through the Welland Canal and the
locks on the St. Lawrence Seaway, thus confining their operations to
the four upper Great Lakes. Of the approximately 60 U.S.-flagged Lakers
operating on the Great Lakes, only about half are small enough to fit
through the Welland Canal; although, from 2015 through 2017, U.S.
Lakers operated only 28 voyages east of the Welland Canal (Lake
Carriers' Association, 2018). Common U.S. Laker routes are ore cargo
runs from Lake Superior to U.S. mills in Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio.
In contrast, 81 of the 84 Canadian Lakers are small enough to pass
through the Welland Canal and locks on the St. Lawrence Seaway (Lake
Carriers' Association, 2016). The U.S.-flagged Lakers that are small
enough to transit the locks on the St. Lawrence Seaway are not designed
to operate in brackish water or saltwater and therefore do not venture
east of Quebec City on the St. Lawrence Seaway. Most Canadian Lakers,
on the other hand, commonly operate in brackish water or saltwater and
their hulls and ballast tanks have corrosion protection that allow them
to transit through the locks on the St. Lawrence Seaway to Canadian
coastal ports and for some of these vessels, even to overseas ports.
However, U.S. and Canadian vessels that operate exclusively on the
Great Lakes share several similar constraints with selection of BWMS
because of the short voyages, low salinity, very cold water, high
dissolved organic carbon content, and low UV transmittance associated
with operation solely within the Great Lakes. Similar vessel design
issues are present for both the existing U.S. and Canadian fleets with
respect to vessel design and operation.
The Second Circuit Court decision held that EPA acted arbitrarily
and capriciously when it exempted Lakers built before 2009 (``pre-2009
Lakers'') from the numeric technology-based effluent limitations of the
VGP. Nat. Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency., 808 F.3d 566
(2d Cir. 2015). The court stated that EPA's decision to exempt Lakers
was based on a flawed record that failed to consider the possibility of
reception facilities, and that the lack of supply of updated shipboard
systems was not a legitimate reason to exempt pre-2009 Lakers as the
purpose of a BAT standard is to force technology to keep pace with
need. Id. at 576. The court cited an EPA SAB Report as support for its
decision that EPA was arbitrary and capricious because the Report did
not declare such treatment impossible. Instead, the SAB concluded ``[a]
variety of environmental (e.g., temperature and salinity), operational
(e.g., ballasting flow rates and holding times), and vessel design
(e.g., ballast volume and unmanned barges) parameters'' should be
considered in determining the treatment standard. Id. at 577. The court
further concluded that EPA failed to conduct an appropriate and
factually-supported cost-analysis which might have shown that the cost
of subjecting pre-2009 Lakers to the 2013 VGP was not unreasonably
high, or, alternatively, that use of reception facilities was
economically achievable. Id.
To address all of the above issues, EPA assessed the availability
of ballast water treatment technology by evaluating the operational and
technical considerations for installation and operation of a USCG type-
approved BWMS on Great Lakes vessels and alternative approaches that
could be used to develop a specific discharge standard for Great Lakes
vessels. Specifically, EPA assessed:
The compatibility of type-approved BWMS to meet the
current discharge standard under the environmental conditions of the
Great Lakes;
the operational and technical challenges of the
installation of type-approved BWMS given the unique structure of Great
Lakes vessels;
the potential use of current type-approved BWMS on Great
Lakes vessels to meet an alternative standard; and
the availability of other treatment technologies for Great
Lakes vessels.
Overall, it was found that ballast water treatment technologies are
not available for Great Lakes vessels at this time because of the
uniqueness of these vessels and the Great Lakes ecosystem. EPA
evaluated the technical reasons why current type-approved BWMS are not
compatible with the environmental conditions of the Great Lakes for
each category of treatment system. The environmental conditions
evaluated include the water's unique ``freshness,'' as opposed to
salinity, the temperature of the water, and the turbidity of the ports.
The operational and technical conditions evaluated include the length
of voyages and its effect on the BWMS holding times required to achieve
the discharge standard and the absence of coated ballast tanks in the
fleet. Table 2 summarizes information on the critical limitations that
each major disinfection
[[Page 67847]]
method currently faces for use on Great Lakes vessels.
Table 2--Limitations of BWMS Disinfection Types for Commercial Vessels Operating on the Great Lakes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BWMS disinfection method Limitations for use on the Great Lakes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UV.................................................. Areas of the Great Lakes, notably in certain river ports,
have high turbidity and high dissolved organic carbon
content such as from tannins and humic acid, which
inhibits effective UV treatment. In addition, most USCG
type-approved UV BWMS require holding times of 72 hours,
however common trade routes within the Great Lakes take
less than 72 hours with some as little as 2 hours. For
this reason, vessels would be required to delay cargo
loading and discharge ballast water until the holding
time is achieved. Several UV BWMS have since been type-
approved with holding times as little as 2.5 hours,
highlighting the advance of technology in beginning to
overcome some of the operational limitations described.
Electrochlorination................................. Current USCG type-approved BWMS require a supply of
saltwater for generating chlorine. Vessels limited to
freshwater environments would need to prepare and bunker
a synthetic seawater solution, which would limit cargo
capacity. Also, chlorine in uncoated ballast tanks
increases corrosion rates to unacceptable levels for the
structural integrity of the vessel. Therefore, this
technology is not technically available.
Chemical Addition................................... Current USCG type-approved BWMS allow for the addition of
chemicals. However, none of the U.S. Laker fleet that
operates exclusively on the Great Lakes have coated
ballast tanks. This results in an increase in corrosion
rates if corrosive chemicals, particularly oxidants, are
used, making this technology technologically unavailable
and economically unachievable because the vessel would be
taken out of service.
Ozonation........................................... Current USCG type-approved BWMS allow for the addition of
ozone. However, none of the U.S. Laker fleet that
operates exclusively on the Great Lakes have coated
ballast tanks. This results in an increase in corrosion
rates, making this technology technologically unavailable
and economically unachievable because the vessel would be
taken out of service.
Deoxygenation....................................... Current USCG-type-approved BWMS require hold times if
using a deoxygenation system. Common trade routes for
commercial vessels within the Great Lakes move ballast
water from lower ports such as Gary, Burns Harbor,
Cleveland and Toledo Transit times for these routes are
less than 72 hours (USACE, 2017). To comply with the
numeric discharge standard, vessels would need to delay
cargo loading and discharge of Great Lakes ballast water
until the holding time is achieved if using a
deoxygenation system that requires hold times greater
than transit times. Additionally, deoxygenation can
result in increased corrosion due to anaerobic
conditions, and the lack of coated ballast tanks makes
this technology unavailable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ref: (Keister and Balog, 1992; Tuthill et al., 1998; Lake Carriers' Association, 2017; American Bureau of
Shipping, 2015; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2017).
2. Compatibility of BWMS To Meet the Discharge Standard Under Great
Lakes Environmental Conditions
The environmental conditions of Great Lakes waters present unique
challenges for use of any of the more than 20 USCG type-approved BWMS
on Great Lakes vessels. At this time, none of these systems can meet
the proposed numeric discharge standard given these conditions. Cold
ambient water temperatures on the Great Lakes during the earlier and
later portions of the shipping season are below the testing parameters
of USCG BWMS type-approval testing and, therefore, BWMS have not been
demonstrated to work sufficiently under such conditions to meet the
numeric discharge standard. For example, winter icing conditions of the
exceptionally fresh waters of the Great Lakes impact the ability to
operate a BWMS, such as from ice-plugged BWMS filters. Because of
winter ice on the Lakes, the navigation season is not usually year-
round. The Soo Locks and Welland Canal close from mid-January to late
March, when most vessels are laid up for maintenance. However, cold
temperature and icing conditions can persist into the Spring. Water
temperatures in the Great Lakes during the shipping season can be as
low as 0 [deg]C. Lake Erie is below 5 [deg]C for five months a year,
lakes Michigan and Huron for almost half the year, and on Lake Superior
5 [deg]C might not be reached until June and be back below by November.
Because of the pressure drop across filters, freezing can occur at
temperatures above 0 [deg]C. Several USCG BWMS are not approved for
operation at a water temperature of less than 5 [deg]C (Monroy et al.,
2017; USCG, 2013).
In addition to cold temperatures, the fresh water of the Great
Lakes contains extremely low salinity. USCG type-approval testing for
freshwater allows a salinity as low as 0.9 practical salinity units
(psu), but Great Lakes water, especially Lake Superior, has a much
lower salinity of approximately 0.063 ppt. Several USCG type-approved
BWMS require a higher salinity than is found in the Great Lakes. For
example, electrochlorination systems were designed to use marine water
to provide a chloride source to generate chlorine. The freshwater of
the Great Lakes does not provide such a source of saline water,
requiring a Laker using such a system to bunker saltwater in an unused
holding tank or ballast tank and then use this saltwater to generate
chlorine for disinfection while ballasting/deballasting within the
Great Lakes. EPA analysis demonstrates that this technology is not
practicable and is presently unavailable.
Turbidity, excessive levels of tannins, and filamentous bacteria in
some areas of the Great Lakes can inhibit the ability of USCG type-
approved BWMS to meet the numeric discharge standard. Several river
ports in the Great Lakes contain highly turbid water where ballast
water uptake occurs. Typical levels of total suspended solids (TSS)
found in U.S. Great Lakes port waters range from 400 mg/L in the Rouge
River in Detroit, MI, to 1,000 mg/L in the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland,
OH. These levels are much higher than those required for USCG type-
approval testing. Similarly, areas of the Great Lakes contain excessive
levels of tannins that present a challenge to remove with conventional
BWMS filters. Turbidity and excessive levels of tannins in some Great
Lakes harbors may significantly reduce filter efficiency and UV light
transmittance, creating a situation where both USCG and IMO type-
approved filtration and UV BWMS cannot achieve the numeric discharge
standard. While these circumstances can also occur in coastal ports, it
is expected that many seagoing vessels could use operational practices
not available to vessels operating on the
[[Page 67848]]
Great Lakes, such as exchange of turbid harbor water for less turbid
offshore water, which could be treated effectively by the BWMS. In
addition, the Great Lakes contains significant quantities of
filamentous bacteria that have been shown to cause significant clogging
problems with BWMS filters.
Other ballast water treatment technologies are under development,
such as membrane filtration, magnetic separation with filtration, and
pasteurization. However, no such systems to-date have been demonstrated
as effective ballast water treatment to the satisfaction of the USCG
for type-approval. Even if these technologies did gain USCG type-
approval, there are challenges in applying their use on the Great
Lakes. For example, a pasteurization system is designed for large long-
haul vessels and requires multiple voyage days to reach pasteurization
temperatures and as such would be limited in its use on the Great Lakes
because of the many short voyages for vessels in the Great Lakes. As
for filtration and magnetic separation with filtration, freshwater
organisms must respond to flocculating agents like that of marine
organisms to be effectively removed by these technologies.
Unfortunately, to date, this ability has not been shown to exist
(ClearBallast, 2012; Bawat, 2016; Voutchkov, 2013).
3. Technical Challenges of the Use of USCG Type-Approved BWMS on Great
Lakes Vessels
There are numerous, costly technical challenges to implementing
BWMS on Great Lakes vessels. If USCG type-approved systems were
installed on Great Lakes vessels to meet the discharge standard, some
environmental benefit would be provided from the installation and
operation of these type-approved systems; however, disproportionate
costs would be incurred by this vessel community due to these technical
challenges and the discharge standard would not be met given the known
environmental challenges. For example, for some U.S. Lakers,
particularly those bulk carriers that are more than 50 years old that
have been uniquely constructed and converted over the decades, the cost
of achieving the standard would be similar to or maybe even exceed the
cost of vessel replacement. EPA evaluated the technical considerations
relevant to the installation and operation of BWMS on Great Lakes
vessels including vessel size, ballasting volumes and flow rates,
ballast pump and piping configurations, space considerations,
electrical requirements and corrosion issues. It is important to point
out there are significant differences in the construction, size,
propulsion configurations, electrical systems and capabilities, cargo
off-loading equipment, ballast water movement, and other design aspects
between individual vessels. These differences require a vessel-specific
analysis to determine the technological availability and optimal method
for installing and operating a BWMS. In order to consider these
differences, EPA grouped the U.S. Lakers into subcategories based on
their characteristics (Table 3).
Table 3--Subcategories of U.S. Laker Vessels
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of U.S. Ballast volume Ballast pumping
Subcategory Lakers \a\ Build dates Length Number ballast tanks Number ballast pumps (gallons) rate (GPM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Capacity Lakers............... 14 1972-1981.............. 858-1,000-ft........... 14-22................. 4-36.................. 9,414,132-16,406,561 20,000-79,800
Converted bulkers to self-unloading 18 1906-1959, converted 437-806 ft............. 11-22................. 2-4 pumps/Engine Room 1,411,655-12,283,281 14,000-64,800
ships, includes barges. 1958-2014. (E.R).
Newer build--manifold ballast system 17 1942 (1991)-2012....... 519-770................ 13-21................. 2 pumps/E.R........... 2,121,000-7,851,433 17,400-40,000
Purpose built barge................. 6 1941 (1998)-2009....... 310-460................ 6 including FP-17..... 1-4 pump.............. 638,274-2,045,053 1,000-10,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................... 57 ....................... ....................... ...................... ...................... ....................... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Lake Carriers' Association, 2016. Total number of vessels carrying ballast water, including articulated tug-barges. Does not include tugboats since these vessels do not typically discharge
ballast water. Does not include barges A-410 or 397 because they do not carry ballast water.
The capacity of the commercially available, type-approved BWMS
selected for a Great Lakes vessel must be compatible with the ballast
needs of the vessels, particularly the ballasting rate of the ballast
pumps. Particularly for Lakers, high ballasting capacities and flow
rates limit the options for selection of some commercially available
BWMS. The maximum capacity of commercially available filtration and UV
BWMS is 6,000 m\3\/hr. U.S. Lakers have ballasting capacities as high
as 18,000 m\3\/hr and therefore multiple filtration and UV BWMS would
be required to accommodate these rates. In the analysis, EPA considered
installation of multiple BWMS on a vessel as a means to meet the
discharge standard. For example, the large capacity vessels may have a
ballast water system configuration that includes individual sea chests,
ballast pumps and ballast piping for each individual ballast tank. It
can have one or two individual ballast pumps and piping per ballast
tank. Four of the U.S.-flagged 1,000-foot Lakers have 18 separate
ballast pumps and piping, and one 1,000-foot Laker (i.e., Stewart J.
Cort) has 36 deep well ballast pumps. The M/V Indiana Harbor uses four
main ballast pumps (two port and two starboard) to pump a total of
11,810 m\3\/hr of ballast water. For this Laker, two BWMS would have to
be installed (one port and one starboard), each with a capacity to
treat at least 6,000 m\3\/hr. The M/V Paul R. Tregurtha that has a
total ballasting capacity of 18,120 m\3\/hr and uses 18 separate
ballast pumps and tanks, 18 individual BWMS would be needed, each with
a capacity to treat at least 1,100 m\3\/hr or the entire ship would
need to be re-piped at significant cost and downtime.
Great Lakes vessels are designed to maximize cargo capacity and,
therefore, have little to no space available in the engine room or
around the self-unloading equipment for a BWMS. Space could be created
from existing ballast tanks or cargo holds, although this directly
impacts the vessel's cargo hauling capacity and therefore economic
viability. Again, EPA analysis included the cost and lost revenue
implications of lost cargo space or hauling capacity. Converting
ballast tanks to accommodate a BWMS may likely also impact vessel
stability and requires a detailed vessel-specific analysis by a marine
engineer, naval architect, or similar expert to assess viability of
such installation and operation.
Electrical capacity on Great Lakes vessels has been sized to
accommodate the loading and unloading equipment
[[Page 67849]]
that is operational while the vessel is in port. Self-unloading
equipment would have to be operated at the same time as the BWMS and,
as currently designed, many of these vessels lack electrical capacity
for high electrical demand BWMS such as filtration and UV disinfection.
Thus, additional electrical generators would be required for operation
of the BWMS.
The U.S. Laker fleet has another significant issue with respect to
selection of a BWMS: Currently all vessels have uncoated steel ballast
tanks. In this manner, U.S. Lakers differ from the Canadian Laker fleet
and the oceangoing vessels. This design works for the fleet because the
waters of the Great Lakes is so fresh that corrosion is not a concern
as these vessels do not operate in brackish or ocean saline waters,
where such coating is necessary. Any BWMS that generates chlorine for
disinfection by electrochlorination or that doses corrosive treatment
chemicals into the ballast water is commercially available in the
capacities needed for Lakers and have a lower electrical demand.
However, these systems would significantly increase the corrosion rates
in the uncoated ballast tanks of existing U.S. Lakers. Coating ballast
tanks on existing U.S. Lakers can be done; however, the costs to do so
are prohibitively high, and the vessel would require dry-docking for at
least a year, a significant lost revenue period, to clean, grind, weld
and coat the inside of ballast tanks.
With regards to operational considerations, many inter-lake voyages
are shorter than 72 hours (and even as short as 2 hours) and, in these
cases, would not provide the required residence time for BWMS
technologies that require extended holding times to be effective such
as chemical addition, deoxygenation, or UV for many of the USCG type-
approved UV-based BWMS U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2017). Increasing
voyage times by slow steaming to meet minimum hold times for certain
BWMS may be possible, but the impact to vessel operations would need to
be accounted for in assessing the cost of operation of such systems,
including impacts to shippers. In fact, the entire supply chain would
be impacted by extra voyage times.
4. Testing of BWMS on the Great Lakes
Testing of various BWMS and their components using ambient Great
Lakes water has been conducted at the Great Ships Initiative (GSI) \3\
Land-Based Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation Facility
located in Duluth-Superior Harbor on Lake Superior. GSI provides
freshwater ballast treatment evaluation at three scales--bench, land-
based, and on-board ship. GSI, because of its location, uses freshwater
from the Great Lakes to evaluate performance of BWMS at removing Great
Lakes organisms within the size ranges required in the VGP and USCG
discharge standard (using the ETV Protocol) and the IMO protocols for
approval of ballast water management systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Great Ships Initiative, which commented in 2005, is an
industry led collaborative effort to address problems of ship-
mediated invasive species in the Great Lakes Saint Lawrence Seaway
System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During August through October 2009, the GSI conducted land-based
type-approval testing in accordance with IMO G8 guidelines on the
Siemens SiCURE\TM\ BWMS (Great Ships Initiative, 2010). The Siemens
SiCURE\TM\ BWMS is based on filtration and side-stream
electrochlorination of seawater to produce hypochlorite, which is then
injected into the incoming ballast water. The results showed that the
BWMS functioned properly and was effective at reducing live organism in
the regulated size classes at levels below the IMO ballast water
performance standard (i.e., Regulation D-2 of the BWM Convention) after
the five-day holding time in the fresh water ambient conditions of
Duluth-Superior Harbor that had been augmented to achieve IMO challenge
conditions. Target bacteria Escherichia coli and intestinal enterococci
were also discharged at levels below the numeric discharge standard
after the 5-day holding time. However, as mentioned previously,
electrochlorination requires a bunker of synthetic seawater solution
for generating chlorine and can corrode the uncoated tanks of U.S.
Lakers.
During September and October 2014, GSI conducted land-based testing
of three prototype versions of the chlorine addition-based JFE
BallastAce[supreg] BWMS to evaluate not only the biological and
chemical performance against the USCG ballast water discharge standard,
but also the total residual oxidant (TRO) of the chemical system (Great
Ships Initiative, 2015). Only the JFE BallastAce BWMS operated using
the TG BallastCleaner[supreg] at the higher target TRO concentration of
approximately 20 mg/L was able to achieve the USCG discharge standard
for living organisms although these concentrations did result in
elevated levels of disinfection by-products. This system type can also
corrode the uncoated tanks of U.S. Lakers.
Using filtration and UV BWMS can avoid the corrosion concerns.
However, testing of the filtration and UV Alfa Laval
PureBallast[supreg] Version 3 BWMS in Duluth-Superior Harbor in 2010
using ambient Great Lakes water failed to achieve the USCG and IMO
numeric discharge standards in the two regulated size classes, even
though intake organism densities in the Great Lakes harbor water were
well below IMO and EPA's ETV Protocol challenge conditions. GSI
concluded that the system failed to achieve the USCG numeric discharge
standard due to the filters' ineffectiveness at removing filamentous
algal forms in Duluth-Superior Harbor water. In addition, very low
ambient UV transmittance of Duluth-Superior Harbor water (naturally
caused by tannins) at the time of testing likely inhibited the
effectiveness of the UV disinfection unit (Great Ships Initiative,
2011).
5. Consideration of a Type-Approved BWMS Equipment Requirement
EPA also considered an option in which Great Lakes vessels would be
required to install, operate, and maintain a USCG type-approved BWMS
but not have to meet a discharge standard. This option assumes that the
structural challenges of installing, operating and maintaining a USCG
type-approved BWMS, particularly for Lakers, could be overcome and
would be available and economically achievable. Specifically,
consideration was given to an equipment carriage requirement in which a
Great Lakes vessel would be required to install, operate and maintain
(i.e., carry) a USCG type-approved BWMS, but would not be required to
meet a numeric discharge standard acknowledging the unique Great Lakes
environmental conditions and vessel voyage patterns. The advantage to
this approach is that, although treatment may not be able to
consistently meet the discharge standard due to the Great Lakes
conditions, some reduction in the discharge of ANS would likely occur.
EPA is not proposing this approach because such a requirement to
install a current BWMS without addressing the incompatibility with the
environment conditions of the Great Lakes or the technical equipment
considerations does not reflect BAT. There is significant uncertainty
as to the operational functionality of BWMS in the Great Lakes,
particularly when operating conditions extend outside the design
parameters of any available treatment systems. For example, given that
U.S. Lakers have uncoated ballast tanks, it is expected that many
vessel
[[Page 67850]]
owners would opt for UV-based BWMS to meet such an equipment standard.
As shown in the GSI testing of the filtration and UV Alfa Laval
PureBallast[supreg] Version 3 BWMS in Duluth-Superior Harbor in 2010
using ambient Great Lakes water, the system failed to achieve the USCG
and IMO numeric discharge standards in the two regulated size classes
due to the filters' ineffectiveness at removing filamentous algal forms
and very low ambient UV transmittance of Duluth-Superior Harbor water
(naturally caused by tannins) which likely inhibited the effectiveness
of the UV disinfection unit (Great Ships Initiative, 2011). All of the
other USCG type-approved BWMS systems were evaluated for a carriage
requirement and it was found that these other systems face operational
challenges similar to the UV system. Clogged filters in turbid ports
and under icing conditions could significantly impact vessel
operations, even halt operations, if the BWMS ceased working.
In addition, EPA determined that such an equipment requirement does
not meet the ``economically achievable'' portion of the BAT requirement
for this proposed rule. An equipment standard may require a costly
installation and maintenance of a system only to be faced with an
imperative for the vessel owner to modify the system to be able to
operate the vessel as necessary or even to replace the system with
newer technology in the near future. Vessels that operate exclusively
in the Great Lakes have a significant lifespan as compared to seagoing
vessels due to the freshwater conditions of the Great Lakes.
Installation of a BWMS on a Laker, for example, would be based on the
life of the BWMS, not the life of the vessel. However, retrofitting a
Laker for BWMS is a significantly costly endeavor, particularly for
U.S. owned vessels, which as Jones Act vessels, are required to be
built in U.S. shipyards or pay a 50 percent U.S. tax for repairs done
in a foreign shipyard. For this reason, if a Laker vessel was
reconfigured to fit a current USCG type-approved system, retrofitting
that same vessel for a newer BWMS that may require a different
configuration may be cost prohibitive and impede the deployment of more
effective technologies in the future.
There are insufficient data at this time to establish an
alternative equipment standard for Great Lakes vessels that is
technically available and economically achievable. EPA has determined
that implementing a carriage standard may be short-sighted and costly
to the vessel community with an unknown level of effectiveness to
reduce ANS discharges in the Great Lakes. Additional research is needed
before EPA could identify a standard that reasonably satisfies the
statutory BAT requirements consistent with Section 903(g)(2)(B)(viii)
of the VIDA which establishes a program for EPA, in collaboration with
other federal agencies, to research and develop BWMS for use by vessels
operating on the Great Lakes.
6. The Availability of Alternative Approaches for Great Lakes Vessels
EPA assessed whether technologies are available other than USCG
type-approved BWMS or other BMPs that could be used for Great Lakes
vessels. The IMO has approved more than 60 commercially available BWMS.
However, as discussed earlier, the IMO type-approval process does not
meet EPA and USCG QA/QC criteria and as such, vendors must obtain USCG
type-approval for any BWMS to be used in the U.S. beyond the five-year
bridge to compliance during which time an IMO type-approved and USCG
recognized alternate management system (AMS) may be used. EPA also
evaluated the potential for technology transfer from other industries.
However, adapting land-based technology for use onboard a vessel
entails different criteria and challenges, such as acceptable shipboard
materials, safety, hazardous spaces, and vessel stability
considerations. For these reasons, no similar technologies have been
identified for evaluation against this vessel-based standard, which
accounts for vessel design, stability, and safety at sea.
Information on technologies and practices other than type-approved
systems is limited but EPA did evaluate alternative options for Great
Lakes vessels. The three alternatives considered include (1) use of
filtration only, (2) open lake exchange of highly turbid water taken up
in river ports, and (3) exempting the use of a ballast water treatment
system for certain voyages when the operational parameters of an
installed BWMS cannot be met.
i. Filtration
Some research has explored the potential of using filtration-only
to treat ballast water; rather than the more common filtration coupled
with disinfection. The Great Ships Initiative (GSI) evaluated the
performance of eight commercially available filter systems which
covered a range of technologies and nominal pore sizes using ambient
Duluth-Superior Harbor water and amended intake water to achieve a
minimum concentration of 24 mg/L total suspended solids (TSS). Analysis
of the GSI filter system performance data shows that regardless of
filter pore size, no system can achieve the IMO or USCG numeric
discharge standards. According to GSI, the soft-bodied microzooplankton
which make up most zooplankton in Duluth-Superior Harbor that straddle
the 50[micro]m size range were the most difficult to remove by
filtration. Macrozooplankton, which are the least numerous in Duluth-
Superior Harbor, were the easiest to remove by filtration (Great Ships
Initiative, 2014).
GSI's findings are consistent with other researchers who studied
the performance of BWMS filtration systems in the Great Lakes. In 2012,
Briski et al. (2014) collected before and after filtration samples from
a 40 [micro]m BWMS filtration unit installed on the M/V Richelieu, a
729-foot bulk carrier that typically operates in the Great Lakes and
the Atlantic coast of North America. The three shipboard trials
conducted dock side in Quebec City, Quebec and Sarnia, Ontario, and at
anchor in Thunder Bay, Ontario, found filtration significantly reduced
abundance of copepods and cladocerans, but not of juvenile dreissenid
veligers and rotifers. Briski et al. concluded that filtration alters
the relative abundance of zooplankton, but filtration alone does not
reduce introduction risk of any taxonomic group due to the small
juvenile stages and dormant eggs which can be passed through BWMS
filters (Briski et al., 2014).
EPA determined that filtration alone is not sufficient to meet the
numeric discharge standard and there is neither sufficient data at this
time to establish an alternative standard for Great Lakes vessels using
filtration that would reduce ANS discharge at a known effectiveness
level nor information on the practical installation and operation,
including cost, of such a filtration alternative.
ii. Open Lake Exchange
As detailed in the sections above, using a UV-based BWMS eliminates
the corrosion concerns associated with use of other types of BWMS that
rely on oxidizing chemical addition; however, Great Lakes harbors with
high sediment loads and excessive levels of tannins, particularly in
river ports, significantly reduce UV light transmittance and prevent
UV-based BWMS from providing treatment necessary to achieve the
discharge standard. EPA considered a practice in which a vessel leaving
a turbid port could conduct an exchange after leaving the port (e.g.,
mid-lake) to flush the turbid water, then use a type-approved BWMS to
treat the mid-lake water and any residual ballast
[[Page 67851]]
water and sediments. However, EPA determined that there is insufficient
data to support the effectiveness of such an alternative practice in
reducing ANS discharges in the Great Lakes. In addition, more
information is needed to ensure any unintended consequences are avoided
that could result from transferring river sediment to an open-lake
environment. Importantly, it is also not clear that Lakers, which are
not built to seagoing standards, would be able to safely conduct open-
lake exchange due to concerns regarding vessel stability and increased
stress during the ballast exchange process.
iii. Voyage-Specific Exemptions
EPA also considered the option of requiring Great Lakes vessels to
meet the numeric discharge standard using a type-approved BWMS, but to
allow the vessel to not have to use the system during certain voyages
when the vessel is operating outside the design range of the system.
For example, the short voyage times of many Lakers inhibit the use of
UV disinfection, deoxygenation, or chemical treatment of many BWMS
which require a specific holding time (e.g., 72-hour hold time after
treatment). An exemption could be given in advance for specific voyages
that do not allow sufficient hold time as specified for the BWMS. Short
voyages, particularly intra-lake routes, likely pose less of a risk of
ballast water spread of ANS, therefore the use of BWMS could be
prioritized for inter-lake voyages. In addition, incentives could be
explored that encourage vessel owners to modify their voyage pattern to
accommodate sufficient holding time for inter-lake voyages.
The same principle could be applied for voyages during cold months
when icing condition occur, or the ambient water temperatures fall
below the parameters of the BWMS and impede its operation. An exemption
could be given in advance for voyages when these temperatures occur
during the shipping season. In addition, there may be less biological
activity during the colder months of the year and ANS spread could pose
less of a risk. This exemption would allow the operation of a BWMS to
be prioritized during increased temperatures when risk increases.
In principle, these exemptions are practical approaches that could
be beneficial to allow the prioritization of the operation of BWMS when
there is a possibility of more ANS discharges, such as during inter-
lake voyages or higher temperatures. However, insufficient data exist
to support the imposition of an alternative standard for Great Lakes
vessels in the proposed rule and also, it is not clear how such an
inconsistent management regime would be evaluated for compliance with
the standards and enforcement purposes. Additional research is needed
to determine the feasibility of such alternatives and the effective
reduction of ANS from these practices. For example, one consideration
to address is if the BWMS is only operating during certain voyages, the
untreated ballast water and sediments in the tank may reduce the BWMS
effectiveness during times when the system is required to be operated.
In addition, implementation of these exemptions is contingent on the
fact that the structural challenges can be overcome to install and
operate a BWMS on Lakers as already described. If these structural
challenges can be overcome, these exemptions could play a critical role
in advancing the use of BWMS on the Great Lakes vessels during times of
prioritized risk.
EPA determined that these three alternatives are not sufficient to
meet the numeric discharge standard and there is insufficient data at
this time to establish an alternative standard or requirement for Great
Lakes vessels that would reduce ANS discharges at a known effectiveness
level. Additional research is needed to explore these options. Congress
clearly acknowledged that there are not currently practicable ballast
water management solutions for Lakers and established the Great Lakes
and Lake Champlain Invasive Species Program under the VIDA for EPA to
develop such solutions.
7. Conclusion
To date, no technologies or management practices beyond those
identified previously in the VGP and USCG regulations have been
demonstrated to be available and implementable solutions to address
ballast water discharges from the universe of vessels that operate
exclusively on the Great Lakes. In November 2016, the Great Ships
Initiative (GSI) published a briefing paper highlighting the problem
and need for pure freshwater testing in the Great Lakes stating that
USCG and IMO require, as a part of their testing protocols, ``challenge
conditions for organism sizes and densities that are not a good fit for
native (Great Lakes) assemblages'' (Great Ships Initiative, 2016).
While more research is conducted as authorized by the VIDA, EPA is
proposing in this rule to continue to exempt Lakers as well as other
vessels that operate exclusively in the Great Lakes from the numeric
discharge standard.
EPA believes it is important that new technologies and practices be
identified that reduce the discharge of non-indigenous species
specifically from Great Lakes vessels and meet the BAT standard. To
support the goal of identifying those technologies, EPA is considering
whether to require owners/operators of Great Lakes vessels to perform a
self-assessment either individually or in partnership with other vessel
owners/operators and submit information annually to EPA. Details of the
types of information considered and how that information may be used
are described in VIII.B.1.vi.C.8.i. Vessel-Specific Data Submission to
Inform Revised Standard for Vessels Operating Exclusively on the Great
Lakes.
It is important that this class of vessels remain intimately
involved in the technology development and be the basis for the demand
for innovative, cost-effective solutions by working closely with
researchers and manufacturers. BWMS may very well be developed in
stages for the various types of Great Lakes vessels. For example, the
design and construction of a newly built vessel would provide the best
opportunity to accommodate sufficient space for electrical and
mechanical systems. Marine engineers and naval architects could also
specify that ballast tanks be completely welded, all sharp metal edges
be rounded, and all metal surfaces within the ballast tanks be coated
with a material to prevent corrosion. The goal is that research can
focus on development of technology to address the environmental and
operational conditions Great Lakes vessels.
The VIDA acknowledges the lack of availability of BWMS for Great
Lakes vessels and authorizes EPA within its Great Lakes National
Program Office to establish the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Invasive
Species Program. One of that program's purposes is identified to
develop, achieve type-approval for, and pilot shipboard or land-based
ballast water management systems installed on, or available for use by
vessels operating solely within the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain to
prevent the spread of ANS within the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain
Systems. This program is to be developed in collaboration and
consultation with several other federal agencies. As acknowledged by
Congress in its inclusion of this provision in the VIDA, this program
is expected to play a vital role to advance the development of type-
approved ballast water management system for Great Lakes vessels and
inform future regulations.
[[Page 67852]]
Vendors of BWMS to date have not expended adequate time and
resources to advance systems that would work onboard Great Lakes
vessels, because this fleet represents such a small percentage of the
world-wide market, leaving the owners of these vessels with no
alternative to selecting a commercially available system that would
achieve the numeric ballast water discharge standard once installed and
operated on the Great Lakes. This collaborative research strategy is
important to drive the market for this technology given the small
number of vessels. For example, the combined U.S. and Canadian Laker
fleet is less than 150 vessels compared to the tens-of-thousands of
other ocean-going vessels worldwide that are now purchasing and
installing systems to meet the U.S. or IMO-based ballast water
discharge standards.
Once EPA has data and information that can be used to identify
additional BAT approaches for Great Lakes vessels, be it installation
of technology or implementation of best management practices, the
Agency expects to propose updates to the discharge standard to reflect
new BAT-based requirements. Such an update may address the entire
universe of vessels that operate exclusively on the Great Lakes, or
reasonably could consider the appropriateness of the identified
technology or practices to the different segments of the Great Lakes
fleet, such as among classes, types, and sizes and between new and
existing vessels as provided for under the VIDA. While CWA Section
312(p)(4)(D)(i) calls for EPA to review the discharge standards at
least every five years and revise if appropriate, the Agency expects a
more fluid assessment of the adequacy of standards for Great Lakes
vessels, acknowledging that ballast water management research and
development activities described under the Great Lakes and Lake
Champlain Invasive Species Program established under the VIDA may
provide a sound basis for proposing new or updated standards in less
than the five-year statutory review timeframe. In CWA Sections
312(p)(10)(B), the VIDA also creates a role for the states in
promulgating enhanced Great Lakes requirements by enacting a process in
which Governors of the Great Lakes states can work together to develop
an enhanced standard of performance or other requirements with respect
to any incidental discharge, including ballast water. In all cases
where Great Lakes Governors propose an enhanced requirement, EPA and
USCG may only reject the proposed requirement if it is less stringent
than existing standards or requirements under this section,
inconsistent with maritime safety, or inconsistent with applicable
maritime and navigation laws and regulations.
8. EPA Seeks Input on Great Lakes Vessels
i. Vessel-Specific Data Submission To Inform Revised Standard for
Vessels Operating Exclusively on the Great Lakes
EPA is seeking input on whether to include in the final rule a
provision requiring that vessels operating exclusively on the Great
Lakes, conduct a self-assessment either individually or in partnership
with other vessels and submit information annually to EPA. EPA would
use this information, together with information on the general sources
of incompatibility and the challenging environmental conditions of the
Great Lakes with installing and operating existing USCG type-approved
BWMS, to revise the discharge standards as new technologies become
available and economically achievable (and have acceptable non-water
quality environmental impacts). This information would also be critical
for the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Invasive Species Program effort
to develop practical ballast water management technologies for Lakers.
An important aspect of any future analysis of these vessels is to
acknowledge that BAT may not result in the same discharge standards for
other classes of vessels or that a one-size-fits-all approach for Great
Lakes vessels may not be appropriate. This may be because the
technologies and practices available and economically achievable for
new vessels may be different from those available to existing vessels,
or because the best available technology differs by class of vessels
(e.g., self-unloading bulkers, tank barges). EPA is committed to
performing a full assessment of environmental conditions and vessel
ballasting activities in the Great Lakes as necessary to enhance
requirements for Great Lakes vessel ballast water management
technologies and practices that reduce the discharge of ANS in the
Great Lakes. The goal of this effort is to bring all Great Lakes
vessels into compliance with a numeric ballast water discharge standard
as soon as is possible under the law.
EPA seeks comment on the type of vessel-specific information that
would be valuable for Great Lakes vessels to include in their annual
submission and for EPA to assess. This information could include:
Operational considerations on locations and opportune times to conduct
ballast water monitoring; specific details of voyages that impact
holding times of certain BWMS; details of loading/unloading logistics
that limit ballast water management; and reasons for such limitations,
including weather considerations, crew considerations or other
operational information. In addition, information could be provided on
the characteristics of ports for future opportunities for onshore or
barge-based reception facility opportunities. Although EPA could also
request financial information, EPA proposes not to do this at this time
until EPA identifies a promising candidate technology or suite of
technologies for Great Lakes vessels.
ii. Applicability of Ballast Water Discharge Standards to Vessels That
Operate Primarily, But Not Exclusively, in the Great Lakes
EPA is seeking input on whether to include in the final rule an
extension of the proposed exemptions from the ballast water discharge
standards to also include vessels operating primarily, but not
exclusively, on the Great Lakes. As written, the proposed rule would
require this class of vessels that operate primarily in the Great Lakes
but do occasionally voyage to coastal ports outside of the Lakes to
both perform a ballast water exchange prior to re-entering the Lakes
and to meet the numeric discharge standard for any ballast water,
including any unpumpable residual waters and sediments, subsequently
discharged within the Great Lakes, similar to requirements applicable
to vessels entering the Great Lakes from overseas voyages. EPA is
seeking this input acknowledging that the BWMS installed to treat
ballast water taken up outside of the Great Lakes will be unlikely to
consistently meet the numeric discharge standard for ballast water
taken up within the Great Lakes because of the same environmental
challenges of operating a BWMS under the conditions of the Great Lakes
described for those vessels operating exclusively within the Great
Lakes.
With that in mind, EPA is seeking input on whether a vessel that
maybe voyages outside the Great Lakes once or twice a year, but in no
case more than half of the time, should be required to install a
ballast water management system for use during those times when the
vessel is discharging ballast water that had been taken on outside of
the Great Lakes. The type of information for which EPA is seeking input
include the voyage patterns and durations and
[[Page 67853]]
ballasting and ballast management practices for these vessels both
within and outside of the Great Lakes; tank cleaning procedures,
frequencies, and locations and the practicability of ballast tank
cleanings upon re-entry into the Great Lakes; financial implications
for these vessels to install a ballast water treatment system that may
have to be replaced within the next five years based on updates to the
national discharge standards to future research on appropriate
technologies and practices for managing ballast water in the Great
Lakes; and the appropriate line of demarcation for the Great Lakes.
The vessels that would be impacted by this option are mostly, if
not exclusively, Canadian vessels that voyage to coastal ports outside
of the Great Lakes where bulk cargo is reloaded onto seagoing vessels
for transport around the world. This portion of the vessel universe
includes bulkers, tankers, general cargo vessels, articulated tug-
barges, tugboats, river barges, and passenger vessels. Most coastal
vessel voyages originate in ports in western Lake Superior and western
Lake Erie where bulk cargo including grain and coal is loaded and then
transported to Canadian ports along the St. Lawrence Seaway east of
Montreal. EPA has limited information on this class of largely Canadian
vessels and the nature of their voyage patterns and ballasting
activities (Bailey et al., 2012).
