Appendix G Response to Comments

Appendix G. Response to Comments from the Shipping Federation of Canada
submitted on 11/28/2008
EPA thanks the commenter for submitting their comment on the NPDES ICR. Though
the Agency appreciates the Shipping Federation of Canada's interest in EPA's ICR, EPA
notes that the majority of the comment is outside the scope of this ICR action. The
commenter states that for the submission, they have "reiterated below some of the
recommendations contained in our submission of August 1, 2008 [on the draft VGP] with
regard to inspection, monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements." In
summary, the core of this submittal reiterates the comment submitted to EPA on August
1, 2008 for the Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General
Permits for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel (Federal Register,
June 17, 2008, pages 34296-34304). See EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0327.1.
o The introductory and concluding remarks are essentially identical to those found
respectively on pages 1-2 and 16-17 of the previous submittal.
o The section numbered one, titled "Harmonize inspection, monitoring, reporting
and recordkeeping requirements with current operational practices and regulations
for foreign flagged vessels" is essentially identical to the section found on pages 2
and 12 of the previous submittal.
o The section numbered two, titled "comments on specific permit requirements"
contains sizable excerpts found on pages 12 through 14 of the previous submittal.
o The section numbered three, titled "Implications for the Canadian Trade Routes"
is essentially identical to that found on page 3 of the previous submittal.
In summary, these comments are outside of the scope of this ICR action as they are
specific to the VGP. The similar comments submitted to the VGP docket are being
considered and addressed in the final issuance of the VGP.
In response to the first paragraphs on page 2 of the comment, for permittees covered
under this ICR, EPA has based the burden estimates on the Economic and Benefits
Analysis of the Proposed Vessel General Permit (VGP) and took into account the varying
burdens associated with both domestic and foreign vessels where information was
available. EPA notes that the commenter provides no suggestions or other comment on
the specific burden estimate used by EPA in formulation of this ICR.

Appendix G. Response to Comments from A.P. Moller - Maersk submitted on
11/26/2008
EPA thanks the commenter for submitting their comment on the NPDES ICR. Though
the Agency appreciates the A.P. Moller-Maersk's interest in EPA's ICR, EPA notes that
the majority of the comment is outside the scope of this ICR action and reiterates the
comment submitted to EPA on August 1, 2008 for the Draft National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Permits for Discharges Incidental to the Normal
Operation of a Vessel (Federal Register, June 17, 2008, pages 34296-34304). See EPAHQ-OW-2008-0055-0395.1.
Below are EPA’s responses organized in a similar way as the comment letter submitted.
Introduction
EPA agrees with the commenter’s statement that many of the inspection, reporting and
recordkeeping requirements in the proposed Vessel General Permit (VGP) are already
being accomplished under other regulatory schemes. In estimating the information
collection burden EPA has accounted for the activities already perform by vessels to meet
other regulatory requirements or as part of industry best practices, and the burden
presented in the ICR is only the incremental burden of additional activities resulting from
the permit.
EPA disagrees with the commenter’s statement EPA only evaluated military vessels. For
permittees covered under this ICR, EPA has based the burden estimates on the Economic
and Benefits Analysis of the Proposed VGP and took into account the varying burdens
associated with both domestic and foreign vessels where information was available. As
explained in the Economic and Benefits Analysis the majority of the costs estimates were
derived from industry communication and survey responses. Additional cost inputs are
also derived from manufacturers, field experts, and the NBIC database.
1. Understanding Shipping Routes and Time in U.S. Waters is Essential
This comment is outside the scope of this ICR notice. It reiterated the comment on page
5, bullet 12 of the previous submittal. The similar comments submitted to the VGP
docket are being considered and addressed in the final issuance of the VGP.
2. Existing Vessel Regulations
In estimating the information collection burden EPA has accounted for the activities
already performed by vessels to meet other regulatory requirements or as part of industry
best practices, and the burden presented in the ICR is only the incremental burden of
additional activities resulting from the permit. Vessels are not necessarily required to
maintain a separate set of books for the recordkeeping requirements in the general permit
if they are already keeping track of required recordkeeping in other formats. So long as
the current books and logs meet the requirements, these records can be maintained as part
of the current vessel’s s recordkeeping documentation.

3. Methodology and Estimate of Burden
The commenter misunderstood the information presented. The ICR estimated the labor
burden and non-labor capital and operations and maintenance cost to submit information
or retain records and does not estimate the total cost to implement all the requirements in
permit. For example, the time required to clean the vessel decks prior to leaving U.S. port
is not an ICR activity. Additionally, the averages presented are the result of very wide
estimated in time that can be as low as a few hours per year for small vessels and as high
as 30 hours for certain large vessels (50 hours if additional steps are required to meet all
standard permit conditions). These estimates include the time required to conduct
quarterly monitoring when applicable.
As explained in the Economic and Benefits Analysis of the Proposed VGP the majority
of the costs estimates were derived from industry communication and survey responses.
Additional cost inputs are also derived from manufacturers, field experts, and the NBIC
database. EPA took into account the varying burdens associated with both domestic and
foreign vessels where information was available.
The commenter states that the administrative burden associated with submitting an NOI
for every redeployment is not accounted for. EPA does not expect, nor require,
owner/operators to submit an NOI for every deployment. To maintain permit coverage,
an owner/operator would need to re-submit an NOI every five years and not one for every
redeployment. Additional NOIs will only need to be submitted for the same permit term
for the same vessel if the owner/operator changes during the permit term.
4. Quality, Utility and Clarity of Information to be Collected
This comment is outside the scope of this ICR notice. It reiterated the comment on pages
3 and 4, bullets 6 through 8 of the previous submittal. The similar comments submitted to
the VGP docket are being considered and addressed in the final issuance of the VGP.
5. Additional Technical Comments and Comments on Specific Discharge Categories
These comments are outside of the scope of this ICR action as they are specific to the
VGP. The similar comments submitted to the VGP docket are being considered and
addressed in the final issuance of the VGP.