As described in VIII.B.1.vi.C.8.i. Vessel-Specific Data Submission
to Inform Revised Standard for Vessels Operating Exclusively on the
Great Lakes, EPA is committed to performing a full assessment of
environmental conditions and vessel ballasting activities in the Great
Lakes as necessary to enhance requirements for Great Lakes vessel
ballast water management technologies and practices that reduce the
discharge of ANS in the Great Lakes with a goal to update the standards
at a later date based on the findings from that assessment.
vi. Exemptions From the Numeric Ballast Water Discharge Standard
EPA proposes to exempt certain vessels from the numeric ballast
water discharge standard as specified in 139.10(d) of the proposed
rule. These exemptions are generally consistent with the VGP and USCG
33 CFR part 151 subparts C and D regulations with some exceptions as
described below.
The proposed exclusions in section 139.10(b), VIII.B.1.ii.
Exclusions, would exclude vessels from the ballast water regulations
and all requirements of this part on the basis that those vessels do
not contribute significantly to the introduction or spread of ANS.
Excluding those vessels minimizes other non-water quality environmental
impacts that may result from the operation of ballast water treatment
systems, including increased energy usage and increased carbon
emissions in instances that outweigh any meaningful benefit from
nominal reductions in ANS discharges.
In contrast, the proposed exemptions in section 139.10(d)(3) as
described in this section, would exempt vessels from the numeric
ballast water discharge standard in section 139.10(d) only. Exempt
vessels would still be required to meet the ballast water BMPs
described in section 139.10(c) of the proposed rule and the ballast
water exchange and saltwater flushing requirements included in section
139.10(e) of the proposed rule, as applicable.
There are six categories of vessels that would be exempt from the
discharge standard, and they are: Any vessel that is less than or equal
to 3,000 GT ITC (1,600 GRT if GT ITC is not assigned) and that does not
operate outside the exclusive economic zone (EEZ); any non-seagoing,
unmanned, unpowered barge, except any barge that is part of a dedicated
vessel combination such as an integrated or articulated tug and barge
unit; any vessel that uptakes and discharges ballast water exclusively
in a single COTP Zone; any vessel that does not travel more than 10 NM
and does not pass through any locks; any vessel that operates
exclusively in the Laurentian Great Lakes; and any vessel in the USCG
Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP). In VIII.B.1.v.C.1.
Ballast Water Management of Vessels Operating Exclusively on the
Laurentian Great Lakes, we explained the exemption for vessels that
operate exclusively in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Discussion of all
six categories is included below.
A. Vessels Less Than or Equal to 3,000 GT ITC (1,600 GRT if GT ITC Is
Not Assigned) and That Do Not Operate Outside the EEZ
The proposed rule would carry forward the existing VGP and USCG 33
CFR 151.2015 exemption from the ballast water numeric discharge
standard for vessels that are less than or equal to 3,000 GT ITC (1,600
GRT if GT ITC is not assigned) and that do not operate outside the EEZ.
This includes both seagoing and non-seagoing vessels. EPA bases this
proposed exemption on the finding that ballast water technologies are
not available or economically achievable for this universe of smaller
vessels (e.g., tugboats) as to date, ballast water treatment systems
generally have been designed for larger vessels or vessels that only
uptake or discharge ballast water on either end of longer voyages. EPA
did identify one vessel in the 2018 VGP annual reports that meets the
exemption characteristics. EPA considered whether a different threshold
in terms of size should be used; however, EPA proposes to retain the
threshold from the VGP that is also consistent with the existing USCG
ballast water regulations.
Therefore, EPA proposes that this class of vessels can minimize the
discharge of untreated ballast water through best management practices
only, without being required to meet the ballast water numeric
discharge standard. It is important to note that this exemption will be
reconsidered in the future if technology becomes available for this
size class of vessels.
B. Non-Seagoing Unmanned, Unpowered Barges
Most unmanned, unpowered barges operate in internal and coastal
waterways (i.e., non-seagoing) to transport low-value bulk items such
as grain, coal, and iron ore. These vessels have no on-board crew and
do not have infrastructure that allows for complex or energy intensive
operations. EPA understands that ballasting for some of these barges is
performed in limited instances such as to pass under bridges or to
improve stability in bad weather or other rough water. These barges
typically do not have dedicated ballast tanks but can use wing tanks
(void space) in the hull when ballasting is necessary. Minimal water is
used for ballasting. Unmanned, unpowered barges have been recognized as
posing unique challenges for managing ballast water. For instance,
EPA's SAB notes: ``Inland waterways and coastal barges are not self-
propelled, but rather are moved by towing or pushing with tugboats.
Because these vessels have been designed to transport bulk cargo, or as
working platforms, they commonly use ballast tanks or fill cargo spaces
with water for trim and stability, or to prevent excessive motions in
heavy seas. However, the application of [Ballast water management
systems] on these vessels presents significant logistical challenges
because they typically do not have their own source of power or ballast
pumps and are unmanned.'' (U.S. EPA, 2011b).
EPA proposes to exempt any non-seagoing, unmanned, unpowered barge,
that is not part of a dedicated vessel combination, such as an
integrated or articulated tug barge (ATB) unit
[[Page 67854]]
consisting of two separate vessels that operate in tandem, always
together. The 2013 VGP, in Part 2.2.3.5.3.2, exempted all unmanned,
unpowered barges from compliance with the numeric ballast water
discharge standard; however, the USCG regulations at 33 CFR 151.2015
does not exempt any seagoing vessel 3,000 GT ITC (1,600 GRT if GT ITC
is not assigned) and above or that operates outside of the EEZ. As
such, the proposed requirement is a harmonization of the VGP and the
USCG existing requirements. The record indicates that an unmanned,
unpowered barge, when part of a dedicated vessel combination, can
install a BWMS as may be necessary to meet the discharge standard and
as such these dedicated vessel combinations including an unmanned,
unpowered barge are not exempt from compliance with the numeric ballast
water discharge standard.
C. Vessels That Uptake and Discharge Ballast Water Exclusively in a
Single COTP Zone
Consistent with the provisions of the previous VGP and existing
USCG regulations at 33 CFR 151.2015(c) and (d)(3), the proposed rule
would exempt from the ballast water numeric discharge standard vessels
that uptake and discharge ballast water exclusively in a single COTP
Zone, but that may operate in more than one COTP Zone. This exemption
retains the BMPs for these vessels to ensure that ballast water is
managed appropriately, however acknowledges that in all other
instances, the discharge does not significantly contribute to the
introduction and spread of ANS.
D. Vessels That Travel No More Than 10 Nautical Miles and Do Not Pass
Through Any Locks During Their Voyages
Consistent with the provisions of the previous VGP, the proposed
rule would exempt from the ballast water numeric discharge standard
vessels that travel no more than 10 NM and do not pass through any
locks during their voyages. These vessels (e.g., cross-river ferries)
contribute insignificantly to the introduction and dispersal of ANS,
however, the implementation of the best management practices for these
short-voyage vessels is intended to minimize the contribution of ANS
that the vessels could cumulatively have in a region. Exempting these
vessels also helps minimize other non-water quality environmental
impacts that may result from the operation of ballast water treatment
systems, including increased energy usage and increased carbon
emissions. 40 CFR 125.3(d)(3). Further, many existing ballast water
treatment systems use biocides that need minimum contact time to be
effective. Short distance voyages may not provide the time necessary
for biocides to be effective. In fact, the discharge of ballast water
treated with biocides may contain residuals or byproducts from that
treatment, and short voyage times may not permit adequate decay or
neutralization.
While at this time EPA is not aware of any specific vessels which
currently meet these criteria for the exemption, EPA did not want to
inadvertently require ballast water numeric discharge standard be met
for such vessels.
E. Vessels That Operate Exclusively in the Laurentian Great Lakes
As described in VIII.B.1.vi.C. Vessels Operating Exclusively on the
Great Lakes, EPA proposes to subcategorize and not require any vessel
that operates exclusively in the Laurentian Great Lakes to meet the
numeric ballast water discharge standard. EPA determined that the
challenges that existed for pre-2009 Lakers at the time the VGP was
issued remain true today not only for bulk carriers but for any vessel
operating exclusively in the Laurentian Great Lakes. The details of the
circumstances that make ballast water management uniquely challenging
for pre-2009 Lakers include issues having to do with the operational
profile and design of these vessels and with the unique nature of the
waters of the Great Lakes as described in VIII.B.1.vi.C. Vessels
Operating Exclusively on the Great Lakes. As such, EPA is proposing to
expand this exemption from the VGP to any vessel operating exclusively
on the Great Lakes, acknowledging that the extreme environmental
conditions and operational limitations for pre-2009 Lakers also affect
the ability of other vessels that exclusively trade on the Great Lakes
to effectively install and operate a BWMS to effectively treat ballast
water.
EPA acknowledges this standard is less stringent than the VGP;
however, the VIDA provides for less stringent requirements when, as in
this case, the Administrator determines that a material technical
mistake occurred when promulgating the existing requirement of the VGP.
33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(4)(D)(ii)(II)(bb). EPA made such a material technical
mistake when it failed to acknowledge that the extreme environmental
conditions and operational limitations that prevented pre-2009 Lakers
from treating its ballast water also affect the ability of other Great
Lakes vessels from doing the same.
Also, consistent with CWA Section 312(p)(4)(D)(ii)(II)(aa), the
Administrator may revise a standard of performance to be less stringent
than an applicable existing requirement if information becomes
available that was not reasonably available when the Administrator
promulgated the initial standard of performance or comparable
requirement of the VGP, as applicable (including the subsequent
scarcity or unavailability of materials used to control the relevant
discharge); and would have justified the application of a less-
stringent standard of performance at the time of promulgation. As
detailed in VIII.B.1.vi.C.1. Ballast Water Management of Vessels
Operating Exclusively on the Laurentian Great Lakes, subsequent to
issuance of the VGP, EPA evaluated post-2009 Lakers and concluded that
they too are unable to meet the VGP discharge requirements, which is
new information not reasonably available to the Administrator when EPA
issued the VGP.
EPA is not proposing to exclude any vessels from the Great Lakes
saltwater flushing and ballast water exchange requirements when such
vessels enter the St. Lawrence Seaway through the mouth of the Saint
Lawrence River; thus, any vessel operating in the Laurentian Great
Lakes that leaves the Lakes and takes on ballast water outside of the
Lakes would be required to exchange that ballast prior to re-entering
the St. Lawrence Seaway through the mouth of the St. Lawrence River
consistent with the Great Lakes requirements in section 139.10(f) of
the proposed rule. The Agency is requiring this as specifically
established by Congress in the VIDA CWA Section 312(p)(10)(A).
F. Vessels in the USCG Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP)
The proposed rule would exempt from the ballast water numeric
discharge standard a vessel equipped with ballast tanks if that vessel
is enrolled by the USCG into the Shipboard Technology Evaluation
Program (STEP). This exemption is consistent with existing VGP
requirements and USCG 33 CFR part 151 subpart D regulations. The STEP
program currently applies and will continue to play a critical role in
the development of effective ballast water treatment systems, as with
many other related or similar programs the USCG might implement in the
future. The program has encouraged pioneering vessel operators to
install ballast water
[[Page 67855]]
treatment systems, contributed to the development of effective sampling
methods, and allowed for the collection of valuable shipboard ballast
water treatment data needed to evaluate the efficacy of ballast water
treatment systems. Furthermore, STEP is a venue for treatment vendors
to develop and refine systems that comply with the ballast water
numeric discharge standard, can be successfully approved through the
USCG type-approval process, and result in the availability of a greater
range of systems for vessel owners. Vessels involved in STEP use
ballast water treatment technologies that share similarities in
capabilities (and in many cases, are the same systems) as those
described in the technical reports EPA used to inform the proposed
rule. Therefore, EPA proposes to exempt them as they are effectively
using treatments systems which reflect BAT.
vii. Numeric Ballast Water Discharge Standard Compliance Dates
EPA is not proposing compliance dates for the numeric ballast water
discharge standard; rather, the Agency expects the USCG to include such
as part of its VIDA CWA Section 312(p)(5) implementation, compliance,
and enforcement rulemaking. The Agency acknowledges and supports
continuation of the USCG extension program, in 33 CFR 151.1513 and
151.2036, for those cases where the master, owner, operator, agent, or
person in charge of a vessel subject to this subpart can document that,
despite all efforts, compliance with the numeric ballast water
discharge standard is not possible. The details of such vessel-specific
requests are left to the USCG. For perspective, the existing USCG
review considers safety and regulatory requirements of electrical
equipment, vessel capacity to accommodate BWMS, vessel age, shipyard
availability, or other similar factors and extensions are granted for
no longer than the minimum time needed, as determined by the USCG, for
the vessel to comply with the numeric ballast water discharge standard.
viii. Ballast Water Exchange and Saltwater Flushing
A. Ballast Water Exchange
The proposed rule would require certain vessels to conduct a
ballast water exchange as an interim ballast water management measure
prior to compliance with the ballast water numeric discharge standard.
Except for vessels entering the Great Lakes, vessels on Pacific Region
voyages, and vessels with empty ballast tanks, the VIDA did not alter
the ballast water exchange requirements in the VGP and USCG regulations
at 33 CFR 151.2025. EPA proposes to maintain these requirements that
prior to a vessel meeting its compliance date for meeting the numeric
ballast water discharge standard, any vessel operating beyond the EEZ
and with ballast water onboard that was taken within 200 NM of any
shore must either meet the numeric discharge standard or conduct a mid-
ocean exchange further than 200 NM from any shore, prior to entering
waters of the United States or waters of the contiguous zone. As in the
VGP, the exchange must occur as early as practicable in the voyage, so
long as the exchange occurs more than 200 NM from shore. This
requirement reduces the likelihood of the spread of ANS, most notably
prior to a ballast water numeric discharge standard compliance date, by
increasing the mortality of living organisms in ballast tanks and
ensuring that the discharge contains fewer viable living organisms.
As to the requirements that would apply to vessels entering the
Great Lakes and vessels on Pacific Region voyages, those are described
in VIII.B.1.x. Vessels Entering the Great Lakes and VIII.B.1.xi.
Pacific Region. The proposed requirements for empty ballast water tanks
are described in the next section.
B. Saltwater Flushing for Empty Ballast Tanks
Saltwater flushing is defined as the addition of as much mid-ocean
water into each empty ballast tank as is safe for the vessel and crew;
and the mixing of the flush water with residual ballast water and
sediment through the motion of the vessel; and the discharge of that
mixed water, such that the resultant residual water has the highest
salinity possible; and is at least 30 parts per thousand. A saltwater
flushing may require more than one fill-mix-empty sequence,
particularly if only small quantities of water can be safely taken
onboard a vessel at one time.
The VIDA expanded the requirements that apply to empty ballast
tanks beyond the existing EPA requirements in the VGP and in the USCG
regulations. Specifically, CWA Section 312(p)(6)(B) requires that
vessels conduct mandatory saltwater flushing of empty ballast tanks
that carry unpumpable ballast water and residual sediments. As
established by the VIDA, EPA proposes to require that vessels with
empty ballast tanks and bound for a port or place of destination
subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. must conduct a saltwater flush
no less than 200 NM from any shore, for a voyage originating outside
the United States or Canadian EEZ, or no less than 50 NM from any
shore, for a voyage originating within the United States or Canadian
EEZ, prior to arriving at that port or place of destination.
The saltwater flushing requirement is important as it is a widely-
used, low-cost preventative approach that minimizes the risk that ANS
will be introduced from unpumpable ballast water and residual sediment.
The technologies and practices of saltwater flushing are therefore
available, practicable, and economically achievable. Saltwater flushing
is most effective at eliminating organisms adapted to freshwater and
low salinity environments due to the combined impacts of saltwater
shock and physical dilution. However, saltwater flushing should also
reduce viable living organisms adapted to estuarine, coastal and marine
environments. Saltwater flushing reduces viable living organisms in
residual ballast water through dilution. It also reduces organisms in
resting stages in the residual sediment. Resting stages of ANS often
inhabit the sediment in ballast tanks; thus, a reduction in the number
of these organisms will likely reduce the propagule of these potential
invaders.
The VIDA also specifies certain exceptions to these saltwater flush
requirements. Exceptions are identified if the unpumpable residual
waters and sediments were treated by a USCG type-approved BWMS; sourced
within the same port or place of destination or contiguous portions of
a single COTP Zone; or if the vessel is operating exclusively within
the internal waters of the United States or Canada. The VIDA also
describes additional exceptions including: If compliance would
compromise the safety of the vessel as determined by the USCG; is
otherwise prohibited by any federal, Canadian, or international law
(including regulations) pertaining to vessel safety; or if design
limitations of the vessel prevent a saltwater flush from being
conducted.
The saltwater flushing exception in the VIDA based on the safety of
the vessel is not included in this proposed rule; rather, EPA expects
that such safety concerns will be fully articulated in the USCG
implementing regulations as applicable to all types of discharges.
Section 139.1(b)(3)of the proposed rule makes very clear that the
numeric ballast water discharge standard is not applicable if
compliance with such standard would compromise the safety of the vessel
or is in the interest of ensuring the safety of life at sea, as
determined by the Secretary.
The proposed rule would add a limitation to the design exclusion as
[[Page 67856]]
established by the VIDA to apply only to existing vessels, defined as a
vessel constructed prior to the date identified in the forthcoming USCG
implementation regulations as described in section 139.1(e) of the
proposed rule. EPA interprets this provision in the VIDA to apply only
to existing vessels since the VIDA added permanent exchange
requirements, presumably because of the added benefit in performing
such an exchange. This limitation is important to create a disincentive
to designing and constructing new vessels that are not capable of
conducting an exchange or flush. It is critical that new vessels have
the capability to conduct exchange and flushing, even if they install a
ballast water management system, particularly as a contingency measure
if the treatment system fails to operate as expected.
With the exception of Pacific nearshore voyages (as described in
the section below), the VGP only specified requirements for saltwater
flushing of empty tanks for vessels that are engaged in an
international voyage and traverse more than one COTP Zone. These
vessels are required to either seal the tank or conduct saltwater
flushing of such tanks in an area 200 NM from any shore. The VGP also
allowed, except for vessels entering the Great Lakes or in federally-
protected waters, a vessel to not deviate from its voyage, or delay the
voyage to conduct ballast water exchange or saltwater flushing.
However, the VIDA did not include such an exemption and as such an
exemption is not included in the proposed rule.
The proposed requirements for saltwater flushing as established by
the VIDA would be new for vessels engaged in coast-wise voyages on the
East Coast and Gulf Coast within the EEZ and traverse more than a
single COTP Zone outside of internal waters. These vessels will now be
required to conduct a saltwater flush of empty ballast tanks no less
than 50 NM from any shore before arriving at a U.S. port, regardless of
whether they must deviate from their voyage to do so.
The oceangoing vessels subject to this requirement are either those
that have an empty ballast tank or a tank that contains unpumpable
residual water, or are vessels that certify, consistent with USCG
regulations, that they have ``No Ballast on Board'' (NOBOB). The USCG
and the VGP defined NOBOB vessels as ``those vessels that have
discharged ballast water to carry cargo, and as a result, have only
unpumpable residual water and sediment remaining in tanks.'' See 70 FR
51832, August 31, 2005.
ix. Vessels Entering the Great Lakes
The proposed rule would require, based on CWA Section
312(p)(10)(A), vessels entering the St. Lawrence Seaway through the
mouth of the St. Lawrence River to conduct a complete ballast water
exchange or saltwater flush (as appropriate) not less than 200 NM from
any shore for a voyage originating outside the EEZ; or not less than 50
NM from any shore for a voyage originating within the EEZ. There are
exceptions to these requirements including: If the vessel has no
residual ballast water or sediments onboard to the satisfaction of the
Secretary; empty tanks are sealed; or ballast water is retained onboard
while operating in the Great Lakes. Consistent with the previous
requirements in the VGP, the proposed rule does not contain an
exception for vessels that use a ballast water management system to
treat the ballast water prior to discharge. Therefore, the proposed
rule would make permanent the requirement for both exchange and
treatment for most vessels entering the Great Lakes.
The VGP required vessels that operate outside the EEZ and more than
200 NM from any shore and then enter the Great Lakes through the St.
Lawrence Seaway to conduct ballast water exchange or flushing in
addition to treatment, if ballast water uptake occurred within the
previous 30 days from a coastal, estuarine, or freshwater ecosystem
with a salinity of less than 18 parts per thousand. EPA proposes that
this requirement of the VGP is not necessary to include in the proposed
rule given that the VIDA statutory requirements are more restrictive
than (and supersede) the VGP.
Consistent with the VIDA, the proposed rule would expand the
requirement for exchange or saltwater flushing plus treatment for
vessels entering the Great Lakes through the St. Lawrence River to a
larger universe of vessels, as compared to the previous VGP and USCG 33
CFR part 151 regulations. First, the proposed rule would extend the
requirement for exchange plus treatment to vessels with voyages
originating within the United States or Canadian EEZ that enter the
Seaway; these would be primarily Canadian vessels. Second, the proposed
rule would extend the requirement for exchange plus treatment to
international vessels with voyages originating from higher salinity
ports outside the EEZ; these were not included in the VGP. In 2014 and
2015, a total of 81 unique vessels arrived at U.S. ports in the Great
Lakes from oversees on 131 voyages. Most of these voyages departed from
European ports (82 percent). However, there is limited data of the
salinity of the origination port. Therefore, it is difficult to
estimate the affected universe from higher salinity ports that would
now be required to do exchange plus treatment. However, many of these
vessels may have been conducting exchange plus treatment prior to the
compliance dates for these vessels to install a ballast water
management system, to ensure compliance with the VGP. Consequently,
there may be minimal impact on these vessels.
Existing USCG regulations at 33 CFR 151.1502 require that vessels,
after operating on the waters beyond the EEZ during any part of their
voyage, that enter through the St. Lawrence Seaway or that navigate
north of the George Washington Bridge on the Hudson River, perform a
ballast water exchange or saltwater flush regardless of other port
calls in the U.S. or Canada during that voyage, except as expressly
provided in 33 CFR 151.2015(a). In the proposed rule, EPA does not
specifically identify this universe of vessels for having to perform a
ballast water exchange or saltwater flush prior to entering the Hudson
River or St. Lawrence Seaway, unless the vessel is meeting the ballast
water numeric discharge standard (e.g., has installed and is operating
a USCG type-approved ballast water management system), as the proposed
rule would require such ballast water exchange or saltwater flush for
all vessels subject to the ballast water discharge standard. Therefore,
while the proposed rule does not call out this universe of vessels
specifically, similar requirements are being proposed for these and a
larger universe of vessels.
Consistent with the VIDA (CWA Section 312(p)(10)(A)(ii)(I)), the
proposed rule would provide additional exceptions to ballast water
exchange or saltwater flush requirements for vessels entering the Great
Lakes, if compliance would compromise the safety of the vessel; or is
otherwise prohibited by any federal, Canadian, or international law
(including regulations) pertaining to vessel safety; or if design
limitations of an existing vessel prevent a ballast water exchange from
being conducted. As described in the previous section, the proposed
rule would add a limitation to the design exclusion to apply only to
existing vessels, defined as a vessel constructed prior to the date
identified in the forthcoming USCG implementation regulations, as
described in section 139.1(e) of the proposed rule. This limitation is
important to prevent the design and
[[Page 67857]]
construction of new vessels that cannot conduct an exchange or flush.
It is critical that new vessels entering the Great Lakes have this
capability, even if they install a ballast water management system,
particularly as a contingency measure if the treatment system fails to
operate as expected.
x. Pacific Region
The CWA Section 312(p)(10)(C) establishes more stringent Pacific
Region requirements for ballast water exchange than currently required
in the VGP. As established by the VIDA, the proposed rule would require
that any vessel that operates either between two ports within the U.S.
Pacific Region; or between ports in the Pacific Region and the Canadian
or Mexican Pacific Coast north of parallel 20 degrees north latitude,
inclusive of the Gulf of California, must conduct a complete ballast
water exchange in waters more than 50 NM from shore. The term ``Pacific
Region'' includes the entire EEZ adjacent to the states of Alaska,
California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington. There are exceptions in the
VIDA to these exchange requirements including if the vessel is using a
type-approved BWMS or for voyages between or to specific ports in the
states of Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, and Hawaii, and the
Port of Los Angeles, the Port of Long Beach, and the El Segundo
offshore marine oil terminal, if the ballast water originated from
specified areas.
The VIDA also specifies, and the proposed rule would require, that
any vessel that transports ballast water sourced from low salinity
waters (less than 18 parts per thousand) and in voyages to a Pacific
Region port or place of destination with low salinity, must conduct a
complete ballast water exchange. The exchange must occur not less than
50 NM from shore, if the ballast water was sourced from a Pacific
Region port; or more than 200 NM from shore, if the ballast water was
not sourced from a Pacific Region port. These exchange requirements
would not apply to any vessel voyaging to the Pacific Region that is
using a type-approved BWMS that achieves standards of performance for
low salinity water that are more stringent than the existing VGP and
USCG ballast water numeric discharge standards. The low salinity water
standards of performance as specified in CWA Section
312(p)(10)(C)(iii)(II) are:
(A) Less than 1 organism per 10 cubic meters, if that organism (1)
is living or has not been rendered nonviable; and (2) is 50 or more
micrometers in minimum dimension;
(B) less than 1 organism per 10 milliliters, if that organism (1)
is living or has not been rendered nonviable; and (2) is more than 10,
but less than 50, micrometers in minimum dimension; and
(C) concentrations of indicator microbes that are less than (1) 1
colony-forming unit of toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (serotypes O1 and
O139) per 100 milliliters or less than 1 colony-forming unit of that
microbe per gram of wet weight of zoological samples; (2) 126 colony-
forming units of Escherichia coli per 100 milliliters; and (3) 33
colony-forming units of intestinal enterococci per 100 milliliters.
There are exceptions to these requirements including if the vessel does
not have residual ballast water or sediments onboard; empty tanks are
sealed; or ballast water is retained onboard.
As established by the VIDA, the proposed rule would exempt vessels
from the Pacific Region requirements if any of the following conditions
exist: (1) Compliance would compromise the safety of the vessel; (2)
design limitations of an existing vessel prevent a ballast water
exchange from being conducted; (3) the vessel has no residual ballast
water or sediments onboard to the satisfaction of the Secretary, or the
vessel retains all ballast water while in waters subject to the
requirement; or (4) empty ballast tanks on the vessel are sealed in a
manner that ensures that no discharge or uptake occurs and that any
subsequent discharge of ballast water is subject to the requirement. As
described in the previous ballast water exchange sections, the proposed
rule would add a limitation to the design exclusion to apply only to
existing vessels, defined as a vessel constructed prior to the date
identified in the forthcoming USCG implementation regulations, as
described in section139.1(e) of the proposed rule and only as
determined by the Secretary. This limitation is important to prevent
the design and construction of new vessels that cannot conduct an
exchange or flush. It is critical that new vessels voyaging to the
Pacific Region have this capability, even if they install a ballast
water management system, particularly if the treatment system fails to
operate as expected.
As compared to the VGP, the VIDA expanded requirements for the
Pacific Region to include exchange or more stringent treatment for low
salinity waters. For some vessels the proposed rule requirement to
conduct ballast water exchange in the Pacific Region is an interim
requirement until a vessel installs a type-approved ballast water
treatment system that meets the ballast water discharge standard.
However, any vessel that transports low salinity ballast water (less
than 18 ppt) and voyages to a low salinity Pacific Region port must
continue to conduct a complete ballast water exchange more than 50 NM
from shore, unless it has installed a type-approved BWMS that achieves
standards of performance, depending on the parameter, up to 100 times
more stringent than the existing discharge standard. Currently, there
is not a USCG type-approval process for BWMS to demonstrate the ability
to achieve this more stringent standard. Therefore, vessels from low
salinity waters would need to continue to conduct exchange until such a
process is developed and BWMS are approved to meet that more stringent
standard.
For the most part, the continental shelf along the Pacific coast is
narrow along both North and South America. Deep water environments
beyond the continental shelf typically support ecosystems that are
quite different than those which exist closer to shore. Due in part to
this short width of the continental shelf, relatively deep waters
beyond 50 NM from the Pacific shore, exchange at this distance from the
Pacific shore will be effective.
In addition, the VIDA described the applicability of the Pacific
Region exchange requirements differently as compared to the VGP. The
proposed rule implements the VIDA requirements as established by
Congress in the statute rather than as written in the VGP. The VGP
required exchange for vessels on nearshore voyages which carry ballast
water taken on in areas less than 50 NM from any shore. It defined
nearshore voyages as those vessels engaged in coastwise trade along the
U.S. Pacific coast operating in and between ports in Alaska,
California, Oregon and Washington that travel between more than one
COTP Zone. The VIDA did not include the stipulation that a vessel
voyage must be more than one COTP Zone. In addition, the VIDA includes
vessels operating in ports in the state of Hawaii, with certain
exceptions, in the exchange requirements which the VGP did not include.
The VGP required exchange for all other vessels that sail from foreign,
non-U.S Pacific, Atlantic (including the Caribbean Sea), or Gulf of
Mexico ports, which do not sail further than 200 NM from any shore, and
that discharge or will discharge ballast water into the territorial sea
or inland waters of Alaska or off the west coast of the continental
U.S. The VIDA did not identify nearshore voyages from outside of the
Pacific Region EEZ (although it did include parts of Canada and
[[Page 67858]]
Mexico) as required to conduct exchange.
xi. Additional Considerations in Federally-Protected Waters
The proposed rule would require avoiding the discharge or uptake of
ballast water in federally-protected waters. This requirement is
similar to the existing VGP requirement with one key exception. The
proposed standard removes the applicability of this requirement in
areas outside the boundaries of a federally-protected water but that
nonetheless may directly affect that federally-protected water. EPA is
not including this expansion of the affected area based on the Agency's
determination that information needed by a vessel operator to make such
a ``may directly affect'' determination is highly dependent on the
specific instant at which a ballast water uptake or discharge event is
to occur and that the necessary information to make that determination
is not readily available and not easily characterized. However, the
Agency does recommend that the discharge or uptake of ballast water be
conducted as far from federally-protected waters as possible.
2. Bilges
Bilgewater consists of water and residue that accumulates in a
lower compartment of the vessel's hull. The source of bilgewater is
typically drainage from interior machinery, engine rooms, and decks.
Bilgewater contains both conventional and toxic pollutants including
oil, grease, volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, inorganic
salts, and metals. Volumes vary with the size of the vessel and
discharges typically occur several times per week. Cruise ships have
been estimated to generate 25,000 gallons per week for a 3,000
passenger/crew vessel (U.S. EPA, 2008). However, bilgewater treatment
technologies can remove pollutants from bilgewater. For example,
ultrafiltration can be effective in removing turbidity and suspended
solids, organic carbon, and several trace metals (such as aluminum,
iron, and zinc) from bilgewater, in addition to oil (Tomaszewska et
al., 2005).
Under MARPOL Annex I, all ships of 400 GT ITC and above are
required to have equipment installed onboard that limits the discharge
of oil to less than 15 ppm when a ship is underway. All vessels of 400
GT ITC and above are also required to have an oil content monitor
(OCM), including a bilge alarm, integrated into the piping system to
detect whether the treated bilgewater that is being discharged from the
bilge separator meets the discharge requirements. Bilge separators,
OCMs, and bilge alarms are certified by the USCG to meet 46 CFR part
162 (MARPOL Annex I implementing regulations). Type approval is based
on testing of manufacturer-supplied oil pollution control equipment by
an independent laboratory, in accordance with test conditions
prescribed by the USCG (33 CFR parts 155 and 157 and 46 CFR part 162).
Additionally, as appropriate, the discharge of bilgewater also must
comply with related requirements in 33 CFR part 151, 40 CFR part 110
and 46 CFR part 162.
The VGP included several requirements for bilgewater that are now
proposed as general requirements in the proposed standards in Subpart
B--General Standards for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation
of a Vessel and applicable to all vessels and all discharges. First,
the VGP required operators to minimize the discharge of bilgewater by
minimizing production, storing bilgewater while operating in the waters
of the United States, and discharging the bilgewater to a reception
facility. These VGP requirements are consistent with, and incorporated
as expected practices of, the proposed general discharge standards in
section 139.4(b)(1) that require vessels to minimize discharges.
Second, the VGP required vessels greater than 400 GT ITC that regularly
sail outside the territorial sea (i.e., at least once per month) to
discharge treated bilgewater while underway and if feasible, at least 1
NM from shore. With the slight modification described in the following
paragraph, the proposed bilgewater discharge standard is consistent
with the VGP requirements. Third, the VGP required certain operators to
meet a discharge limit for oil of 15 ppm or to not discharge oil in
quantities that may be harmful as defined in 40 CFR 110.3. These VGP
requirements are consistent with the proposed general discharge
standards in section 139.6(b)(2) that prohibit the discharge of oil in
such quantities as may be harmful. As such, the specific discharge
standard for bilges does not duplicate these three requirements;
rather, bilgewater discharges must meet these requirements as
applicable to all vessels and all discharges.
The proposed rule would expand upon the applicability of the
requirement to discharge treated bilgewater while underway to all
vessels of 400 GT ITC and above, not just those that regularly sail
outside the territorial sea. However, the proposed rule provides added
flexibility by allowing any vessel, including vessels of 400 GT ITC and
above to discharge treated bilgewater any distance from shore (the VGP
prohibited these vessels from discharging bilgewater within 1 NM of
shore). This modification acknowledges that the VGP requirement for
discharging while underway, which was triggered if vessels operate
outside of waters subject to the VGP at least monthly is difficult to
implement and led to confusion about whether and when a vessel may be
authorized to discharge bilgewater when not underway. For additional
context, data from the most recent VGP annual reports show that very
few vessels in this size class discharge bilgewater, treated or
untreated, into waters of the United States. The VGP annual reports for
the 2019 operating year show that of the more than 28,000 vessels of
400 gross tonnage and above operating in waters covered by the VGP,
more than 99.7 percent of those vessels did not discharge any
bilgewater, treated or untreated, into these waters. However, to
provide additional opportunities to discharge, the proposed VIDA
standards allow all vessels, including vessels of 400 GT ITC and above,
to discharge treated bilgewater while underway anywhere, except in
federally-protected waters. EPA expects this slight modification to the
VGP requirements would clarify the applicability of the requirements
but would not impose any significant additional cost burden; rather, it
would only require certain vessel operators to adjust the timing and
location of bilgewater disposal. Consistent with section 139.1(b)(3) of
the proposed standards, an operator of a vessel of 400 GT ITC and above
may discharge bilgewater, treated or untreated, while stationary (and
not underway) if compliance with this part would compromise the safety
of life at sea.
The proposed rule would also continue the requirement from the VGP
and require that the discharge of bilgewater must not contain any
flocculants or other additives except when used with an oily water
separator or to maintain or clean equipment. And consistent with the
VGP, the use of any additives to remove the appearance of a visible
sheen would be prohibited.
Finally, as discussed in VIII C. Discharges Incidental to the
Normal Operation of a Vessel--Specialized Areas, and as required by the
VGP, EPA proposes additional controls for discharges from bilges into
federally-protected waters.
EPA researched the state of bilgewater treatment systems to
consider whether a targeted reduction in the bilgewater numeric
discharge standard from 15 ppm to 5 ppm oil and grease might have
[[Page 67859]]
been appropriate (U.S. EPA, 2011c). Previous comments submitted through
the VGP comment period in 2013 indicated that technology meeting such a
limit appeared to be available for most vessels and economically
achievable for at least new vessels. However, those previous comments
generally made three major assertions:
1. Before imposing requirements in the U.S., EPA should work with
the international community at IMO to explore whether to have more
stringent limits for new build vessels;
2. EPA should seek additional information as to whether systems do,
in fact, continue to perform as indicated in their type approval data
when on-board ships; and
3. Type approved systems capable of meeting a 5 ppm limit are
available.
After considering the VGP comments and other relevant information,
EPA decided not to propose a 5 ppm numeric discharge standard for
several reasons. First, concerns were raised during the VGP comment
period regarding whether these systems are, in practice, ``available,''
and function onboard ships as their type approval data indicate they
should. Additionally, a 2015 study, identified as the ``MAX1 Studies''
and commissioned by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, with
oversight from the USCG, reached the conclusion that existing
regulations for oily water separators ``. . . are, for the most part,
sufficient for their purposes'' and that the focus needs to be on
implementation and application of existing regulations. Lastly,
assuming that systems are indeed capable of meeting a 5 ppm numeric
discharge standard, the standard OCMs in wide use may be unreliable at
this low of a detection level and may therefore result in frequent
false alarms.
At this time, EPA invites comment on the proposed standard and
whether the following should be required by the final rule: (1) Type-
approved systems capable of meeting a 5 ppm numeric discharge standard,
and (2) OCMs that can consistently and accurately determine oil content
at these low detection levels when considering margin for error. The
research performed by EPA suggests that OCMs relying on alternative
mechanisms other than turbidity/light scattering, such as UV
fluorescence, may be more accurate since the monitor can differentiate
between oil and other contaminants. EPA invites comment on the cost and
availability of such OCMs.
3. Boilers
Boiler blowdown is the discharge of water and constituents from the
boiler during regular intervals to avoid concentration of impurities
and at intermittent intervals for cleaning or other purposes. Boiler
blowdown occurs on vessels with steam propulsion or a steam generator
to control anti-corrosion and anti-scaling treatment concentrations and
to remove sludge from boiler systems. Routine blowdown involves
releasing a volume of about one to ten percent of the water in the
boiler system, usually below the waterline to manage the accumulation
of solids and buildup of dissolved solids in the boiler water.
Frequency of required blowdown varies, typically between once every two
weeks to once every couple of months although on some vessels, blowdown
may be as frequent as daily or even continuously. The constituents of
boiler blowdown discharge vary according to the types of feed water
treatment used, but may include toxic pollutants such as antimony,
arsenic, cadmium, copper, chromium, lead, nickel, selenium, thallium,
zinc, and bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.
EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management
options for discharges from boilers; however, EPA did not identify new
information or options. As such, EPA relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis
that led to the development of the VGP requirements, following the
procedures described in section 4.2 of the Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet.
Similar to the VGP, the proposed standard would require that the
discharge of boiler blowdown be minimized when in port. This
requirement acknowledges that blowdown typically must be performed as
necessary and that while the amount of blowdown can often be minimized,
the timing of such blowdown, in many instances, cannot be safely
changed, such as to only those times when a vessel is not in port.
The proposed boiler standard does not carry forward language from
the VGP regarding the prohibition on boiler blowdown discharges for
vessels greater than 400 gross tonnage which leave the territorial sea
at least once per week except in three specific instances: (1) The
vessel remained within waters subject to this permit for a longer
period than the necessary duration between blowdown cycles; (2) the
vessel needed to conduct blowdown immediately before entering drydock;
or (3) for safety purposes. EPA opted not to include similar language
in the proposed rule because the VGP approach, which was triggered if
vessels operate outside of waters subject to the VGP at least once a
week, led to confusion about when a vessel may be authorized to
discharge boiler blowdown. Rather, the proposed boiler blowdown
standard was developed acknowledging that, consistent with the General
Operation and Maintenance requirements described in Subpart B, vessel
operators would be expected to minimize discharges of blowdown to only
those times when necessary and to discharge while the vessel is
underway when practical and as far away from shore as practical.
As drafted, and consistent with the VGP, the proposed standard
would allow the discharge of boiler blowdown (1) if the vessel remains
within waters of the United States and waters of the contiguous zone
for a longer period than the necessary duration between blowdown
cycles, (2) if the vessel needs to conduct blowdown immediately before
entering drydock, or (3) for safety purposes.
This proposed standard is similar to the VGP requirements for
blowdown that was applied to vessels greater than 400 GT ITC but
expands the requirement to all vessels. EPA proposes the standard with
the expectation that all vessels and not just vessels of 400 GT ITC and
above can minimize discharges of blowdown and when having to discharge
boiler blowdown, can discharge while underway if practical and as far
from shore as practical. Based on the VGP experience whereby vessels
greater than 400 GT ITC have been meeting this requirement by adjusting
the timing and location of blowdown events, EPA expects that (smaller
vessels) can similarly change the timing and location of their blowdown
events as necessary to minimize the discharge. EPA expects this slight
modification to the VGP requirements would reduce the discharge of
various pollutants but would not impose any significant additional cost
burden; rather, it would only require certain vessel operators to
adjust the timing and location of blowdown events.
Finally, as discussed in VIII C. Discharges Incidental to the
Normal Operation of a Vessel--Specialized Areas, and as required by the
VGP, EPA proposes to prohibit the discharge of boiler blowdown into
federally-protected waters.
4. Cathodic Protection
Cathodic protection systems are used on vessels to prevent steel
hull or metal structure corrosion. The two types of cathodic protection
are galvanic (i.e., sacrificial anodes) and impressed current cathodic
protection (ICCP). Using the first method, anodes of, typically,
magnesium, zinc, or aluminum are ``sacrificed'' to the
[[Page 67860]]
corrosive forces of the seawater, which creates a flow of electrons to
the cathode, thereby preventing the cathode (e.g., the hull) from
corroding. Using ICCP, a direct current is passed through the hull such
that the electrochemical potential of the hull is sufficiently high
enough to prevent corrosion. The discharge from either method of
cathodic protection is continuous when the vessel is waterborne.
However, galvanic protection discharges include both toxic and
nonconventional pollutants such as ionized zinc, magnesium, and
aluminum.
EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management
options for discharges resulting from cathodic protection; however, EPA
did not identify new technology since the development of the VGP. As
such, EPA relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that led to the
development of the VGP requirements and is proposing to require
substantively the same standard of performance required by the VGP
acknowledging that many of the VGP requirements for cathodic protection
are now incorporated into section 139.4 of the proposed rulemaking for
general operation and maintenance as applicable to all specific
discharges. For example, Part 2.2.7 (Cathodic Protection) of the VGP
required that sacrificial anodes must not be used more than necessary
to adequately prevent corrosion of the vessel's hull, sea chest,
rudder, and other exposed vessel areas. EPA is not including this
specific requirement for cathodic protection in section 139.13 of this
proposed rulemaking since section 139.4(b)(5)(i) proposes a similar
requirement that any materials used onboard, including any sacrificial
anodes, that are subsequently discharged be used only in the amount
necessary to perform their intended function.
EPA is proposing to continue the requirement from the VGP that any
spaces between flush-fit anodes and the backing must be filled. This
proposed standard is in consideration of the fact that niche areas on
the hull are more susceptible to fouling as well as more difficult to
clean and as such can become hotspots for fouling organisms.
EPA is not carrying forward the requirement from the VGP regarding
the selection of sacrificial anode systems based on toxicity of the
anode. The proposed approach is consistent with the technological
evaluation performed for the VGP, which acknowledged that type of anode
metal selected based on toxicity (magnesium, then aluminum, then zinc)
may not be technologically feasible and/or economically practicable and
achievable in many instances. EPA has recently learned of more
situations where anode selection based on toxicity presents practical
challenges. For example, in harbors or estuaries with high pollutant
loads, zinc is the preferred anode material for vessels that spend time
in those waters because of concerns with pollutants causing aluminum
anodes to passivate and lose effectiveness. While EPA is not continuing
this concept from the VGP, the Agency does continue to support
operators considering toxicity as part of the anode selection process.
These proposed requirements represent a practicable and achievable
approach to reducing discharges from this necessary hull protection
operation.
EPA did consider requiring use of ICCP because these systems
eliminate or reduce the need for sacrificial anodes. However, there is
a risk of overprotecting using these systems (e.g., embrittlement in
high-strength vessels) or debonding of protective coatings, and
operation of these systems generally should only be installed on
vessels that are manned full-time by a highly skilled crew able to
carefully monitor and maintain these systems. As such, the Agency
recommends, but is not proposing to require, operators consider the use
of ICCP in place of or to reduce the use of sacrificial electrodes when
technologically feasible (e.g., adequate power sources, appropriate for
vessel hull size and design), safe, and adequate to protect against
corrosion, particularly for new vessels.
5. Chain Lockers
Chain lockers are the storage area onboard for housing the vessel's
anchor and chain. Water, sediment, biofouling organisms, and
contaminants can enter and accumulate in the chain locker during anchor
retrieval and precipitation events; the accumulation of water and other
materials in the chain locker is often referred to as the chain locker
effluent. This effluent can contain both conventional and
nonconventional pollutants including ANS and residue from the inside of
the locker itself, such as rust, paint chips, grease, and zinc. The
sump collects these liquids and materials that enter the chain locker
prior to discharge or disposal.
EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management
options for discharges from chain lockers; however, EPA did not
identify new information or options since the development of the VGP.
As such, EPA relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that led to the
development of the VGP requirements and is proposing to require
substantively the same standard of performance required by the VGP.
As required by the VGP, EPA proposes that vessel operators must
perform BMPs that would reduce or eliminate chain locker effluent
discharge. Specifically, EPA proposes that vessel operators must
thoroughly rinse the anchor chain of biofouling organisms and sediments
each time it is brought out of the water. Additionally, EPA proposes
that the discharge of accumulated water and sediment from the chain
locker is prohibited when the vessel is in port. Finally, although not
required in the VGP, EPA is proposing that for all vessels that operate
beyond the waters of the contiguous zone, anchors and anchor chains
must be rinsed of biofouling organisms and sediment, prior to entering
the waters of the contiguous zone. This requirement is intended to
minimize the discharge of biofouling organisms when vessels that
operate beyond waters of the contiguous zone re-enter these waters and
subsequently drop anchor in waters of the United States or waters of
the contiguous zone.
Finally, as discussed in VIII C. Discharges Incidental to the
Normal Operation of a Vessel--Specialized Areas, EPA proposes to
prohibit any discharge of accumulated water and sediment from any chain
locker into federally-protected waters.
6. Decks
Deck discharges may result from deck runoff, deck wash down, or
deck flooding. Deck runoff consists of rain and other precipitation and
seawater which washes over the decks or well decks. Deck washdowns
consist of cleaners and freshwater or saltwater. Deck flooding
generally consists of seawater from the flooding of a docking well
(well deck) on a vessel used to transport, load, and unload amphibious
vessels, or freshwater from washing the well deck and equipment and
vessels stored in the well deck. Deck washdown, runoff, and flooding
discharges include those from all deck and bulkhead areas, and
associated equipment. The constituents and volumes vary widely, are
highly dependent on a vessel's purpose, service, practices, and may
include both conventional and nonconventional pollutants such as oil,
grease, fuel, cleaner or detergent residue, paint chips, paint
droplets, and general debris.
EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management
options for discharges from decks; however, EPA did not identify any
technology since the development of the
[[Page 67861]]
VGP. As such, EPA relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that led to the
development of the VGP requirements and is proposing to require
substantively the same requirements of the VGP.
EPA proposes that it is infeasible to set a specific numeric
discharge standard for discharges from decks and well decks because of
the variation in vessel size and associated deck surface area, the
types of equipment operated on the deck, and limitations on space for
treatment equipment. As such, EPA proposes that BMPs must be
implemented to minimize the volume of discharges and the various
pollutants from decks.
As required in the VGP, the proposed rule would require vessel
operators to properly maintain the deck and bulkhead areas to keep the
deck clean; prevent excess corrosion, leaks, and metal discharges;
contain potential contaminants to keep them from entering the waste
stream; and use environmentally safe products. Properly maintaining the
deck would include the use of coamings or drip pans for machinery on
the deck that is expected to leak or otherwise release oil, so that any
accumulated oils from these areas can be collected and managed
appropriately.
As required in the VGP, EPA also proposes that prior to performing
a deck washdown and when underway, exposed decks must be kept broom
clean, to remove existing debris and prevent the introduction of
garbage or other debris into any waste stream. Broom clean means a
condition in which the deck shows that care has been taken to prevent
or eliminate any visible concentration of debris or garbage. Similarly,
discharge of floating solids, visible foam, halogenated phenolic
compounds, dispersants, surfactants, and spills must be minimized in
any deck washdown water discharged overboard. Additionally, during deck
washdown, the proposed rule would require that the washdown be
conducted with minimally-toxic, phosphate-free, and biodegradable
soaps, cleaners, and detergents. The proposed standard would also
require that deck washdowns be minimized in port. Lastly, the proposed
rule would require that where applicable by an international treaty or
convention or the Secretary, a vessel must be fitted with and use
physical barriers (e.g., spill rails, scuppers, and scupper plugs)
during any washdown to collect runoff for treatment.
Finally, as discussed in VIII C. Discharges Incidental to the
Normal Operation of a Vessel--Specialized Areas, and as is required of
medium and large cruise ships by the VGP, EPA proposes to prohibit the
discharge of deck wash from all vessels into federally-protected
waters.
7. Desalination and Purification Systems
Distilling and reverse osmosis plants also known as water
purification plants or desalination systems, generate freshwater from
seawater for a variety of shipboard applications. These include potable
water for drinking, onboard services (e.g., laundry and food
preparation), and high-purity feedwater for boilers. The wastewater
from these systems is essentially concentrated seawater with the same
constituents of seawater, including dissolved and suspended solids and
metals; however, anti-scaling, anti-foaming, and acidic treatments and
cleaning compounds are also injected into the distillation system, and
can be present in the discharge. As such, the wastewater can contain
toxic, conventional, and nonconventional pollutants.
EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management
options for discharges from desalination and purification systems;
however, EPA did not identify any new technology since the development
of the VGP. As such, EPA relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that led to
the development of the VGP requirements and is proposing to require
substantively the same standard of performance required by the VGP.
EPA is proposing to modify the language used in the VGP associated
with toxic and hazardous materials to add more clarity by proposing to
prohibit discharges resulting from the cleaning of desalination or
purification systems with hazardous or toxic materials.
8. Elevator Pits
Most vessels with multiple decks are equipped with elevators to
facilitate the transportation of maintenance equipment, people, and
cargo between decks. A pit at the bottom of the elevator collects
liquids and debris from elevator operations. The liquid and debris that
accumulates in the pits, often referred to as elevator pit effluent,
can be emptied by gravity draining, discharged using the firemain,
transferred to bilge, or containerized for onshore disposal. The
effluent may contain toxic, conventional, and nonconventional
pollutants such as oil, hydraulic fluid, lubricants, cleaning solvents,
soot, and paint chips.
EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management
options for discharges from elevator pits; however, EPA did not
identify any new technology since the development of the VGP. As such,
EPA relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that led to the development of
the VGP requirements and is proposing to require substantively the same
standard of performance required by the VGP.
As required by the VGP, EPA proposes to prohibit the discharge of
untreated accumulated water and sediment from any elevator pit.
9. Exhaust Gas Emission Control Systems
Exhaust gas emission control systems for reducing sulfur oxides
(SOX) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) in marine exhaust
can produce washwater and residues that must be treated or held for
shore-side disposal. Two such systems are exhaust gas cleaning systems
(EGCS) and exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) systems.
An EGCS is used primarily to remove SOX from marine
exhaust. Commonly referred to as ``scrubbers,'' these systems capture
contaminants that can end up in washwater and residue that result from
the scrubbing process. EGCS washwater is typically treated and
discharged overboard. Residues are usually disposed of on-shore once
the vessel is in port. Untreated EGCS washwater is more acidic than the
surrounding seawater, and it contains toxic, conventional, and
nonconventional pollutants including sulfur compounds, polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and traces of oil, NOX, heavy
metals, and captured particulate matter. Use of an EGCS to scrub
emissions of SOX also reduces the pH significantly primarily
through the formation of sulfuric acid. In addition, the high volume of
seawater that some vessels pump for the scrubbing process can result in
higher turbidity in nearby waters, particularly in shallow areas.
The use of scrubbers on ships is in large part an outgrowth of
international treaties for reducing sulfur emissions from marine
exhaust. Under MARPOL standards and subsequent updates, as of January
2020, the highest permissible sulfur content of marine fuel globally is
0.5 percent. The allowable fuel sulfur content for vessels operating in
Emission Control Areas has been further restricted to 0.1 percent as of
January 2015. The United States is a signatory to the international
treaties and is included in the North American Emission Control Area,
meaning that the 0.1 percent limit for marine fuel sulfur content is
currently in effect for vessels operating in the waters of the United
[[Page 67862]]
States or the waters of the contiguous zone.
MARPOL approved the use of an EGCS to achieve the international
standards for marine emissions as an alternative to operating on low
sulfur fuel. This approval spurred many vessel owners to install
scrubbers in lieu of switching to costlier low sulfur fuels. Recent
information from the international registrar and classification society
Det Norske Veritas and Germanischer Lloyd (DNV GL, 2019) indicates that
out of the total vessel universe, there are currently 3,000 ships with
installed or firmly planned scrubber systems, with predictions ranging
up to as many as 4,000 installations.
The two main ``wet'' scrubber EGCS technologies used on vessels for
meeting the MARPOL marine emissions requirements are open-loop and
closed-loop systems. Although use of scrubbers on ships is relatively
recent, these systems are based on technologies deployed for land-based
systems for controlling smokestack emissions and generally transfer
well to ship-board use. Open-loop systems remove the contaminants from
marine exhaust by running the exhaust through seawater sourced from
outside the vessel and then discharging the resulting washwater back
out to sea. In contrast, closed-loop systems use freshwater and inject
caustic soda to neutralize the exhaust. A small portion of the
washwater is bled off and treated to remove suspended solids, which are
held for shore-side disposal. While this design is not completely
closed-loop, it can operate in zero discharge mode for a period of
time. Hybrid scrubbers are systems that can operate either in open- or
closed-loop mode. Typically, at sea, these hybrid systems operate in
open-loop mode, whereas in nearshore waters, harbors, and estuaries,
they operate in closed-loop mode. Dry scrubbers are another type of
EGCS; however, these systems do not generate wastewater, and hence
would not be subject to these proposed requirements.
EGR systems are used to reduce NOX emissions in marine
exhaust. Vessels often use EGR systems to achieve the mandatory
NOX emissions limits set out in MARPOL Annex VI. These
systems minimize NOX production by cooling part of the
engine exhaust gas and then redirecting it back to the engine air
intake. The addition of the recirculated engine exhaust reduces the
amount of oxygen available for fuel combustion, reducing peak
combustion temperatures, resulting in significantly reduced
NOX formation. The cooling of the recirculated exhaust gas
causes condensation of water vapor formed during combustion, generating
a continuous wastewater stream (bleed-off water) from the condensate.
This condensate can contain toxic, conventional, and nonconventional
pollutants such as particulates (soot, metals, and hydrocarbons) and
sulfur. In some cases, the EGR systems also capture oils, for example
from cylinder lubrication, that are emitted from the combustion process
which are collected as part of the scavenged air. Excess bleed-off
water that accumulates in an EGR system is typically discharged
overboard following treatment, and any residues are held for shore-side
disposal. On vessels that use high-sulfur fuel and an EGCS, the EGR
system bleed-off water is often combined with the EGCS washwater and
processed as a combined waste stream.
EPA is proposing a standard for EGCS and EGR discharges based on
IMO's guidelines for discharges from these two types of emission
control systems. Specifically, the standard is largely based on the IMO
2015 Guidelines for Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (Resolution
MEPC.259(68) and the IMO 2018 Guidelines for the Discharge of Exhaust
Gas Recirculation (EGR) Bleed-Off Water (MEPC 307(73))). The IMO EGCS
guidelines mostly focus on the air emissions of scrubbers; however,
Section 10 of these guidelines sets out limits for five constituents in
scrubber washwater: pH, PAH, turbidity, nitrates, and additives.
Section 10 also includes handling and disposal criteria for scrubber
residues. While the IMO criteria are guidelines rather than
requirements, EPA is proposing to incorporate the discharge
requirements of the IMO EGCS guidelines as EPA standards. With respect
to discharges from EGR systems, the IMO EGR guidelines were based
primarily on the IMO's own 2015 guidelines for EGCS discharges, with a
few key differences in recognition of the composition of the EGR bleed-
off washwater and the on-board process for handling this waste stream.
The proposed standard reflects this parallel structure and retains the
minor distinctions in the IMO EGR guidelines to accommodate differences
between the two systems.
The proposed standard carries forward most of the VGP EGCS
requirements, which were based largely on the 2009 version of the IMO
EGCS guidelines. The key difference is that in an effort to harmonize
EPA standards with the IMO guidelines to the extent possible, EPA
proposes to amend the pH limit for discharges of EGCS washwater to 6.5
and is adding the additional IMO option for determining the limit based
on either in-water measurement or a calculation-based methodology. In
contrast, the VGP requirement is for EGCS washwater discharges to have
a pH of no less than 6.0 as measured at the overboard discharge point.
The VGP did not include specific requirements for discharges from EGR
systems, in part because international awareness of the environmental
effects of these discharges was not at the forefront of concerns
relating to implementation of the NOX emissions standards at
the time.
As part of the effort to harmonize the EPA exhaust gas emission
control systems discharge standards under the VIDA with the IMO
guidelines, EPA has also reworded the phrasing of the proposed standard
to harmonize more closely with the language in the IMO guidelines. In
this context, EPA notes that in the exception proposed in section
139.18(b)(1)(i)(A) pertaining to the pH limit, the use of the word
``transit'' refers specifically to when a vessel is underway as part of
entering or exiting port. Similarly, EPA notes that in section
139.18(b)(1)(i)(B), the pH discharge limit as determined either by
measurement or computation applies to the vessel both when stationary
as well as when underway. EPA elected not to include these
clarifications so as to not diverge from the language in the IMO
guidelines, but was able to confirm through consultation with IMO
experts and technical staff that they reflect the original intent of
the IMO guidelines.
As EPA acknowledged in the factsheet accompanying the 2013 VGP, the
reason the VGP established a different pH limit for EGCS discharges
from the IMO was that the NPDES permitting framework requires discharge
limits to be set at the point of discharge. At the time, EPA determined
that the 6.0 limit applied at the point of discharge maximized
consistency with the IMO guideline for a pH of 6.5 four meters from the
hull by accounting for the buffering ``likely to occur within the 4-
meter range.'' Under the VIDA, in contrast, EPA no longer needs to
account for the buffering because EPA is now proposing a standard of
performance rather than a limit for a permit. The discharge standard
continues to include the additional provision, consistent with the IMO
guideline, that the maximum difference allowed between inlet and outlet
during maneuvering and transit is 2.0 pH units.
EPA previously presented its BAT analysis for the EGCS limits for
the other four parameters--PAH, nitrates, turbidity, and additives--as
part of the NPDES permit issuance process. That analysis is not
revisited here since the
[[Page 67863]]
only part of the proposed standard that differs from the 2013 VGP is
the pH limit for EGCS washwater and that does not represent a change in
a BAT factor such that revisiting the BAT analysis is necessary. EPA
refers readers to the original BAT analysis accompanying the 2013 VGP
for additional information.
EPA's BAT analysis determined that use of EGCS technologies to meet
the proposed EGCS standard is economically achievable for several
reasons. As was true when EPA first issued the VGP EGCS requirements in
2013, EGCS manufacturers already design their systems to meet the IMO
guidelines, so any numeric discharge standard imposed by turning these
guidelines into regulatory requirements will not result in any
additional financial burden to operators. Second, given the current
price differential between high and low sulfur fuels, use of an EGCS
allows vessel operators to realize significant cost savings when using
lower grade fuel with scrubbers compared to using more expensive,
higher grade fuels with lower sulfur content. EPA also notes that the
proposed pH numeric discharge standard will result in less confusion
for the shipping community by harmonizing EGCS requirements with
international guidelines as set out by IMO.
The Agency considered several other options for regulating EGCS
discharges. However, existing technology alternatives to the proposed
EGCS discharge standard are either impractical or expensive. For
example, increased use of neutralization chemicals would introduce
significant occupational and passenger safety issues because of
chemical storage and handling issues. Modifying existing open-loop
systems to hybrid systems (i.e., that can also run in a closed-loop
mode) would be another option; however, this retrofitting could cost an
additional $3-5 million per vessel beyond the capital expenditures that
vessel owners have already incurred for installing scrubbers in
anticipation of the 2020 marine exhaust emissions limits. Yet another
alternative would be to require vessels to switch from scrubbers to low
sulfur fuel while in U.S. waters. Some vessels with scrubbers already
switch to low sulfur fuels when in harbors or waters with sensitive
ecosystems either in response to requests from port authorities or
because of company policies to minimize seawater agitation. However,
using low sulfur fuels for extended periods of time can be expensive.
For example, EPA received estimates from cruise ship operators that
suggests incremental costs per vessel for switching to low sulfur fuel
can be as much as an additional $67,000 per week.
Another option considered was to ban discharges from scrubbers
outright (i.e., establish a zero-discharge standard for scrubbers). In
fact, several port authorities and flag states, including Norway
(``heritage fjords''), Fujairah (United Arab Emirates), Marseille, and
Singapore have already banned use of open-loop scrubbers or discharges
from open-loop scrubbers (U.S. EPA, 2020a). These restrictions are
typically precautionary rather than based on data or modeling in the
specific ports or regions in question (U.S. EPA, 2020a), leading the
Agency to conclude that insufficient data exist at this time to warrant
prohibiting these discharges under the Clean Water Act. Technical
committees at the IMO are currently revisiting the need to perform
additional assessments of environmental impacts from EGCS discharges,
and EPA will continue to monitor the availability of research findings
compiled in connection with these discussions.
EPA's proposed exhaust gas emission control standard also includes
requirements for discharges of EGR bleed-off water and residues in
recognition of the fact that they can exhibit low pH and contain other
toxic, conventional, and nonconventional pollutants covered under the
CWA. The requirements mirror those in the 2018 IMO EGR guidelines in
that they largely include the same limits as listed in the 2015 IMO
guidelines for EGCS discharges. EPA determined that shipboard
technology for meeting these limits is readily available since the
international marine community needed to address the requirements upon
publication of the 2018 IMO EGR guidelines. As such, EPA has determined
that the existing technology for meeting the limits is economically
achievable, and EPA notes that the IMO has not received any indication
from the maritime community that achieving the limits resulted in any
undue economic burden or that alternative technologies for handling the
EGR waste stream exist that merit investigation. The proposed standard
includes the same prohibition as found in the IMO EGR guidelines for
discharges of EGR bleed-off captured in holding tanks. The
applicability of EPA proposed standard for EGR bleed-off however, would
exclude when the vessel is underway and operating on fuel that meets
the MARPOL Annex VI sulfur emissions requirements in effect starting in
2020. The applicability is slightly different from that in the IMO EGR
guidelines which prohibit such discharges in harbors, estuaries, and
polar waters whether underway or not. EPA is proposing to apply this
standard consistent with how the Agency assessed and applied other
requirements in the proposed rule; namely, the proposed standard
considers whether a vessel is in port, underway, or outside of the
waters of the United States and the waters of the contiguous zone.
Lastly, the proposed standard for EGR does not include the IMO
guideline exception for oil content in EGR bleed-off water since the
same oil content numeric discharge standard is already required
separately in section 139.6 of the proposed rule for all incidental
discharges.
10. Fire Protection Equipment
Fire protection equipment includes all components used for fire
protection including firemain systems, sprinkler systems,
extinguishers, and firefighting agents such as foam. Firemain systems
draw in water through the sea chest to supply water for fire hose
stations, sprinkler systems, or firefighting foam distribution
stations. Firemain systems can be pressurized or non-pressurized and
are necessary to ensure the safety of the vessel and crew. The systems
are also tested regularly to ensure that the system will be operational
in an emergency. Additionally, firemain systems have numerous secondary
purposes onboard vessels, such as for deck and equipment washdowns,
machinery cooling water, and ballasting. However, whenever the firemain
system is used for a secondary purpose, any resulting incidental
discharge would be required to meet the proposed national standard of
performance for secondary use (e.g., deck runoff). Firemain water can
contain a variety of constituents, including copper, zinc, nickel,
aluminum, tin, silver, iron, titanium, and chromium. Many of these
constituents can be traced to the corrosion and erosion of the firemain
piping system, valves, or pumps.
Firefighting foams (fluorinated and non-fluorinated) can be added
to a firemain system and mixed with seawater to address emergencies
onboard a vessel. The constituents of firefighting foam can vary by
manufacturer but can include persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic, and
non-biodegradable ingredients. Discharges of firefighting foam can also
contain phthalate, copper, nickel, and iron, which can be constituents
in the composition of firemain piping. Fluorinated firefighting foam
contains per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) or their
precursors; examples include aqueous film forming foam,
[[Page 67864]]
alcohol resistant aqueous film forming foam, film-forming fluoroprotein
foam, fluoroprotein foam, alcohol-resistant fluoroprotein foam, and
other fluorinated compounds. Non-fluorinated firefighting foam does not
contain per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances or their precursors;
examples include protein foam, alcohol-resistant protein foam,
synthetic fluorine free foam, and synthetic alcohol-resistant fluorine
free foam. PFAS such as perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), among others, are persistent,
bioaccumulative, and potentially toxic and carcinogenic chemical
compounds. Information regarding the presence of fluorinated
surfactants and toxic or hazardous substances in firefighting foam are
typically found on the safety data sheets for individual products.
Additionally, other types of foams exist that can be used in fire
equipment systems that are not intended for fire suppression but are
designed for testing and training. These foams are often called testing
or training foams, tend to be less expensive, and can mimic the
properties of firefighting foams.
Consistent with the VGP, EPA is proposing requirements that apply
to discharges from fire protection equipment during testing, training,
maintenance, inspection, or certification. The proposed standard would
not apply to the use of fire protection equipment in emergency
situations or when compliance with such would compromise the safety of
the vessel or life at sea (See section 139.1(b)(3)).
EPA proposes to prohibit any discharge from fire protection
equipment during testing, training, maintenance, inspection, or
certification in port with the exclusion of any USCG-required
inspection or certification. EPA also proposes to prohibit the
discharge of fluorinated firefighting foam during testing, training,
maintenance, inspection, or certification with the exclusion of any
USCG-required inspection or certification. Other options exist for
testing, training, or maintenance such as testing without foam,
collecting the foam such that it is not discharged, or, when foam is
required, using a non-fluorinated foam (FFFC, 2020; NFPA, 2016). And
according to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) there are
many firefighting foams and training foams that are non-fluorinated
that can be used for testing, training, and maintenance (FFFC, 2020;
NFPA, 2016). However, the USCG has indicated that for certain USCG-
required inspections and certifications discharges must occur in port
and need to use fluorinated foams.
EPA also considered proposing more stringent requirements than the
VGP in relation to the discharge of firefighting foam. Specifically,
EPA explored proposing requirements that would include product
substitution to use firefighting foams that do not contain
bioaccumulative or toxic or hazardous materials. EPA has used product
substitution for other technology-based rules such as those that apply
to oil and gas. See 40 CFR part 435. As such, EPA considered, for the
purposes of testing, training, maintenance, inspection or
certification, also prohibiting the discharge of non-fluorinated
firefighting foams that contain bioaccumulative or toxic or hazardous
materials (as identified in 40 CFR 401.15 or defined in 49 CFR 171.8).
Based on the Best Practice Guidance for Use of Class B Firefighting
Foams from the Fire Fighting Foam Coalition (FFFC, 2020), NFPA codes
and standards--NFPA 11--Standards for Low-, Medium-, and High-Expansion
Foam (NFPA, 2016), and discussions with the USCG, testing and training
methods exist that limit or eliminate the need to discharge foam (FFFC,
2020; NFPA, 2016). Specifically, in many situations it may be possible
to perform these activities by only using water (water equivalency
method), collecting the foam, or using non-fluorinated training foam
that does not contain bioaccumulative or toxic or hazardous materials.
EPA reviewed numerous foam Safety Data Sheets for bioaccumulative or
toxic or hazardous materials and identified several potential foam
options that vessels owners and operators may be able to use if the
Agency moved forward with this approach in the final rule (EPA, 2020).
However, EPA was unable to compile adequate information on the
availability and economic achievability considerations of using non-
fluorinated foams that do not contain bioaccumulative or toxic or
hazardous materials to justify proposing a requirement that would limit
the types of non-fluorinated foams that could be used for testing,
training, maintenance, inspection or certification. As such, EPA is
soliciting feedback and additional information on the availability and
economic achievability of expanding the prohibition on the discharge of
firefighting foam to include non-fluorinated foam that contains
bioaccumulative or toxic or hazardous materials. If it is found to meet
the applicable statutory requirements, the final standard would
prohibit the discharge of both fluorinated foams and non-fluorinated
foams that contain bioaccumulative or toxic or hazardous materials
during testing, training, maintenance, inspection or certification with
the exception of USCG-required inspection and certification.
Specifically, EPA is interested in feedback on: (1) The availability of
non-fluorinated foams, training foams, or surrogate test liquids that
do not contain bioaccumulative or toxic or hazardous materials that can
satisfy firefighting testing, training, and maintenance needs, (2) the
extent to which vessels are already using these alternative foams, (3)
the extent to which vessels are already performing testing, training,
and maintenance using only water, (4) the number of vessels and types
of systems that are not able to use the water-equivalency method, (5)
the extent to which the vessel community is collecting foam prior to
discharge, (6) economic considerations associated with prohibiting the
discharge of these types of non-fluorinated firefighting foams, and any
other information that would support the Agency's determination of
whether to expand the prohibition of the discharge of firefighting
foams to include non-fluorinated foams that contain bioaccumulative or
toxic or hazardous materials.
Finally, as discussed in VIII C. Discharges Incidental to the
Normal Operation of a Vessel--Specialized Areas, and as required by the
VGP, EPA proposes additional controls for discharges from fire
protection equipment for testing, training, and maintenance purposes
for vessels operating in federally-protected waters.
11. Gas Turbines
Gas turbines are used on some vessels for propulsion and
electricity generation. Occasionally, they must be cleaned to remove
by-products that can accumulate and affect their operation. The by-
products and cleaning products can include toxic and conventional
pollutants including salts, lubricants, combustion residuals,
naphthalene, and other hydrocarbons. Additionally, due to the nature of
the materials being cleaned, there is a higher probability of heavy
metal concentrations. Rates and concentrations of gas turbine wash
water discharge vary according to the frequency of washdown and under
most circumstances vessel operators can choose where and when to wash
down gas turbines.
EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management
options for discharges from gas turbines; however, EPA did not identify
any new technology since the development of the VGP. As such, EPA
relied on the BPT/
[[Page 67865]]
BCT/BAT analysis that led to the development of the VGP requirements
and is proposing to require substantively the same standard of
performance required by the VGP.
As was required by the VGP, EPA proposes requirements that apply to
discharges from the washing of gas turbine components. EPA proposes to
prohibit the discharge of untreated gas turbine washwater unless
determined to be infeasible.
12. Graywater Systems
Graywater is water drained or collected from showers, baths, sinks,
and laundry facilities. Graywater discharges can contain bacteria,
pathogens, oil and grease, detergent and soap residue, metals (e.g.,
cadmium, chromium, lead, copper, zinc, silver, nickel, mercury),
solids, and nutrients. Some vessels have the capacity to collect and
hold graywater for later treatment and discharge. Vessels that do not
have graywater holding capacity continuously discharge it to receiving
waters. The volume of graywater generated by a vessel is dependent on
the number of passengers and crew. It is estimated that, in general, 30
to 85 gallons of graywater is generated per person per day. Estimates
of graywater generation by cruise ships that can accommodate
approximately 3,000 passengers and crew range from 96,000 to 272,000
gallons of graywater per day or 1,000,000 gallons per week.
Many elements of the proposed standard, including certain BMPs,
mirror those found in the VGP. For example, under the proposed General
Operation and Maintenance standard the operators of all vessels are
required to minimize the discharge of graywater. Minimization can
include reducing the production of graywater, holding the graywater
onboard, or using a reception facility. Additionally, as required by
the VGP, minimally-toxic, phosphate-free, and biodegradable soaps,
cleaners, and detergents must be used if they enter the graywater
system. The proposed standard also requires vessels to minimize the
introduction of kitchen oils and food and oil residue to the graywater
system. Also, as would be required for all discharges in section
139.4(b)(2) of the proposed rule, vessels must discharge while underway
when practical and as far from shore as practical. This storage
requirement is particularly relevant for graywater as many vessels have
graywater storage capabilities onboard that allow for graywater to be
stored and either discharged to a reception facility or held until
underway and as far from shore as practical.
For non-Great Lakes vessels, the numeric effluent requirements from
the VGP have remained the same with one exception. The proposed
standard does not include the percent removal requirements for BOD and
TSS from the VGP. The percent removal requirement, which is based on
secondary treatment regulations for domestic sewage, is not necessary
for graywater discharges because there is greater ability to control
the contribution of BOD and TSS onboard a vessel.
As in the VGP, EPA is not proposing graywater discharge standards
for commercial vessels in the Great Lakes consistent with CWA Section
312(a)(6) that specifies the term ``sewage,'' with respect to
commercial vessels on the Great Lakes, shall include graywater. As
such, graywater discharges from commercial vessels on the Great Lakes
are subject to the requirements in CWA Sections 312(a)-(m) and the
implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 140 and 33 CFR part 159.
Non-commercial vessels operating on the Great Lakes may only
discharge graywater if the discharge is treated such that it does not
exceed 200 fecal coliform forming units per 100 milliliters and
contains no more than 150 milligrams per liter of suspended solids.
This is because the Agency determined that graywater treatment using an
existing system meeting the 40 CFR part 140 standards represents the
appropriate level of control for those vessels operating in the Great
Lakes that do not hold their graywater for onshore disposal. Hence,
either treatment devices or adequate holding capacity are available and
used for managing graywater from vessels operating on the Great Lakes.
As in the VGP, the numeric discharge standard would apply to the
discharge from any passenger vessel with overnight accommodations for
500 or more passengers (identified as a ``large cruise ship'' in the
VGP), as well as any passenger vessel with overnight accommodations for
100-499 passengers (identified as a ``medium cruise ship'' in the VGP)
unless the vessel was constructed before December 19, 2008 and does not
voyage beyond 1 NM from shore, such as is often the situation for older
river cruise vessels.
In preparing the proposed standard, EPA endeavored to identify new
technology and BMPs for graywater discharges or applicability of
existing technologies and practices to different classes of vessels
than had been subject to similar requirements in the VGP. Hereafter,
this section describes proposed requirements for graywater systems that
are new or modified from the VGP. First, EPA proposes to prohibit the
discharge of graywater within 3 NM from shore for any vessel that
voyages at least 3 NM from shore and has remaining available graywater
storage capacity, unless the discharge meets the standards in section
139.21(f) of the proposed rule. Similarly, EPA proposes to prohibit the
discharge of graywater within 1 NM from shore from any vessel that
voyages at least 1 NM but not more than 3 NM from shore and has
remaining available graywater storage capacity, unless the discharge
meets the standards in section 139.21(f) of the proposed rule. Also,
EPA is proposing that the discharge of graywater from any new vessel of
400 gross tonnage (GT ITC) and above, and any new ferry authorized by
the USCG to carry 250 or more people would be required to meet the
numeric discharge standard in section 139.21(f) of the proposed rule.
Such vessels could be equipped either with a treatment system or
sufficient storage capacity to retain all graywater onboard while
operating in waters subject to the proposed rule. The costs of these
proposed requirements as compared to those in the VGP are described in
the regulatory impact analysis for the proposed rule. EPA expects these
new requirements would reduce the discharge of various pollutants
without a significant increase in compliance costs. EPA believes the
proposed standard, while more stringent than existing requirements
under the VGP, is appropriate and has been demonstrated to be
technologically available and economically achievable. Based on VGP
reporting data, between one-third and one-half of manned vessels of 400
GT ITC or above that are not cruise ships or ferries are equipped with
a treatment system for graywater, graywater mixed with sewage, or a
combined treatment system that may treat graywater. As such, the data
for existing vessels indicate that it is an appropriate requirement for
new build vessels in this category to install a treatment system or
storage capacity. EPA expects that vessels built with storage capacity
may be serviced by stationary and mobile (e.g., trucks and barges)
pumpout facilities that currently receive sewage and graywater from
vessels and welcomes public comment on the availability of such
facilities for vessels unable to install treatment systems.
Additionally, as required by the VGP, EPA proposes additional
controls for discharges of graywater for vessels operating in
federally-protected waters as discussed in VIII C. Discharges
[[Page 67866]]
Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--Specialized Areas.
In evaluating options for graywater treatment, EPA reaffirmed that
treatment of commingled graywater and sewage by an ``advanced
wastewater treatment system (AWTS),'' a sophisticated marine sanitation
device, produces significant constituent reductions in the resulting
effluent. AWTS differ from traditional treatment systems in that they
generally employ enhanced methods for treatment, solids separation, and
disinfection, such as through the use of membrane technologies and UV
disinfection. AWTS are currently in wide use and economically
achievable for certain vessel classes. For example, the Cruise Lines
International Association (2019) reports that 68 percent of member
lines' global fleet capacity is currently served by AWTS. Also, all new
ships on order by member lines will be equipped with AWTS. In Alaska,
under the existing ``Large Cruise Ship General Permit,'' certain large
commercial passenger vessels may only discharge wastewater (including
sewage and graywater) that has been treated by an AWTS or equivalent
system. As such, the numeric discharge standard included in the
proposed standard, which was also present in the VGP, is based on the
performance of these treatment systems.
The proposed time period for the application of the numeric
discharge standard for graywater differs from that presented earlier
for ballast tanks. For graywater systems, EPA proposes a monthly
average numeric discharge standard, a commonly used metric for
establishing numeric effluent discharge limits. While daily maximums
are also frequently used, EPA is not proposing to include daily
maximums in the standard. Monitoring discharges onboard a vessel
presents unique challenges compared to monitoring discharges from land-
based facilities for which numeric effluent discharge limits are
typically established. For ballast tanks, however, EPA proposes the use
of instantaneous maximums. As indicated in the ballast tanks section,
the challenges associated with collecting and testing representative
samples of ballast water at the time of discharge required a different
approach. Systems that are designed to meet an instantaneous maximum
require a higher level of control, and therefore less variability, in
the system. Since the discharge of ballast water carries the risk of
establishing ANS, the use of an instantaneous maximum is preferred over
the use of a long-term average where the upper bounds of variability in
the discharge may be problematic.
Graywater discharges, on the other hand, do not carry the same
level of risk. As such, the numeric discharge standard proposed in
section 139.21(f) uses monthly averages to allow for the variability
that is expected in a well-operated treatment system. At the same time,
the monthly averages require the vessel operator to remain vigilant to
ensure that, despite this variability, discharges consistently meet the
numeric limit. Vessels to which the standard applies would be expected
to operate treatment systems that can consistently achieve compliance
with the monthly average based on the vessel's expected loadings.
Pursuant to the general operation and maintenance standards of the
proposed rule, vessels are expected to discharge while underway when
practical and as far from shore as practical. This encourages
commingling of the graywater constituents and further decreases the
risks associated with variability in the system. EPA recognizes that
the option to install AWTS or sufficient holding capacity may be
unavailable for certain vessels for such reasons as cost, stability of
the vessel, or space constraints. As such, EPA does not propose that
all vessels be required to treat graywater discharges to the limits
found in section 139.21(f) of the proposed rule.
13. Hulls and Associated Niche Areas
Coatings
Vessel hulls are often coated with antifouling compounds to prevent
or inhibit the attachment and growth of biofouling organisms.
Selection, application, and maintenance of an appropriate coating type
and thickness according to vessel profile is critical to effective
biofouling management, and therefore preventing the introduction and
spread of ANS from the vessel hull and associated niche areas. Multiple
types of coatings are available for use, including hard, controlled
depletion or ablative, self-polishing copolymer, and fouling release
coatings. Coatings may employ physical, biological, chemical, or a
combination of controls to reduce biofouling. Those that contain
biocides prevent the attachment of biofouling organisms to the vessel
surface by continuously leaching substances that are toxic to aquatic
life. The most commonly used biocide is copper. Manufacturers may also
combine copper with other biocides, often termed ``booster biocides,''
to increase the effectiveness of the coating. Cleaning the coating
results in pulses of biocide into the environment, particularly if
surfaces are cleaned within the first 90 days following application.
The proposed rule would require that the selection of a coating for
the hull and associated equipment must be specific to the vessel's
operational profile, including biocidal coatings, that have effective
biocide release rates and components that are biodegradable once
separated from the vessel surface. Operational profile factors can
influence biofouling rates and include the vessel speed during a
typical voyage, aquatic environments traversed, type of surface
painted, typical water flow for any hull and niche areas, planned
periods between drydock, and expected periods of inactivity or
idleness. Generally, an optimal biocide will have broad spectrum
activity, low mammalian toxicity, low water solubility, no
bioaccumulation up the food chain, no persistence in the environment,
and compatibility with raw materials (IMO, 2002). EPA is aware that
non-biocidal coatings are available, and vessels that typically operate
at high speeds may effectively manage biofouling with fouling release
coatings. Additionally, vessels traveling in waters with lower
biofouling pressure and those that spend less time at dock are expected
to have a lower biofouling rate and should select either non-biocidal
coating or coatings with low biocide discharge rates. However, these
coatings may not be suitable for all operational profiles.