November 28, 2008

Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0719
Water Docket Environmental Protection Agency
Mailcode: 4203M
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460

Re:

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment
Request; NPDES and Sewage Sludge Monitoring Reports; EPA ICR No.
0229.17; OMB Control No. 2040-0004
(Federal Register, Vol. 73 No. 189, September 29, 2008, pages 56568-56570)

To Whom It May Concern:
The Shipping Federation of Canada, representing over 90 percent of ocean-going vessels
(international cruise and cargo) trading to and from ports in Atlantic Canada, the St. Lawrence and
the Great Lakes, would like to offer the following comments regarding the Information Collection
Request (ICR) published in the September 29, 2008 Federal Register with respect to the
Environmental Protection Agency’s draft Vessel General Permit program for discharges incidental
to normal vessel operations.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this program, given that a significant proportion of our
members either transit from overseas to the Great Lakes through the Seaway, or have U.S. based
operations. As such, the provisions of the draft Vessel General Permit and its implementation are
of utmost importance to the continuation of their operations. Indeed, when the original Notice of
Intent regarding the potential development of a proposed permitting system under the Clean Water
Act was published in June 2007, we submitted a series of observations and comments on behalf of
our membership, which we supplemented this summer with comments on the draft Vessel General
Permit. We have now turned our attention to the proposed process for collecting information under
the permitting system, which is the focus of this submission.

THE SHIPPING FEDERATION OF CANADA
300 St. Sacrement, suite 326
Montreal QC H2Y 1X4
Tel : (514) 849-2325 / Fax : (514) 849-8774
www.shipfed.ca

1

As an initial comment, we believe that the task of estimating the burden of collecting information is
extremely difficult. Given the variety of best management practices that are applicable to the wide
range of vessel types and trade patterns involved, it would be extremely problematic to evaluate the
accuracy of the Agency’s estimates of the burden associated with collecting information under the
Vessel General Permit. For this reason, we have reiterated below some of the recommendations
contained in our submission of August 1, 2008 with regard to inspection, monitoring, reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

1. Harmonize inspection, monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping
requirements with current operational practices and regulations for foreignflagged vessels
Commercial vessels are already regulated under a number of international conventions and treaties
to which the U.S. is a party, and under a number of U.S. statutes and regulations, all of which
require them to comply with a variety of highly technical and class-specific technical standards in
relation to their design, construction and maintenance. In addition, safety and environmental
management systems for oceangoing vessels, such as the International Safety Management (ISM)
Code, already include extensive and comprehensive inspection, monitoring, reporting and
recordkeeping procedures. We recommend that the EPA recognize these systems as being
compliant with the provisions of the proposed Vessel General Permit.
The fact that these procedures are duplicated in the permit program makes operations in U.S.
waters extremely burdensome for the ship’s crew, and we strongly recommend that this be
addressed through the adoption of the ISM Code provisions in order to streamline and harmonize
the process with existing international requirements. Should the Vessel General Permit contain
additional requirements that are not part of the vessel’s ISM Code, the latter should integrate
specific plans and procedures to ensure compliance with such requirements.

2. Comments on Specific Permit Requirements
In our comments submitted earlier this year, we highlighted a number of concerns with the
inspection, monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements as presented in the proposed
Vessel General Permit. We believe it is worth reiterating that all of the provisions contained in these
requirements are already part of the International Safety Management Code and of current
reporting requirements. While we are ready to make these records available to the EPA, we are not
in favor of the imposition of additional reporting requirements, nor of the designation of duplicate
authorities to whom reports must be submitted.
In addition, the permit does not provide any information as to how the provisions would apply to
ships transiting irregularly in U.S. waters. This is a question of utmost importance for our
membership, as not all our members’ ships are part of the liner trade, or may be redeployed for a
number of reasons which include maintenance, repairs and routes changes due to factors such as
changing economic conditions. We believe that clarification of these requirements is essential for

THE SHIPPING FEDERATION OF CANADA
300 St. Sacrement, suite 326
Montreal QC H2Y 1X4
Tel : (514) 849-2325 / Fax : (514) 849-8774
www.shipfed.ca

2

the successful implementation of the proposed Vessel General Permit, especially from a ship
operations perspective.
Part 4.1 Self Inspections and Monitoring:
-

-

-

Section 10 of the ISM Code spells out the requirements for regular inspections, which
includes the reporting of non-conformities, implementation of corrective actions and
recordkeeping. Section 11 addresses documentation requirements. Therefore, the
requirements contained in Part 4 duplicate the information to be logged by the ship’s crew,
again underscoring the administrative burden that implementation of the proposed permit
will pose.
The quarterly sampling requirements should be dropped altogether, as there is no indication
of how these would apply for foreign-flagged vessels trading irregularly in U.S. waters.
Moreover, the crew on board ships do not have the necessary scientific background to
perform such sampling, nor do they have the necessary resources or information to find
laboratories that could perform such sampling.
Annual inspections and dry dock inspection requirements should be harmonized with the
ISM Code’s Certification and Periodical Verification requirements (Part B, Section 13), and
the EPA inspection procedure and requirements should be revised accordingly.

Overall, we are opposed to the inspection requirements set out in Part 4.1., which we view as
adding an undue burden for the ship’s crew, particularly since regular inspections are already
mandated by the ISM Code and a number of inspections are already performed by the U.S. Coast
Guard and classification societies. The results of all such inspections should be made available to
the EPA, which should work with the U.S. Coast Guard, the various classification societies and
other relevant organizations to develop viable inspection requirements under the proposed Vessel
General Permit.
Part 4.2 Recordkeeping:
-

All recordkeeping provisions should be harmonized with current U.S. Coast Guard
regulations and ship operators should not incur additional recordkeeping requirements.

Part 4.4 Reporting:
-

With respect to Part 4.4.1, we reiterate our previous point that reports of non-compliance
should be made in accordance with the provisions contained in section 10 of the ISM Code.

As well, we would recommend that the procedures which already exist under the International
Safety Management Code be used to report on non-conformities, accidents and hazardous
occurrences. Indeed, we are surprised that the section of the proposed permit program dealing with
corrective actions does not include any reference to the ISM Code’s specific directives and
procedures with respect to cases of non-conformity, accidents and hazardous occurrences.1
1

Section 9.1 of the ISM Code: The safety management system should include procedures ensuring that nonconformities, accidents and hazardous situations are reported to the Company, investigated and analysed
with the objective of improving safety and pollution prevention; and Section 9.2: The Company should
establish procedures for the implementation of corrective action

THE SHIPPING FEDERATION OF CANADA
300 St. Sacrement, suite 326
Montreal QC H2Y 1X4
Tel : (514) 849-2325 / Fax : (514) 849-8774
www.shipfed.ca

3

Incorporation of the ISM Code’s existing procedures for assessing, documenting and reporting on
incidents of non-compliance into the permit program would be the ideal and most logical means of
achieving this objective.

3. Implications for the Canadian Trade Route
We would like to end our comments by providing some information on the potential impacts of the
draft Vessel General Permit on the Canadian trade route. A significant percentage of ocean-going
vessels represented by the members of the Shipping Federation of Canada will transit U.S. waters
to reach their Canadian ports of destination (i.e. ships headed to ports in the Canadian Great Lakes
through the St. Lawrence Seaway). Such ships would be subject to the new permit requirement,
since the Seaway navigation channel crosses the international boundary approximately 23 times
(refer to Seaway Handbook).
However, subject to the structure and content of the final version of the permit, this requirement
could potentially impede free navigation and transit, as granted under the 1909 Boundary Waters
Treaty (Article 1) and the 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Article V).2 Both these
instruments contain provisions that are designed to protect the freedom of traffic and navigation
between Canada and the U.S., while allowing for the development of laws and regulations by the
coastal state that are reasonable and compatible with the foregoing objectives. It is therefore very
important that the permit does not impose undue regulatory or administrative burdens on ships
transiting between the two countries.
The implementation of a permit that impedes free navigation would have a negative impact on the
St. Lawrence Seaway trade route as a whole, by disrupting normal trade patterns and discouraging
ships calling at Canadian ports from loading backhaul cargoes in the U.S. (or vice-versa). If ship
operators find it too burdensome to call U.S. ports due to concerns over meeting the permit’s
requirements, then the cost of transportation will increase to the detriment of Canadian trade for the
whole St. Lawrence / Great Lakes Basin area.

*********

Before closing, we would like to reiterate our commitment to collaborating with the Environmental
Protection Agency in developing a permit that meets the Agency’s objectives without unduly
complicating operations for ocean-going vessels calling at U.S. ports. We also remain available to
provide the EPA with any information it may require regarding oceangoing vessels transiting into
U.S. waters.

2

These comments focus on trade transiting to Canadian ports; however, trade going to US ports would be
covered by the General Agreement on Trade in Services. It might also be covered by Article VIII of the GATT
(Fees and Formalities connected with Importations and Exportations), since imports and exports will have to
be carried by a ship holding the EPA permit.

THE SHIPPING FEDERATION OF CANADA
300 St. Sacrement, suite 326
Montreal QC H2Y 1X4
Tel : (514) 849-2325 / Fax : (514) 849-8774
www.shipfed.ca

4

We thank you for the opportunity to provide our views on the development of the draft Vessel
General Permit, and would be pleased to provide any additional clarification or information that may
be required.
Respectfully submitted,

Caroline Gravel
Director, Environmental Affairs
Shipping Federation of Canada

The Shipping Federation of Canada (The Federation), incorporated by an Act of Parliament in 1903, acts as
the pre-eminent voice of shipowners, operators and agents involved in Canada’s world trade. Its overall
objective is to work towards a safe, competitive and environmentally sustainable marine transportation
system. As an industry leader on marine environmental issues, the Federation serves as a frontline
information resource on environmental regulations, policies and practices applicable to ships trading in
Canadian waters; promotes the importance of international conventions and standards as the optimal means
of responding to environmental challenges; and provides operational know-how and expertise in the
development of best practices and management systems.
The Federation’s membership consists of the Canadian companies that own, operate or act as agents for 95
percent of ocean vessels trading to and from ports in Atlantic Canada, Newfoundland & Labrador, the St.
Lawrence River and the Great Lakes – vessels which are responsible for transporting virtually all of the trade
moving between eastern Canada and ports overseas. The Federation’s members also represent virtually all
the international cruise vessels calling at eastern Canadian ports.

THE SHIPPING FEDERATION OF CANADA
300 St. Sacrement, suite 326
Montreal QC H2Y 1X4
Tel : (514) 849-2325 / Fax : (514) 849-8774
www.shipfed.ca

5

Delivered via E-Mail: [email protected]
November 26, 2008
Water Docket Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code 4203M
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC
RE:

Docket ID NO. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0719
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment
Request; NPDES and Sewage Sludge Monitoring Reports; EPA ICR No.
0229.17; OMB Control No. 2040–0004.

Dear Sir or Madam:
A.P. Moller - Maersk respectfully requests your consideration of the following comments
related to the Information Collection Request (ICR) published in the September 29, 2008
Federal Register (73 FR 56568) with respect to EPA’s proposed Permit for Discharges
Incidental to Normal Operation of a Vessel published on June 17, 2008 (73 FR 34296).
EPA specifically requested comments to enable the Agency to evaluate a number of
issues. These issues and the main points we wish to convey in this submittal are
summarized in the following table:
EPA Request

Comments

Evaluate whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility

Shipping is a highly regulated, global industry that requires consistent,
global solutions to environmental concerns.

Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency’s
estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and
assumptions used

To develop the draft vessel permit, EPA evaluated military vessels, but
did not appear to evaluate commercial vessels, including container
ships. Therefore, the methodology and assumptions used to estimate
the burden on commercial ships are flawed because staffing levels on
military vessels are generally much larger than commercial vessels. At
minimum, EPA has not evaluated and incorporated the regulations,
reporting, and recordkeeping requirements that international vessels
are currently required to meet.

Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected; and

The draft permit contains numerous ambiguities related to data
collection, including when data collection must begin (entire voyage vs.
in U.S. territorial waters). In addition, other discharges from container
vessels were not included in the draft permit

Minimize the burden of the collection of

The primary way to minimize the burden on the shipping community

Many of the inspection, reporting and recordkeeping requirements in
the draft Vessel General Permit (VGP) are already being accomplished
under international conventions. There is little practical utility in
requiring vessels to duplicate information required under existing
international conventions and treaties to which the U.S. is a party

.
9300 Arrowpoint Boulevard, Charlotte, North Carolina 28273, USA
Phone: 704-571-2000, Fax: 704-571-4688
www.maersk.com

information on those who are to respond,
including through the use of appropriate
automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques
or other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.

while continuing to protect the environment and meet the intent of the
VGP, is for EPA to coordinate its requirements with the extensive
regulations to which these vessels are already subject (i.e.,
International Safety Management code, MARPOL Annexes, and U.S.
regulations at 33 CFR and 46 CFR). Much of the burden is created
through duplication of reports and records as well as supplementary
training. In addition, there is considerable burden associated with
vessel redeployment as discussed further in this letter.

A.P. Moller – Maersk is a market leader in worldwide container shipping and logistics
under the brand names Maersk Line, Maersk Line Limited, Maersk Logistics, and
Safmarine. The company operates more than 550 container vessels around the world,
of which we own more than 220 vessels – making us the largest container shipping
company in the world. Our global vessel operations also include tankers, tugs, and oil
and gas production, for a total of over 1,000 vessels. All of our owned vessels operate
under environmental management systems certified to the international standard ISO
14001.
Dealing with our environmental impact is a significant challenge, which we take very
seriously. We have demonstrated a long-term commitment to protecting the
environment, and often lead industry initiatives to reduce environmental impacts at sea,
in port and throughout the global transportation chain. To be sustainable, shipping must
respect the environment while still recognizing the importance of container shipping to
the economies and well-being of communities around the world.
Maersk has implemented over 100 projects to save energy and improve environmental
performance. More information is available on our websites at www.maersk.com and
www.maerskgreen.com .
While we completely support EPA’s mission to protect Waters of United States, we
believe that regulation of international mobile sources (i.e., ships), is better
accomplished through international standards. We are specifically concerned with
individual States and even Countries choosing to adopt differing (or even conflicting)
standards, thus subjecting vessels to different permit requirements at each port visited.
This is not only disruptive to maritime commerce, but may pose an economic
disadvantage to U.S. commerce.
1. Understanding Shipping Routes and Time in U.S. Waters is Essential
To facilitate understanding of international shipping and the difficulty in applying U.S.
regulations to international vessels, we offer the following information regarding shipping
routes. A “shipping line” operates on a set route involving many ports around the globe,
and must adhere to a strict schedule to meet customer requirements. These routes are
carefully constructed to meet multiple customers’ delivery requirements while minimizing
total fuel use and operating costs. An example is shown below for 2 of the 4 segments of
a trans-Pacific route. All of our routes and detailed schedules can be viewed on our
website at www.maerskline.com.

2

3

Thus each vessel calls in a given country or port only a few times each year. To provide
weekly service, multiple vessels will be assigned to that route, spaced at the distance
required to provide that service. Here are examples of recent scheduled visits to Los
Angeles:
Vessel
Maersk Kure
Anna Maersk
Sofie Maersk

LA 2007
Dec. 10-12
Nov. 7-10
Dec. 5-8

LA 2008
April 16-17
Feb 6-9
Mar 6-9

LA 2008
May 8-11

The Sofie Maersk spent 97 days on a round-trip voyage from Los Angeles and back
between December 5, 2007 and March 9, 2008. Including stops in Tacoma, the Sofie
Maersk spent a total of eight days, less than 10% of her voyage, in U.S. ports. In the
interim period, she made 21 other port calls in various countries.
Vessels are assigned to a given route or “string,” but may be redeployed for repairs,
periodic maintenance, and route changes due to market conditions and customer
requirements. Since vessels often do not stay on the same routes for extended periods
(years), and are redeployed to new ports or countries, consistent international standards
are essential. In redeployment situations, a vessel will not likely have 30-days prior
notice to obtain authorization to discharge in accordance with the requirements of the
draft vessel general permit (VGP) (i.e., Notice of Intent [NOI] must be submitted 30-days
prior to discharge; authorization date 30 days after complete NOI received).
The necessity of consistent regulations across the entire voyage is critical to smooth
operations. Requiring the vessels to implement supplemental inspections, reports and
records for the small portion of total operating the time the vessel is in U.S. waters is
impractical, costly and does nothing to improve environmental impacts. In addition, and
as mentioned earlier, we are concerned with individual States and even Countries
choosing to adopt differing (or even conflicting) standards, thus subjecting vessels to
different permit requirements at each port visited.
2. Existing Vessel Regulations
International vessels are highly regulated through a number of international conventions
and treaties, as well as U.S. regulations. These include:
•

International Maritime Organization (IMO)

•

International Safety Management (ISM) code

•

MARPOL – all annexes

•

Vessel Classification Societies

•

33 CFR (Navigation and Navigable Waters)

•

46 CFR (Shipping)

•

OPA-90

4

Routine inspections of cargo hold areas, boiler areas, machinery storage areas, and
deck areas are conducted in accordance with the ISM code. Maersk conducts weekly
inspections such that all areas of the ship are inspected over a three-month period.
Inspections are documented in accordance with standard protocol. The ISM code also
requires a comprehensive annual inspection and outlines corrective action procedures.
Other areas of the VGP permit that are addressed under existing regulations include:
Oily bilge water

MARPOL Annex I and California No Discharge Zones

Ballast water

Currently comply with the Invasive Species Act. Ballast water
information is sent to the National Ballast Information Clearing
House (NBIC); Ballast water plans are maintained onboard vessel;
Regular inspections conducted by the California State Lands.