Adhering to manufacturer specifications is necessary to ensure the
longevity and effectiveness of the coating and is considered best
practice. If a coating is not properly selected, applied, or
maintained, it will likely show signs of deterioration, such as
indications of excessive cleaning actions (e.g., brush marks) or
blistering due to the internal failure of the paint system. Such
excessive deterioration may allow for biofouling organisms to grow on
exposed surfaces, increasing the risk of introduction and spread of
ANS. Improper application and maintenance of the coating may also
increase the discharge of particles into the aquatic environment and
degradation of the integrity of wetted surfaces. The VGP required that
any antifouling coatings be applied, maintained, and removed consistent
with the FIFRA label, if applicable. The proposed rule would similarly
require that coatings be applied, maintained, and reapplied consistent
with manufacturer specifications, including the thickness, the method
of application, and the lifespan of the coating. One way to achieve
this proposed requirement is to schedule the in-service period of the
coating to match the vessel's drydock cycles. Larger vessels,
particularly those
[[Page 67867]]
used in the carriage of goods, are required to adhere to requirements
for safety inspections and maintenance activities that dictate how
frequently they must be drydocked. Factoring this schedule into the
coating selection ensures the coating will sufficiently protect the
vessel for the period needed without creating additional leachate or
wastes.
Tributyltin (TBT) Requirements
The International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling
Systems on Ships (AFS Convention) was adopted in 2001 and came into
force in 2008. The United States became a contracting party to the AFS
Convention on November 21, 2012. Domestically, the Clean Hull Act of
2009 implements the requirements of the AFS Convention. Consistent with
the AFS Convention, the Clean Hull Act, and the VGP, the proposed rule
reaffirms that coatings on vessel hulls must not contain TBT or any
other organotin compound used as a biocide. Additionally, the proposed
rule states that any vessel hull previously applied with a hull coating
containing TBT (whether or not used as a biocide) or any other
organotin compound (if used as a biocide) must either maintain an
effective overcoat on the vessel hull so that no TBT or other organotin
leaches from the vessel hull or remove any TBT or other organotin
compound from the vessel hull. EPA is unaware of any non-biocidal use
of TBT which would result in a residual presence in antifouling paints;
therefore, EPA reaffirms a zero-discharge standard of TBT from vessel
hulls. EPA expects that few, if any, vessels have exposed TBT coatings
on their hulls and that a zero-discharge standard for all organotin
compounds, including TBT, is technologically achievable based on the
availability of other antifouling coating options. This standard is
also economically achievable because few, if any, vessels still use TBT
as an antifoulant.
Other less toxic organotin compounds such as dibutyltin oxide are
used in small quantities as catalysts in some biocide-free coatings.
One class of biocidal-free coatings, which are sometimes referred to as
fouling release coatings, produce a non-stick surface to which fouling
organisms cannot firmly adhere. To function properly, the coating
surface must remain smooth, intact, and not leach into the surrounding
water. Because these less toxic organotins are used as a catalyst in
the production of biocide-free coatings, such production may result in
trace amounts of organotin in antifouling coatings. Consistent with the
AFS Convention, the Clean Hull Act, and the VGP, EPA proposed rule
would authorize the use of non-biocidal coatings that contain trace
amounts of catalytic organotin (other than TBT) if the trace amounts of
organotin are not used as a biocide. When used as a catalyst, EPA
proposed rule states that an organotin compound must contain less than
2,500 mg total tin per kilogram of dry paint and must not be designed
to slough or otherwise peel from the vessel hull, noting that
incidental amounts of a coating discharged by abrasion during cleaning
or after contact with other hard surfaces (e.g., moorings) are
acceptable.
Cybutryne Requirements
Cybutryne, commonly known as Irgarol 1051, is a biocide that
functions by inhibiting the electron transport mechanism in algae, thus
inhibiting growth. There are numerous commercially-available
antifoulants that are similar in cost and have a much lower negative
impact on the aquatic environment (IMO, 2018). Restrictions on
cybutryne are already in place in a number of countries globally, and
cybutryne is therefore less widely used in comparison to other
antifoulants (IMO, 2017). Coatings that do not contain cybutryne are
both technologically available and economically achievable. Therefore,
EPA proposes to prohibit the application of cybutryne-containing
coatings on hulls and niche areas. In cases where cybutryne coatings
have been applied previously to a vessel, EPA proposes an effective
overcoat must be applied and maintained so that no cybutryne leaches
from the vessel hull, noting that incidental amounts of coating
discharged by abrasion during cleaning or after contact with the other
hard surfaces are acceptable. EPA is aware that overcoats are
commercially available.
Copper Requirements
Copper, primarily in the form of cuprous oxide, is the most common
biocide in antifouling coatings, accounting for approximately ninety
percent of the volume of sales of specialty antifouling biocides in the
United States (U.S. EPA, 2018). Copper is a broad-spectrum biocide that
effectively prevents both micro- and macrofouling. Copper is considered
less harmful to the aquatic environment than TBT-containing compounds,
but its use has nevertheless contributed to loadings in copper-impaired
waters. Consistent with the VGP, EPA proposes to require that, as
appropriate based on vessel class and operations, alternatives to
copper-based coatings be considered for vessels spending 30 or more
days per year in copper-impaired waters or using these waters as their
home port. However, despite the potential impacts of copper-based
coatings, there is a concern that replacement of copper with other
biocides may cause different, and potentially more harmful,
environmental impacts. EPA determined that there are no direct
substitutions for copper as a biocide that are as affordable or as
effective, without posing similar risks to non-target aquatic species
(U.S. EPA, 2018). As such, EPA is not proposing to require the
selection of an alternative antifouling coating to copper antifouling
coating for vessels.
The significance of the discharges from a biocidal coating depends
not only on the substance used, but also on the ``leaching rate'' of
the biocide (IMO, 2009). In other words, the rate of discharge or entry
into the environment from the coating itself. While the rate at which
copper leaches from coatings is relatively slow (average discharge
rates range from 3.8-22 [mu]g/cm\2\/day), copper-containing coatings
can account for significant accumulations of metals in receiving waters
of ports where numerous vessels are present (Valkirs et al., 2003;
Zirino and Seligman, 2002). EPA is aware that maximum leach rates for
copper-based antifouling paints on recreational vessels have been
established both federally and locally. However, EPA does not currently
have the data available to establish a leach rate that would be
appropriate for the wide variety of vessels covered under the VIDA.
Therefore, the proposed rule does not require a specific, maximum
copper leach rate for antifouling coatings, acknowledging that use of
antifouling coatings is also regulated in the United States. through
FIFRA. At this time, EPA invites comment as to what maximum leach rates
would sufficiently prevent biofouling while restricting the discharge
of copper into the aquatic environment, recognizing that different
leach rates may be required depending on the vessel profile, and
according to the differentiations designated by the VIDA (e.g., vessel
size, class, type, and age).
Cleaning
Most commercial vessels are required to undertake periodic hull
surveys as part of International Association of Classification
Societies rules and in accordance with IMO conventions. Whenever
possible, EPA suggests that drydock cleaning is the preferred BMP to
in-water hull and niche cleaning. Drydock schedules should be factored
[[Page 67868]]
into the inspection and management of areas susceptible to biofouling.
EPA recognizes that in many instances it is not technologically
available or economically achievable for a vessel to be drydocked
outside of the regular schedule to clean biofouling from the hull or
niche areas. Some vessels are too large to be regularly removed from
the water, and any repair or maintenance required on the hull or niches
must occur while the vessel is pier-side between drydockings.
Therefore, EPA believes the Act does not require the prohibition of in-
water cleaning at this time. In-water cleaning that is conducted as a
preventative measure can be an important component of biofouling
management. Preventative in-water cleaning is the frequent, gentle
cleaning of the vessel hull and appendages to prevent the growth of
biofouling organisms, with minimal impacts to the antifouling system.
However, EPA also recognizes that there may be places where in-water
cleaning should not occur, notably in federally-protected waters, based
on the unique resources present in those areas.
Studies have estimated that even a biofilm can increase the drag on
a vessel by up to 25 percent (Townsin, 2003; Schultz, 2007). Predictive
analytics have shown that frequent cleaning reduces fuel consumption
and that increasing cleaning to an interval of approximately six months
can save hundreds of thousands of dollars per vessel in fuel costs
(Marr, 2017). Therefore, conducting preventative cleaning can reduce
drag, enhance operations, and reduce the discharge of ANS.
Additionally, preventative cleaning has been shown to effectively
reduce biofouling without significantly increasing biocide loading into
the aquatic environment (Tribou and Swain, 2017). In contrast,
macrofouling requires more abrasive removal techniques, which may
damage the antifouling coating, resulting in a higher tendency for
subsequent biofouling as well as a larger pulse of biocides and
particles into the aquatic environment. Additionally, macrofouling (FR
>20) is composed of more diverse and mature organisms and, depending on
geographic origin, may present a greater risk of discharging ANS than a
slime layer.
The VGP required that vessel owners/operators minimize the
transport of attached living organisms when traveling into U.S. waters
from outside the Economic Exclusive Zone or between COTP Zones using
techniques such as selecting and maintaining an appropriate anti-
fouling management system; in water inspections, cleaning, and
maintenance of hulls; and thorough hull and niche area cleaning when
the vessel is in drydock. The VGP also required that vessel owners/
operators who remove biofouling organisms from hulls while the vessel
is waterborne employ methods that minimize the discharge of fouling
organisms and antifouling coatings. Such methods include the use of
appropriate cleaning brush or sponge rigidity to minimize removal of
antifouling coatings and biocide releases into the water column;
limiting the use of hard brushes and surfaces for the removal of hard
growth; and when available and feasible, use of a vacuum or other
control technology to minimize the release or dispersion of antifouling
coatings and fouling organisms into the water column. The VGP also
prohibited the in-water cleaning of hulls coated with copper-based
anti-fouling paints in copper-impaired waters within the first 365 days
after paint application unless there is a significant visible
indication of hull fouling.
Consistent with the VGP, EPA is proposing that vessel hulls and
niche areas must be cleaned regularly to minimize biofouling (i.e.,
grooming or preventative cleaning). Regular cleaning to minimize
biofouling is considered an industry best practice, in large part due
to the economic incentive involved: Costs associated with regular in-
water cleaning, including the cleaning services, disruptions to a
ship's schedule, and staff time, are outweighed by the fuel savings
that result from a low fouling rating (FR) as that term is defined in
the proposed regulations; reductions in fouling from FR-20 to FR-10
have been estimated to generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in
fuel savings annually per ship. Several mechanisms are utilized by
vessel owners to determine the necessary intervals of such cleanings,
including regular inspections, ISO standard 19030 measurements of hull
and propeller performance, and/or advanced data analytics. Further,
many technologies are available for preventative in-water cleaning,
including diver-operated technologies or remotely operated vehicles. A
review of the market of hull cleaning robots sponsored by the USCG in
2016 identified no fewer than 15 technologies capable of conducting in-
water cleaning of vessel hulls. More recently, remotely operated
vehicles for preventative cleaning have also been developed as
equipment attached to the vessel itself, enabling flexibility in
cleaning schedule along a vessel's route.
Additionally, consistent with the VGP, the proposed rule would also
require that the cleaning methods used cause no or minimal damage to
the underlying coating, ensuring that the coating is not degraded and
the release of biocide into the aquatic environment is minimized. These
requirements are considered best practice and would ensure the
longevity and effectiveness of the coating and minimize the pollutant
loading into the surrounding environment.
EPA is also proposing to prohibit in-water cleaning of biofouling
that exceeds a fouling rating of FR-20, except in the following two
circumstances: (1) When the fouling is local in origin and cleaning
does not result in the substantial removal of a biocidal antifouling
coating, as indicated by a plume or cloud of paint; or (2) when an in-
water cleaning and capture (IWCC) system is used that is designed and
operated to capture coatings and biofouling organisms; filter
biofouling organisms from the effluent, and minimize the release of
biocides. Pursuant to this proposed standard, fouling is considered to
be local if a vessel follows a `clean-before-you-go' strategy, whereby
in-water cleaning is conducted prior to leaving a port on fouling
accumulated in that port. If IWCC systems are used, discharge of any
wastes filtered or otherwise removed from the system is prohibited.
Also, understanding that IWCC systems may not be available in many
ports, EPA recommends, but does not propose to require, the use of IWCC
systems for removal of local macrofouling.
IWCC systems reduce the discharge of fouling organisms and coating
particles into the surrounding environment, and allow solids removed
from the vessel hulls to be collected and disposed of onshore. Cleaning
of hulls and niche areas, such as with IWCC systems, is necessary for
vessel maintenance, and therefore the discharge of treated or filtered
effluent from these systems is considered incidental to the normal
operation of a vessel and authorized under the VIDA. IWCC discharges
result ``from a protective, preservative . . . application to the hull
of the vessel'' (33 U.S.C. 1322(a)(12)(A)(i)). Vessels following
effective biofouling management strategies generally should be able to
maintain fouling at or below an advanced slime layer. Therefore, use of
such IWCC systems would primarily occur either to remove fouling that
is local in origin (e.g., after periods of idleness) or in contingency
scenarios. Technologies to remove and capture biofouling have emerged
since the last VGP issuance. These technologies are available and
becoming common practice globally. To date, EPA has identified four
companies that have
[[Page 67869]]
designed IWCC systems, operating in more than 15 countries and across
six continents. This international information is relevant to this
sector because a significant number of vessels to which this rule
applies operate internationally. EPA anticipates that this technology
will continue to improve and become more widely available. Similar to
proactive cleaning, IWCC devices are advertised as being capable of
providing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fuel savings annually to
many vessel owners and operators, and thus there is an economic
incentive independent of this rule driving their use. Additionally, the
shipping industry has outlined the lack of approved in-water cleaning
facilities as an impedance to effective biofouling management,
resulting in ships increasingly cleaning offshore and in open waters,
which bring added safety concerns. The primary challenge with using an
IWCC is not the lack of technologies themselves, but regulatory
frameworks that do not allow for these technologies to be used in
various areas around the world. Removal of regulatory obstacles
associated with the use of IWCC will afford vessel owners and operators
with the opportunity to realize operational savings associated with
maintaining a clean hull. As such, EPA expects that regular cleaning of
biofouling consisting of FR-20 or below, in combination with the
potential for controlled cleaning of biofouling exceeding FR-20 through
IWCC devices, represents best available technology economically
achievable to control the release of ANS and biocides from vessel hulls
and associated niche areas, with likely long term cost savings to the
vessel industry.
In line with the VGP, EPA is also proposing to minimize discharges
of copper to aquatic ecosystems by restricting the in-water cleaning of
vessels coated with copper-based antifouling paints in copper-impaired
waters within the first 365 days after paint application. The proposed
rule would allow in-water cleaning of copper-based coatings in copper-
impaired waters within the 365 days following application only in
circumstances when an IWCC system consistent with the aforementioned
specifications is used. EPA understands that biocidal coatings are
generally designed to remain free of fouling for the 365 days after
application, prior to requiring in-water hull cleaning. Additionally,
the majority of copper-impaired waters within the United States are
streams, creeks, and rivers which generally have lower fouling pressure
in comparison to warmer, marine waterbodies, and therefore vessels
primarily operating in these waters would likely not require cleaning
within the 365 days following application of the coating. For vessels
operating in the few copper-impaired areas of coastal waterbodies in
the United States, there remains the option to either conduct cleaning
at a nearby, non-impaired port or to employ the use of an IWCC system
as described above. Although it is unlikely that a vessel with a
copper-based coating will have to clean within a copper-impaired water
during the 365 days following application, EPA has further determined
that there are alternatives to copper-based coatings that are available
for use, which, over the coating lifespan would result in costs
comparable to copper-based coatings.
Additionally, EPA proposes to prohibit in-water cleaning on any
section of a biocidal antifouling coating which has shown significant
deterioration since the most recent application of the coating. Such a
level of deterioration indicates failure at the anticorrosive/
antifouling interface which can result in a soft blister that is more
likely to be broken by cleaning. Cleaning of paint that has reached
this level may cause rupturing of paint blisters, which not only
results in discharges of coating particles, but also increases the rate
of damage to the anti-fouling system more generally. In turn, the
exposed surface is subject to increased fouling and risk of corrosion.
EPA expects that an antifouling system selected in accordance with the
vessel's operating profile, and cleaned with minimally abrasive
cleaning methods, should not present signs of significant deterioration
at the anticorrosive/antifouling interface, therefore adherence to this
standard is achievable by following the coating and cleaning practices
in the proposed guidelines.
Consistent with proposed requirements for detergents used for deck
washdown in this proposed rule and the VGP, EPA proposes that cleaning
agents used on vessel surfaces that maintain direct contact with
ambient waters, such as the scum lines of the hull, must be minimally-
toxic, phosphate-free, and biodegradable. Finally, as proposed in
section 139.40, EPA proposes additional controls for discharges from
in-water cleaning when vessels are operating in federally-protected
waters.
14. Inert Gas Systems
Inert gas is used on tankers for several reasons, with one of the
primary uses being to control the oxygen levels in the atmosphere in
the cargo and ballast tanks to prevent explosion and suppress
flammability. Inert gas system discharges consist of scrubber washwater
and water from deck water seals when used as an integral part of the
inert gas system.
EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management
options for inert gas system discharges; however, EPA did not identify
any new technology since the development of the VGP. As such, EPA
relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that led to the development of the
VGP requirements and is proposing to require substantively the same
standard of performance required by the VGP.
As required by the VGP, EPA proposes that all inert gas scrubber
washwater and water from deck seals must meet all of the requirements
identified in the general discharge standards, and notably,
requirements for oily discharges, including requirements set forth in
MARPOL Annex I, EPA oil regulations, and USCG oil regulations as
appropriate for the vessel.
15. Motor Gasoline and Compensating Systems
Motor gasoline and compensating discharge is the discharge of
seawater that is taken into motor gasoline tanks to replace the weight
of fuel as it is used and eliminate free space where vapors could
accumulate. The compensating system is used for fuel tanks to supply
pressure for the gasoline and to keep the tank full to prevent
potentially explosive gasoline vapors from forming. The seawater is
discharged when the vessel refills the tanks with gasoline or when
performing maintenance. The discharge can contain both toxic and
conventional pollutants including residual oils or traces of gasoline
constituents, which can include alkanes, alkenes, aromatics (e.g.,
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, phenol, and naphthalene), metals, and
additives. Most vessels by design do not produce this discharge.
EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management
options for motor gasoline and compensating discharges; however, EPA
did not identify any new technology since the development of the VGP.
As such, EPA relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that led to the
development of the VGP requirements and is proposing to require
substantively the same standard of performance required by the VGP.
As required by the VGP, EPA proposes that all motor gasoline and
compensating discharge must meet the requirements identified in the
general
[[Page 67870]]
discharge standards, and notably, requirements for oily discharges,
including requirements set forth in MARPOL Annex I, EPA oil
regulations, and USCG oil regulations as appropriate for the vessel.
Finally, as discussed in VIII C. Discharges Incidental to the
Normal Operation of a Vessel--Specialized Areas, and as required by the
VGP, EPA proposes several additional controls for discharges from motor
gasoline and compensating systems from a vessel operating in federally-
protected waters.
16. Non-Oily Machinery
Non-oily machinery wastewater is the combined wastewater from the
operation of distilling plants, water chillers, valve packings, water
piping, low- and high-pressure air compressors, propulsion engine
jacket coolers, fire pumps, and seawater and potable water pumps. Non-
oily machinery wastewater systems are intended to keep wastewater from
machinery that does not contain oil separate from wastewater that has
oil content. Non-oily machinery wastewater discharge rates vary by
vessel size and operation type, ranging from 100 to 4,000 gallons per
hour. Constituents of non-oily machinery wastewater discharge can
include a suite of conventional and nonconventional pollutants
including metals and organics.
EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management
options for discharges of non-oily machinery wastewater; however, EPA
did not identify any new technology since the development of the VGP.
As such, EPA relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that led to the
development of the VGP requirements and is proposing to require
substantively the same standard of performance required by the VGP.
As required by the VGP, EPA proposes that the discharge of
untreated non-oily wastewater and packing gland or stuffing box
effluent that contains toxic or bioaccumulative additives or the
discharge of oil in such quantities as may be harmful is prohibited.
17. Pools and Spas
Cruise ships and other vessels occasionally have pools or spas
onboard that use water treated with chlorine or bromine as a
disinfectant. When pools or spas are drained, the water is discharged
overboard or sent to an advanced wastewater treatment system. The
discharge water can contain nonconventional pollutants such as bromine
and chlorine.
EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management
options for pool and spa wastewater; however, EPA did not identify any
new technology since the development of the VGP. As such, EPA relied on
the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that led to the development of the VGP
requirements and is proposing substantively similar requirements as the
VGP. EPA determined the dechlorination limits by using those
established for ballast water treatment systems and by evaluating
comments submitted by the public on the 2008 and 2013 VGPs that
indicated such limits are achievable. Furthermore, the proposed numeric
discharge standard is consistent with common dechlorination limits from
shore-based sewage treatment facilities.
The proposed standard would require vessel operators to discharge
while underway and dechlorinate and/or debrominate any pool or spa
water, except for unintentional or inadvertent releases from overflows
across the decks and into overboard drains, prior to discharging
overboard. To be considered dechlorinated, the total residual chlorine
in the pool or spa effluent must be less than 100[micro]g/L. To be
considered debrominated, the total residual oxidant in the pool or spa
effluent must be less than 25[micro]g/L. Additionally, the proposed
standard would require the discharge of pool and spa water overboard to
occur while the vessel is underway unless determined infeasible by the
Secretary.
Finally, as discussed in VIII C. Discharges Incidental to the
Normal Operation of a Vessel--Specialized Areas, and as required by the
VGP, EPA proposes additional controls for discharges from pools and
spas from vessels operating in federally-protected waters.
18. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
Condensation from cold refrigeration or evaporator coils of air
conditioning systems drips from the coils and collects in drip troughs
which typically channel to a drainage system. The condensate discharge
may contain toxic, conventional, and nonconventional pollutants
including detergents, seawater, food residue, and trace metals. This
waste stream can easily be segregated from oily wastes, and toxic or
hazardous materials and safely discharged, channeled, or collected for
temporary holding until disposed of onshore or drained to the bilge.
EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management
options for refrigeration and air conditioning condensate; however, EPA
did not identify any new technology or management options since the
development of the VGP. As such, EPA relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis
that led to the development of the VGP requirements and is proposing
substantively similar requirements as the VGP.
As required by the VGP, EPA proposes to prohibit the discharge of
refrigeration and air conditioning condensate directly overboard that
contacts toxic or hazardous materials.
19. Seawater Piping
Seawater piping systems, including sea chests and grates, are a
niche area that have the potential to harbor and discharge a large
quantity of ANS, which are a nonconventional pollutant. Niche areas
represent a challenge for biofouling management as they are generally
more difficult to access and are protected from hydrodynamic forces,
facilitating the accumulation and survivorship of fouling organisms.
Niche areas account for approximately 10 percent of the total wetted
surface area of a vessel (Moser et al., 2017). However, over 80 percent
of species sampled in vessel biofouling studies were found in niche
areas (Bell et al., 2011). Therefore, while the relative surface area
of niche areas in proportion to the hull may be low, the risk of such
areas contributing to the discharge of ANS is significant.
Additionally, seawater piping systems on commercial vessels may provide
water uptake for firefighting response, engine cooling, and ballast
water. Ensuring that these systems are unobstructed from macrofouling
organisms is vital to ship operations, including the structural
integrity of the vessel and the safety of the crew.
The VGP required vessel owners/operators to remove fouling
organisms from seawater piping on a regular basis and dispose of
removed substances in accordance with local, state, and federal
regulations. The VGP also prohibited the discharge of removed fouling
organisms into regulated waters. Additionally, the VGP required a
drydock inspection report noting that the sea chest and other surface
and niche areas of the vessel have been inspected for attached living
organisms, and those organisms have been removed or neutralized.
EPA proposes any vessel with a seawater piping system (sea chests,
grates, and any sea-piping) that accumulates biofouling that exceeds a
fouling rating of FR-20 must be fitted with a Marine Growth Prevention
System (MGPS).
The most common MGPS for seawater includes sacrificial anodic
copper systems and chlorine-based dosing systems. Such systems are
already widely in use and available. EPA
[[Page 67871]]
recognizes that there may be a variety of systems capable of addressing
biofouling in seawater systems, and an effective, preventative
biofouling management strategy may include a combination of different
systems. EPA therefore expanded the definition of an MGPS for this
standard to also include chemical injection; electrolysis, ultrasound,
ultraviolet radiation, or electrochlorination; application of an
antifouling coating; or use of cupro-nickel piping. Due to the many
options available and the wide extent of their current use, EPA
considers the MGPS options provided to be best available technology.
An MGPS can vary widely in operational characteristics and
placement suitability. EPA proposes that the MGPS selection must
consider the level, frequency, and type of expected biofouling and the
design, location, and area in which the system will be used. For
example, it has been suggested that an MGPS installed in the sea chest
provides protection to both the sea chest and internal pipework, while
one installed in the strainer may only protect the internal pipework.
Furthermore, anti-fouling coating selection and application should be
appropriate to the material of the piping and level of waterflow to
which the coated area is subjected. Based on the potential differences
in profile of the coated areas, the coating applied to a seawater
system may be different from the coating applied to the vessel hull.
EPA recommends that the MGPS should be selected, installed, and
maintained according to the manufacturer specifications.
Upon identification that biofouling exceeds a level of FR-20
despite preventative measures, then reactive measures must be used to
remove biofouling. Such measures can include freshwater flushing or
chemical dosing. For example, vessels that use seawater cooling systems
to condense low pressure steam from propulsion plants or generator
turbines already practice freshwater flushing as a means of removing
biofouling. However, discharges resulting from reactive measures to
remove macrofouling are prohibited in port.
When these vessels are in port for more than a few days, the main
steam plant is shut down and does not circulate. This can cause an
accumulation of biological growth within the system; consequently, a
freshwater layup is carried-out by flushing the seawater in the system
with potable or surrounding freshwater (e.g., lake water) and
thoroughly cleaning the system. EPA expects the frequency at which
reactive measures should be used will be vessel-specific and therefore
is not proposing a specific time interval. Time intervals should be
determined based on a vessel's operational profile. Finally, as
proposed in section 139.40, EPA proposes additional controls for
discharges from seawater piping systems when vessels are operating in
federally-protected waters.
Seawater piping discharges also include non-contact engine cooling
water, hydraulic system cooling water, refrigeration cooling water, and
freshwater lay-up wastewater. Such systems use ambient water to absorb
the heat from heat exchangers, propulsion systems, and mechanical
auxiliary systems. The water is typically circulated through an
enclosed system that does not come in direct contact with machinery,
but still may contain sediment from water intake, traces of hydraulic
or lubricating oils, and trace metals leached or eroded from the pipes
within the system. Additionally, because it is used for cooling, the
effluent will have an increased temperature. Cooling water can reach
high temperatures with the thermal difference between seawater intake
and discharge typically ranging from 5 [deg]C to 25 [deg]C, with
maximum temperatures reaching 140 [deg]C. EPA is aware that use of
shore-power may reduce the discharges of seawater from cooling system;
however, EPA recognizes that shore-power may not be available in many
locations, may not be sufficient for the electricity needs of the
vessel, and may not be compatible with the vessel's systems. Therefore,
currently, EPA is not proposing to require the use of shore-power to
reduce thermal discharges from seawater piping systems.
20. Sonar Domes
Sonar dome discharge consists of leachate from anti-fouling
materials into the surrounding seawater and the discharge of seawater
or freshwater retained within the sonar dome. Sonar domes house
detection, navigation, and ranging equipment and are filled with water
to maintain their shape and pressure. They are typically found on
research vessels but may occur on other vessel classes. Sonar dome
discharge occasionally occurs when the water in the dome is drained for
maintenance or repair; discharge rates are estimated to range from 300
to 74,000 gallons from inside the sonar dome for each repair event.
This discharge from inside the dome may include toxic pollutants
including zinc, copper, nickel, and epoxy paints. Additionally,
discharge occurs when materials leach from the exterior of the dome.
Components that may leach into surrounding waters include antifouling
agents, plastic, iron and rubber.
EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management
options for sonar domes; however, EPA did not identify any new
technology or management options since the development of the VGP. As
such, EPA relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that led to the
development of the VGP requirements and is proposing to require
substantively the same standard of performance required by the VGP.
EPA proposes to prohibit the discharge of water during maintenance
or repair from inside the sonar domes. Additionally, the proposed
standard would prohibit the use of bioaccumulative biocides when non-
bioaccumulative alternatives are available.
C. Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--
Federally-Protected Waters Requirements
The VIDA, in CWA Section 312(p)(4)(B)(iii), specifies that EPA must
propose national standards of performance that are no less stringent
than the VGP requirements relating to effluent limits and related
requirements, including with respect to waters subject to Federal
protection, in whole or in part, for conservation purposes (with
limited exemptions for new information or to correct mistakes or
misinterpretations made in previous requirements in the VGP).
Therefore, EPA proposes to prohibit or limit discharges in federally-
protected waters consistent with the VGP requirements established for
``waters federally-protected for conservation purposes.'' EPA proposes
that the designated federally-protected waters for this rulemaking
consist of the areas of waters listed in Appendix G of the VGP
(National Marine Sanctuaries, Marine National Monuments, National
Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, National Wilderness Areas, or parts
of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System) plus any additional
individual waters that have been added to these nationally-recognized
waters since the establishment of the VGP Appendix G; this updated list
of waters is proposed in Appendix A of Part 139 in this rulemaking.
Federally-protected waters are likely to be of high quality and consist
of unique ecosystems which may include distinctive species of aquatic
animals and plants. Furthermore, as protected areas, these waters are
more likely to have a greater abundance of sensitive species of plants
and animals that may have trouble
[[Page 67872]]
surviving in areas with greater anthropogenic impact. Such waters are
important to the public at large, as evidenced by the waters' special
status or designation by the Federal government as National Marine
Sanctuaries, Marine National Monuments, National Parks, National
Wildlife Refuges, National Wilderness Areas, or parts of the National
Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
To develop the list of applicable ``federally-protected waters,''
for the VGP, EPA reviewed several federal authorities that protect
waters that are known to be of high value or sensitive to environmental
impacts, such as those administered by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), the National Park Service (NPS), the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), the Forest Service (USFS), and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These areas, identified
in Appendix G of the VGP, include:
National Marine Sanctuaries--as designated under the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) and
implementing regulations found at 15 CFR part 922 and 50 CFR part 404.
Maps and a list of national marine sanctuaries are currently available
at https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov.
Marine National Monuments--as designated by presidential
proclamation under the Antiquities Act of 1906 (54 U.S.C. 320301 et
seq). Maps and a list of marine national monuments are currently
available at https://fisheries.noaa.gov.
National Parks (including National Preserves and National
Monuments)--as designated under the National Park Service Organic Act,
as amended (54 U.S.C. 100101 et seq.) within the National Park System
by the NPS within the U.S. Department of the Interior. Maps and a list
of national parks are currently available at https://www.nps.gov/findpark.index.htm.
National Wildlife Refuges (including Wetland Management
Districts, Waterfowl Production Areas, National Game Preserves,
Wildlife Management Area, and National Fish and Wildlife Refuges)--as
designated under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act
of 1966 as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq). Maps and a list of national
wildlife refuges are currently available at https://www.fws.gov/refuges.
National Wilderness Areas--as designated under the
Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq). Section 4(c) of the
Wilderness Act strictly prohibits motorized vehicles, vessels,
aircrafts or equipment for the purposes of transport of any kind within
the boundaries of all wilderness areas (16 U.S.C. 1133(c)). Exceptions
to this Act include motorized vehicle use for the purposes of gathering
information on minerals or other resources; for the purposes of
controlling fire, insects, or disease; and in wilderness areas where
aircraft or motorized boat use have already been established prior to
1964. Maps and a list of national wilderness areas are available at
https://www.wilderness.net.
National Wild and Scenic Rivers--as designated
under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq).
Maps and a list of national wild and scenic rivers are currently
available at https://www.rivers.gov.
EPA does not propose to include Outstanding National Resource
Waters (ONRWs) on the list of federally-protected waters in this
proposed rule as these are State or Tribal water quality-based
designations under the antidegradation policy of the CWA. CWA Section
312(p)(9) establishes state authorities under the VIDA and CWA Section
312(p)(10) establishes specific regional requirements and neither
section includes nor references the ONRWs established under the VGP.
As required by the VGP, EPA proposes to include discharge
requirements for vessels operating in federally-protected waters as
designated in Appendix A. These requirements are in addition to any
applicable general or specific discharge requirements in Subparts B and
C of the proposed rule. The following paragraphs describe the
additional discharge requirements established when a vessel is
operating in federally-protected waters.
Ballast Tanks: EPA proposes that, generally consistent with section
2.2.3.3. of the VGP, the discharge or uptake of ballast water must be
avoided in federally-protected waters, except for those vessels
operating within the boundaries of any national marine sanctuary that
preserves shipwrecks or maritime heritage in the Great Lakes, including
Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve, as
necessary to allow for safe and efficient vessel operation, unless the
designation documents for such sanctuary do not allow taking up or
discharging ballast water in such sanctuary, pursuant to the Howard
Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014, Public Law
113-281, title VI, sec. 610, as amended by the Coast Guard
Reauthorization Act of 2015, Public Law 114-120, title VI, sec. 602).
Bilges: EPA proposes that, consistent with section 2.2.2 of the
VGP, for any vessel of 400 GT ITC (400 GRT if GT ITC is not assigned)
and above, the discharge of bilgewater is prohibited.
Boilers: EPA proposes that, consistent with section 2.2.6 of the
VGP, any discharge from a boiler into federally-protected waters is
prohibited. This requirement acknowledges that small volumes of routine
blowdown may be discharged because of design and operational
considerations of the boiler if compliance with this part would
compromise the safety of life at sea consistent with exclusion from
these discharge standards in section 139.1(b)(3) of the proposed rule.
Fire Protection Equipment: EPA proposes that, generally consistent
with section 2.2.5 of the VGP for aqueous film forming foam and section
2.2.12 of the VGP for firemain systems, the discharge from fire
protection equipment during training, testing, maintenance, inspection,
and certification into federally-protected waters is prohibited and the
discharge of fluorinated foam in federally-protected waters is
prohibited.
Graywater: EPA proposes that, consistent with section 2.2.15 of the
VGP, the discharge of graywater into federally-protected waters is
prohibited from any vessel with remaining available graywater storage
capacity.
Motor Gasoline and Compensating Discharge: EPA proposes that,
consistent with section 2.2.16 of the VGP, the discharge of motor
gasoline and compensating discharges into federally-protected waters is
prohibited.
Additionally, EPA proposes to include several new or modified
discharge requirements for vessels operating in federally-protected
waters. EPA proposes that these additional requirements are
technologically available because the waters that are ``federally
protected'' waters are limited and thus vessels are able to operate
without discharging in these protected waters. For example, a vessel
traveling through the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary can
ordinarily wait to discharge accumulated water and sediment from any
chain locker or chemically-dosed seawater piping until no longer in
those federally-protected waters. EPA proposes that the requirement is
economically achievable because EPA does not have any information
indicating that vessels undertaking an activity such as holding would
incur costs.
Chain Lockers: EPA proposes that the discharge of accumulated water
and sediment from any chain locker into federally-protected waters is
prohibited.
[[Page 67873]]
This is a proposed new requirement that acknowledges that cleanout of
chain lockers is not a time sensitive activity and as such, can be
scheduled at times when a vessel is outside of these sensitive waters.
Decks: EPA proposes that the discharge of deck washdown into
federally-protected waters is prohibited. This proposed requirement
extends coverage from certain vessels in the VGP to all vessels that
acknowledges that washing of decks is an activity that can be scheduled
for times when a vessel is outside of these sensitive waters.
Hulls and Associated Niche Areas: EPA proposes that the discharge
from in-water cleaning of vessel hulls and niche areas into federally-
protected waters is prohibited. This is a new requirement that
acknowledges in-water cleaning of vessel hulls and niche areas is an
activity that can be scheduled for times when the vessel is outside of
these sensitive waters.
Pools and Spas: EPA proposes that the discharge of pool or spa
water into federally-protected waters is prohibited. This proposed
requirement extends coverage from medium and large cruise ships to all
vessels with pools or spas and acknowledges that these discharges can
be scheduled for times when the vessel is outside of these sensitive
waters.
Seawater Piping Systems: EPA proposes that the discharge of
chemical dosing, as required in section 139.28 of the proposed rule,
into federally-protected waters is prohibited. This is a new
requirement that acknowledges chemical dosing and the resultant
discharge is an activity that can be scheduled for times when the
vessel is outside of these sensitive waters.
EPA specifically solicits comment on the use of the VGP's Appendix
G water areas and more specifically the list of waters in Appendix A as
the proposed static list of federally-protected waters, including
whether specific designations of waters should be added to or excluded
from the proposed list. EPA also specifically solicits comments on the
additional discharge requirements proposed for vessels operating in
federally-protected waters.
D. Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--Previous
VGP Discharges No Longer Requiring Control
EPA proposes to exclude fish hold effluent and small boat engine
wet exhaust as independent discharges incidental to the normal
operation of a vessel under the proposed rule.
Fish hold is the area where fish are kept once caught and kept
fresh during the remainder of the vessel's voyage before being
offloaded to shore or another tender vessel. The fish hold is typically
a refrigerated seawater holding tank, where the fish are kept cool by
mechanical refrigeration or ice. With the exception of ballast water,
CWA Section 312(p)(2)(B)(i)(III) excludes from these proposed
regulations discharges incidental to the normal operation of a fishing
vessel; therefore, EPA proposes that although this discharge was
included in the VGP, it should not be a discharge incidental to the
normal operation of a vessel subject to these regulations.
Small boat engines use ambient water that is injected into the
exhaust for cooling and noise reduction purposes. Similar to fishing
vessels, with the exception of ballast water, CWA Section
312(p)(2)(B)(i)(III) excludes from these proposed regulations
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel less than 79
feet; therefore, EPA proposes that although this discharge was included
in the VGP, it should not be a discharge incidental to the normal
operation of a vessel subject to these regulations.
IX. Procedures for States To Request Changes to Standards, Regulations,
or Policy Promulgated by the Administrator
A. Petition by a Governor for the Administrator To Establish an
Emergency Order or Review a Standard, Regulation, or Policy
Under CWA Section 312(p)(7)(A), a Governor of a state may submit a
petition to the Administrator to issue an emergency order or to review
any standard of performance, regulation, or policy if there exists new
information that could reasonably result in a change. A petition must
be signed by the Governor (or a designee) and must include the purpose
of the petition (request for emergency order or to review of any
standard of performance, regulation, or policy); any applicable
scientific or technical information that forms the basis of the
petition; and the direct and indirect benefits if the requested
petition were to be granted by the Administrator. The Administrator
shall grant or deny the petition and either issue the relevant
emergency order or submit a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to the
Federal Register for comment for a change in any standard of
performance, regulation, or policy.
EPA specifically solicits comment on the proposed process for
Governors to solicit the issuance of an emergency order or to review
any standard of performance, regulation of policy, including whether a
more detailed process should be developed.
B. Petition by a Governor for the Administrator To Establish Enhanced
Great Lakes System Requirements
CWA Section 312(p)(10)(B) creates a process for establishing
enhanced federal standards or requirements to apply within the Great
Lakes System in lieu of any comparable standards or requirements
promulgated under CWA Section 312(p)(4)-(5). Any Governor of a Great
Lakes State (or the Governor's designee) may initiate the process by
submitting a petition for an enhanced standard to the other Great Lakes
States Governors, as well as the as the Executive Director of the Great
Lakes Commission and the Director of EPA's Great Lakes National Program
Office. The petition must seek the endorsement of fellow governors for
an enhanced standard of performance or other requirement with respect
to any discharge that is subject to regulation under CWA Section 312(p)
that occurs in the Great Lakes System. A petition shall include an
explanation regarding why the applicable standard of performance or
other requirement is at least as stringent as a comparable standard of
performance or other requirement in the final rule; in accordance with
maritime safety; and in accordance with applicable maritime and
navigation laws and regulations. After involving the Great Lakes
Commission, the requisite number of Governors may jointly submit to the
Administrator and the Secretary an endorsement of a proposed standard
of performance or other requirement to apply within the Great Lakes
System.