Hull coatings

Follow IMO standards related to TBT. None of our ships use TBT
coatings

Gray water

Managed in accordance with MARPOL Annex IV and California
Clean Coast Act

Galley food waste

Managed in accordance with MARPOL Annex V

Spill response

OPA-90 Non-Tank Vessel Response Plan (NTVRP) naming a
qualified individual (QI) to handle spill response from our vessels

As previously stated, all information is documented onboard and available either in the
ship’s log book or in a separately maintained hardcopy. It must also be noted that the
format of a ship’s log is dictated by the vessel’s flag administration. Additional
comments may be entered in the log, but changing the format to make it user-friendly for
U.S. regulatory purposes is not feasible. Likewise, keeping a separate set of books for
U.S. recordkeeping purposes is cumbersome and fraught with the potential for errors.
All logs and records are maintained on the ship and these are open for inspection by
Recognised Organisations (RO’s) and Port State Control Inspectors should the need
arise. In addition, these are scrutinized during our internal audit process. Copies of
typical reports can be provided for your review upon request.
3. Methodology and Estimate of Burden
The economic analysis of the proposed regulation, dated June 9, 2008, assumes that
the entities subject to existing regulations (including the National Invasive Species Act;
the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships; The Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act; the Organotin Anti-fouling Paint Control Act; and
others) will not incur significant incremental costs (ref. Executive Summary). While it is
difficult to understand EPA’s burden estimate for the VGP and how the numbers are
derived, we believe that the burden estimates provided in Tables 1 and 2 of the Federal
Register Notice (73 FR 56570) are grossly underestimated. Table 1 states that there
will be no additional annual cost and Table 2 indicates that it will take an average of 1.9

5

hours per year (Table 2 – average responses per respondent is 3.2 at an average of 0.6
hours per response) to comply with the permit. It will likely take more than two hours to
clean the vessel decks prior to leaving U.S. ports; something that is now done when the
ship is safely at sea (Reference attached table for additional discussion on deck
washdown).
Part of the misunderstanding appears to be based in the technical document entitled
“Phase I Uniform National Discharge Standards for Vessels of the Armed Forces”; the
assessment used to identify the 28 discharge streams in the proposed VGP permit. The
Battelle report specifically states: “Battelle’s ability to associate discharges to particular
civilian vessel types was limited, given the specific applicability of the Uniform National
Discharge Standards (UNDS) reports to Armed Forces vessels. Some discharges can
be easily connected to certain types of vessels while other discharges may or may not
apply to any number of vessels”.
While military vessels may operate with hundreds of personnel, container vessels
generally operate with a very streamlined and efficient compliment of 15-18 crew. U.S.
military vessels and international container ships have different purposes and thus
different design and operational criteria. While U.S. military personnel understand the
U.S. regulatory system and may require little additional training on a new set of
regulations, international vessels are often operated by crews who will require significant
additional training to ensure they understand the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements under the U.S. regulatory system. As an example, the regulated
community often misunderstands that “Best Management Practices (BMPs)” are
enforceable requirements and not a continual improvement initiative. Neither the
training time nor the time to develop compliance plans for the U.S. regulations has been
factored into the burden.
We previously mentioned the need to redeploy ships on short notice; in some cases, the
advance notice is as short as two weeks. For example, we redeployed approximately
three vessels into Los Angeles within a three month period this summer. Vessel
redeployment can be frequent and is required under several circumstances:
•

Taking a ship out of service for maintenance and repairs (planned and
unplanned)

•

Speed reductions to conserve fuel and reduce emissions often require that an
additional ship be placed on the string to be able to meet cargo shipment
schedules (fuel savings are achieved with optimized speed reductions even with
an additional ship on the string)

•

Economic conditions that require additional, or reduced, ships on any given
route.

The administrative burden associated with submitting the NOI for every redeployment
has not been factored into the estimate.

6

Finally, as discussed in Item 2, we are conducting most of the inspections and
implementing the BMPs proposed in the draft permit under other international
conventions. However, there are numerous other issues that add to the burden that
have not been addressed:
•

Ambiguous or unclear requirements (see Items 4 and 5 below)

•

Requirements for collection of samples (not currently required under other
regulations or conventions),

•

Duplicative reporting and recordkeeping

We conservatively estimate that implementation of these requirements for Maersk
vessels will require a minimum of 50 hours per vessel annually. We believe that the
burden is significant and request that EPA re-evaluate the economic analysis and
burden using data specific to the international vessels (cargo ships and tankers).
4. Quality, Utility and Clarity of Information to be Collected
As stated in our August 1, 2008 comments, there are numerous issues that require
clarification, including:
Permit Ownership - The proposed regulation requires owner or operators
(owners/operators) to submit the Notice of Intent (NOI) and comply with all permit
regulations. In many instances, the vessel owner is not responsible for the crew or
vessel operation and, therefore, the vessel owner would have no control over the
implementation of the permit requirements. It is recommended that EPA provide
clarifying language stating that it is the holder of a ship’s Document of Compliance
with the International Safety Management (ISM) Code who is responsible for
submitting the NOI and complying with the VGP requirements.
Compliance Scope and Recordkeeping – The draft permit requires compliance
(inspections and recordkeeping) while in “waters of the United States” as identified in
40 CFR 122.2 (extending to the outer reach of the 3 mile territorial sea). However, it
is unclear if the vessel is required to only conduct the inspections and maintain
records applicable to the discharges, BMPs and maintenance while within the U.S.
waters; or if, in fact, vessels covered under the permit are required to complete
inspections and maintain records throughout the entire duration of the permit
irrespective of being in international waters or territorial waters of other Countries.
This again highlights the futility of regulating international vessels in a fragmented
manner.
Self Inspections and Monitoring - The requirement for quarterly collection of
samples for visual inspection is impractical and technically infeasible for many of the
discharge streams listed, particularly for those discharges below the water line and
for discharges that are likely to be de minimis in volume or quantity of pollutants.
Ships are not built to facilitate the collection of samples from many of these
discharges, and collection of the samples poses potential safety risks. Sampling

7

does not appear justified based on the potential safety risks to personnel versus the
potential environmental benefit derived from the inspections.
5. Additional Technical Comments and Comments on Specific Discharge
Categories
The attached table provides additional comments and request clarification for several of
the discharge categories. In addition, we are requesting that several additional
discharges from container vessels be added to the VGP for completeness.
We would like to call particular attention to the requirements in draft VGP on cathodic
protection. EPA recommends the use of Impressed Current Cathodic Protection (ICCP)
in place of sacrificial electrodes. Where sacrificial anode systems are used, the draft
VGP requires the selection of the least toxic anode material that is technologically
feasible and economically practicable and achievable, in the order of preference of
magnesium, aluminum, then zinc.
Ships with ICCP systems may also have sacrificial anodes located on hull appendages
(stern and rudders) where ICCP is not effective and these sacrificial anodes are most
often zinc. This is because there are significant potential safety and operational issues
associated with use of magnesium and aluminum. Magnesium has a tendency to
descale paint which makes it unfit for use. Aluminum presents a risk of spark formation
if dropped on tank tops. Therefore, zinc is the preferred metal for sacrificial anodes.
Furthermore, the International Association of Classification Societies has published a
document “Requirements concerning FIRE PROTECTION” (IACS Req.1998/Rev.1,
2002) which states:
“In order to protect oil tankers from fire hazards:
F1.1 Impressed current system are not permitted
F1.2 Magnesium or magnesium alloy anodes are not permitted in oil cargo tanks and
tanks adjacent to cargo tanks
F1.3 Aluminum anodes are only permitted in cargo tanks and tanks adjacent to
cargo tanks in locations where the potential energy does not exceed 28 kg m
(200 ft lb).
F1.4 There is no restriction on the positioning of zinc anodes”
In light of this information, we request that EPA revise the language of the draft permit to
recognize that zinc may be the anode of choice for safety and operational purposes.
In closing we would like to reiterate that there are significant issues that have not been
considered in estimating the burden on the shipping industry from this proposed
regulation:

8

•

Shipping is a highly regulated, global industry that requires consistent, global
solutions to environmental concerns.

•

Many of the inspection, reporting and recordkeeping requirements in the draft
Vessel General Permit (VGP) are already being accomplished under international
conventions. There is little practical utility in requiring vessels to duplicate
information required under existing international conventions and treaties to which
the U.S. is a party.

•

To develop the draft vessel permit, EPA evaluated military vessels, but did not
appear to evaluate commercial vessels, including container ships. Therefore, the
methodology and assumptions used to estimate the burden on commercial ships
are flawed. At minimum, EPA has not evaluated nor incorporated the regulations,
reporting, and recordkeeping requirements that international vessels are currently
required to meet.

•

The draft permit contains numerous ambiguities related to data collection, including
when data collection must begin (entire voyage vs. in U.S. territorial waters).

Finally, as previously stated, the primary way to minimize the burden on the shipping
community while continuing to protect the environment and meet the intent of the VGP,
is for EPA to coordinate its requirements with the extensive regulations to which these
vessels are already subject.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments as well as your consideration
in reevaluating the burden and requested changes in the proposed permit. We would be
pleased to provide any additional input or information to EPA on this matter in written
form, or to meet with the agency to provide input and assist in fine-tuning requirements
and BMPs. Please do not hesitate to contact us. Our technical contact for this program is
Elaine Harmon, P.E., General Manager - Environmental Programs and HSE
Compliance, at 704/571-5527 or [email protected].
Sincerely,

William R. Williams,
Captain U.S. Navy (Retired.)
V.P. Health, Safety, Environment and Quality

9

Comments on Specific Discharge Categories and Request for Clarification
Category
Deck
Washdown and
Runoff

Proposed VGP Requirement
• Clear vessels’ decks of debris, garbage, residue and spills prior to

conducting deck wash downs
• Clear vessels’ decks of debris, garbage, residue and spills prior to departing

from port
• When required by class societies or flag Administrations, vessels must be

fitted with and use perimeter spill rails and scuppers to collect runoff for
treatment
• Machinery on deck must have coamings or drip pans to collect any oily

water from machinery and prevent spills.
• Drip pans must drain to a waste container for proper disposal. The waste

container must be periodically wiped and cleaned
•

Discharges from deck wash downs must be free of floating solids

Maersk Comments / Request for Clarification
• We request clarification – does deck cleaning refer to spot

cleaning or total deck cleaning?
• Impractical to control natural occurrences such as rain,

squalls, deck wash from wave action, etc.
• Deck scuppers can be closed during certain operations,

such as bunkering etc. Spills, if any, can be cleaned up.
Deck runoff cannot normally be collected on ships.
• Cleaning of decks prior to sailing is impractical and

presents a safety concern as crew are focused on
securing the cargo. Requiring ships to clean the deck
before leaving port would result in delayed sailing.
• Cleaning of decks in port would result in greater amounts

of undesirable run-off into U.S. territorial waters and
harbors than if no cleaning was done at all.
• Since salt water cleaning can accelerate corrosion, deck

• Deck runoff must be collected during certain times such as during or after

fueling operations, when spills occur, or when required by a vessel’s class
society

washing should be done with fresh water, a potential
demand on water resources in some ports.