Upon receipt of the proposed standard of performance or requirement
from a Great Lakes Governor, the Administrator shall submit, after
consultation with the USCG, a notice to the Federal Register that
provides an opportunity for public comment on the proposed standard of
performance or requirement. In addition, the Administrator shall
commence a review of the proposed standard of performance or
requirement to determine if it is at least as stringent as the
comparable CWA Section 312(p) standard. During review, pursuant to CWA
Section 312(p)(10)(B)(iii)(III)(bb), the Administrator shall consult
with the Secretary, the Governor of each Great Lakes State, and
representatives from the Federal and provincial governments of Canada;
shall take into consideration any relevant data or public comments
received; and shall not take into consideration any preliminary
assessment by the Great Lakes
[[Page 67874]]
Commission or dissenting opinion submitted by a Governor of a Great
Lake State. Not later than 180 days after receipt of the proposed
standard of performance or requirement, the Administrator, in
concurrence with the Secretary, shall approve or disapprove the
proposal. If the proposal is disapproved, the Administrator shall
submit a notice of determination to the Federal Register that describes
the reasons why the standard of performance or requirement is less
stringent or inconsistent with applicable maritime and navigational
laws and provide any recommendations for modification of the proposal.
If the Administrator approves a proposed standard of performance or
other requirement, the Administrator shall submit a notice of the
determination to the Governor of each Great Lakes State and to the
Federal Register. Additionally, the Administrator shall establish by
regulation the proposed standard of performance for the Great Lakes.
EPA specifically solicits comment on the process to request
enhanced Great Lakes system requirements, including the extent to which
EPA should provide further details in the final rule considering the
details already included in the VIDA.
C. Application by a State for the Administrator To Establish a State
No-Discharge Zone
Under CWA Section 312(p) states have an opportunity to apply to EPA
to prohibit one or more discharges incidental to the normal operation
of a vessel, whether treated or not, into specified waters, if the
state determines that the protection and enhancement of the quality of
some or all of its waters require greater environmental protection.
Pursuant to CWA Section 312(p)(10)(D)(iii)(I), a discharge
prohibition established by EPA through regulation would not apply until
after the Administrator reviews the state application, makes a
determination with concurrence from the USCG, publishes a proposed rule
for comment, and publishes a regulation establishing that (1) the
prohibition would protect and enhance the quality of the specified
waters; (2) adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal of
the discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel are
reasonably available for the waters to which the prohibition would
apply; and (3) the discharge can safely be collected and stored until a
vessel reaches a discharge facility or other location. If the no-
discharge zone concerns ballast water discharges regulated under CWA
Section 312(p), then the Administrator must also determine that
adequate facilities are reasonably available after considering at a
minimum water depth, dock size, pumpout capacity and flow rate,
availability of year round operations, proximity to navigational
routes, the ratio of pumpout facilities to vessels in operation in
those specified waters. The VIDA also provides that the prohibition for
ballast water discharges will not unreasonably interfere with the safe
loading and unloading of cargo, passengers, or fuel.
EPA proposes that a state application for such a prohibition must
include (i) a signature by the Governor; (ii) a certification that the
protection and enhancement of the waters for which the state is seeking
a prohibition require greater environmental protection than the
applicable national standard of performance provides; (iii) a detailed
analysis of how the requested prohibition for each individual discharge
requested will protect the waters for which the state is seeking a
prohibition; (iv) a table identifying types and number of vessels
operating in the waterbody and a table identifying the types and number
of vessels that will be the subject of the prohibition; (v) a map
detailing the location, operating hours, draught requirements, and
service capabilities of commercial and recreational pump-out facilities
(both mobile and stationary) available to receive each individual
discharge in the waters for which the state is seeking a prohibition;
(vi) a table identifying the location and geographic area of each
proposed no-discharge zone; and (vii) a detailed analysis of how the
vessels subject to the prohibition may be impacted with regards to
collection capability, storage capability, need for retrofitting,
travel time to facility, and safety concerns.
EPA is proposing that these additional procedures because its
history with CWA Section 312 sewage no-discharge zones suggests that
the statutory language does not provide enough detail or description to
clearly define a workable process without additional clarification.
EPA specifically solicits comment on the no-discharge zone
application process.
X. Implementation, Compliance, and Enforcement
CWA Section 312(p)(5) directs the USCG to develop implementing
regulations governing the design, construction, testing, approval,
installation, and use of marine pollution control devices as are
necessary to ensure compliance with the national standards of
performance presented in the proposed rule. Additionally, the USCG
shall promulgate requirements to ensure, monitor, and enforce
compliance of the proposed standards. As such, the proposed rule does
not include implementation, compliance, or enforcement provisions.
XI. Regulatory Impact Analysis
EPA projects that the incremental costs and benefits arising from
the proposed rule will be minor and that the vessel community will
experience a net savings of $12.4 million annually. This regulatory
relief is principally the result of the VIDA exclusion of small vessels
and fishing vessels from federal incidental discharge requirements
(e.g., CWA permits and national discharges standards), except for
ballast water. When compared to the current VGP requirements, this
exclusion will ultimately reduce burden on more than 155,000 vessels.
EPA estimates that 66,000 U.S.- and 16,000 foreign-flagged vessels
will need to comply with the proposed standards once finalized. In
addition to its assessment of the cost impacts specifically to the
66,000 U.S.-flagged vessels, EPA also examined the cost impacts to the
approximately 500 foreign-flagged vessels that are U.S.-owned.
The cost analysis, found in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)
located in the rulemaking docket, uses compliance with the VGP and the
sVGP, as well as other regulations and industry standards, (i.e., the
status quo that existed prior to the passage of the VIDA) as the
analytic baseline. The analysis compares baseline cost impacts
experienced by the regulated community immediately prior to passage of
the VIDA legislation to projected cost impacts expected as a result of
the proposed new EPA standards. The VIDA repealed the sVGP effective
immediately upon signature, while stipulating that VGP requirements are
to remain in place until the new VIDA program is fully in force and
effective. This analysis accounts for both the impacts of the proposed
new EPA standards as well as the regulatory relief expected as a result
of the VIDA exclusion of small vessels and fishing vessels from the
discharge requirements, except for ballast water, and the corresponding
repeal of the sVGP.
The cost analysis groups the proposed rule's major impacts into
four categories. The first category of impacts is comprised of new
standards in the proposed rule that result in incremental costs
compared to existing VGP
[[Page 67875]]
requirements. In this category, EPA is proposing two new discharge
requirements, one for graywater systems and one for seawater piping
systems, that together are projected to result in incremental costs of
$4.3 million annually. The second category describes proposed standards
that are not expected to result in incremental costs compared to the
VGP baseline since they reflect practices already in place on vessels
as a result of other regulations and industry standards. The third
category describes changes mandated by Congress directly in the VIDA
that are projected to result in incremental costs to the regulated
community. These provisions impose new ballast water requirements
nationally and regionally in the Pacific Region and the Great Lakes.
The estimated incremental cost for vessels to meet these
Congressionally-mandated provisions is $5.5 million annually. The
fourth category is the reduction in costs projected to result from the
VIDA exclusion of small vessels and fishing vessels from the discharge
requirements, except for ballast water, and the corresponding repeal of
the sVGP. EPA estimates that this regulatory relief will result in
annual cost savings of nearly $22.2 million to the vessel community.
To evaluate the potential impact of the proposed rule on small
entities, EPA used a cost-to revenue test to evaluate potential
severity of economic impact on vessels owned by small entities. The
test calculates annualized pre-tax compliance cost as a percentage of
total revenues and uses a threshold of 1 and 3 percent to identify
entities that would be significantly impacted if this proposed rule
were to go final. EPA projects the potential impacts would not exceed
these conventional cost/revenue thresholds. In addition, the Agency
completed estimates of the paperwork burden associated with the
proposed rulemaking. These estimates project the annualized paperwork
burden on states that voluntarily petition EPA for any one of the
following: Establishment of no-discharge zones, review of national
standards of performance, issuance of emergency orders, and
establishment of enhanced Great Lakes System requirements.
EPA also assessed the environmental impacts from this proposal. The
Agency does not expect the proposed rule to change environmental
benefits significantly compared to those realized by the VGP since the
existing VGP requirements are largely proposed to be adopted as the new
discharge standards. EPA notes that the VIDA exclusion of small vessels
and fishing vessels, except for ballast water, and the corresponding
repeal of the sVGP could potentially lead to a reduction in
environmental benefits to the extent that affected vessels no longer
adhere to practices previously required under the sVGP. In particular,
the RIA examines possible losses in benefits from the elimination of
the sVGP discharge management requirements for bilgewater, graywater,
and anti-fouling hull coatings.
EPA did not evaluate the cost impacts from changes in monitoring,
reporting, self-inspection, or recordkeeping associated with the VIDA
re-allocation of EPA and USCG authorities and responsibilities. The
USCG will present an analysis of these impacts, and other relevant
impacts, in documentation supporting their rulemaking for the USCG
portions of the CWA Section 312(p) program.
The RIA is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
EPA solicits comment on all aspects of its RIA including the underlying
assumptions and methodology.
XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
The proposed rule is a significant regulatory action that was
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
because it raises novel legal or policy issues. Any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the public
docket for this proposed rule.
In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential impacts
associated with this proposed rule. The regulatory impact analysis is
available in the public docket for this proposed rule, and both costs
and benefits are summarized in Section XI. Regulatory Impact Analysis.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
The proposed rule is expected to be an Executive Order 13771
deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this
proposed rule can be found in EPA's analysis of the potential costs and
benefits associated with this action.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule, once finalized by EPA and implemented through
corresponding USCG requirements addressing implementation, compliance,
and enforcement, would impose an information collection burden to
states under the PRA. The information collection activities in this
proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection
Request (ICR) document that EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR
number 2605.01. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this
rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
Background
EPA has regulated discharges incidental to the normal operation of
vessels under the CWA Section 402 NPDES permitting program since 2008.
The information collection burden associated with EPA's regulation of
those activities are included as part of the Information Collection
Request (ICR) for the NPDES Program, OMB Control No. 2040-0004.
The current inventory of vessels included in the NPDES ICR includes
72,942 vessels covered under the VGP and 137,739 small vessels covered
under the Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP). That ICR identifies a
total of 292,466 responses annually specific to the VGP and sVGP with a
total annual burden of 269,919 hours for activities including:
Reporting (Notice of Intent, Notice of Termination, annual report);
inspection (routine, annual, and drydock) and monitoring; and
recordkeeping.
As described below, the enactment of the VIDA in 2018 authorized
EPA and the USCG to establish a new regulatory framework for the
discharges covered by the VGP which will result in a change in the type
of information collected, the Agency responsible for collecting the
information, and ultimately the information collection burden.
Upon enactment of the VIDA (December 4, 2018), the sVGP was
repealed and incidental discharges from small vessels and fishing
vessels less than 79 feet with the exception of ballast water were
excluded from requirements established under the VIDA. Thus, any
monitoring and reporting burden beyond those for ballast water for
small vessels or fishing vessels less than 79 feet in length was
terminated. Additionally, once EPA develops new national standards of
performance for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a
vessel (as is
[[Page 67876]]
being proposed in this rulemaking) and the USCG establishes
requirements that address implementation, compliance, and enforcement
of the national standards, the information collection burden
established under the EPA VGP will be terminated and the information
collection burden will be modified as described below.
Proposed Rule
As detailed in CWA Section 312(p)(5), upon implementation of
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements by the USCG, the
paperwork requirements for vessel owners and operators would need to be
reported to the USCG and not to EPA. As such it is expected that much
of the existing paperwork burden on vessel owners and operators under
the VGP requirements would be managed by the USCG upon implementation
of their specific reporting and monitoring requirements. Therefore, the
proposed rule would not impose a new paperwork burden on vessel owners
and operators.
However, the proposed rule would impose a new information
collection burden on states seeking to petition EPA to establish
different national standards of performance including enhanced
standards in the Great Lakes, issue emergency orders, or establish no-
discharge zones. EPA does not anticipate an information collection
burden on states until the USCG has established final implementing
requirements (required by the VIDA as soon as practicable but not later
than two years after the EPA discharge standards proposed in this
rulemaking are finalized). After such time, the information collection
burden relates to the voluntary preparation and submission of petitions
by states and is therefore an intermittent activity.
The ICR submitted for approval to the OMB as part of this
rulemaking reflects an anticipated burden to states in the third year
of the three-year ICR cycle. This includes one petition of each type:
Modification of national standards of performance, issuance of
emergency orders, and establishment no-discharge zones. EPA does not
expect petitions for enhanced Great Lakes System requirements during
this ICR cycle. The type and level of detail of information that a
state would need to generate to petition EPA under CWA Section 312(p)
is most analogous to the information prepared for an application to EPA
under the existing CWA Section 312 ICR (OMB control number 2040-0187),
which includes state activities related to petitioning EPA for no-
discharge zones for sewage and discharges incidental to the normal
operation of vessels of the Armed Forces. For incidental discharges
from vessels of the Armed Forces, states may also petition EPA for
review of standards. Because of the parallels in discharge types and
state activities, EPA used the burden estimates in the existing ICR to
inform the expected burden for this proposed rule. Looking ahead, EPA
proposes that this new ICR be combined with the existing CWA Section
312 ICR (OMB control number 2040-0187) expected to be renewed in August
2022. This would create a single ICR that would include the information
collection burden for all three vessel programs under CWA Section 312
(sewage, vessels of the Armed Forces, and commercial vessels).
The hour and cost estimates, summarized below, include such
activities as reviewing the relevant regulations and guidance
documents, gathering and analyzing the required information, and
preparing and submitting the application.
Respondents/affected entities: State governments (SIC code 9511,
NAICS code 924110) are the only respondents to the data collection
activities described in this ICR.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Preparation and submission of a
petition is a voluntary action that may be undertaken by the
respondent. This is not a reporting requirement, nor are there any
deadlines associated with these petitions.
Estimated number of respondents: Three respondents are anticipated
during this three-year ICR cycle.
Frequency of response: Three petitions are anticipated during this
three-year ICR cycle, each in the third year, including one petition
each for establishment of a no-discharge zone, review of standards, and
issuance of an emergency order.
Total estimated burden: Approximately 82 hours per year.
Total estimated cost: $4,560 per year, including $150 annualized
operation & maintenance costs.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. This particular
information collection request can be located by selecting ``Currently
under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search
function. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than November 25, 2020. EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute, unless the agency certifies that
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
EPA certifies that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA.
Although the proposed rule will impose requirements on any small entity
that operates a vessel subject to the standards, EPA used a cost-to-
revenue test to evaluate potential severity of economic impact on
vessels owned by small entities. EPA determined that the projected cost
burden would not exceed the conventional cost/revenue thresholds used
for small entity impact screening analyses (costs greater than 1
percent and 3 percent of annual revenue). Details of the screening
analysis are presented in the section entitled ``Small Business
Impacts'' in the RIA accompanying the proposed rule.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2
U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires federal agencies, unless otherwise
prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on
state, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector. An action
contains a federal mandate if it may result in expenditures of $100
million or more (annually, adjusted for inflation) for state, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any
one year ($160 million in 2018). This action does not contain any
unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue an action with
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the federal
[[Page 67877]]
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by state and local governments or EPA consults with
state and local officials early in development of the action.
EPA has concluded that this action has federalism implications for
the following reason. The VIDA added a new CWA Section 312(p)(9)(A)
that specifies beginning on the effective date of the requirements
promulgated by the Secretary established under CWA Section 312(p)(5),
no state, political subdivision of a state, or interstate agency may
adopt or enforce any law, regulation, or other requirement with respect
to an incidental discharge subject to regulation under the VIDA except
insofar as such law, regulation, or other requirement is identical to
or less stringent than the federal regulations under the VIDA.
Accordingly, EPA and the USCG conducted a Federalism consultation
briefing on July 9th, 2019 in Washington, DC to allow states and local
officials to have meaningful and timely input into the development of
EPA rulemaking.
EPA provided an overview of the VIDA, described the interim
requirements and the framework of future regulations, identified state
provisions associated with the VIDA, and received comments and
questions. The briefing was attended by representatives from the
National Governors Association, the National Conference of State
Legislatures, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the County Executives of
America, the National Association of Counties, the National League of
Cities, Environmental Council of the States, the Association of Clean
Water Administrators, the National Water Resources Association, the
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the National Association of
State Boating Law Administrators, the Western Governors Association,
and the Western States Water Council. Pre-proposal comments were
accepted from July 9, 2019 to September 9, 2019 and are described in
conjunction with the Governors' Consultation comments.
Additionally, pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 13132 and
Agency policy, a federalism summary impact statement is required in the
final rule to summarize not only the issues and concerns raised by
state and local government commenters during the proposed rule's
development, but also to describe how and the extent to which the
agency addressed those concerns. Further, as required by Section 8(a)
of Executive Order 13132, EPA in the final rule will include a
certification from its Federalism Official stating that EPA met the
Executive Order's requirements in a meaningful and timely manner. A
copy of this certification will be included in the public version of
the official record once the action is finalized.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This proposed action has tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. See 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000. However, it
will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally
recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. Tribes may
primarily be interested in this action because commercial vessels may
operate in or near tribal waters. Additionally, Tribes may have TAS
under Section 309 of the CWA. To that end, EPA consulted with tribal
officials under the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribes early in the process of developing this regulation to
permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. A
summary of that consultation and coordination follows.
EPA initiated a tribal consultation and coordination process for
this action by sending a ``Notice of Consultation and Coordination''
letter on June 18, 2019, to all 573 federally recognized tribes. The
letter invited tribal leaders and designated consultation
representatives to participate in the tribal consultation and
coordination process, which lasted from July 11 to September 11, 2019.
EPA held an informational webinar for tribal representatives on July
11, 2019, to obtain meaningful and timely input during the development
of the proposed rule. During the webinar, EPA provided an overview of
the VIDA, described the interim requirements and the framework of
future regulations, and identified tribal provisions associated with
the VIDA. A total of nine tribal representatives participated in the
webinar. EPA also provided an informational presentation on the VIDA
during the Region 10 Regional Tribal Operations Committee (RTOC) call
on July 18, 2019, as requested by the RTOC. During the consultation
period, tribes and tribal organizations sent two pre-proposal comment
letters to EPA as part of the consultation process. In addition, EPA
held one consultation meeting with the leadership of a tribe, at the
tribe's request, to obtain pre-proposal input and answer questions
regarding the forthcoming rule.
EPA incorporated the feedback it received from tribal
representatives in the proposed rule. Records of the tribal
informational webinar, and a consultation summary summarizing the
written and verbal comments submitted by tribes are included in the
public docket for this proposed rule. The Agency specifically solicits
additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
See 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997. The proposed national standards of
performance are designed to control discharges incidental to the normal
operation of a vessel that could adversely affect human health and the
environment. The proposed rule is intended to reduce discharges to
receiving waters that could affect any person using the receiving
waters, regardless of age.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Concern Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, and Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined by
Executive Order 13211 because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. See 66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001. EPA believes that any additional energy usage
would be insignificant compared to the total energy usage of vessels
and the total annual U.S. energy consumption.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
The proposed rule would establish national standards of performance
but does not establish environmental monitoring or measurement
requirements and thus does not include technical standards. Similarly,
EPA proposes not to identify specific, prescribed analytic methods.
Rather, the national standards of performance in this proposed rule
would be the basis of USCG implementing regulations with respect to
inspections, monitoring, reporting, sampling, and recordkeeping to
ensure, monitor, and enforce compliance with these standards. The
applicability of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
is appropriately assessed as part of that USCG rulemaking as
established in CWA Section 312(p)(5)(A).
[[Page 67878]]
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
EPA proposes that this action does not have disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898. See 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994.
While EPA was unable to perform a detailed environmental justice
analysis because it lacks data on the exact location of vessels and
their associated discharges, the proposed rule will increase the level
of environmental protection for all affected populations without having
any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income
population. Overall, the proposed rule would reduce the amount of
pollution entering waterbodies from vessels, which will yield health
benefits and improve the recreational utility of waterbodies where
vessels are subject to the proposed standards.
XIII. References
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). (2007).
Large Commercial Passenger Vessel Wastewater Discharge: General
Permit Information Sheet. Retrieved from http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/cruise_ships/gp/2008_GP_Info2.pdf.
Alfa Laval. (2017). Personal communication between Peter Sahlen and
Frida Norlen, Alfa Laval and Jack Faulk, USEPA. April 1 and April 3,
2017.
American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). (2019). Best Practices for
Operations of Ballast Water Management Systems Report. Available at
https://safety4sea.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/ABS-2019-best-practices-for-operations-of-BWMS-report-2019_04.pdf.
Bailey, S.A., Chan, F., Ellis, S.M., Bronnenhuber, J.E., Badie,
J.N., Simard, N. (2012). Risk Assessment for Ship-Mediated
Introductions of Aquatic Nonindigenous Species to the Great Lakes
and Freshwater St. Lawrence River. Canadian Science Advisory
Secretariat.
Ballast Water Equipment Manufacturers Association (BEMA). 2020.
Compilation of BWMS Type Approval Testing Biological Efficacy Data.
February 13, 2020.
Bawat. A. (2016). Bawat Ballast Water Treatment. Available at http://www.bawat.dk/images/BAWAT_PRESENTATION_AUGUST_2016_2.pdf.
Bell, A., Phillips, S., Denny, C., Georgiades, E., and Kluza, D.
(2011). Risk Analysis: Vessel Biofouling. Wellington: Ministry of
Agriculture and Forestry Biosecurity New Zealand.
Briski, E., Linley, R., Adams, J., and Bailey, S. (2014). Evaluating
Efficacy of a Ballast Water Filtration System for Reducing Spread of
Aquatic Species in Freshwater Ecosystems. Management of Biological
Invasions Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 245-253.
Brown and Caldwell. (2007). Port of Milwaukee Onshore Ballast Water
Treatment--Feasibility Study Report. Prepared for the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources. October 12, 2007.
Brown and Caldwell and Bay Engineering, Inc. (2008). Port of
Milwaukee Off-Ship Ballast Water Treatment Feasibility Study Report,
Phase 2. Prepared for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
August 28, 2008.
Carbery, K., Owen, R., Frickers, T., Otero, E., and J. Readman.
(2006). Mar. Pollut. Bull., 52, 635-644.
ClearBallast. (2012). Overview of Hitachi Ballast Water Purification
System-ClearBallast.
COWI A/S. (2012). Ballast Water Treatment in Ports--Feasibility
Study. Prepared for the Danish Shipowners' Association. November
2012.
Cruise Lines International Association. (2019). 2019 Environmental
Technologies and Practices Report. Retrieved from https://cruising.org/en/news-and-research/research/2019/september/2019-environment-technologies-and-practices-table---cruise-industry-report.
Damen. (2017). Damen's InvaSave Port-Based Ballast Water Management
System Has World Premiere. (marketing sheet). May 2, 2017.
DiGangi, J., Schettler, T., Cobbing, M., & Rossi, M. (2002).
Aggregate exposures to phthalate in humans.
DNV GL. (2019). Global Sulphur Cap 2020 Update, External Webinar
(presented on May 23, 2019), Kristian Johnsen, Fabian Kock,
Alexander Strom, and Christos Chryssakis.
Drake, J.M. and D.M. Lodge. (2007). Hull fouling is a risk factor
for intercontinental species exchange in aquatic ecosystems. Aquat.
Invasions, 2 (2), 121-131.
Drake, L.A., Tamburri, M.N., First, M.R., Smith, G.J., and Johengen,
T.H. (2014). How Many Organisms Are in Ballast Water Discharge? A
Framework for Validating and Selecting Compliance Monitoring Tools.
Mar Pollut Bull. 86: 122-128.
Dupuis, A., and Ucan-Marin, F. (2015). A literature review on the
aquatic toxicology of petroleum oil: An overview of oil properties
and effects to aquatic biota. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc.
2015/007. vi + 52 p.
Etkin, D.S. (2010). Worldwide analysis of in-port vessel operational
lubricant discharges and leaks. Proc. 33rd Arctic and Marine
Oilspill Program Technical Seminar: p. 529-554.
Glosten Associates. (2018). Feasibility Study of Shore-based Ballast
Water Reception Facilities in California, prepared for the
California State Lands Commission by the Delta Stewardship Council,
April 13, 2018.
Golden Bear Research Center (Golden Bear). (2018). Test Facility
Researchers Condemn Ballast Treatment Pessimism, February 26, 2018.
Gollasch, S. (2002). The Importance of Ship Hull Fouling as a Vector
of Species Introductions into the North Sea. Biofouling, 18 (2),
105-121.
Great Ships Initiative (GSI). (2010). Report of the Land-Based
Freshwater Testing of the Siemens SiCURETM Ballast Water
Management System. GSI/LB/F/A/1, pp 1-58.
Great Ships Initiative (GSI). (2011). Final Report of the Land-
Based, Freshwater Testing of the Alfa Laval AB PureBallast[supreg]
Ballast Water Treatment System. GSI/LB/F/A/2, pp 1-94.
Great Ships Initiative (GSI). (2014). Technical Report Land Based
Performance Evaluation in Ambient and Augmented Duluth-Superior
Harbor Water of Eight Commercially Available Ballast Water Treatment
System Filter Units. GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/FLTR, pp 1-67.
Great Ships Initiative (GSI). (2015). Technical Report Land-Based
Status Test of the JFE BallastAce[supreg] Ballast Water Management
System and Components at the GSI Testing Facility. GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/
JFE, pp 1-146.
Great Ships Initiative (GSI). (2016). Briefing Paper for the Great
Lakes Commission Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Ballast Water
Workshop, November 16-17, 2016.
Hewitt, C. and M. Campbell. (2010). The relative contribution of
vectors to the introduction and translocation of marine invasive
species.
Hewitt, C.L, Gollasch, S., and D. Minchin. (2009). Chapter 6: The
Vessel as a Vector--Biofouling, Ballast Water and Sediments.
Biological Invasions in Marine Ecosystems, Springer-Verlag Berlin
Heidelberg.
Hilliard, R.W. and Kazansky, O. (2006). Assessment of Shipping
Traffic and Ballast Water Movements to and From Caspian Region, and
Preliminary Appraisal of Possible Ballast Water Management Options.
IMO/UNOPS/CEP Project Technical Report IMO RER/03/G31. November 5,
2006.
Hilliard, R.W. and Matheickal, J.T. (2010). Alternative Ballast
Water Management Options for Caspian Region Shipping: Outcomes of a
Recent CEP/IMO/UNOPS Project. In: Emerging Ballast Water Management
Systems, Proceedings of the IMO-WMU Research and Development Forum
(Malmo, Sweden). January 26-29, 2010.
Hull and Associates, Inc. (2017). Preliminary Cost Estimate for the
Shoreside Ballast Treatment and Supply for the U.S. Great Lakes.
Prepared by Hull & Associates, Inc. for Lake Carriers' Association
(LCA), Rocky River, OH. February 2017.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2002). Anti-fouling
systems. Retrieved from http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Anti-foulingSystems/Documents/FOULING2003.pdf.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2004). International
Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water
and Sediments. BWM/CONF/36.
[[Page 67879]]
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2008). Guidelines for
Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems (G8). Annex 4
Resolution MEPC.174(58).
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2016). Resolution
MEPC.279(70), Annex 5. Available at http://www.imo.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofIMOResolutions/Marine-Environment-Protection-Committee-%28MEPC%29/Documents/MEPC.279%2870%29.pdf.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2016a). Marine
Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC). Harmful Aquatic Organisms
in Ballast Water. Submitted by Liberia. MEPC 69/INF .22, February
12, 2016.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2017). Consideration of
an initial proposal to amend Annex 1 to the AFS Convention to
include controls on cybutryne. PPR 5/INF.8.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2018). Amendment of
Annex 1 to the AFS Convention to include controls on cybutryne, and
consequential revision of relevant guidelines: Information
presenting scientific evidence for the adverse effects of cybutryne
to the environment. PPR 6/INF.7.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2018a). Code for
Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems, Resolution
MEPC.300(72), April 13, 2018.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2019). Lists of Type-
Approved Ballast Water Management Systems, updated October 2019.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2020). Status of IMO
Treaties, April 7, 2020.
Johengen T.H., Reid D.F., Fahnenstiel G.L., MacIsaac H.J., Dobbs F.,
Doblin M., Ruiz GM & Jenkins PT (2005). Assessment of transoceanic
NOBOB vessels and low-salinity ballast water as vectors for non-
indigenous species introductions to the Great Lakes--Chapter 5.
Final Report to Great Lakes Protection Fund. 287 pp.
Keister, T., and Balog, D. (1992). Field Evaluation of Ozone for
Control of Corrosion and Scale in a Zero Blowdown Application,
Association of Water Technologies, 5th Annual Convention, San Diego,
CA, (1992).
King, D., and Hagan, P. (2013). Economic and Logistical Feasibility
of Port-Based Ballast Water Treatment: A Case Study at the Port of
Baltimore (USA). MERC Ballast Water Discussion Paper No. 6, (Review
Draft). UMCES Ref. No.: [UMCES]CBL 2013-011. May 2013.
Lake Carriers' Association (LCA). (2016). List of Member Vessel
Ballasting Characteristics. Provided to Jack Faulk, USEPA via email.
Lake Carriers' Association (LCA). (2016a). Meeting Notes for
Conference Call with Lake Carriers Association, EPA, and EPA
contractor staff. August 2, 2016.
Lake Carriers' Association (LCA). (2017). Email from Tom Rayburn,
LCA to Mark Briggs, Eastern Research Group, Inc. March 6, 2017.
Lake Carriers' Association (LCA). (2018). Email from Tom Rayburn,
LCA to Mark Briggs, Eastern Research Group, Inc. May 8, 2018.
Maglic, L., Zec, D. and V. Francic. (2015). Effectiveness of a
Barge-Based Ballast Water Treatment System for Multi-Terminal Ports.
Promet--Traffic & Transportation. 27:5, 429-437.
Marinelog. (2016). Fednav Claims a Lakes BWTS First. Available at
http://www.marinelog.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=22780:fednav-claims-a-lakes-bwts-first&Itemid=230.
Marr, B. (2017). IoT and Big Data at Caterpillar: How Predictive
Maintenance Saves Millions of Dollars. Forbes. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2017/02/07/iot-and-big-data-at-caterpillar-how-predictive-maintenance-saves-millions-of-dollars/#70a82fd17240.
Marubini, F. and M.J. Atkinson. (1999). Effects of lowered pH and
elevated nitrate on coral calcification. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 188,
117-121.
Monroy, O., Linley, R., Chan, Pl, Kydd, J. (2017). Evaluating
Efficacy of Filtration + UV-C Radiation for Ballast Water Treatment
at Different Temperatures. Journal of Sea Research.
Moser, C.S., Wier, T.P., First, M.R., Grant, J.F., Riley, S.C.,
Robbins-Wamsley, S.H., Tamburri, M.N., Ruiz, G.M., Miller, A.W., and
L.A. Drake. (2017). Biol. Invasions, 19, 1745-1759.
National Ballast Information Clearinghouse (NBIC). (2020), NBIC
Reported Ballast Water Discharge Ports--Dec 13 2013 through Dec 31
2017, 2020.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency; U.S. Chart No. 1--Symbols,
Abbreviations and Terms used on Paper and Electronic Navigational
Charts, 13th Edition, April 15, 2019.
National Research Council. (1993). Managing Wastewater in Coastal
Urban Areas. United States of America: National Academy of Sciences.
National Research Council. (2000). Clean Coastal Waters:
Understanding and Reducing the Effects of Nutrient Pollution. United
States of America. National Academy of Sciences.
Ober, H.K. (2012). Effects of Oil Spills on Marine and Coastal
Wildlife. University of Florida IFAS Extension, WEC285.
Oyen, F.G.F., Camps, L.E.C.M.M., and S.E. Wedelaar Bonga. (1991).
Effect of acid stress on the embryonic development of the common
carp (Cyprinus carpio). Aquat. Toxicol., 19, 1-12.
Pavlakis, P., Tarchi, D. & Sieber, A.J. (2001). On the Monitoring of
Illicit Vessel Discharges, A Reconnaissance Study in the
Mediterranean Sea, EC DG Joint Research Center, Institute for the
Protection and Security of the Citizen Humanitarian Security Unit.
Pereira, N.N. and Brinati, H.L. (2012). Onshore Ballast Water
Treatment: A Viable Option for Major Ports. Marine Pollution
Bulletin, 64(2296-2304).
Reynolds, K., Knight, I., Wells, C., Pepper, I., & Gerba, C. (1999).
Detection of human pathogenic protozoa and viruses in ballast water
using conventional and molecular methods. General Meeting of the
American Society for Microbiology. Chicago, IL.
Schultz, M.P. (2007). Effects of coating roughness and biofouling on
ship resistance and powering. Biofouling, 23 (5), 331-341.
Sekizawa, J., S. Dobson & R. Touch III. (2003). Diethyl Phthalate.
World Health Organization, Concise International Chemical Assessment
Document 52.
Shipping Federation of Canada. (2000). Code of Best Practices for
Ballast Water Management.
Tomaszewska, M., Orecki, A., & Karakulski, K. (2005). Treatment of
bilge water using a combination of ultrafiltration and reverse
osmosis. Desalination, 185, 203-212.
Townsin, R.L. (2003). The Ship Hull Fouling Penalty. Biofouling, 19
(Supplement), 9-15.
Tribou, M. and G. Swain. (2017). The effects of grooming on a copper
ablative coating: A six year study. Biofouling, 33 (6), 494-504.
Tuthill, A., Avery, R., Lamb, S., and Kobrin, G. (1998). Effects of
Chlorine on Common Materials in Freshwater. Materials Performance,
Vol. 37, No. 11, pp. 52-56.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (2017). GL_Waterborne Harbor
Transit Time Matrix.
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). (2013). Ballast Water Treatment, U.S. Great
Lakes Bulk Carrier Engineering and Cost Study, Volume 1I: Analysis
of On-Board Treatment Methods, Alternative Ballast Water Management
Practices, and Implementation Costs. Acquisition Directorate. Report
No. CG-D-12-13.
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). (2019). Marine Safety Center BWMS Type
Approval Status. Available at https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/MSC/BWMS/BWMS_Approval_Status_9JUL19.pdf.
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). (2019a). Ballast Water Best Management
Practices to Reduce the Likelihood of Transporting Pathogens That
May Spread Stony Coral Tissue Loss Disease, Marine Safety
Information Bulletin OES-MISB Number: 07-19, September 6, 2019.
U.S. EPA. (2007). Framework for Metals Risk Assessment. Retrieved
from http://www.epa.gov/osa/metalsframework.
U.S. EPA. (2008). Cruise ship discharge assessment report (EPA-842-
R-07-005). Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. EPA. (2010). Generic Protocol for the Verification of Ballast
Water Treatment Technology. EPA/600/R-10/146.
U.S. EPA. (2011). Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants. (EPA-800-R-
11-002) Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. EPA. (2011a). Ballast Water Self-Monitoring. EPA-800-R-11-003.
U.S. EPA. (2011b). Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment Systems: A
Report by the EPA Science Advisory Board. EPA-SAB-11-009.
[[Page 67880]]
U.S. EPA. (2011c). Oily Bilgewater Separators. (EPA-800-R-11-007)
Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. EPA. (2015). Feasibility and Efficacy of Using Potable Water
Generators as an Alternative Option for Meeting Ballast Water
Discharge Limits. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Wastewater Management. Washington, DC. EPA 830-R-15-002. July 2015.
U.S. EPA. (2016). Draft Aquatic Life Ambient Estuarine/Marine Water
Quality Criteria for Copper--2016. (EPA-822-P-16-001) Washington,
DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. EPA. (2018). Copper Compounds Interim Registration Review
Decision Case Nos. 0636, 0649, 4025, 4026. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0212).
Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. EPA. (2019) U.S. EPA Ballast Water Update, Jack Faulk,
presented at the BWMTech North America Conference, Ft. Lauderdale,
FL, September 25, 2019.
U.S. EPA. (2020), VGP eNOI Query for Vessels Discharging Ballast by
Time in the United States.
U.S. EPA. (2020a), Note to file--Summary of restrictions on
discharges from Exhaust Gas Control Systems, August 11, 2020.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (1999). The Quality of our Nation's
Waters: Nutrients and Pesticides. USGS Circular 1225. Retrieved from
http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1225.
Valkirs, A.O., Seligman, P.F., Haslbeck, E., and J.S. Caso. (2003).
Mar. Pollut. Bull., 46, 763-779.
Van Wezel, A.P. and P. Van Vlaardingen. (2004). Environmental risk
limits for antifouling substances. Aquat. Toxicol., 66, 427-444.
Voutchkov, N. (2013). Desalination Engineering Planning and Design.
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., NY, NY.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI). (2007). Harmful Algae:
What are Harmful Algal Blooms (HABS). Retrieved from http://www.whoi.edu/redtide.
Zaniboni-Filho, E., Nu[ntilde]er, A.P.O., Reynalte-Tataje, D.A., and
R.L. Serafini. (2009) Fish Physiol. Biochem., 35, 151-155.
Zirino, A. and P.F. Seligman. (2002). Copper Chemistry, Toxicity,
and Bioavailability and Its Relationship to Regulation in the Marine
Environment. Office of Naval Research Second Workshop Report,
Technical Document 3140.
Zo, Y., Grimm, C., Matte, M., Matte, G., Knight, I.T., Huq, A., &
Colwell, R.R. (1999). Detection and enumeration of pathogenic
bacteria in ballast Water of Transoceanic Vessels Entering the Great
Lakes and Resistance to Common Antibiotics. General Meeting of the
American Society for Microbiology. Chicago, IL: American Society of
Microbiology.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 139
Environmental protection, commercial vessels, coastal zone,
incidental discharges.
Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR subchapter D by adding part 139 to read as follows:
PART 139--DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF VESSELS
Subpart A--Scope
Sec.
139.1 Coverage.
139.2 Definitions.
139.3 Other Federal laws.
Subpart B--General Standards for Discharges Incidental to the Normal
Operation of a Vessel
139.4 General operation and maintenance.
139.5 Biofouling management.
139.6 Oil management.
Subpart C--Standards for Specific Discharges Incidental to the Normal
Operation of a Vessel
139.10 Ballast tanks.
139.11 Bilges.
139.12 Boilers.
139.13 Cathodic protection.
139.14 Chain lockers.
139.15 Decks.
139.16 Desalination and purification systems.
139.17 Elevator pits.
139.18 Exhaust gas emission control systems.
139.19 Fire protection equipment.
139.20 Gas turbines.
139.21 Graywater systems.
139.22 Hulls and associated niche areas.
139.23 Inert gas systems.
139.24 Motor gasoline and compensating systems.
139.25 Non-oily machinery.
139.26 Pools and spas.
139.27 Refrigeration and air conditioning.
139.28 Seawater piping.
139.29 Sonar domes.
Subpart D--Special Area Requirements
139.40 Federally-protected waters.
Subpart E--Procedures for States To Request Changes to Standards,
Regulations, or Policy Promulgated by the Administrator
139.50 Petition by a Governor for the Administrator to establish an
emergency order or review a standard, regulation, or policy.
139.51 Petition by a Governor for the Administrator to establish
enhanced Great Lakes System requirements.
139.52 Application by a State for the Administrator to establish a
State No-Discharge Zone.
Appendix A to Part 139--Federally-Protected Waters
Subpart A--Scope
Sec. 139.1 Coverage.
(a) Vessel discharges. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this
section, this part applies to:
(1) Any discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel;
and
(2) Any discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel
(such as most graywater) that is commingled with sewage, subject to the
conditions that:
(i) Nothing in this part prevents a state from regulating sewage
discharges; and
(ii) Any such commingled discharge must comply with all applicable
requirements of:
(A) This part; and
(B) Any law applicable to the discharge of sewage.
(b) Exclusions. This part does not apply to any discharge:
(1) Incidental to the normal operation of:
(i) A vessel of the Armed Forces subject to 33 U.S.C. 1322(n);
(ii) A recreational vessel subject to 33 U.S.C. 1322(o);
(iii) A small vessel or fishing vessel, except that this part
applies to any discharge of ballast water from a small vessel or
fishing vessel; or
(iv) A floating craft that is permanently moored to a pier,
including a floating casino, hotel, restaurant, or bar; or
(2) That results from, or contains material derived from, an
activity other than the normal operation of the vessel, such as
material resulting from an industrial or manufacturing process onboard
the vessel; or
(3) If compliance with this part would compromise the safety of
life at sea.
(c) Area of coverage. The standards in this part apply to any
vessel identified in paragraph (a) of this section, not otherwise
excluded in paragraph (b) of this section, while operating in the
waters of the United States or the waters of the contiguous zone.
(d) Effective date. (1) The standards in this part are effective
beginning on the date upon which regulations promulgated by the
Secretary governing the design, construction, testing, approval,
installation, and use of marine pollution control devices as necessary
to ensure compliance with the standards are final, effective, and
enforceable.