• Minimize the environmental impact of deck runoff by ensuring decks are

clear of debris, garbage and chemicals spills (e.g., grease, fuel, hydraulic
fluid, caustics, detergent); maintaining the topside surface of the deck; use
of drip pans under machinery located on deck; deck washdown conducted
with non-toxic and phosphate-free cleaners and detergents
• Vessels must clean decks prior to leaving U.S. ports

1

Bilgewater

•

Minimize discharge of bilgewater into Waters of the U.S. by minimizing
production of , disposing of bilgewater on shore where adequate facilities
exist, or discharging more than 3 nm from shore, but in accordance with
MARPOL and U.S. Coast Guard regulations

•

May not use dispersants, detergents, emulsifiers, chemicals or other
substances to remove the appearance of a visible sheen in bilgewater
discharges

•

•

Bilge water is not defined in the permit and a complete
definition should be included in Appendix A. The
definition appears to be covering only Oily Bilge Water
as regulated via the MARPOL Convention (Annex I).
How will non-oily bilge water from cargo space etc.,
(not covered by MARPOL) be addressed?

•

We are presently complying with the Ca. 3 nm no
discharge zone and believe that EPA should reference or
adopt existing regulations for bilge water management,
instead of creating new and, potentially conflicting,
regulations.

•

There are hundreds of different ship configurations and in
many cases OWS systems are only installed and
designed to treat bilge water from engineering mechanical
spaces where oil contamination is most likely. A ship may
have other compartments with bilges and bilge pumps
which collect nothing other than naturally-occurring
condensate, air conditioning condensate drains, or sea
water from various systems and relief valves. Requiring
ships to send these streams through OWS systems would
require costly or impractical modification for some vessels
or overload the existing systems.

May not add substances that drain to bilgewater that are not produced in
the normal operation of a vessel

• Bilgewater discharges must have onboard oil-water separation (OWS)

capabilities
• If the vessel does not treat bilgewater with an OWS and cannot be assured

that the bilgewater will not cause a sheen on the receiving water, the
bilgewater must be held onboard for onshore disposal
• Vessels >400 gross registered tons shall not discharge untreated bilgewater

into Waters of the U.S.
• Vessels that leave the waters subject to this permit more than once per

month and are >400 gross registered tons, may not discharge bilgewater
with 1nm of shore unless the discharge is required to maintain the safety
and stability of the ship.
• Vessels >400 gross registered tons shall not discharge bilgewater into

Marine Sanctuaries unless the discharge is required to maintain the safety
and stability of the ship
• Vessels >400 gross registered tons that sail outside the territorial sea at

least once per month may only discharge treated bilgewater when the
vessel is underwater and sailing at speeds >6 knots (unless doing so would
threaten the safety and stability of the ship.
• Any discharge which is made for safety reasons must be documented

2

Ballast Water
Mandatory
Practices
(other specific
ballast water
requirements not
included in this
table to reduce
volume –
comments are
inclusive of all
requirements)

• Discharges of ballast water must comply with Coast Guard Regulations

found in 33 CFR Part 151 as well as the following requirements:
-

-

-

Ballast water is covered under numerous regulations and
requirements should not be duplicated.

Discharges of ballast water may not contain oil, noxious liquid
substances, or hazardous substances in a manner prohibited by U.S.
laws

• In accordance with local regulations, ballast water

Avoid the discharge of ballast water into waters that are within/directly
affect: marine sanctuaries, marine preserves, marine parks, shellfish
beds, or coral reefs or other waters

• Ballast water reports are sent to the National Ballast

Minimize or avoid ballast water uptake in areas with a the following
situations:
o

Areas known to have infestations or populations of
harmful organisms and pathogens

o

Near sewage outfalls

o

Areas near dredging operations

o

Areas with poor tidal flushing or turbid tidal streams

o

In darkness when bottom dwelling organisms may rise up
in the water column

o

In shallow water or where propellers may stir up the
sediment

o

Areas with pods of whales, convergence zones and
boundaries of major currents

-

Clean ballast water tanks regularly to remove sediments in midocean or under controlled arrangements in port or at dry dock

-

Discharge the minimal amount of ballast water essential for vessel
operations while in the waters of the U.S.

management plans are currently in place and maintained
onboard each vessel.
Information Clearinghouse (NBIC).
• State regulators (e.g., California State Lands) conduct

routine ballast water inspections

3

Anti-Fouling Hull
Coating Leachate

Aqueous FilmForming Foam

-

Zero discharge standard for Tributyltin (TBT). TBT is prohibited by
this permit

-

Other antifouling hull coatings must be registered, sold or
distributed, applied, maintained, and removed in a manner
consistent with applicable requirements on the coating’s FIFRA
label (FIFRA is the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act and controls the registration and use of these
materials)

-

For vessels with hull coatings not registered under FIFRA, the
owner/operator must ensure that the coating does not contain
biocides or toxic materials that are banned in the U.S. This applies to
all vessels, including those registered and painted outside the U.S.

-

Vessel operators must minimize the use of more toxic coatings than
may be needed on some vessels. The selection of an antifouling
system for a particular vessel must be made in consideration of the
vessel’s operational profile, including operating speed, drydocking
requirements, and the waters in which the vessel will be traveling,
because such factors affect the fouling rate of the hull. Preference
should be given to coatings with the lowest effective biocide release
rates, rapidly biodegradable components, or non-biocidal alternatives,
such as silicone coatings.

-

For ports and harbors that are impaired by copper, (including Shelter
Island Yacht Basin in San Diego and waters in and around Ports of
Los Angeles and Long Beach) owner/operators of vessels that spend
more than 30 day/year in the harbor, or use the waters as their home
port, must consider using antifouling coatings that rely on a rapidly
biodegradable biocide or another alternative rather than copper
based coatings. If vessel operators continue to use copper based
antifoulant paints, they must document in their recordkeeping
documentation how the decision was reached.

-

Match the coating’s ability or strength to drydock cycles.