(2) As of the effective date identified in paragraph (d)(1) of this
section, the requirements of the Vessel General Permit and all
regulations promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to Section 1101 of
the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of
[[Page 67881]]
1990 (16 U.S.C. 4711), including the regulations contained in 46 CFR
162.060 and 33 CFR part 151 subparts C and D, as in effect on December
3, 2018, shall be deemed repealed and have no force or effect.
Sec. 139.2 Definitions.
The following definitions apply for the purposes of this part.
Terms not defined in this section have the meaning as defined under the
Clean Water Act (CWA) and applicable regulations.
Administrator means the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency. (source: CWA section 101(d)).
Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) means a nonindigenous species that
threatens the diversity or abundance of a native species; the
ecological stability of waters of the United States or the waters of
the contiguous zone; or a commercial, agricultural, aquacultural, or
recreational activity that is dependent on waters of the United States
or the waters of the contiguous zone. (source: CWA section
312(p)(1)(A)).
Ballast tank means any tank or hold on a vessel used for carrying
ballast water, whether or not the tank or hold was designed for that
purpose. (source: 33 CFR 151.1504).
Ballast water means any water, to include suspended matter and
other materials taken onboard a vessel, to control or maintain trim,
draught, stability, or stresses of the vessel, regardless of the means
by which any such water or suspended matter is carried; or during the
cleaning, maintenance, or other operation of a ballast tank or ballast
water management system of the vessel. The term does not include any
substance that is added to that water that is directly related to the
operation of a properly functioning ballast water management system.
(source: CWA section 312(p)(1)(B)).
Ballast water exchange means the replacement of ballast water in a
ballast tank using one of the following methods:
(1) Flow-through exchange, in which ballast water is flushed out by
pumping in mid-ocean water at the bottom of the tank if practicable,
and continuously overflowing the tank from the top, until three full
volumes of tank water have been changed.
(2) Empty and refill exchange, in which ballast water is pumped out
until the pump loses suction, after which the ballast tank is refilled
with water from the mid-ocean. (source: CWA section 312(p)(1)(D)).
Ballast water management system means any marine pollution control
device (including all ballast water treatment equipment, ballast tanks,
pipes, pumps, and all associated control and monitoring equipment) that
processes ballast water to kill, render nonviable, or remove organisms;
or to avoid the uptake or discharge of organisms. (source: CWA section
312(p)(1)(E)).
Bioaccumulative means the failure to meet one or more of the
criteria established in the definition of Not Bioaccumulative.
Biodegradable for the following classes of substances, means (all
percentages are on a weight/weight concentration basis):
(1) For oils: At least 90% of the formulation (for any substances
present above 0.1%) demonstrates, within 28 days, either the removal of
at least 70% of dissolved organic carbon (DOC), production of at least
60% of the theoretical carbon dioxide, or consumption of at least 60%
of the theoretical oxygen demand). Up to 5% of the formulation may be
non-biodegradable but may not be bioaccumulative. The remaining 5% must
be inherently biodegradable.
(2) For greases: At least 75% of the formulation (for any
substances present above 0.1%) demonstrates, within 28 days, either the
removal of at least 70% of DOC, production of at least 60% of the
theoretical carbon dioxide, or consumption of at least 60% of the
theoretical oxygen demand). Up to 25% of the formulation may be non-
biodegradable or inherently biodegradable but may not be
bioaccumulative.
(3) For soaps, cleaners, and detergents: A product that
demonstrates, within 28 days, either the removal of at least 70% of
DOC, production of at least 60% of the theoretical carbon dioxide, or
consumption of at least 60% of the theoretical oxygen demand.
(4) For biocides: A compound or mixture that, within 28 days,
demonstrates removal of at least 70% of DOC and production of at least
60% of the theoretical carbon dioxide.
Biofouling means the accumulation of aquatic organisms such as
micro-organisms, plants, and animals on surfaces and structures
immersed in or exposed to the aquatic environment. (source: Modified
from IMO MEPC.207(62)).
Broom clean means a condition in which care has been taken to
prevent or eliminate any visible concentration of tank or cargo
residues, so that any remaining tank or cargo residues consist only of
dust, powder, or isolated and random pieces, none of which exceeds one
inch in diameter. (source: Modified from 33 CFR 151.66).
Captain of the Port (COTP) zone means such zone as established by
the Secretary pursuant to sections 92, 93, and 633 of title 14, United
States Code. (source: CWA section 312(p)(1)(J)).
Commercial vessel means, except as the term is used in Sec.
139.10(g), any vessel used in the business of transporting property for
compensation or hire, or in transporting property in the business of
the owner, lessee, or operator of the vessel. (source: CWA section
312(a)(10)). As used in Sec. 139.10(g), the term commercial vessel
means a vessel operating between:
(1) Two ports or places of destination within the Pacific Region;
or
(2) A port or place of destination within the Pacific Region and a
port or place of destination on the Pacific Coast of Canada or Mexico
north of parallel 20 degrees north latitude, inclusive of the Gulf of
California. (source: CWA section 312(p)(10)(C)(i)).
Constructed in respect of a vessel means a stage of construction
when:
(1) The keel of a vessel is laid;
(2) Construction identifiable with the specific vessel begins;
(3) Assembly of the vessel has commenced and comprises at least 50
tons or 1% of the estimated mass of all structural material of the
vessel, whichever is less; or
(4) The vessel undergoes a major conversion. (source: 33 CFR
151.1504).
Contiguous zone means the entire zone established by the United
States under Article 24 of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and
the Contiguous Zone. (source: CWA section 502(9)).
Discharge means ``discharge incidental to the normal operation of a
vessel'' as defined in this section.
Discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel means a
discharge, including--
(1) Graywater, bilge water, cooling water, weather deck runoff,
ballast water, oil water separator effluent, and any other pollutant
discharge from the operation of a marine propulsion system, shipboard
maneuvering system, crew habitability system, or installed major
equipment, such as an aircraft carrier elevator or a catapult, or from
a protective, preservative, or absorptive application to the hull of
the vessel; and
(2) A discharge in connection with the testing, maintenance, and
repair of a system described in clause (1):
(i) Whenever the vessel is waterborne; and does not include--
(A) A discharge of rubbish, trash, garbage, or other such material
discharged overboard;
(B) An air emission resulting from the operation of a vessel
propulsion system,
[[Page 67882]]
motor driven equipment, or incinerator; or
(3) A discharge that is not covered by Sec. 122.3 of this chapter
(as in effect on February 10, 1996). (source: CWA section 312).
Discharge of oil in such quantities as may be harmful means any
discharge of oil, including an oily mixture, in such quantities
identified in 40 CFR 110.3 and excluding those discharges specified in
40 CFR 110.5.
Empty ballast tank means a tank that has previously held ballast
water that has been drained to the limit of the functional or
operational capabilities of the tank (such as loss of pump suction); is
recorded as empty on a vessel log; and may contain unpumpable residual
ballast water and sediment. (source: CWA section 312(p)(1)(K)).
Environmentally Acceptable Lubricant (EAL) means a lubricant,
including any oil or grease, that is ``biodegradable,'' ``minimally-
toxic,'' and ``not bioaccumulative,'' as these terms are defined in
Sec. 139.2.
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) means the area established by
Presidential Proclamation Number 5030, dated March 10, 1983 which
extends from the base line of the territorial sea of the United States
seaward 200 nautical miles, and the equivalent zone of Canada. (source:
33 CFR 151.1504).
Existing vessel means a vessel constructed, or where construction
has begun, prior to the date identified in regulations promulgated by
the Secretary as described in Sec. 139.1(e).
Federally-protected waters means any waters of the United States or
the waters of the contiguous zone subject to federal protection, in
whole or in part, for conservation purposes, located within any area
listed in Appendix A, as designated under:
(1) National Marine Sanctuaries designated under the National
Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.);
(2) Marine National Monuments designated under the Antiquities Act
of 1906;
(3) A unit of the National Park System, including National
Preserves and National Monuments, designated by the National Park
Service within the U.S. Department of the Interior;
(4) A unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System, including
Wetland Management Districts, Waterfowl Production Areas, National Game
Preserves, Wildlife Management Areas, and National Fish and Wildlife
Refuges designated under the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966 as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997;
(5) National Wilderness Areas designated under the Wilderness Act
of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136); and
(6) Any component designated under the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act of 1968, 16 U.S.C. 1273.
Fouling rating means the scale developed by the U.S. Navy (Naval
Ships' Technical Manual, Chapter 81, Waterborne Underwater Hull
Cleaning of Navy Ships, Revision 5, S9086-CQ-STM-010, 2006) that
assigns a fouling rating (FR) number to the 10 most frequently
encountered biofouling patterns. Numbers are assigned on a scale from 0
to 100, in 10-point increments, with the lowest number representing a
clean hull and the higher numbers representing biofouling organism
populations of increasing variety and severity.
Graywater means drainage from dishwater, shower, laundry, bath, and
washbasin drains. It does not include drainage from toilets, urinals,
hospitals, animal spaces, and cargo spaces. (source: 33 CFR 151.05).
Great Lakes means Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, Lake Huron (including
Lake Saint Clair), Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, and the connecting
channels (Saint Mary's River, Saint Clair River, Detroit River, Niagara
River, and Saint Lawrence River to the Canadian border), and includes
all other bodies of water within the drainage basin of such lakes and
connecting channels. (source: CWA section 118(a)(3)(B)).
Great Lakes State means any of the states of Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
(source: CWA section 312(p)(1)(M)).
Gross Register Tonnage (GRT) means the gross tonnage measurement of
the vessel under the Regulatory Measurement System. (source: 46 CFR
69.9).
Gross Tonnage ITC (GT ITC) means the gross tonnage measurement of
the vessel under the Convention Measurement System. (source: 46 CFR
69.9).
Impaired waterbody means a waterbody identified by a state, tribe,
or EPA pursuant to section 303(d) of the CWA as not meeting applicable
state or tribal water quality standards (these waters are called
``water quality limited segments'' under 40 CFR 130.2(j)) and includes
both waters with approved or established Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDL) and those for which a TMDL has not yet been approved or
established.
Inherently biodegradable means the property of being able to be
biodegraded when subjected to sunlight, water, and naturally occurring
microbes to the following level: Greater than 70% biodegraded after 28
days using OECD Test Guidelines 302C or greater than 20% but less than
60% biodegraded after 28 days using OECD Test Guidelines 301 A-F.
Internal Waters means:
(1) With respect to the United States, the waters shoreward of the
territorial sea baseline, including waters of the Great Lakes extending
to the maritime boundary with Canada, and
(2) With respect to any other nation, the waters shoreward of its
territorial sea baseline, as recognized by the United States. (source:
Modified from 33 CFR 2.24 as referenced in CWA section 312(p)(1)(O)).
Live or living, notwithstanding any other provision of law
(including regulations), does not:
(1) Include an organism that has been rendered nonviable; or
(2) Preclude the consideration of any method of measuring the
concentration of organisms in ballast water that are capable of
reproduction. (source: CWA Section 312(p)(6)(D)(i)).
Major conversion means a conversion of an existing vessel:
(1) That substantially alters the dimensions or carrying capacity
of the vessel; or
(2) That changes the type of the vessel; or
(3) The intent of which, in the opinion of the government of the
country under whose authority the vessel is operating, is substantially
to prolong its life; or
(4) Which otherwise so alters the vessel that, if it were a new
vessel, it would become subject to relevant provisions of MARPOL not
applicable to it as an existing vessel. (source: 33 CFR 151.05).
Marine Growth Prevention System (MGPS) means an anti-fouling system
used for the prevention of biofouling accumulation in seawater piping
systems and sea chests. (source: Modified from IMO MEPC.207(62)).
Marine Pollution Control Device (MPCD) means any equipment or
management practice (or combination of equipment and management
practice) for installation and use onboard a vessel that is: Designed
to receive, retain, treat, control, or discharge a discharge incidental
to the normal operation of a vessel; and determined by the
Administrator and the Secretary to be the most effective equipment or
management practice (or combination of equipment and a management
practice) to reduce the environmental impacts of the discharge,
consistent with the factors considered in developing the
[[Page 67883]]
standards in this part. (source: CWA section 312(p)(1)(P)).
Master means the officer having command of a vessel. (source: 46
CFR 10.107).
Mid-ocean means greater than 200 nautical miles (NM) from any
shore, except when a ballast water exchange or saltwater flush outside
of 50 NM is authorized in this part, then it means greater than 50 NM
from any shore. For regular maintenance of ballast tanks to remove
sediments, it means outside the waters of the United States or the
waters of the contiguous zone.
Minimally-Toxic means, for lubricants (all percentages are on a
weight/weight basis):
(1) If both the complete formulation and the main constituents
(that is constituents making up greater than or equal to 5% of the
complete formulation) are evaluated, then the acute aquatic toxicity of
lubricants, other than greases and total loss lubricants, must be at
least 100 mg/L and the LC50 of greases and total loss lubricants must
be at least 1000 mg/L; or
(2) If each constituent is evaluated, rather than the complete
formulation and main constituents, then for each constituent present
above 0.1%: Up to 20% of the formulation can have an LC50 greater than
10 mg/L but less than 100 mg/L and an NOEC greater than 1 mg/L but less
than 10 mg/L; up to 5% of the formulation can have an LC50 greater than
1 mg/L but less than 10 mg/L and an NOEC greater than 0.1 mg/L but less
than 1 mg/L; and up to 1% of the formulation can have an LC50 less than
1 mg/L and an NOEC less than 0.1 mg/L.
Minimally-toxic, phosphate-free, and biodegradable means properties
of a substance or mixture of substances that:
(1) Have an acute aquatic toxicity value corresponding to a
concentration greater than 10 ppm;
(2) Do not produce residuals with an LC50 less than 10 ppm;
(3) Are not bioaccumulative;
(4) Do not cause the pH of the receiving water to go below 6.0 or
above 9.0;
(5) Contain, by weight, 0.5% or less of phosphates or derivatives
of phosphate; and
(6) Are biodegradable.
Minimize means to reduce or eliminate to the extent achievable
using any control measure that is technologically available and
economically practicable and achievable and supported by demonstrated
best management practices such that compliance can be documented in
shipboard logs and plans.
Niche Areas means areas on a ship that may be more susceptible to
biofouling due to different hydrodynamic forces, susceptibility to
coating system wear or damage, or being inadequately, or not, painted
(e.g., sea chests, bow thrusters, propeller shafts, inlet gratings,
drydock support strips) (source: MEPC.207(62)).
Not bioaccumulative means any of the following:
(1) The partition coefficient in the marine environment is log KOW
less than 3 or greater than 7;
(2) The molecular mass is greater than 800 Daltons;
(3) The molecular diameter is greater than 1.5 nanometer;
(4) The bioconcentration factor (BCF) or bioaccumulation factor
(BAF) is less than 100 L/kg; or
(5) The polymer with molecular weight fraction below 1,000 g/mol is
less than 1%.
Oil means oil of any kind or in any form, including but not limited
to any petroleum, fuel oil, environmentally acceptable lubricant,
sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil.
(source: CWA section 311(a)(1)).
Oily mixture means a mixture, in any form, with any oil content,
including, but not limited to:
(1) Slops from bilges;
(2) Slops from oil cargoes (such as cargo tank washings, oily
waste, and oily refuse);
(3) Oil residue; and
(4) Oily ballast water from cargo or fuel oil tanks. (source: 33
CFR 151.05).
Oil-to-Sea interface means any seal or surface on ship-board
equipment where the design is such that oil or oily mixtures can escape
directly into surrounding waters. Oil-to-sea interfaces are found on
equipment that is subject to submersion as well as equipment that can
extend overboard.
Organism means an animal, including fish and fish eggs and larvae;
a plant; a pathogen; a microbe; a virus; a prokaryote (including any
archean or bacterium); a fungus; and a protist. (source: CWA section
312(p)(1)(R)).
Pacific region means any Federal or state water adjacent to the
State of Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, or Washington; and
extending from shore. The term includes the entire exclusive economic
zone (as defined in Section 1001 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33
U.S.C. 2701)) adjacent to each Pacific Region State. (source: CWA
section 312(p)(1)(S)).
Port or place of destination means a port or place to which a
vessel is bound to anchor, to moor, or be otherwise secured. (source:
CWA section 312(p)(1)(T)).
Reception facility refers to any fixed, floating, or mobile
facility capable of receiving wastes and residues from ships and fit
for that purpose. (source: Modified from MEPC.1/Circ.834/Rev.1).
Render nonviable means, with respect to an organism in ballast
water, the action of a ballast water management system that renders the
organism permanently incapable of reproduction following treatment.
(source: CWA section 312(p)(1)(U)).
Saltwater flush means the addition of as much mid-ocean water into
each empty ballast tank of a vessel as is safe for the vessel and crew;
and the mixing of the flush water with residual ballast water and
sediment through the motion of the vessel; and the discharge of that
mixed water, such that the resultant residual water remaining in the
tank has the highest salinity possible; and is at least 30 parts per
thousand. A saltwater flush may require more than one fill-mix-empty
sequence, particularly if only small quantities of water can be safely
taken onboard a vessel at one time. (source: CWA section 312(p)(1)(V)).
Scheduled drydocking means hauling out of a vessel or placing a
vessel in a drydock or slipway for an examination of all accessible
parts of the vessel's underwater hull and all through-hull fittings and
does not include emergency drydocking and emergency hull repairs.
(source: Modified from 46 CFR 31.10-21).
Seagoing vessel means a vessel in commercial service that operates
beyond either the boundary line established by 46 CFR part 7 or the St.
Lawrence River west of a rhumb line drawn from Cap des Rosiers to
Point-Sud-Oeste (West Point), Anticosti Island, and west of a line
along 63' W longitude from Anticosti Island to the north shore of the
St. Lawrence River. It does not include a vessel that navigates
exclusively on internal waters. (source: Modified from 33 CFR
151.2005).
Secretary means the Secretary of the department in which the Coast
Guard is operating. (source: CWA section 312(p)(1)(W)).
Small vessel or fishing vessel means a vessel with a vessel length
that is less than 79 feet; or a fishing vessel, fish processing vessel,
or fish tender vessel (as those terms are defined in Section 2101 of
title 46, United States Code), regardless of the vessel length.
(source: CWA section 312(p)(1)(Y)).
Toxic or hazardous materials means any toxic pollutant as defined
in 40 CFR 401.15 or any hazardous material as defined in 49 CFR 171.8.
[[Page 67884]]
Underway means a vessel is not at anchor, or made fast to the
shore, or aground. (source: 33 CFR 83.03).
Vessel General Permit (VGP) means the permit that is the subject of
the notice of final permit issuance entitled ``Final National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges
Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel'' (78 FR 21938 (April
12, 2013)). (source: CWA section 312(p)(1)(Z)).
Vessel length means the horizontal distance between the foremost
part of a vessel's stem to the aftermost part of its stern, excluding
fittings and attachments. (source: 33 CFR 151.05).
Visible sheen means, with respect to oil and oily mixtures, a
silvery or metallic sheen or gloss, increased reflectivity, visual
color, iridescence, or an oil slick on the surface of the water.
Voyage means any transit by a vessel traveling from or destined for
any United States port or place.
Sec. 139.3 Other Federal laws.
(a) Except as expressly provided in this part, nothing in this part
affects the applicability to a vessel of any other provision of Federal
law, including:
(1) Sections 311 and 312 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1321 et seq. and 33 U.S.C. 1322 et seq.), also known as the
CWA;
(2) The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901 et
seq.);
(3) Title X of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (33 U.S.C.
3801 et seq.), also known as the Clean Hulls Act;
(4) The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7
U.S.C. 136 et seq.); and
(5) The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.)
and implementing regulations found at 15 CFR part 922 and 50 CFR part
404.
(b) Nothing in this part affects the authority of the Secretary of
Commerce or the Secretary of the Interior to administer any land or
waters under the administrative control of the Secretary of Commerce or
the Secretary of the Interior, respectively.
(c) Nothing in this part shall be construed to affect, supersede,
or relieve the master of any otherwise applicable requirements or
prohibitions associated with a vessel's right to innocent passage as
provided for under customary international law.
Subpart B--General Standards for Discharges Incidental to the
Normal Operation of a Vessel
Sec. 139.4 General operation and maintenance.
(a) The requirements in paragraph (b) of this section apply to any
discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel subject to
regulation under this part.
(b) Vessels must implement the following practices:
(1) Minimize discharges.
(2) Discharge while underway when practical and as far from shore
as practical.
(3) Addition of any materials to a discharge, other than for
treatment of the discharge, that is not incidental to the normal
operation of the vessel is prohibited.
(4) Dilution of any discharge for the purpose of meeting any
standard in this part is prohibited.
(5) Any material used onboard that will be subsequently discharged
(e.g., disinfectants, cleaners, biocides, coatings, sacrificial anodes)
must:
(i) Be used only in the amount necessary to perform the intended
function of that material;
(ii) Not contain any materials banned for use in the United States;
and
(iii) If subject to FIFRA registration, be used according to the
FIFRA label. Proper use includes labeling requirements for proper
application sites, rates, frequency of application, and methods;
maintenance; removal; and storage and disposal of wastes and
containers.
(6) Any toxic or hazardous materials onboard which might wash
overboard or dissolve as a result of contact with precipitation or
surface water spray must be stored in appropriately sealed, labeled,
and secured containers and be located in areas of the vessel that
minimize exposure to ocean spray and precipitation consistent with
vessel design, unless the master determines this would interfere with
essential vessel operations or safety of the vessel or would violate
any applicable regulations that establish specifications for safe
transportation, handling, carriage, and storage of toxic or hazardous
materials.
(7) Containers holding toxic or hazardous materials must not be
overfilled and incompatible materials must not be mixed in containers.
(8) The overboard discharge or disposal of containers with toxic or
hazardous materials is prohibited.
(9) Prior to washing the cargo compartment or tank and discharging
washwater overboard, any cargo compartment or tank must be in broom
clean condition or its equivalent, to minimize any remaining residue
from these areas.
(10) Topside surfaces (e.g., exposed decks, hull above waterline,
and related appurtenances) must be maintained to minimize the discharge
of cleaning compounds, paint chips, non-skid material fragments, and
other materials associated with exterior surface preservation.
(11) Painting techniques on topside surfaces must minimize the
discharge of paint.
(12) Discharge of unused paint and coatings is prohibited.
(13) Any equipment that may release, drip, leak, or spill oil or
oily mixtures, fuel, or other toxic or hazardous materials that may be
discharged, including to the bilge, must be maintained to minimize or
eliminate the discharge of pollutants.
Sec. 139.5 Biofouling management.
(a) The requirements in paragraph (b) of this section apply to any
vessel subject to regulation under this part.
(b) A vessel-specific biofouling management plan must be developed
and followed with a goal to prevent macrofouling, thereby minimizing
the potential for the introduction and spread of ANS. A biofouling
management plan is a holistic strategy that considers the operational
profile of the vessel, identifies the appropriate antifouling systems,
and details the biofouling management practices for specific areas of
the vessel. The plan elements must prioritize procedures and strategies
to prevent macrofouling.
Sec. 139.6 Oil management.
(a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section
apply to vessel equipment and operations that use or discharge oil or
oily mixtures.
(b) The following discharges are prohibited:
(1) Used or spent oil no longer being used for its intended
purpose; and
(2) Oil in such quantities as may be harmful.
(c) During fueling, maintenance, and other vessel operations,
control and response measures must be used to prevent, minimize, and
contain spills and overflows.
(d) An environmentally acceptable lubricant (EAL) must be used in
any oil-to-sea interface unless such use is technically infeasible.
[[Page 67885]]
Subpart C--Standards for Specific Discharges Incidental to the
Normal Operation of a Vessel
Sec. 139.10 Ballast tanks.
(a) Applicability. Except for any vessel otherwise excluded in
paragraph (b) of this section, the requirements in paragraphs (b)
through (h) of this section apply to any vessel equipped with one or
more ballast tanks.
(b) Exclusions. The requirements of Sec. 139.10 do not apply to
the following vessels:
(1) A vessel that continuously takes on and discharges ballast
water in a flow-through system, if the Administrator determines that
system cannot materially contribute to the spread or introduction of
ANS;
(2) A vessel in the National Defense Reserve Fleet scheduled for
disposal, if the vessel does not have an operable BWMS;
(3) A vessel that discharges ballast water consisting solely of
water taken onboard from a public or commercial source that, at the
time the water is taken onboard, meets the applicable requirements or
permit requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et
seq.) or Health Canada's Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water
Quality;
(4) A vessel that carries all permanent ballast water in sealed
tanks that are not subject to discharge except under emergency
circumstances; or
(5) A vessel that only discharges ballast water to a reception
facility.
(c) Ballast Water Best Management Practices (BMPs). (1) Any vessel
equipped with ballast tanks must minimize the discharge and uptake of
ANS by adhering to the following practices:
(i) Ballast tanks must be periodically flushed and cleaned to
remove sediment and biofouling organisms;
(ii) When practicable and available, high sea suction must be used
when in port or where clearance to the bottom of the waterbody is less
than 5 meters to the lower edge of the sea chest;
(iii) When practicable, ballast water pumps must be used in port
instead of draining by gravity to empty ballast tanks; and
(iv) Any sea chest screen must be maintained and fully intact.
(2) Discharge of any sediment or water from ballast tank cleaning
is prohibited.
(3) Discharge or uptake of ballast water must be avoided in areas
with coral reefs; discharge and uptake should be conducted as far from
coral reefs as possible.
(4) A vessel-specific ballast water management plan must be
developed and followed to minimize the potential for the introduction
and spread of ANS. A ballast water management plan is a holistic
strategy that considers the operational profile of the vessel and the
appropriate ballast water management practices and systems.
(d) Ballast Water Discharge Standard. Unless exempted in paragraph
(d)(3) of this section, any ballast water discharge must meet the
following numeric discharge standard:
(1) Biological parameters (expressed as instantaneous maximums).
(i) Organisms greater than or equal to 50 micrometers in minimum
dimension: Less than 10 living organisms per cubic meter.
(ii) Organisms less than 50 micrometers and greater than or equal
to 10 micrometers: Less than 10 living organisms per milliliter (mL).
(iii) Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (serotypes O1 and O139): Less
than 1 colony forming unit (cfu) per 100 mL.
(iv) Escherichia coli: A concentration of less than 250 cfu per 100
mL.
(v) Intestinal enterococci: A concentration of less than 100 cfu
per 100 mL.
(2) Biocide parameters (expressed as instantaneous maximums).
(i) Chlorine dioxide: For any discharge from a BWMS using chlorine
dioxide, chlorine dioxide must not exceed 200 [micro]g/L.
(ii) Total residual oxidizers: For any discharge from a BWMS using
chlorine or ozone, total residual oxidizers must not exceed 100
[micro]g/L.
(iii) Peracetic acid: For any discharge from a BWMS using peracetic
acid, peracetic acid must not exceed 500 [micro]g/L.
(iv) Hydrogen peroxide: For any discharge from a BWMS using
peracetic acid, hydrogen peroxide must not exceed 1,000 [micro]g/L.
(3) Exemptions: The ballast water discharge standards in paragraphs
(d)(1) and (2) of this section do not apply to any vessel that:
(i) Is less than or equal to 3,000 GT ITC (1,600 GRT if GT ITC is
not assigned), and does not operate outside of the EEZ;
(ii) Is a non-seagoing, unmanned, unpowered barge, except any barge
that is part of a dedicated vessel combination such as an integrated or
articulated tug and barge unit;
(iii) Takes on and discharges ballast water exclusively in the
contiguous portions of a single COTP Zone;
(iv) Does not travel more than 10 NM and passes through no locks;
(v) Is a vessel that operates exclusively in the Great Lakes and
the St. Lawrence River west of a rhumb line drawn from Cap des Rosiers
to Point-Sud-Oeste (West Point), Anticosti Island, and west of a line
along 63 W. longitude from Anticosti Island to the north shore of the
St. Lawrence River;
(vi) Is enrolled in the USCG Shipboard Technology Evaluation
Program (STEP); or
(vii) Discharges ballast water prior to an applicable ballast water
discharge standard compliance date established in regulations
promulgated by the Secretary as described in 139.1(d).
(e) Ballast Water Exchange and Saltwater Flushing. Except for any
vessel identified in paragraph (e)(3), (f), or (g) of this section,
prior to an applicable ballast water discharge standard compliance date
established in regulations promulgated by the Secretary as described in
Sec. 139.1(d), any vessel must meet the requirements in paragraphs
(e)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Any vessel that carries ballast water taken on in areas less
than 200 NM from any shore that will subsequently operate outside the
EEZ and more than 200 NM from any shore must:
(i) Conduct ballast water exchange in waters not less than 200 NM
from any shore prior to discharging that ballast water; and
(ii) Commence ballast water exchange not less than 200 NM from any
shore and as early in the vessel voyage as practicable.
(2) For any ballast tank that is empty or contains unpumpable
residual water on a vessel bound for a port or place of destination
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, the master must,
prior to arriving at that port or place of destination, either:
(i) Seal the tank so that there is no discharge or uptake and
subsequent discharge of ballast water, or
(ii) Conduct a saltwater flush:
(A) Not less than 200 NM from any shore for a voyage originating
outside the United States or Canadian EEZ; or
(B) not less than 50 NM from any shore for a voyage originating
within the United States or Canadian EEZ.
(3) Exceptions: Paragraphs (e)(1) and (2), do not apply under any
of the following circumstances:
(i) If the unpumpable residual waters and sediments of an empty
ballast tank were subject to treatment, in compliance with applicable
requirements, through a BWMS approved or accepted by the Secretary;
(ii) Except as otherwise required under this part, if the
unpumpable residual waters and sediments of an empty ballast tank were
sourced solely within:
[[Page 67886]]
(A) The same port or place of destination; or
(B) Contiguous portions of a single COTP Zone;
(iii) If complying with an applicable requirement of this paragraph
(e):
(A) Would compromise the safety of the vessel; or
(B) Is otherwise prohibited by any Federal, Canadian, or
international law (including regulations) pertaining to vessel safety;
(iv) If design limitations of an existing vessel prevent a ballast
water exchange or saltwater flush from being conducted in accordance
with this paragraph (e); or
(v) If the vessel is operating exclusively within the internal
waters of the United States and Canada.
(f) Vessels entering the Great Lakes. (1) Ballast Water Exchange--
Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, any vessel
entering the St. Lawrence Seaway through the mouth of the St. Lawrence
River must conduct a complete ballast water exchange or saltwater
flush:
(i) Not less than 200 NM from any shore for a voyage originating
outside the EEZ; or
(ii) Not less than 50 NM from any shore for a voyage originating
within the EEZ.
(2) Exceptions: The requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this
section do not apply to any vessel if:
(i) Complying with paragraph (f)(1) of this section:
(A) Would compromise the safety of the vessel; or
(B) Is otherwise prohibited by any Federal, Canadian, or
international law (including regulations) pertaining to vessel safety.
(ii) Design limitations of an existing vessel prevent a ballast
water exchange from being conducted in accordance with an applicable
requirement of paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
(iii) The vessel has no residual ballast water or sediments
onboard.
(iv) The vessel retains all ballast water while in waters subject
to the requirement.
(v) The empty ballast tanks on the vessel are sealed in a manner
that ensures that no discharge or uptake occurs, and any subsequent
discharge of ballast water is subject to the requirement.
(g) Pacific waters. (1) Ballast Water Exchange:
(i) Except as provided in paragraphs (g)(1)(ii) and (g)(3) of this
section, any vessel that operates either between two ports or places of
destination within the Pacific Region; or a port or place of
destination within the Pacific Region and a port or place of
destination on the Pacific Coast of Canada or Mexico north of parallel
20 degrees north latitude, inclusive of the Gulf of California, must
conduct a complete ballast water exchange in waters more than 50 NM
from shore.
(ii) Exemptions: The requirements of paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this
section do not apply to any vessel:
(A) Using, in compliance with applicable requirements, a type-
approved BWMS approved or accepted by the Secretary.
(B) Voyaging:
(1) Between or to a port or place of destination in the State of
Washington, if the ballast water to be discharged from the commercial
vessel originated solely from waters located between the parallel 46
degrees north latitude, including the internal waters of the Columbia
River, and the internal waters of Canada south of parallel 50 degrees
north latitude, including the waters of the Strait of Georgia and the
Strait of Juan de Fuca;
(2) Between ports or places of destination in the State of Oregon,
if the ballast water to be discharged from the commercial vessel
originated solely from waters located between the parallel 40 degrees
north latitude and the parallel 50 degrees north latitude;
(3) Between ports or places of destination in the State of
California within the San Francisco Bay area east of the Golden Gate
Bridge, including the Port of Stockton and the Port of Sacramento, if
the ballast water to be discharged from the commercial vessel
originated solely from ports or places within that area;
(4) Between the Port of Los Angeles, the Port of Long Beach, and
the El Segundo offshore marine oil terminal, if the ballast water to be
discharged from the commercial vessel originated solely from the Port
of Los Angeles, the Port of Long Beach, or the El Segundo offshore
marine oil terminal;
(5) Between a port or place of destination in the State of Alaska
within a single COTP Zone;
(6) Between ports or places of destination in different counties of
the State of Hawaii, if the vessel conducts a complete ballast water
exchange in waters that are more than 10 NM from shore and at least 200
meters deep; or
(7) Between ports or places of destination within the same county
of the State of Hawaii, if the vessel does not transit outside state
marine waters during the voyage.
(2) Low-Salinity Ballast Water:
(i) Except as provided in paragraphs (g)(2)(ii) and (g)(3) of this
section, a complete ballast water exchange must be conducted for any
commercial vessel that transports ballast water sourced from waters
with a measured salinity of less than 18 parts per thousand and voyages
to a Pacific Region port or place of destination with a measured
salinity of less than 18 parts per thousand:
(A) Not less than 50 NM from shore, if the ballast water was
sourced from a Pacific Region port or place of destination.
(B) More than 200 NM from shore, if the ballast water was not
sourced from a Pacific Region port or place of destination.
(ii) Exception: The requirements of paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this
section do not apply to any vessel voyaging to a port or place of
destination in the Pacific Region that is using, in compliance with
applicable requirements, a type-approved BWMS accepted by the
Secretary, or a type-approved BWMS approved by the secretary to achieve
the following numeric discharge standard for biological parameters
(expressed as instantaneous maximums):
(A) Organisms greater than or equal to 50 micrometers in minimum
dimension: Less than 1 living organism per 10 cubic meters.
(B) Organisms less than 50 micrometers and greater than or equal to
10 micrometers: Less than 1 living organisms per 100 milliliters (mL).
(C) Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (serotypes O1 and O139): Less than
1 colony forming unit (cfu) per 100 mL or less than 1 cfu per gram of
wet weight of zoological samples.
(D) Escherichia coli: Less than 126 cfu per 100 mL.
(E) Intestinal enterococci: Less than 33 cfu per 100 mL.
(3) General Exceptions: The requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) and
(2) of this section do not apply to a commercial vessel if:
(i) Complying with the requirement would compromise the safety of
the commercial vessel.
(ii) If design limitations of an existing vessel, prevent a ballast
water exchange from being conducted in accordance with paragraphs
(g)(1) and (2) of this section, as applicable.
(iii) The commercial vessel:
(A) Has no residual ballast water or sediments onboard; or
(B) Retains all ballast water while in waters subject to those
requirements.
(iv) Empty ballast tanks on the commercial vessel are sealed in a
manner that ensures that:
(A) No discharge or uptake occurs; and
(B) Any subsequent discharge of ballast water is subject to those
requirements.
(h) Federally-protected waters. Additional standards applicable to
[[Page 67887]]
discharges from ballast tanks when a vessel is operating in federally-
protected waters are contained in Sec. 139.40(b).
Sec. 139.11 Bilges.
(a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section
apply to discharges from the bilge consisting of water and residue that
accumulates in a lower compartment of the vessel's hull below the
waterline. This includes any water and residue from a cargo area that
comes into contact with oily materials or a below-deck parking area or
other storage area for motor vehicles or other motorized equipment.
(b) The discharge of bilgewater from any vessel must not contain
any flocculants or other additives except when used with an oily water
separator or to maintain or clean equipment. The use of any additives
to remove the appearance of a visible sheen is prohibited.
(c) For any vessel of 400 GT ITC (400 GRT if GT ITC is not
assigned) and above, the discharge of bilgewater must occur when the
vessel is underway.
(d) Additional standards applicable to discharges from bilges when
a vessel is operating in federally-protected waters are contained in
Sec. 139.40(c).
Sec. 139.12 Boilers.
(a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section
apply to discharges resulting from boiler blowdown.
(b) The discharge from boiler blowdown must be minimized when in
port.
(c) Additional standards applicable to discharges from boilers when
a vessel is operating in federally-protected waters are contained in
Sec. 139.40(d).
Sec. 139.13 Cathodic protection.
(a) The requirements in paragraph (b) of this section apply to
discharges resulting from a vessel's cathodic corrosion control
protection device, including sacrificial anodes and impressed current
cathodic protection systems.
(b) Spaces between any flush-fit anode and backing must be filled
to remove potential hotspots for biofouling organisms.
Sec. 139.14 Chain lockers.
(a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section
apply to accumulated precipitation and seawater that is emptied from
the compartment used to store the anchor chain on a vessel.
(b) Anchors and anchor chains must be rinsed of biofouling
organisms and sediment when the anchor is retrieved.
(c) The discharge of accumulated water and sediment from any chain
locker is prohibited in port.
(d) For all vessels that operate beyond the waters of the
contiguous zone, anchors and anchor chains must be rinsed of biofouling
organisms and sediment prior to entering the waters of the contiguous
zone.
(e) Additional standards applicable to a discharge from chain
lockers when a vessel is operating in federally-protected waters are
contained in Sec. 139.40(e).
Sec. 139.15 Decks.
(a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) through (i) of this section
apply to the overboard discharge of washdown and runoff, including but
not limited to precipitation and sea water, from decks, well decks, and
bulkhead areas.
(b) Coamings or drip pans must be used for machinery that is
expected to leak or otherwise release oil on the deck; accumulated oil
must be collected.
(c) Where required by an applicable international treaty or
convention or the Secretary, the vessel must be fitted with and use
physical barriers (e.g., spill rails, scuppers and scupper plugs) to
collect runoff for treatment during any washdown.
(d) Control measures must be used to minimize the introduction of
on-deck debris, garbage, residue, and spill into deck washdown and
runoff.
(e) Vessel decks must be kept in broom clean condition whenever the
vessel is underway and prior to any deck washdown.
(f) Deck washdowns must be minimized in port.
(g) The discharge of floating solids, visible foam, halogenated
phenolic compounds, dispersants, surfactants, and spills must be
minimized in any deck washdown.
(h) Any soap, cleaner, or detergent used for deck washdown must be
minimally-toxic, phosphate-free, and biodegradable.
(i) Additional standards applicable to discharges from decks when a
vessel is operating in federally-protected waters are contained in
Sec. 139.40(f).
Sec. 139.16 Desalination and purification systems.
(a) The requirements in paragraph (b) of this section apply to
discharges from onboard desalination and purification systems used to
generate freshwater from seawater or otherwise purify water.
(b) The discharge resulting from the cleaning of desalination and
purification systems with toxic or hazardous materials is prohibited.
Sec. 139.17 Elevator pits.
(a) The requirements in paragraph (b) of this section apply to the
liquid that accumulates in, and is discharged from, the sumps of
elevator wells on vessels.
(b) The discharge of untreated accumulated water and sediment from
any elevator pit is prohibited.
Sec. 139.18 Exhaust gas emission control systems.
(a) Applicability. The requirements in paragraphs (b) through (e)
of this section apply to discharges from the operation and cleaning of
any exhaust gas cleaning system (EGCS) and exhaust gas recirculation
(EGR) system.
(b) Discharge requirements. Unless excluded in paragraph (c) of
this section, any discharge identified in paragraph (a) of this section
must meet the following discharge requirements.
(1) pH. (i) The discharge must meet one of the following
requirements:
(A) The discharge must have a pH of no less than 6.5 as measured at
the vessel's overboard discharge point with the exception that during
maneuvering and transit, the maximum difference of two pH units is
allowed between inlet water and overboard discharge values; or
(B) The pH discharge limit is the value that will achieve a minimum
pH of 6.5 at 4 meters from the overboard discharge point with the ship
stationary. This overboard pH discharge limit is to be determined at
the overboard discharge monitoring point and is to be recorded as the
vessel's discharge limit. The overboard pH can be determined either by
means of direct measurement, or by using a calculation-based
methodology (computational fluid dynamics or other equally
scientifically established empirical formulas).
(ii) The pH numeric discharge standard may be exceeded for up to 15
minutes in any 12-hour period.
(2) PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons).
(i) The maximum continuous PAH concentration in the discharge must
be no greater than 50 [micro]g/L PAHphe (phenanthrene equivalence)
above the inlet water PAH concentration. The PAH concentration in the
discharge must be measured downstream of the water treatment equipment
and upstream of any dilution (or other reactant dosing unit, if used).
(ii) The 50 [micro]g/L numeric discharge standard is normalized for
a discharge flow rate of 45 tons(t)/MWh where the MW refers to the
Maximum Continuous Rating or 80% of the power rating of the fuel oil
combustion unit. This numeric discharge standard is adjusted upward or
downward for varying discharge flow
[[Page 67888]]
rates, pursuant to Table 1 to paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section.
Table 1 to Paragraph (b)(2)(ii)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numeric
discharge
standard
Flow rate (t/MWh) ([micro]g/L Measurement technology
PAHphe
equivalents)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-1........................................... 2,250 Ultraviolet light.
2.5........................................... 900 Ultraviolet light.
5............................................. 450 Fluorescence \a\.
11.25......................................... 200 Fluorescence.
22.5.......................................... 100 Fluorescence.
45............................................ 50 Fluorescence.
90............................................ 25 Fluorescence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For any Flow Rate greater than 2.5 t/MWh, Fluorescence technology must be used.
(iii) The continuous PAHphe numeric discharge standard may be
exceeded by 100% for up to 15 minutes in any 12-hour period.
(3) Turbidity/suspended particulate matter.
(i) The washwater treatment system must be designed to minimize
suspended particulate matter, including heavy metals and ash.
(ii) The maximum continuous turbidity in the discharge must be no
greater than 25 FNU (formazin nephlometric units) or 25 NTU
(nephlometric turbidity units) or equivalent units above the inlet
water turbidity. However, to account for periods of high inlet
turbidity, readings must be a rolling average over a 15-minute period
to a maximum of 25 FNU with the discharge measured downstream of the
water treatment equipment and upstream of dilution (or reactant dosing,
if used).
(iii) The continuous turbidity numeric discharge standard may be
exceeded by 20% for up to 15 minutes in any 12-hour period.
(4) Nitrates:
(i) The washwater treatment system must prevent the discharge of
nitrates beyond that associated with a 12% removal of NOX
from the exhaust, or beyond 60 mg/L normalized for a discharge rate of
45 tons/MWh, whichever is greater.
(c) Applicability. The discharges of EGR bleed-off water from
vessels that are underway and operating on fuel that meets the
emissions requirements for sulfur starting in 2020 as specified in
MARPOL Annex VI are excluded from paragraph (b) of this section.
(d) Prohibition. The discharge of EGR bleed-off water retained
onboard in a holding tank that does not meet the discharge requirements
in paragraph (b) of this section, is prohibited.
Sec. 139.19 Fire protection equipment.
(a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section
apply to the discharge from fire protection equipment. As specified in
Sec. 139.1(b)(3), these requirements do not apply to discharges from
fire protection equipment when used for emergencies or when compliance
with such requirements would compromise the safety of the vessel or
life at sea.
(b) The discharge from fire protection equipment during testing,
training, maintenance, inspection, or certification, excluding USCG-
required inspection and certification, is prohibited in port and must
not contain any fluorinated firefighting foam.
(c) Additional requirements applicable to discharges from fire
protection equipment when a vessel is operating in federally-protected
waters are contained in Sec. 139.40(g).
Sec. 139.20 Gas turbines.
(a) The requirements in paragraph (b) of this section apply to
discharges from the washing of gas turbine components.
(b) The discharge of untreated gas turbine washwater is prohibited
unless infeasible.
Sec. 139.21 Graywater systems.
(a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section
apply to discharges of graywater except for graywater from any
commercial vessel on the Great Lakes that is subject to the
requirements in 40 CFR part 140 and 33 CFR part 159.
(b) The introduction of kitchen waste, food, oils, and oily
residues to the graywater system must be minimized.
(c) Any soaps, cleaners, and detergents discharged in graywater
must be minimally-toxic, phosphate-free, and biodegradable.
(d) The discharge of graywater is prohibited from any vessel:
(1) Within 3 NM from shore that voyages at least 3 NM from shore
and has remaining available graywater storage capacity, unless the
discharge meets the standards in paragraph (f) of this section; and
(2) Within 1 NM from shore that voyages at least 1 NM from shore
but not beyond 3 NM from shore and has remaining available graywater
storage capacity, unless the discharge meets the standards in paragraph
(f) of this section.
(e) The discharge of graywater from the following vessels must meet
the numeric discharge standard established in paragraph (f) of this
section:
(1) Any new vessel of 400 GT ITC (400 GRT if GT ITC is not
assigned) and above;
(2) Any passenger vessel with overnight accommodations for 500 or
more passengers;
(3) Any passenger vessel with overnight accommodations for 100-499
passengers unless the vessel was constructed before December 19, 2008,
and does not voyage beyond 1 NM from shore; and
(4) Any new ferry authorized by the USCG to carry 250 or more
people.
(f) A vessel identified in paragraph (e) of this section that is
discharging graywater must meet the following numeric discharge
standard:
(1) Fecal coliform.
(i) The 30-day geometric mean must not exceed 20 cfu/100 mL (colony
forming units/milliliter).
(ii) Greater than 90% of samples must not exceed 40 cfu/100 mL.
(2) BOD5.
(i) The 30-day average must not exceed 30 mg/L.
(ii) The 7-day average must not exceed 45 mg/L.
(3) Suspended solids.
(i) The 30-day average must not exceed 30 mg/L.
[[Page 67889]]
(ii) The 7-day average must not exceed 45 mg/L.
(4) pH.
(i) Must be maintained between 6.0 and 9.0.
(ii) [Reserved]
(5) Total residual chlorine.
(i) Must not exceed 10.0 [micro]g/L.
(ii) [Reserved]
(g) The discharge of graywater from any vessel operating on the
Great Lakes that is not a commercial vessel must not exceed 200 fecal
coliform forming units per 100 milliliters and contain no more than 150
milligrams per liter of suspended solids.
(h) Additional standards applicable to discharges from graywater
systems when a vessel is operating in federally-protected waters are
contained in Sec. 139.40(h).
Sec. 139.22 Hulls and associated niche areas.
(a) Applicability. The requirements in paragraphs (b) and (c) of
this section apply to the discharge of coatings, biofouling organisms,
and other materials from vessel hull surfaces and niche areas.
(b) Coatings. (1) Coatings applied to the vessel must be specific
to the operational profile of the vessel and the equipment to which it
is applied, including, for biocidal coatings, having appropriate
effective biocide release rates and components that are biodegradable
once separated from the vessel surface.
(2) Coatings must be applied, maintained, and reapplied consistent
with manufacturer specifications, including the thickness, the method
of application, and the lifespan of the coating.
(3) Coatings on vessel hulls and niches must not contain
tributyltin (TBT) or any other organotin compound used as a biocide.
(i) Any vessel hull previously covered with a coating containing
TBT (whether or not used as a biocide) or any other organotin compound
(if used as a biocide) must:
(A) Maintain an effective overcoat on the vessel hull so that no
TBT or other organotin leaches from the vessel hull; or
(B) Remove any TBT or other organotin compound from the vessel
hull.
(4) When an organotin compound other than TBT is used as a catalyst
in the coating (e.g., dibutyltin), the coating must:
(i) Contain less than 2,500 mg total tin per kilogram of dry paint;
and
(ii) Not be designed to slough or otherwise peel from the vessel
hull, noting that incidental amounts of coating discharged by abrasion
during cleaning or after contact with other hard surfaces (e.g.,
moorings) are acceptable.
(5) Coatings that contain cybutryne must not be applied on vessel
hulls and niches.
(i) Any vessel that has previously applied a coating that contains
cybutryne to the vessel hull must:
(A) Apply and maintain an effective overcoat of the vessel hull so
that no cybutryne leaches from the vessel hull, noting that incidental
amounts of coating discharged by abrasion during cleaning or after
contact with other hard surfaces (e.g., moorings) are acceptable; or
(B) Remove any cybutryne coating from the vessel hull.
(6) Alternatives to copper-based coatings must be considered for
vessels spending 30 or more days per year in a copper-impaired
waterbody or using these waters as their home port.
(c) Cleaning. (1) Hulls and niche areas must be cleaned regularly
to minimize biofouling.
(2) Cleaning techniques must minimize damage to the coating.
(3) Cleaning must not result in a plume or cloud of paint.
(4) In-water cleaning of biofouling that exceeds a fouling rating
of FR-20 is prohibited unless one or more of the following conditions
are met:
(i) The biofouling is local in origin and cleaning does not result
in a plume or cloud of paint; or
(ii) An in-water cleaning and capture (IWCC) system is designed and
operated to:
(A) Capture coatings and biofouling organisms;
(B) Filter biofouling organisms from the effluent; and
(C) Minimize the release of biocides.
(5) The discharge of any wastes filtered or otherwise removed from
any IWCC system is prohibited.
(6) In-water cleaning of any copper-based hull coatings is
prohibited in a copper-impaired waterbody within the first 365 days
after application, unless an IWCC system consistent with paragraph
(c)(2)(ii) of this section is used.
(7) In-water cleaning must not be conducted on any section of a
biocidal antifouling coating that shows excessive cleaning actions
(e.g., brush marks) or blistering due to the internal failure of the
paint system.
(8) Any soap, cleaner, or detergent used on vessel surfaces, such
as a scum line of the hull, must be minimally-toxic, phosphate-free,
and biodegradable.
(9) Additional standards applicable to discharges from hulls and
associated niche areas when a vessel is operating in federally-
protected waters are contained in Sec. 139.40(i).
Sec. 139.23 Inert gas systems.
(a) The requirements in paragraph (b) of this section apply to the
discharge of washwater from an inert gas system and deck seal water
when used as an integral part of that system.
(b) The discharge from inert gas systems must meet the general
discharge requirements in subpart B of this part.
Sec. 139.24 Motor gasoline and compensating systems.
(a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section
apply to the discharge of motor gasoline and compensating ambient water
added to keep gasoline tanks full to prevent potentially explosive
gasoline vapors from forming.
(b) The discharge of motor gasoline and compensating discharges
must meet all general discharge requirements in subpart B of this part.
(c) Additional standards applicable to discharges from motor
gasoline and compensating systems when a vessel is operating in
federally-protected waters are contained in Sec. 139.40(j).
Sec. 139.25 Non-oily machinery.
(a) The requirements in paragraph (b) of this section apply to
discharges from machinery that contains no oil, including discharges
from the operation of desalination systems, water chillers, valve
packings, water piping, low- and high-pressure air compressors,
propulsion engine jacket coolers, fire pumps, and seawater and potable
water pumps.
(b) The discharge of untreated non-oily machinery wastewater and
packing gland or stuffing box effluent containing toxic or
bioaccumulative additives or the discharge of oil in such quantities as
may be harmful is prohibited.
Sec. 139.26 Pools and spas.
(a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section
apply to discharges from pools and spas.
(b) Except for unintentional or inadvertent releases from overflows
across the decks and into overboard drains caused by, but not limited
to, weather, vessel traffic, marine wildlife avoidance or navigational
maneuvering, discharge of pool and spa water must:
(1) Occur only while the vessel is underway, unless determined to
be infeasible, and;
(2) Meet the following numeric discharge standard:
(i) For chlorine disinfection: Total residual chlorine less than
100 [micro]g/L; and
[[Page 67890]]
(ii) For bromine disinfection: Total residual oxidant less than 25
[micro]g/L.
(c) Additional standards applicable to discharges from pools and
spas when a vessel is operating in federally-protected waters are
contained in Sec. 139.40(k).
Sec. 139.27 Refrigeration and air conditioning.
(a) The requirements in paragraph (b) of this section apply to
discharges of condensation from refrigeration, air conditioning, and
similar chilling equipment.
(b) The direct overboard discharge of any condensate that contacts
toxic or hazardous materials is prohibited.
Sec. 139.28 Seawater piping.
(a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section
apply to discharges from seawater piping systems that provide water for
other vessel uses (e.g., engines, hydraulic systems, and
refrigeration), including while a vessel is in port or in layup.
(b) Seawater piping systems, including sea chests, grates, and
similar appurtenances, that accumulate biofouling that exceeds a
fouling rating of FR-20 must be fitted with a Marine Growth Prevention
System (MGPS).
(1) An MGPS must be selected to address:
(i) The level, frequency, and type of biofouling; and
(ii) The design, location, and area in which the system will be
used.
(2) An MGPS must include one, or some combination of the following:
(i) Chemical injection;
(ii) Electrolysis, ultrasound, ultraviolet radiation, or
electrochlorination;
(iii) Application of an antifouling coating; or
(iv) Use of cupro-nickel piping.
(3) Upon identification of biofouling that exceeds a fouling rating
of FR-20 in a seawater piping system, reactive measures to manage the
macrofouling must be used. Discharges resulting from reactive measures
to remove macrofouling are prohibited in port.
(c) Additional standards applicable to discharges from seawater
piping when a vessel is operating in federally-protected waters are
contained in Sec. 139.40(l).
Sec. 139.29 Sonar domes.
(a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section
apply to discharges from sonar domes.
(b) The discharge of water during maintenance or repair from inside
the sonar dome is prohibited.
(c) Use of bioaccumulative biocides on the exterior of any sonar
dome is prohibited when non-bioaccumulative alternatives are available.
Subpart D--Special Area Requirements
Sec. 139.40 Federally-protected waters.
(a) Applicability. The requirements in paragraphs (b) through (l)
of this section are in addition to applicable standards in subparts B
and C of this part and apply when a vessel is operating in federally-
protected waters.
(b) Ballast tanks. The discharge or uptake of ballast water in
federally-protected waters must be avoided except for those vessels
operating within the boundaries of any national marine sanctuary that
preserves shipwrecks or maritime heritage in the Great Lakes, unless
the designation documents for such sanctuary do not allow taking up or
discharging ballast water in such sanctuary, pursuant to the Howard
Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014, as amended
by the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act of 2015, Public Law 114-120,
title VI, sec 602.
(c) Bilges. For any vessel of 400 GT ITC (400 GRT if GT ITC is not
assigned) and above, the discharge of bilgewater into federally-
protected waters is prohibited.
(d) Boilers. The discharge of boiler blowdown into federally-
protected waters is prohibited.
(e) Chain lockers. The discharge of accumulated water and sediment
from any chain locker into federally-protected waters is prohibited.
(f) Decks. The discharge of deck washdown into federally-protected
waters is prohibited.
(g) Fire protection equipment. The discharge from fire protection
equipment during testing, training, maintenance, inspection, or
certification into federally-protected water is prohibited. The
discharge of non-fluorinated firefighting foam into federally-protected
waters is prohibited except by any vessel owned or under contract with
the United States, state, or local government to do business
exclusively in any federally-protected waters.
(h) Graywater system. The discharge of graywater into federally-
protected waters from any vessel with remaining available graywater
storage capacity is prohibited.
(i) Hulls and associated niche areas. The discharge from in-water
cleaning of vessel hulls and niche areas into federally-protected
waters is prohibited.
(j) Motor gasoline and compensating systems. The discharge of motor
gasoline and compensating discharges into federally-protected waters is
prohibited.
(k) Pools and spas. The discharge of pool or spa water into
federally-protected waters is prohibited.
(l) Seawater piping systems. The discharge of chemical dosing, as
described in Sec. 139.28, into federally-protected waters is
prohibited.
Subpart E--Procedures for States To Request Changes to Standards,
Regulations, or Policy Promulgated by the Administrator
Sec. 139.50 Petition by a Governor for the Administrator to establish
an emergency order or review a standard, regulation, or policy.
(a) The Governor of a State (or a designee) may submit a petition
to the Administrator:
(1) To issue an emergency order under CWA section 312(p)(4)(e); or
(2) To review any standard of performance, regulation, or policy
promulgated by the Administrator under CWA section 312(p)(4) or (6), if
there exists new information that could reasonably result in a change
to:
(i) The standard of performance, regulation, or policy; or
(ii) A determination on which the standard of performance,
regulation, or policy was based.
(b) A petition under paragraph (a) of this section shall be signed
by the Governor (or a designee) and must include:
(1) The purpose of the petition (request for emergency order or a
review of a standard, regulation, or policy);
(2) Any applicable scientific or technical information that forms
the basis of the petition; and
(3) The direct and indirect benefits if the requested petition were
to be granted by the Administrator.
(c) The Administrator shall grant or deny:
(1) A petition under paragraph (a)(1) of this section by not later
than the date that is 180 days after the date on which the petition is
submitted; and
(2) A petition under paragraph (a)(2) of this section by not later
than the date that is one year after the date on which the petition is
submitted.
(d) If the Administrator determines to grant a petition:
(1) In the case of a petition under paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, the Administrator shall immediately issue the relevant
emergency order under CWA section 312(p)(4)(E); or
(2) In the case of a petition under paragraph (a)(2) of this
section, the Administrator shall submit a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
to the Federal Register to revise the relevant standard, requirement,
regulation, or policy under
[[Page 67891]]
CWA section 312(p)(4) or (6), as applicable.
(e) If the Administrator determines to deny a petition, the
Administrator shall submit a notice to the Federal Register, that
includes a detailed explanation of the scientific, technical, or
operational factors that form the basis of the determination.
Sec. 139.51 Petition by a Governor for the Administrator to establish
enhanced Great Lakes system requirements.
(a) The Governors endorsing a proposed standard or requirement
under CWA section 312(p)(10)(ii)(III)(bb) may jointly submit to the
Administrator for approval each proposed standard of performance or
other requirement developed and endorsed pursuant to CWA section
312(p)(10)(ii) with respect to any discharge that is subject to
regulation under this part and occurs within the Great Lakes System.
(b) A petition under paragraph (a) of this section must include:
(1) An explanation regarding why the applicable standard of
performance or other requirement is at least as stringent as a
comparable standard of performance or other requirement under this
part;
(2) Information indicating that the standard of performance or
other requirement is in accordance with maritime safety; and
(3) Information indicating that the standard of performance or
other requirement is in accordance with applicable maritime and
navigation laws and regulations.
(c) On receipt of a proposed standard of performance or other
requirement under paragraph (b) of this section, the Administrator
shall submit, after consultation with USCG, a document to the Federal
Register that, at minimum:
(1) States that the proposed standard or requirement is publicly
available; and
(2) Provides an opportunity for public comment regarding the
proposed standard or requirement.
(d) The Administrator shall commence a review of each proposed
standard of performance or other requirement covered by the notice to
determine whether that standard or requirement is at least as stringent
as comparable standards and requirements under this part.
(e) In carrying out paragraph (d) of this section, the
Administrator:
(1) Shall consult with the Secretary,
(2) Shall consult with the Governor of each Great Lakes State and
representatives from the Federal and provincial governments of Canada;
(3) Shall take into consideration any relevant data or public
comments received under paragraph (c)(2) of this section; and
(4) Shall not take into consideration any preliminary assessment by
the Great Lakes Commission or any dissenting opinion by a Governor of a
Great Lakes State, except to the extent that such an assessment or
opinion is relevant to the criteria for the applicable determination
under paragraph (d) of this section.
(f) Upon review and determination, the Administrator, in
concurrence with the Secretary, shall approve each proposed standard or
other requirement, unless the Administrator determines that the
proposed standard or other requirement is not at least as stringent as
comparable standards and requirements under this part.
(g) If the Administrator approves a proposed standard or other
requirement, the Administrator shall submit notification of the
determination to the Governor of each Great Lakes State and to the
Federal Register.
(h) If the Administrator disapproves a proposed standard of
performance or other requirement, the Administrator shall submit a
notice that must include:
(1) A description of the reasons why the standard or requirement
is, as applicable, less stringent than a comparable standard or
requirement under this part, and
(2) Any recommendations regarding changes the Governors of the
Great Lakes States could make to conform the disapproved portion of the
standard or requirement to the requirements of paragraph (b) of this
section.
(i) Disapproval of a proposed standard or requirement by the
Administrator under paragraph (h) of this section shall be considered
to be a final agency action subject to judicial review under section
509.
(j) On approval by the Administrator of a proposed standard of
performance or other requirement, the Administrator shall establish, by
regulation, the proposed standard or requirement within the Great Lakes
System in lieu of any comparable standard or other requirement
promulgated under CWA section 312(p)(4).
Sec. 139.52 Application by a State for the Administrator to establish
a State No-Discharge Zone.
(a) If any state determines that the protection and enhancement of
the quality of some or all of the waters within the state require
greater environmental protection, the Governor of a State (or a
designee) may submit a petition to the Administrator to establish a
regulation prohibiting one or more discharges, whether treated or not
treated, into such waters subject to the application.
(b) A prohibition by the Administrator under paragraph (a) of this
section shall not apply until the Administrator, in concurrence with
the Secretary, reviews the state application and makes the applicable
determinations described in paragraph (d) of this section and publishes
a regulation establishing the prohibition.
(c) An application submitted by the state under paragraph (a) of
this section shall be signed by the Governor (or a designee) and must
include:
(1) A certification that a prohibition of the discharge(s) would
protect and enhance the quality of the specific waters within the state
to a greater extent than the applicable Federal standard provides;
(2) A detailed analysis of the direct and indirect benefits of the
requested prohibition for each individual discharge for which the state
is seeking a prohibition;
(3) A table identifying the types and number of vessels operating
in the waterbody and a table identifying the types and number of
vessels that would be subject to the prohibition;
(4) A table identifying the location, operating schedule, draught
requirements, pumpout capacity, pumpout flow rate, and fee structure of
each facility capable of servicing the vessels that would be subject to
the prohibition and available to receive the prohibited discharge;
(5) A map indicating the location of each facility identified in
paragraph (5) within the proposed waters;
(6) A table identifying the location and geographic area of each
proposed no-discharge zone; and
(7) A detailed analysis of the impacts to vessels subject to the
prohibition, including a discussion of how these vessels may feasibly
collect and store the discharge, the extent to which retrofitting may
be required, costs that are incurred as a result of the discharge
prohibition, and any safety implications.
(d) On application of a State, the Administrator, in concurrence
with the Secretary, shall, by regulation, prohibit the discharge from a
vessel of one or more discharges subject to regulation under this part,
whether treated or not treated, into the waters covered by the
application if the Administrator determines that--
(1) The prohibition of the discharge would protect and enhance the
quality of the specified waters within the state;
(2) Adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and
treatment of the prohibited discharge are reasonably
[[Page 67892]]
available, taking costs into consideration, for the water and all
vessels to which the prohibition would apply. A determination of
adequacy shall consider, at a minimum, water depth, dock size, pumpout
facility capacity and flow rate, availability of year-round operations,
proximity to navigation routes, and the ratio of pumpout facilities to
the population and discharge capacity of vessels operating in those
waters;
(3) The discharge can be safely collected and stored until a vessel
reaches an appropriate facility or location for discharge;
(4) In the case of an application for the prohibition of the
discharge of ballast water in port (or in any other location where
cargo, passengers, or fuel are loaded and unloaded):
(i) The considerations for adequate facilities described in
paragraph (d)(2) of this section apply; and
(ii) The prohibition will not unreasonably interfere with the safe
loading and unloading of cargo, passengers, or fuel.
(e) The Administrator shall submit to the Secretary a request for
written concurrence on a determination made to establish a prohibition.
(1) A failure by the Secretary to concur with the Administrator 60
days after the date on which the Administrator submits a request for
concurrence shall not prevent the Administrator from prohibiting the
discharge or discharges, subject to the condition that the
Administrator shall include in the administrative record of the
promulgation:
(i) Documentation of the request for concurrence; and
(ii) The response of the Administrator to any written objections
received from the Secretary relating to the prohibition during the 60-
day period beginning on the date of the request for concurrence.
(f) Upon a determination by the Administrator that an application
meets the criteria in paragraph (c) of this section, the Administrator
shall approve or disapprove an application submitted by a state.
(g) If the Administrator approves the application, the
Administrator shall submit a notice of proposed rulemaking to the
Federal Register.
(h) A prohibition by the Administrator under paragraph (a) of this
section shall not apply until the Administrator publishes a final rule
establishing the prohibition.
Appendix A to Part 139--Federally-Protected Waters 1
A.1 National Marine Sanctuaries
American Samoa National Marine Sanctuary
Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary
Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary
Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary
Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary
Hawaii Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary
Mallows Bay-Potomac River National Marine Sanctuary
Monitor National Marine Sanctuary
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary
Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary
A.2 Marine National Monuments
Mariana Trench Marine National Monument
Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument
Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument
Papah[amacr]naumoku[amacr]kea Marine National Monument
Rose Atoll Marine National Monument
A.3 National Parks (National Reserves and Monuments)
Alabama
Birmingham Civil Rights National Monument
Horseshoe Bend National Military Park
Freedom Riders National Monument
Little River Canyon National Preserve
Muscle Shoals National Heritage Area
Russell Cave National Monument
Trail of Tears National Historic Trail
Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site
Alaska
Aleutian World War II National Historic Area
Aniakchak National Monument & Preserve
Bering Land Bridge National Preserve
Cape Krusenstern National Monument
Denali National Park & Preserve
Gates of the Artic National Park & Preserve
Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve
Katmai National Park & Preserve
Kenai Fjords National Park
Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park
Kobuk Valley National Park
Lake Clark National Park & Preserve
Noatak National Preserve
Sitka National Historical Park
Wrangell--St Elias National Park & Preserve
Yukon--Charley Rivers National Preserve
American Samoa
National Park of America Samoa
Arizona
Canyon de Chelly National Monument
Casa Grande Ruins National Monument
Chiricahua National Monument
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
Grand Canyon National Park
Hohokam Pima National Monument
Lake Mead National Recreation Area
Montezuma Castle National Monument
Navajo National Monument
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument
Parashant National Monument
Petrified Forest National Park
Pipe Spring National Monument
Saguaro National Park
Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument
Tonto National Monument
Tumacacori National Historical Park
Tuzigoot National Monument
Walnut Canyon National Monument
Wupatki National Monument
Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area
Arkansas
Hot Springs National Park
Pea Ridge National Military Park
Trail of Tears National Historic Trail
California
Alcatraz Island
Cabrillo National Monument
Castle Mountains National Monument
Cesar E. Chavez National Monument
Channel Islands National Park
Death Valley National Park
Devils Postpile National Monument
Fort Point National Historic Site
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
John Muir National Historic Site
Joshua Tree National Park
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Lava Beds National Monument
Mojave National Preserve
Muir Woods National Monument
Pinnacles National Park
Point Reyes National Seashore
Redwood National Park
Rosie the Riveter WWII Home Front National Historical Park
San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park
Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area
Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks
Tule Lake National Monument
Whiskeytown National Recreation Area
Yosemite National Park
Colorado
Bent's Old Fort National Historical Site
Black Canyon of The Gunnison National Park
Colorado National Monument
Curecanti National Recreation Area
Dinosaur National Monument
Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument
Great Sand Dunes National Park & Preserve
Hovenweep National Monument
Mesa Verde National Park
Rocky Mountain National Park
Santa Fe National Historic Trail
Yucca House National Monument
Connecticut
Quinebaug & Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor
Delaware
Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail
First State National Historical Park
District of Columbia
Anacostia Park
Capitol Hill Parks
Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park
Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network
Kenilworth Park & Aquatic Gardens
Meridian Hill Park
National Capital Parks-East
[[Page 67893]]
National Mall & Memorial Parks
Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail
Florida
Big Cypress National Preserve
Biscayne National Park
Canaveral National Seashore
Castillo De San Marcos National Monument
De Soto National Memorial
Dry Tortugas National Park
Everglades National Park
Fort Caroline National Memorial
Fort Matanzas National Monument
Gulf Islands National Seashore
Timucuan Ecological and Historical Preserve
Georgia
Augusta Canal National Heritage Area
Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area
Chickamauga & Chattanooga National Military Park
Cumberland Island National Seashore
Fort Frederica National Monument
Fort Pulaski National Monument
Jimmy Carter National Historic Site
Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historical Park
Ocmulgee National Historical Park
Guam
War in The Pacific National Historical Park
Hawaii
Haleakala National Park
Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park
Kalaupapa National Historical Park
Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park
Pu`uhonua O Honaunau National Historical Park
Puukohola Heiau National Historical Site
Idaho
City of Rocks National Reserve
Craters Of The Moon National Monument and Preserve
Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument
Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail
Minidoka Internment National Monument
Nez Perce National Historical Park
Yellowstone National Park
Illinois
Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail
Pullman National Monument
Trail Of Tears National Historic Trail
Indiana
George Rogers Clark National Historical Park
Indiana Dunes National Park
Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial
Iowa
Effigy Mounds National Monument
Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail
Kansas
Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail
Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve
Kentucky
Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historical Park
Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area
Camp Nelson National Monument
Cumberland Gap National Historical Park
Mammoth Cave National Park
Trail Of Tears National Historic Trail
Louisiana
Cane River National Heritage Area
Cane River Creole National Historical Park
Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve
New Orleans Jazz National Historical Park
Poverty Point National Monument
Maine
Acadia National Park
Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument
Roosevelt Campobello International Park
Saint Croix Island International Historic Site
Maryland
Antietam National Battlefield
Assateague Island National Seashore
Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail
Catoctin Mountain Park
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park
Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network
Clara Barton National Historic Site
Fort Foote Park
Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine
Fort Washington Park
Glen Echo Park
Greenbelt Park
Harmony Hall
Harpers Ferry National Historical Park
Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park
Monocacy National Battlefield
Oxon Cove Park & Oxon Hill Farm
Piscataway Park
Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail
Thomas Stone National Historic Site
Massachusetts
Adams National Historical Park
Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor
Boston National Historical Park
Boston African American National Historic Site
Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area
Cape Cod National Seashore
Essex National Heritage Area
Lowell National Historical Park
Minute Man National Historic Site
New Bedford Whaling National Historical Park
Salem Maritime National Historic Site
Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site
Springfield Armory National Historic Site
Michigan
Isle Royale National Park
Keweenaw National Historical Park
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore
Minnesota
Grand Portage National Monument
Mississippi National River and Recreation Area
Pipestone National Monument
Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway
Voyageurs National Park
Mississippi
Gulf Islands National Seashore
Natchez National Historical Park
Natchez Trace National Scenic Trail
Missouri
Gateway Arch National Park
George Washington Carver National Monument
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial
Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail
Ozark National Scenic Riverways
Sainte Genevieve National Historical Park
Trail Of Tears National Historic Trail
Wilson's Creek National Battlefield
Montana
Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area
Glacier National Park
Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail
Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument
Nez Perce National Historical Park
Yellowstone National Park
Nebraska
Agate Fossil Beds National Monument
Homestead National Monument of America
Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail
Niobrara National Scenic River
Scotts Bluff National Monument
Nevada
Death Valley National Park
Great Basin National Park
Lake Mead National Recreation Area
Tule Springs Fossil Beds
New Hampshire
Saint-Gaudens National Historical Park
New Jersey
Appalachian National Scenic Trail
Delaware National Scenic River
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area
Ellis Island National Monument
Gateway National Recreation Area
Great Egg Harbor River
Lower Delaware National Wild and Scenic River
Morristown National Historical Park
New Jersey Pinelands National Reserve
Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park
Thomas Edison National Historical Park
New Mexico
Aztec Ruins National Monument
Bandelier National Monument
Capulin Volcano National Monument
Carlsbad Caverns National Park
Chaco Culture National Historical Park
El Malpais National Monument
El Morro National Monument
Fort Union National Monument
Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument
Manhattan Project National Historical Park
Pecos National Historical Park
Petroglyph National Monument
Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument
Valles Caldera National Preserve
White Sands National Park
New York
African Burial Ground National Monument
Castle Clinton National Monument
Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network
Ellis Island National Monument
[[Page 67894]]
Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor
Fire Island National Seashore
Fort Stanwix National Monument
Gateway National Recreation Area
Governors Island National Monument
Harriet Tubman National Historical Park
Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area
National Parks of New York Harbor
Saratoga National Historical Park
Statue Of Liberty National Monument
Stonewall National Monument
Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River
Women's Rights National Historical Park
North Carolina
Blue Ridge National Heritage Area
Cape Hatteras National Seashore
Cape Lookout National Seashore
Great Smoky Mountains National Park
Wright Brothers National Monument
North Dakota
Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site
Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail
Theodore Roosevelt National Park
Northern Mariana Islands
American Memorial Park
Ohio
Charles Young Buffalo Soldiers National Monument
Cuyahoga Valley National Park
Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park
Hopewell Culture National Historical Park
Perry's Victory & International Peace Memorial
Oklahoma
Chickasaw National Recreation Area
Trail Of Tears National Historic Trail
Oregon
Crater Lake National Park
Fort Vancouver National Historic Site
John Day Fossil Beds National Monument
Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail
Lewis and Clark National Historical Park
Nez Perce National Historical Park
Oregon Caves National Monument
Pennsylvania
Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network
Delaware National Scenic River
Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area
First State National Historical Park
Independence National Historical Park
Johnstown Flood National Memorial
Lackawanna Heritage Valley
Lower Delaware National Wild and Scenic River
Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail
Rivers Of Steel National Heritage Area
Schuylkill River Valley National Heritage Area
Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River
Valley Forge National Historical Park
Rhode Island
Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park
South Carolina
Congaree National Park
Fort Moultrie National Monument
Fort Sumter National Historical Park
South Dakota
Badlands National Park
Jewel Cave National Monument
Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail
Missouri Recreational River
Wind Cave National Park
Tennessee
Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area
Cumberland Gap National Historical Park
Great Smoky Mountains National Park
Manhattan Project National Historical Park
Obed Wild and Scenic River
Texas
Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument
Amistad National Recreation Area
Big Bend National Park
Big Thicket National Preserve
Chamizal National Memorial
Guadalupe Mountains National Park
Lake Meredith National Recreation Area
Lyndon B Johnson National Historical Park
Padre Island National Seashore
Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River
San Antonio Missions National Historical Park
Waco Mammoth National Monument
Utah
Arches National Park
Bryce Canyon National Park
Canyonlands National Park
Capitol Reef National Park
Cedar Breaks National Monument
Dinosaur National Monument
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
Golden Spike National Historical Park
Hovenweep National Monument
Natural Bridges National Monument
Rainbow Bridge National Monument
Timpanogos Cave National Monument
Zion National Park
Vermont
Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park
Virgin Islands
Buck Island Reef National Monument
Salt River Bay National Historical Park and Ecological Reserve
Virgin Islands National Park
Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument
Virginia
Appomattox Court House National Historical Park
Assateague Island National Seashore
Booker T Washington National Monument
Cape Henry Memorial
Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail
Cedar Creek & Belle Grove National Historical Park
Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network
Colonial National Historical Park
Cumberland Gap National Historical Park
Fort Monroe National Monument
Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania National Military Park
George Washington Birthplace National Monument
Great Falls Park
Harpers Ferry National Historical Park
Historic Jamestowne
Lyndon Baines Johnson Memorial Grove on the Potomac
Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail
Prince William Forest Park
Shenandoah National Park
Theodore Roosevelt Island Park
Yorktown Battlefield
Washington
Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve
Fort Vancouver National Historic Site
Lake Chelan National Recreation Area
Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area
Lewis & Clark National Historic Park
Manhattan Project National Historical Park
Mount Rainier National Park
Nez Perce National Historical Park
North Cascades National Park
Olympic National Park
Ross Lake National Recreation Area
San Juan Island National Historical Park
West Virginia
Bluestone National Scenic River
Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network
Gauley River National Recreation Area
Harpers Ferry National Historical Park
New River Gorge National River
Wisconsin
Apostle Islands National Lakeshore
Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway
Wyoming
Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area
Devils Tower National Monument
Fossil Butte National Monument
Grand Teton National Park
Yellowstone National Park
A.4 National Wildlife Refuges
Refuges that have boundaries in multiple states are listed only
in the state where the main visitor entrance is located. Maps of
each national wildlife refuge are available at https://www.fws.gov/refuges.
Alabama
Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge
Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge
Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge
Fern Cave National Wildlife Refuge
Key Cave National Wildlife Refuge
Mountain Longleaf National Wildlife Refuge
Sauta Cave National Wildlife Refuge
Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge
Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge
Alaska
Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge
Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Becharof National Wildlife Refuge
Innoko National Wildlife Refuge
Izembek National Wildlife Refuge
Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge
Kenai National Wildlife Refuge
Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge
Koyukuk National Wildlife Refuge
Nowitna National Wildlife Refuge
Selawik National Wildlife Refuge
[[Page 67895]]
Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge
Togiak National Wildlife Refuge
Yukon Delta Flats National Wildlife Refuge
Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge
Arizona
Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge
Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge
Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge
Cibola National Wildlife Refuge
Havasu National Wildlife Refuge
Imperial National Wildlife Refuge
Kofa National Wildlife Refuge
Leslie Canyon National Wildlife Refuge
San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge
Arkansas
Bald Knob National Wildlife Refuge
Big Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Cache River National Wildlife Refuge
Felsenthal National Wildlife Refuge
Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge
Overflow National Wildlife Refuge
Pond Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Wapanocca National Wildlife Refuge
White River National Wildlife Refuge
California
Antioch Dunes National Wildlife Refuge
Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Blue Ridge National Wildlife Refuge
Butte Sink Wildlife Management Area
Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge
Clear Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Coachella Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Colusa National Wildlife Refuge
Delevan National Wildlife Refuge
Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Ellicott Slough National Wildlife Refuge
Farallon Islands National Wildlife Refuge
Grasslands Wildlife Management Area
Grulla National Wildlife Refuge
Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge
Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Kern National Wildlife Refuge
Kesterton National Wildlife Refuge
Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge
Marin Islands National Wildlife Refuge
Merced National Wildlife Refuge
Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
North Central Valley Wildlife Management Area
Pixley National Wildlife Refuge
Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge
Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge
San Diego National Wildlife Refuge
San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge
San Luis National Wildlife Refuge
San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge
Sonny Bono Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge
Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Sutter National Wildlife Refuge
Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge
Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Willow Creek-Lurline Wildlife Management Area
Windom Wetland Management District
Colorado
Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge
Baca National Wildlife Refuge
Browns Park National Wildlife Refuge
Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge
Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge
Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge
Two Ponds National Wildlife Refuge
Connecticut
Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge
Delaware
Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge
Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge
Florida
Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge
Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge
Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuge
Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge
Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge
Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge
Egmont Key National Wildlife Refuge
Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area
Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge
Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge
Island Bay National Wildlife Refuge
J.N. ``Ding'' Darling National Wildlife Refuge
Key West National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Woodruff National Wildlife Refuge
Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge
Matlacha Pass National Wildlife Refuge
Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge
National Key Deer Refuge
Passage Key National Wildlife Refuge
Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge
Pine Island National Wildlife Refuge
Pinellas National Wildlife Refuge
St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge
St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge
Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge
Georgia
Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Blackbeard Island National Wildlife Refuge
Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge
Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge
Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge
Wassaw National Wildlife Refuge
Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge
Guam
Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes National Wildlife Refuge
Hawaii
Hailstone National Wildlife Refuge
Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge
Hanalei National Wildlife Refuge
Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge
Hule'ia National Wildlife Refuge
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Kakahaia National Wildlife Refuge
Kealia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge
Oahu Forest National Wildlife Refuge
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge
Idaho
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Camas National Wildlife Refuge
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge
Grays Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge
Minidoka National Wildlife Refuge
Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area
Illinois
Chautauqua National Wildlife Refuge
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge
Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Emiquon National Wildlife Refuge
Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge
Kankakee NWR and Conservation Area
Meredosia National Wildlife Refuge
Middle Mississippi River National Wildlife Refuge
Two Rivers National Wildlife Refuge
Indiana
Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge
Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Wildlife Management Area
Iowa
DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge
Driftless Area National Wildlife Refuge
Iowa Wetland Management District
Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge
Port Louisa National Wildlife Refuge
Union Slough National Wildlife Refuge
Kansas
Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge
Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge
Marais des Cygnes National Wildlife Refuge
Quivira National Wildlife Refuge
Kentucky
Clarks River National Wildlife Refuge
Green River National Wildlife Refuge
Louisiana
Atchafalaya National Wildlife Refuge
Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge
Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge
Bayou Teche National Wildlife Refuge
Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge
Black Bayou Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge
Breton National Wildlife Refuge
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge
Cat Island National Wildlife Refuge
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge
D'Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge
Delta National Wildlife Refuge
Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuge
Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge
Louisiana Wetland Management District
Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
Red River National Wildlife Refuge
Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge
Upper Ouachita National Wildlife Refuge
Maine
Aroostook National Wildlife Refuge
Carlton Pond Waterfowl Production Area
Cross Island National Wildlife Refuge
Franklin Island National Wildlife Refuge
[[Page 67896]]
Maine Coastal Islands National Wildlife Refuge
Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge
Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge
Pond Island National Wildlife Refuge
Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge
Seal Island National Wildlife Refuge
Sunkhaze Meadows National Wildlife Refuge
Maryland
Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge
Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge
Glenn Martin National Wildlife Refuge
Patuxent Research Refuge
Susquehanna River National Wildlife Refuge
Massachusetts
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge
Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge
Mashpee National Wildlife Refuge
Massasoit National Wildlife Refuge
Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge
Nantucket National Wildlife Refuge
Nomans Land Island National Wildlife Refuge
Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge
Parker River National Wildlife Refuge
Silvio O. Conte National Fish & Wildlife Refuge
Thacher Island National Wildlife Refuge
Michigan
Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge
Harbor Island National Wildlife Refuge
Huron National Wildlife Refuge
Kirtlands Warbler Wildlife Management Area
Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuge
Michigan Wetland Management District
Seney National Wildlife Refuge
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge
Minnesota
Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge
Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge
Big Stone Wetland Management District
Crane Meadows National Wildlife Refuge
Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District
Fergus Falls Wetland Management District
Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge
Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge
Litchfield Wetland Management District
Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuge
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Minnesota Valley Wetland Management District
Morris Wetland Management District
Northern Tallgrass Prairie National Wildlife Refuge
Rice Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge
Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge
Tamarac Wetland Management District
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife & Fish Refuge
Mississippi
Coldwater River National Wildlife Refuge
Dahomey National Wildlife Refuge
Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Hillside National Wildlife Refuge
Holt Collier National Wildlife Refuge
Mathews Brake National Wildlife Refuge
Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge
Morgan Brake National Wildlife Refuge
Panther Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge
St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Tallahatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge
Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge
Missouri
Big Muddy National Fish & Wildlife Refuge
Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuge
Great River National Wildlife Refuge
Loess Bluffs National Wildlife Refuge
Mingo National Wildlife Refuge
Ozark Cavefish National Wildlife Refuge
Pilot Knob National Wildlife Refuge
Swan Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Montana
Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Benton Lake Wetland Management District
Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge
Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge
Bowdoin Wetland Management District
Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge
Creedman Coulee National Wildlife Refuge
Grass Lake NWR
Hackmatack National Wildlife Refuge
Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Mason National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge
Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge
Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge
Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge
National Bison Range
Nine-pipe National Wildlife Refuge
Northeast Montana Wetland Management District
Northwest Montana Wetland Management District
Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Swan River National Wildlife Refuge
UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge
War Horse National Wildlife Refuge
Nebraska
Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge
Crescent Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge
John W. and Louise Seier National Wildlife Refuge
North Platte National Wildlife Refuge
Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District
Valentine National Wildlife Refuge
Nevada
Anaho Island National Wildlife Refuge
Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge
Desert National Wildlife Range
Fallon National Wildlife Refuge
Moapa Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Pahranagat National Wildlife Refuge
Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge
Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge
New Hampshire
Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge
John Hay National Wildlife Refuge
Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge
New Jersey
Cape May National Wildlife Refuge
Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge
Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge
Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge
New Mexico
Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge
Las Vegas National Wildlife Refuge
Maxwell National Wildlife Refuge
Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area
San Andres National Wildlife Refuge
Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge
Valle De Oro National Wildlife Refuge
New York
Amagansett National Wildlife Refuge
Conscience Point National Wildlife Refuge
Elizabeth A. Morton National Wildlife Refuge
Great Thicket National Wildlife Refuge
Iroquois National Wildlife Refuge
Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge
Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge
Shawangunk Grasslands National Wildlife Refuge
Target Rock National Wildlife Refuge
Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge
Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge
North Carolina
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
Currituck National Wildlife Refuge
Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge
Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge
Mountain Bogs National Wildlife Refuge
Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge
Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge
Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge
Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge
North Dakota
Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge
Arrowwood Wetland Management District
Audubon National Wildlife Refuge
Audubon Wetland Management District
Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Chase Lake Wetland Management District
Crosby Wetland Management District
Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area
Des Lacs National Wildlife Refuge
Devils Lake Wetland Management District
Florence Lake National Wildlife Refuge
J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge
J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management District
Kellys Slough National Wildlife Refuge
Kulm Wetland Management District
Lake Alice National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Ilo National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Nettie National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Zahl National Wildlife Refuge
Long Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Long Lake Wetland Management District
Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge
Lostwood Wetland Management District
McLean National Wildlife Refuge
Shell Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Slade National Wildlife Refuge
Stewart Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Sullys Hill National Game Preserve
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge
Tewaukon Wetland Management District
Upper Souris National Wildlife Refuge
Valley City Wetland Management District
White Horse Hill
White Lake National Wildlife Refuge
[[Page 67897]]
Northern Mariana Islands
Mariana Arc of Fire National Wildlife Refuge
Mariana Trench Marine National Monument
Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife Refuge
Wake Atoll National Wildlife Refuge
Ohio
Cedar Point National Wildlife Refuge
Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge
West Sister Island National Wildlife Refuge
Oklahoma
Deep Fork National Wildlife Refuge
Little River National Wildlife Refuge
Optima National Wildlife Refuge
Ozark Plateau National Wildlife Refuge
Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge
Sequoyah National Wildlife Refuge
Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge
Washita National Wildlife Refuge
Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge
Oregon
Ankeny National Wildlife Refuge
Bandon Marsh National Wildlife Refuge
Baskett Slough National Wildlife Refuge
Bear Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Cape Meares National Wildlife Refuge
Cold Springs National Wildlife Refuge
Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge
Klamath Marsh National Wildlife Refuge
Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
McKay Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Nestucca Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge
Siletz Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Three Arch Rocks National Wildlife Refuge
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge
Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuge
Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge
William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge
Pennsylvania
Cherry Valley National Wildlife Range
Erie National Wildlife Refuge
John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum
Puerto Rico
Cabo Rojo National Wildlife Refuge
Culebra National Wildlife Refuge
Desecheo National Wildlife Refuge
Laguna Cartagena National Wildlife Refuge
Navassa Island National Wildlife Refuge
Vieques National Wildlife Refuge
Rhode Island
Block Island National Wildlife Refuge
John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge
Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge
Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge
Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge
South Carolina
Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge
Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge
Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge
Pinckney Island National Wildlife Refuge
Santee National Wildlife Refuge
Savannah National Wildlife Refuge
Tybee National Wildlife Refuge
Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge
South Dakota
Huron Wetland Management District
Karl E. Mundt National Wildlife Refuge
Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge
Madison Wetland Management District
Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Sand Lake Wetland Management District
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge
Tennessee
Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge
Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge
Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge
Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge
Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge
Texas
Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge
Aransas National Wildlife Refuge
Attwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge
Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge
Big Boggy National Wildlife Refuge
Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge
Buffalo Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Caddo Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Guam National Wildlife Refuge
Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge
Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge
McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge
Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge
Neches River National Wildlife Refuge
San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge
Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge
Texas Point National Wildlife Refuge
Trinity River National Wildlife Refuge
United States Minor Outlying Islands
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge
Johnston Atoll National Wildlife Refuge
Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge
Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge
Utah
Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge
Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge
Vermont
Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge
Virgin Islands
Buck Island National Wildlife Refuge
Green Cay National Wildlife Refuge
Sandy Point National Wildlife Refuge
Virginia
Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge
Eastern Shore of Virginia National Wildlife Refuge
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge
Fisherman Island National Wildlife Refuge
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
James River National Wildlife Refuge
Nansemond National Wildlife Refuge
Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Plum Tree Island National Wildlife Refuge
Presquile National Wildlife Refuge
Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Wallops Island National Wildlife Refuge
Washington
Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Copalis National Wildlife Refuge
Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge
Flattery Rocks National Wildlife Refuge
Franz Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Hanford Reach National Monument
Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the Columbian White-Tailed Deer
Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge
Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge
McNary National Wildlife Refuge
Pierce National Wildlife Refuge
Protection Island National Wildlife Refuge
Quillayute Needles National Wildlife Refuge
Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge
Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge
San Juan Islands National Wildlife Refuge
Steigerwald Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Toppenish National Wildlife Refuge
Turnbull National Wildlife Refuge
Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge
West Virginia
Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Ohio River Islands National Wildlife Refuge
Wisconsin
Fox River National Wildlife Refuge
Gravel Island National Wildlife Refuge
Green Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge
Horicon National Wildlife Refuge
Leopold Wetland Management District
Necedah National Wildlife Refuge
St. Croix Wetland Management District
St. Croix Wetland Management District
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge
Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Wyoming
Bamforth National Wildlife Refuge
Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge
Hutton Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Mortenson Lake National Wildlife Refuge
National Elk Refuge National Wildlife Refuge
Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge
A.5 National Wilderness Areas
Alabama
Cheaha Wilderness
Dugger Mountain Wilderness
Sipsey Wilderness
Alaska
Aleutian Islands Wilderness
Andreafsky Wilderness
Becharof Wilderness
Bering Sea Wilderness
Bogoslof Wilderness
Chamisso Wilderness
Chuck River Wilderness
Coronation Island Wilderness
Denali Wilderness
Endicott River Wilderness
Forrester Island Wilderness
Gates of the Arctic Wilderness
Glacier Bay Wilderness
[[Page 67898]]
Hazy Islands Wilderness
Innoko Wilderness
Izembek Wilderness
Jay S. Hammond Wilderness
Karta River Wilderness
Katmai Wilderness
Kenai Wilderness
Kobuk Valley Wilderness
Kootznoowoo Wilderness
Koyukuk Wilderness
Kuiu Wilderness
Maurille Islands Wilderness
Misty Fjords National Monument Wilderness
Mollie Beattie Wilderness
Noatak Wilderness
Nunivak Wilderness
Petersburg Creek-Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness
Pleasant/Lemusurier/Inian Islands Wilderness
Russell Fjord Wilderness
Saint Lazaria Wilderness
Selawik Wilderness
Semidi Wilderness
Simeonof Wilderness
South Baranof Wilderness
South Etolin Wilderness
South Prince of Wales Wilderness
Stikine-LeConte Wilderness
Tebenkof Bay Wilderness
Togiak Wilderness
Tracy Arm-Fords Terror Wilderness
Tuxedni Wilderness
Unimak Wilderness
Warren Island Wilderness
West Chichagof-Yakobi Wilderness
Wrangell-Saint Elias Wilderness
Arizona
Apache Creek Wilderness
Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness
Arrastra Mountain Wilderness
Aubrey Peak Wilderness
Baboquivari Peak Wilderness
Bear Wallow Wilderness
Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness
Big Horn Mountains Wilderness
Cabeza Prieta Wilderness
Castle Creek Wilderness
Cedar Bench Wilderness
Chiricahua National Monument Wilderness
Chiricahua Wilderness
Cottonwood Point Wilderness
Coyote Mountains Wilderness
Dos Cabezas Mountains Wilderness
Eagletail Mountains Wilderness
East Cactus Plain Wilderness
Escudilla Wilderness
Fishhooks Wilderness
Fossil Springs Wilderness
Four Peaks Wilderness
Galiuro Wilderness
Gibraltar Mountain Wilderness
Grand Wash Cliffs Wilderness
Granite Mountain Wilderness
Harcuvar Mountains Wilderness
Harquahala Mountains Wilderness
Hassayampa River Canyon Wilderness
Havasu Wilderness
Hells Canyon Wilderness
Hellsgate Wilderness
Hummingbird Springs Wilderness
Imperial Refuge Wilderness
Juniper Mesa Wilderness
Kachina Peaks Wilderness
Kanab Creek Wilderness
Kendrick Mountain Wilderness
Kofa Wilderness
Mazatzal Wilderness
Miller Peak Wilderness
Mount Baldy Wilderness
Mount Logan Wilderness
Mount Nutt Wilderness
Mount Tipton Wilderness
Mount Trumbull Wilderness
Mount Wilson Wilderness
Mt. Wrightson Wilderness
Muggins Mountain Wilderness
Munds Mountain Wilderness
Needle's Eye Wilderness
New Water Mountains Wilderness
North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness
North Santa Teresa Wilderness
Organ Pipe Cactus Wilderness
Paiute Wilderness
Pajarita Wilderness
Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness
Peloncillo Mountains Wilderness
Petrified Forest National Wilderness Area
Pine Mountain Wilderness
Pusch Ridge Wilderness
Rawhide Mountains Wilderness
Red Rock-Secret Mountain Wilderness
Redfield Canyon Wilderness
Rincon Mountain Wilderness
Saddle Mountain Wilderness
Saguaro Wilderness
Salome Wilderness
Salt River Canyon Wilderness
Santa Teresa Wilderness
Sierra Ancha Wilderness
Sierra Estrella Wilderness
Signal Mountain Wilderness
South Maricopa Mountains Wilderness
Strawberry Crater Wilderness
Superstition Wilderness
Swansea Wilderness
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness
Table Top Wilderness
Tres Alamos Wilderness
Trigo Mountain Wilderness
Upper Burro Creek Wilderness
Wabayuma Peak Wilderness
Warm Springs Wilderness
West Clear Creek Wilderness
Wet Beaver Wilderness
White Canyon Wilderness
Woodchute Wilderness
Woolsey Peak Wilderness
Arkansas
Big Lake Wilderness
Black Fork Mountain Wilderness
Buffalo National River Wilderness
Caney Creek Wilderness
Dry Creek Wilderness
East Fork Wilderness
Flatside Wilderness
Hurricane Creek Wilderness
Leatherwood Wilderness
Poteau Mountain Wilderness
Richland Creek Wilderness
Upper Buffalo Wilderness
California
Agua Tibia Wilderness
Ansel Adams Wilderness
Argus Range Wilderness
Avawatz Mountains Wilderness
Beauty Mountain Wilderness
Big Maria Mountains Wilderness
Bigelow Cholla Garden Wilderness
Bighorn Mountain Wilderness
Black Mountain Wilderness
Bright Star Wilderness
Bristol Mountains Wilderness
Bucks Lake Wilderness
Buzzards Peak Wilderness
Cache Creek Wilderness
Cadiz Dunes Wilderness
Cahuilla Mountain Wilderness
Caribou Wilderness
Carrizo Gorge Wilderness
Carson-Iceberg Wilderness
Castle Crags Wilderness
Cedar Roughs Wilderness
Chanchelulla Wilderness
Chemehuevi Mountains Wilderness
Chimney Peak Wilderness
Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness
Chumash Wilderness
Cleghorn Lakes Wilderness
Clipper Mountain Wilderness
Coso Range Wilderness
Coyote Mountains Wilderness
Cucamonga Wilderness
Darwin Falls Wilderness
Dead Mountains Wilderness
Death Valley Wilderness
Desolation Wilderness
Dick Smith Wilderness
Dinkey Lakes Wilderness
Domeland Wilderness
El Paso Mountains Wilderness
Elkhorn Ridge Wilderness
Emigrant Wilderness
Farallon Wilderness
Fish Creek Mountains Wilderness
Funeral Mountains Wilderness
Garcia Wilderness
Golden Trout Wilderness
Golden Valley Wilderness
Granite Chief Wilderness
Granite Mountain Wilderness
Grass Valley Wilderness
Great Falls Basin Wilderness
Hain Wilderness
Hauser Wilderness
Havasu Wilderness
Hollow Hills Wilderness
Hoover Wilderness
Ibex Wilderness
Imperial Refuge Wilderness
Indian Pass Wilderness
Inyo Mountains Wilderness
Ishi Wilderness
Jacumba Wilderness
Jennie Lakes Wilderness
John Krebs Wilderness
John Muir Wilderness
Joshua Tree Wilderness
Kaiser Wilderness
Kelso Dunes Wilderness
Kiavah Wilderness
King Range Wilderness
Kingston Range Wilderness
Lassen Volcanic Wilderness
Lava Beds Wilderness
Little Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness
Little Picacho Wilderness
Machesna Mountain Wilderness
Magic Mountain Wilderness
Malpais Mesa Wilderness
Manly Peak Wilderness
Marble Mountain Wilderness
Matilija Wilderness
Mecca Hills Wilderness
Mesquite Wilderness
[[Page 67899]]
Milpitas Wash Wilderness
Mojave Wilderness
Mokelumne Wilderness
Monarch Wilderness
Mount Lassic Wilderness
Mt. Shasta Wilderness
Newberry Mountains Wilderness
Nopah Range Wilderness
North Algodones Dunes Wilderness
North Fork Wilderness
North Mesquite Mountains Wilderness
Old Woman Mountains Wilderness
Orocopia Mountains Wilderness
Otay Mountain Wilderness
Owens Peak Wilderness
Owens River Headwaters
Wilderness Pahrump Valley Wilderness
Palen/McCoy Wilderness
Palo Verde Mountains Wilderness
Phillip Burton Wilderness
Picacho Peak Wilderness
Pine Creek Wilderness
Pinto Mountains Wilderness
Piper Mountain Wilderness
Piute Mountains Wilderness
Pleasant View Ridge Wilderness
Red Buttes Wilderness
Resting Spring Range Wilderness
Rice Valley Wilderness
Riverside Mountains Wilderness
Rocks and Islands Wilderness
Rodman Mountains Wilderness
Russian Wilderness
Sacatar Trail Wilderness
Saddle Peak Hills Wilderness
San Gabriel Wilderness
San Gorgonio Wilderness
San Jacinto Wilderness
San Mateo Canyon Wilderness
San Rafael Wilderness
Sanhedrin Wilderness
Santa Lucia Wilderness
Santa Rosa Wilderness
Sawtooth Mountains Wilderness
Sequoia-Kings Canyon Wilderness
Sespe Wilderness
Sheep Mountain Wilderness
Sheephole Valley Wilderness
Silver Peak Wilderness
Siskiyou Wilderness
Snow Mountain Wilderness
Soda Mountains Wilderness
South Fork Eel River Wilderness
South Fork San Jacinto Wilderness
South Nopah Range Wilderness
South Sierra Wilderness
South Warner Wilderness
Stateline Wilderness
Stepladder Mountains Wilderness
Surprise Canyon Wilderness
Sylvania Mountains Wilderness
Thousand Lakes Wilderness
Trilobite Wilderness
Trinity Alps Wilderness
Turtle Mountains Wilderness
Ventana Wilderness
Whipple Mountains Wilderness
White Mountains Wilderness
Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness
Yosemite Wilderness
Yuki Wilderness
Colorado
Black Canyon of the Gunnison Wilderness
Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness
Buffalo Peaks Wilderness
Byers Peak Wilderness
Cache La Poudre Wilderness
Collegiate Peaks Wilderness
Comanche Peak Wilderness
Dominguez Canyon Wilderness
Eagles Nest Wilderness
Flat Tops Wilderness
Fossil Ridge Wilderness
Great Sand Dunes Wilderness
Greenhorn Mountain Wilderness
Gunnison Gorge Wilderness
Hermosa Creek Wilderness
Holy Cross Wilderness
Hunter-Fryingpan Wilderness
Indian Peaks Wilderness
James Peak Wilderness
La Garita Wilderness
Lizard Head Wilderness
Lost Creek Wilderness
Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness
Mesa Verde Wilderness
Mount Evans Wilderness
Mount Massive Wilderness
Mount Sneffels Wilderness
Mount Zirkel Wilderness
Neota Wilderness
Never Summer Wilderness
Platte River Wilderness
Powderhorn Wilderness
Ptarmigan Peak Wilderness
Raggeds Wilderness
Rawah Wilderness
Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness
Sangre de Cristo Wilderness
Sarvis Creek Wilderness
South San Juan Wilderness
Spanish Peaks Wilderness
Uncompahgre Wilderness
Vasquez Peak Wilderness
Weminuche Wilderness
West Elk Wilderness
Florida
Alexander Springs Wilderness
Big Gum Swamp Wilderness
Billies Bay Wilderness
Bradwell Bay Wilderness
Cedar Keys Wilderness
Chassahowitzka Wilderness
Florida Keys Wilderness
Island Bay Wilderness
J.N. ``Ding'' Darling Wilderness
Juniper Prairie Wilderness
Lake Woodruff Wilderness
Little Lake George Wilderness
Marjory Stoneman Douglas Wilderness
Mud Swamp/New River Wilderness
Passage Key Wilderness
Pelican Island Wilderness
St. Marks Wilderness
Georgia
Big Frog Wilderness
Blackbeard Island Wilderness
Blood Mountain Wilderness
Brasstown Wilderness
Cohutta Wilderness
Cumberland Island Wilderness
Ellicott Rock Wilderness
Mark Trail Wilderness
Okefenokee Wilderness
Raven Cliffs Wilderness
Rich Mountain Wilderness
Southern Nantahala Wilderness
Tray Mountain Wilderness
Wolf Island Wilderness
Hawaii
Hawaii Haleakala Wilderness
Hawaii Volcanoes Wilderness
Idaho
Big Jacks Creek Wilderness
Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness
Cecil D. Andrus-White Clouds Wilderness
Craters of the Moon National Wilderness Area
Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness
Gospel-Hump Wilderness
Hells Canyon Wilderness
Hemingway-Boulders Wilderness
Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness
Little Jacks Creek Wilderness
North Fork Owyhee Wilderness
Owyhee River Wilderness
Pole Creek Wilderness
Sawtooth Wilderness
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness
Illinois
Bald Knob Wilderness
Bay Creek Wilderness
Burden Falls Wilderness
Clear Springs Wilderness
Crab Orchard Wilderness
Garden of the Gods Wilderness
Lusk Creek Wilderness
Panther Den Wilderness
Indiana
Charles C. Deam Wilderness
Kentucky
Beaver Creek Wilderness
Clifty Wilderness
Louisiana
Breton Wilderness
Kisatchie Hills Wilderness
Lacassine Wilderness
Maine
Caribou-Speckled Mountain Wilderness
Moosehorn (Baring Unit) Wilderness
Moosehorn Wilderness
Massachusetts
Monomoy Wilderness
Michigan
Beaver Basin Wilderness
Big Island Lake Wilderness
Delirium Wilderness
Horseshoe Bay Wilderness
Huron Islands Wilderness
Isle Royale Wilderness
Mackinac Wilderness
McCormick Wilderness
Michigan Islands Wilderness
Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness
Rock River Canyon Wilderness
Round Island Wilderness
Seney Wilderness
Sleeping Bear Dunes Wilderness
Sturgeon River Gorge Wilderness
Sylvania Wilderness
Minnesota
Agassiz Wilderness
Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness
Tamarac Wilderness
Mississippi
Black Creek Wilderness
[[Page 67900]]
Gulf Islands Wilderness
Leaf Wilderness
Missouri
Bell Mountain Wilderness
Devils Backbone Wilderness
Hercules-Glades Wilderness
Irish Wilderness
Mingo Wilderness
Paddy Creek Wilderness
Piney Creek Wilderness
Rockpile Mountain Wilderness
Montana
Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness
Anaconda Pintler Wilderness
Bob Marshall Wilderness
Cabinet Mountains Wilderness
Gates of the Mountains Wilderness
Great Bear Wilderness
Lee Metcalf Wilderness
Medicine Lake Wilderness
Mission Mountains Wilderness
Rattlesnake Wilderness
Red Rock Lakes Wilderness
Scapegoat Wilderness
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness
UL Bend Wilderness
Nebraska
Fort Niobrara Wilderness
Soldier Creek Wilderness
Nevada
Alta Toquima Wilderness
Arc Dome Wilderness
Arrow Canyon Wilderness
Bald Mountain Wilderness
Becky Peak Wilderness
Big Rocks Wilderness
Black Canyon Wilderness
Black Rock Desert Wilderness
Boundary Peak Wilderness
Bridge Canyon Wilderness
Bristlecone Wilderness
Calico Mountains Wilderness
Clover Mountains Wilderness
Currant Mountain Wilderness
Death Valley Wilderness
Delamar Mountains Wilderness
East Fork High Rock Canyon Wilderness
East Humboldts Wilderness
Eldorado Wilderness
Far South Egans Wilderness
Fortification Range Wilderness
Goshute Canyon Wilderness
Government Peak Wilderness
Grant Range Wilderness
High Rock Canyon Wilderness
High Rock Lake Wilderness
High Schells Wilderness
Highland Ridge Wilderness
Ireteba Peaks Wilderness
Jarbidge Wilderness
Jimbilnan Wilderness
Jumbo Springs Wilderness
La Madre Mountain Wilderness
Lime Canyon Wilderness
Little High Rock Canyon Wilderness
Meadow Valley Range Wilderness
Mormon Mountains Wilderness
Mount Grafton Wilderness
Mt. Charleston Wilderness
Mt. Irish Wilderness
Mt. Moriah Wilderness
Mt. Rose Wilderness
Muddy Mountains Wilderness
Nellis Wash Wilderness
North Black Rock Range Wilderness
North Jackson Mountains Wilderness
North McCullough Wilderness
Pahute Peak Wilderness
Parsnip Peak Wilderness
Pine Forest Range Wilderness
Pinto Valley Wilderness
Quinn Canyon Wilderness
Rainbow Mountain Wilderness
Red Mountain Wilderness
Ruby Mountains Wilderness
Santa Rosa-Paradise Peak Wilderness
Shellback Wilderness
South Egan Range Wilderness
South Jackson Mountains Wilderness
South McCullough Wilderness
South Pahroc Range Wilderness
Spirit Mountain Wilderness
Table Mountain Wilderness
Tunnel Spring Wilderness
Wee Thump Joshua Tree Wilderness
Weepah Spring Wilderness
White Pine Range Wilderness
White Rock Range Wilderness
Worthington Mountains Wilderness
Wovoka Wilderness
New Hampshire
Great Gulf Wilderness
Pemigewasset Wilderness
Presidential Range-Dry River Wilderness
Sandwich Range Wilderness
Wild River Wilderness
New Jersey
Brigantine Wilderness
Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness
New Mexico
Aden Lava Flow Wilderness
Ah-shi-sle-pah Wilderness
Aldo Leopold Wilderness
Apache Kid Wilderness
Bandelier Wilderness
Bisti/De-Na-Zin Wilderness
Blue Range Wilderness
Bosque del Apache Wilderness
Broad Canyon Wilderness
Capitan Mountains Wilderness
Carlsbad Caverns Wilderness
Cebolla Wilderness
Cerro del Yuta Wilderness
Chama River Canyon Wilderness
Cinder Cone Wilderness
Columbine-Hondo Wilderness
Cruces Basin Wilderness
Dome Wilderness
East Potrillo Mountains
Gila Wilderness
Latir Peak Wilderness
Manzano Mountain Wilderness
Mount Riley Wilderness
Ojito Wilderness
Organ Mountains Wilderness
Pecos Wilderness
Potrillo Mountains Wilderness
Rio San Antonio Wilderness
Robledo Mountains Wilderness
Sabinoso Wilderness
Salt Creek Wilderness
San Pedro Parks Wilderness
Sandia Mountain Wilderness
Sierra de las Uvas Wilderness
West Malpais Wilderness
Wheeler Peak Wilderness
White Mountain Wilderness
Whitethorn Wilderness
Withington Wilderness
New York
Otis Pike Fire Island High Dune Wilderness
North Carolina
Birkhead Mountains Wilderness
Catfish Lake South Wilderness
Ellicott Rock Wilderness
Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness
Linville Gorge Wilderness
Middle Prong Wilderness
Pocosin Wilderness
Pond Pine Wilderness
Sheep Ridge Wilderness
Shining Rock Wilderness
Southern Nantahala Wilderness
Swanquarter Wilderness
North Dakota
Chase Lake Wilderness
Lostwood Wilderness
Theodore Roosevelt Wilderness
Ohio
West Sister Island Wilderness
Oklahoma
Black Fork Mountain Wilderness
Upper Kiamichi River Wilderness
Wichita Mountains Wilderness
Oregon
Badger Creek Wilderness
Black Canyon Wilderness
Boulder Creek Wilderness
Bridge Creek Wilderness
Bull of the Woods Wilderness
Clackamas Wilderness
Copper Salmon Wilderness
Cummins Creek Wilderness
Diamond Peak Wilderness
Devils Staircase Wilderness
Drift Creek Wilderness
Eagle Cap Wilderness
Gearhart Mountain Wilderness
Grassy Knob Wilderness
Hells Canyon Wilderness
Kalmiopsis Wilderness
Lower White River Wilderness
Mark O. Hatfield Wilderness
Menagerie Wilderness
Middle Santiam Wilderness
Mill Creek Wilderness
Monument Rock Wilderness
Mount Hood Wilderness
Mount Jefferson Wilderness
Mount Thielsen Wilderness
Mount Washington Wilderness
Mountain Lakes Wilderness
North Fork John Day Wilderness
North Fork Umatilla Wilderness
Opal Creek Wilderness
Oregon Badlands Wilderness
Oregon Islands Wilderness
Red Buttes Wilderness
Roaring River Wilderness
Rock Creek Wilderness
Rogue-Umpqua Divide Wilderness
Salmon-Huckleberry Wilderness
Sky Lakes Wilderness
Soda Mountain Wilderness
Spring Basin Wilderness
Steens Mountain Wilderness
Strawberry Mountain Wilderness
[[Page 67901]]
Table Rock Wilderness
Three Arch Rocks Wilderness
Three Sisters Wilderness
Waldo Lake Wilderness
Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness
Wild Rogue Wilderness
Pennsylvania
Allegheny Islands Wilderness
Hickory Creek Wilderness
Puerto Rico
El Toro Wilderness
South Carolina
Cape Romain Wilderness
Congaree National Park Wilderness
Ellicott Rock Wilderness
Hell Hole Bay Wilderness
Little Wambaw Swamp Wilderness
Wambaw Creek Wilderness
Wambaw Swamp Wilderness
South Dakota
Badlands Wilderness
Black Elk Wilderness
Tennessee
Bald River Gorge Wilderness
Big Frog Wilderness
Big Laurel Branch Wilderness
Citico Creek Wilderness
Cohutta Wilderness
Gee Creek Wilderness
Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness
Little Frog Mountain Wilderness
Pond Mountain Wilderness
Sampson Mountain Wilderness
Unaka Mountain Wilderness
Upper Bald River Wilderness
Texas
Big Slough Wilderness
Guadalupe Mountains Wilderness
Indian Mounds Wilderness
Little Lake Creek Wilderness
Turkey Hill Wilderness
Upland Island Wilderness
Utah
Ashdown Gorge Wilderness
Beartrap Canyon Wilderness
Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness
Big Wild Horse Mesa Wilderness
Blackridge Wilderness
Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness
Box-Death Hollow Wilderness
Canaan Mountain Wilderness
Cedar Mountain Wilderness Area
Cold Wash Wilderness
Cottonwood Canyon Wilderness
Cottonwood Forest Wilderness
Cougar Canyon Wilderness
Dark Canyon Wilderness
Deep Creek North Wilderness
Deep Creek Wilderness
Deseret Peak Wilderness
Desolation Canyon Wilderness
Devil's Canyon Wilderness
Doc's Pass Wilderness
Eagle Canyon Wilderness
Goose Creek Wilderness
High Uintas Wilderness
Horse Valley Wilderness
Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness
LaVerkin Creek Wilderness
Little Ocean Draw Wilderness
Little Wild Horse Canyon Wilderness
Lone Peak Wilderness
Lower Last Chance Wilderness
Mexican Mountain Wilderness
Middle Wild Horse Mesa Wilderness
Mount Naomi Wilderness
Mount Nebo Wilderness
Mount Olympus Wilderness
Mount Timpanogos Wilderness
Muddy Creek Wilderness
Nelson Mountain Wilderness
Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness
Pine Valley Mountain Wilderness
Red Butte Wilderness
Red's Canyon Wilderness
Red Mountain Wilderness
San Rafael Reef Wilderness
Sid's Mountain Wilderness
Slaughter Creek Wilderness
Taylor Creek Wilderness
Turtle Canyon Wilderness
Twin Peaks Wilderness
Wellsville Mountain Wilderness
Zion Wilderness
Vermont
Big Branch Wilderness
Breadloaf Wilderness
Bristol Cliffs Wilderness
George D. Aiken Wilderness
Glastenbury Wilderness
Joseph Battell Wilderness
Lye Brook Wilderness
Peru Peak Wilderness
Virginia
Barbours Creek Wilderness
Beartown Wilderness
Brush Mountain East Wilderness
Brush Mountain Wilderness
Garden Mountain Wilderness
Hunting Camp Creek Wilderness
James River Face Wilderness
Kimberling Creek Wilderness
Lewis Fork Wilderness
Little Dry Run Wilderness
Little Wilson Creek Wilderness
Mountain Lake Wilderness
Peters Mountain Wilderness
Priest Wilderness
Raccoon Branch Wilderness
Ramseys Draft Wilderness
Rich Hole Wilderness
Rough Mountain Wilderness
Saint Mary's Wilderness
Shawvers Run Wilderness
Shenandoah Wilderness
Stone Mountain Wilderness
Three Ridges Wilderness
Thunder Ridge Wilderness
Washington
Alpine Lakes Wilderness
Boulder River Wilderness
Buckhorn Wilderness
Clearwater Wilderness
Colonel Bob Wilderness
Daniel J. Evans Wilderness
Glacier Peak Wilderness
Glacier View Wilderness
Goat Rocks Wilderness
Henry M. Jackson Wilderness
Indian Heaven Wilderness
Juniper Dunes Wilderness
Lake Chelan-Sawtooth Wilderness
Mount Adams Wilderness
Mount Baker Wilderness
Mount Rainier Wilderness
Mount Skokomish Wilderness
Noisy-Diobsud Wilderness
Norse Peak Wilderness
Pasayten Wilderness
Salmo-Priest Wilderness
San Juan Wilderness
Stephen Mather Wilderness
Tatoosh Wilderness
The Brothers Wilderness
Trapper Creek Wilderness
Washington Islands Wilderness
Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness
Wild Sky Wilderness
William O. Douglas Wilderness
Wonder Mountain Wilderness
West Virginia
Big Draft Wilderness
Cranberry Wilderness
Dolly Sods Wilderness
Laurel Fork North Wilderness
Laurel Fork South Wilderness
Mountain Lake Wilderness
Roaring Plains West Wilderness
Otter Creek Wilderness
Spice Run Wilderness
Wisconsin
Blackjack Springs Wilderness
Gaylord A. Nelson Wilderness
Headwaters Wilderness
Porcupine Lake Wilderness
Rainbow Lake Wilderness
Whisker Lake Wilderness
Wisconsin Islands Wilderness
Wyoming
Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness
Bridger Wilderness
Cloud Peak Wilderness
Encampment River Wilderness
Fitzpatrick Wilderness
Gros Ventre Wilderness
Huston Park Wilderness
Jedediah Smith Wilderness
North Absaroka Wilderness
Platte River Wilderness
Popo Agie Wilderness
Savage Run Wilderness
Teton Wilderness
Washakie Wilderness
Winegar Hole Wilderness
A.6 National Wild and Scenic Rivers
Alabama
Sipsey Fork of the West Fork River
Alaska
Alagnak River
Alatna River
Andreafsky River
Aniakchak River
Beaver Creek
Birch Creek
Charley River
Chilikadrotna River
Delta River
Fortymile River
Gulkana River
Ivishak River
John River
Kobuk River
Koyukuk River (North Fork)
Mulchatna River
Noatak River
[[Page 67902]]
Nowitna River
Salmon River
Selawik River
Sheenjek River
Tinayguk River
Tlikakila River
Unalakleet River
Wind River
Arizona
Fossil Creek
Verde River
Arkansas
Big Piney Creek
Buffalo River
Cossatot River
Hurricane Creek
Little Missouri River
Mulberry River
North Sylamore Creek
Richland Creek
California
Amargosa River
American River (Lower)
American River (North Fork)
Bautista Creek
Big Sur River
Black Butte River
Cottonwood Creek
Deep Creek
Eel River
Feather River
Fuller Mill Creek
Kern River
Kings River
Klamath River
Merced River
Owens River Headwaters
Palm Canyon Creek
Piru Creek
San Jacinto River (North Fork)
Sespe Creek
Sisquoc River
Surprise Canyon Creek
Smith River
Trinity River
Tuolumne River
Whitewater River
Colorado
Cache la Poudre River
Connecticut
Eightmile River
Farmington (Lower) River & Salmon Brook
Farmington (West Branch) River
Wood & Pawcatuck Rivers
Delaware
White Clay Creek
Florida
Loxahatchee River
Wekiva River
Georgia
Chattooga River
Idaho
Battle Creek
Big Jacks Creek
Bruneau River
Bruneau River (West Fork)
Clearwater River (Middle Fork)
Cottonwood Creek
Deep Creek
Dickshooter Creek
Duncan Creek
Jarbidge River
Little Jacks Creek
Owyhee River
Owyhee River (North Fork)
Owyhee River (South Fork)
Rapid River
Red Canyon
St. Joe River
Salmon River
Salmon River (Middle Fork)
Sheep Creek
Snake River
Wickahoney Creek
Illinois
Vermilion River
Kentucky
Red River
Louisiana
Saline Bayou
Maine
Allagash Wilderness Waterway
Massachusetts
Nashua, Squannacook, Nissitissit Rivers
Sudbury, Assabet, Concord Rivers
Taunton River
Westfield River
Michigan
AuSable River
Bear Creek
Black River
Carp River
Indian River
Manistee River
Ontonagon River
Paint River
Pere Marquette River
Pine River
Presque Isle River
Sturgeon River (Hiawatha National Forest)
Sturgeon River (Ottawa National Forest)
Tahquamenon River (East Branch)
Whitefish River
Yellow Dog River
Minnesota
St. Croix River
Mississippi
Black Creek
Missouri
Eleven Point River
Montana
East Rosebud Creek
Flathead River
Missouri River
Nebraska
Missouri River
Niobrara River
New Hampshire
Lamprey River
Nashua, Squannacook, Nissitissit Rivers
Wildcat River
New Jersey
Delaware River (Lower)
Delaware River (Middle)
Great Egg Harbor River
Maurice River
Musconetcong River
New Mexico
Jemez River (East Fork)
Pecos River
Rio Chama
Rio Grande
New York
Delaware River (Upper)
North Carolina
Chattooga River
Horsepasture River
Lumber River
New River
Wilson Creek
Ohio
Big & Little Darby Creeks
Little Beaver Creek
Little Miami River
Oregon
Big Marsh Creek
Chetco River
Clackamas River
Clackamas River (South Fork)
Collawash River
Crescent Creek
Crooked River
Crooked River (North Fork)
Deschutes River
Donner und Blitzen River
Eagle Creek (Mt. Hood National Forest)
Eagle Creek (Wallowa-Whitman National Forest)
Elk Creek
Elk River
Elkhorn Creek
Fifteenmile Creek
Fish Creek
Franklin Creek
Grande Ronde River
Hood River (East Fork)
Hood River (Middle Fork)
Illinois River
Imnaha River
Jenny Creek
John Day River
John Day River (North Fork)
John Day River (South Fork)
Joseph Creek
Klamath River
Little Deschutes River
Lobster Creek
Lostine River
Malheur River
Malheur River (North Fork)
McKenzie River
Metolius River
Minam River
Molalla River
Nestucca River
North Powder River
North Umpqua River
Owyhee River
Owyhee River (North Fork)
Powder River
Quartzville Creek
River Styx
Roaring River
Roaring River (South Fork)
Rogue River
[[Page 67903]]
Rogue River (Upper)
Salmon River
Sandy River
Silver Creek (North Fork)
Smith River (North Fork)
Snake River
Sprague River
Spring Creek
Sycan River
Walker Creek
Wallowa River
Wasson Creek
Wenaha River
West Little Owyhee River
Whychus Creek
White River
Wildhorse & Kiger Creeks
Willamette River (North Fork Middle Fork)
Zigzag River
Pennsylvania
Allegheny River
Clarion River
Delaware River (Lower)
Delaware River (Middle)
Delaware River (Upper)
White Clay Creek
Puerto Rico
Rio de la Mina
Rio Icacos
Rio Mameyes
Rhode Island
Wood & Pawcatuck Rivers
South Carolina
Chattooga River
South Dakota
Missouri
Tennessee
Obed River
Texas
Rio Grande
Utah
Green River
Virgin River
Vermont
Missisquoi & Trout Rivers
Washington
Illabot Creek
Klickitat River
Pratt River
Skagit River
Snoqualmie (Middle Fork) River
White Salmon River
West Virginia
Bluestone River
Wisconsin
St. Croix River
Wolf River
Wyoming
Snake River Headwaters
Yellowstone River (Clark's Fork)
[FR Doc. 2020-22385 Filed 10-16-20; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P