-

Discharges of AFFF are authorized for emergency purposes
when needed to ensure the safety and security of the vessel and

•

What proof is needed for documenting the anti-fouling
selection? (see also comments on Underwater Ship
Husbandry)

•

In accordance with IMO, all of our ship hulls are TBTfree

•

Most vessels are built overseas and the hull coatings
that are applied outside the U.S. would not be
registered under FIFRA. However, one hull coating
supplier has circulated a notice that, to the best of
their knowledge, the antifouling coatings they use do
not contain any biocides or toxic materials banned for
use in the United States. Accordingly, hulls applied
with this manufacturer’s paint are compliant with the
aforementioned requirements.

•

What documentation is required for the decision on
substitution using non-fluorinated foaming agent?

4

(AFFF)

crew. If such an emergency discharge occurs, an explanation of
the emergency and the need to discharge AFFF must be written
in the ship’s log or other recordkeeping documentation
-

Vessels that sail outside of the territorial sea more than once per
month, maintenance and training discharges of AFF are not
authorized
o

-

-

•

Vessels should not be prohibited from discharging
AFF as part of training in port. Training exercises are
needed for the safety of the crew, vessel and port
operations. Training is best conducted while at port.

Such discharges should be collected and stored for onshore
disposal or scheduled for when the vessel is outside U.S.
waters

For vessels that do not leave the territorial sea more than once
per month, maintenance and training discharges must be
minimized and should be collected and disposed of onshore
unless the vessel uses non-fluorinated or alternative foaming
agent
o

Training should be conducted as far from shore as practicable

o

Maintenance or training discharges are not allowed in port

Discharges of AFFF may not occur in or within 1 nm of waters
subject to this permit unless they are discharged:
o

For emergency purposes,

o

By rescue vessels for firefighting purposes

o

By vessels owned or under contract to do business
exclusively in or within 1 nm of those protected areas by the
U.S. government or state or local governments

If an emergency discharge occurs in these waters, an explanation of
the emergency and the need to discharge AFFF must be written in
the ship’s log or other recordkeeping documentation
Cathodic Protection

• Vessel operators must minimize the flaking of large, corroded

portions of sacrificial anodes.
• Sacrificial anodes must not be used more than necessary
• Vessel operators must appropriately clean and/or replace these

anodes in periods of maintenance (such as drydocking) to
minimize release of metals

• What documentation is required to show compliance?

ICCP logs and inspection reports? BMP is too vague.
• Ships with ICCP systems may also have sacrificial

anodes located on hull appendages where ICCP is not
effective. On these, Zn is the most used sacrificial
anode. Magnesium has a tendency to descale paint
which makes it unfit for use. Aluminum presents a risk

5

• For sacrificial anode systems, select the least toxic anode material

that is technologically feasible and economically practicable and
achievable, in the order of preference of magnesium, aluminum,
then zinc,

of spark formation if dropped on tank tops. Therefore,
zinc is the preferred metal for sacrificial anodes
• The International Association of Classification Societies

has published a document “Requirements concerning
FIRE PROTECTION” (IACS Req.1998/Rev.1, 2002).
In order to protect oil tankers from fire hazards:

• EPA recommends the use of Impressed Current Cathodic

Protection (ICCP) in place of sacrificial electrodes
-

If vessels operators use ICCP, they must maintain dielectric
shields to prevent flaking.

-

Newly constructed vessels must use ICCP if technologically
feasible

F1.1 Impressed current system are not permitted
F1.2 Magnesium or magnesium alloy anodes are not
permitted in oil cargo tanks and tanks adjacent to
cargo tanks
F1.3 Aluminum anodes are only permitted in cargo
tanks and tanks adjacent to cargo tanks in
locations where the potential energy does not
exceed 28 kg m (200 ft lb).
F1.4 There is no restriction on the positioning of zinc
anodes
In light of this information, we request that EPA revise the
language of the draft permit to recognize that zinc may be
the anode of choice for safety purposes.

Chain Locker
Effluent

• Ensure the chain itself is properly cleaned (more than cursory

rinse) as it is being hauled out of the water to reduce the likelihood
of transporting marine organisms and sediment.
• Chain lockers must be cleaned thoroughly during dry docking to

eliminate accumulated sediments and any potential accompanying
pollutants.

•

Is this required every time prior entering 3 nm zone
from US? Cleaning should only be required after each
use and as part of retrieving the anchor, not before
entering port.

•

Chains are regularly hosed down and a complete
cleanout is conducted every 5 years during the dry
dock maintenance and repairs

• Vessels that regularly sail outside waters subject to this permit, if

technically feasible, must periodically clean, rinse, and/or pump out
the space beneath the chain locker prior to entering waters subject
to this permit, preferably in mid-ocean, if the anchor has been
lowered into any nearshore waters.
• For vessels that leave waters subject to this permit at least once per

month, chain lockers may not be rinsed or pumped out in waters

6

subject to this permit, unless not emptying them would compromise
safety. Such a safety claim must be documented in the vessel’s
recordkeeping documentation.
Controllable Pitch
Propeller (CPP)
Hydraulic Fluid

• Seals must be maintained in good working order to reduce leakage
• If possible, maintenance activities on controllable pitch propellers

• Would there be any change in this requirement if

biodegradable oils are used?

should be conducted while the vessel is in drydock.
• If maintenance activities must occur when the vessel is in water, an

oil boom must be used to contain any hydraulic oil leakage
• Operators must have appropriate equipment such as oil absorbent

pads, available on the vessel to clean any potential oil spills
Elevator Pit Effluent

• The proposed permit does not authorize the discharge of elevator

pit effluent except in emergency situations and only if treated by an
oil water separator to meet the treatment level of 15 ppm as
measured by EPA Method 1664.

• This is not applicable to most container vessels.

However, like many other small compartments on a
ship, an elevator pit may not be hard-piped to an OWS,
and; therefore, treatment by OWS would be impractical.

• Emergency discharges must be documented in the ship’s log or

other vessel recordkeeping documentation.
• The Agency feels that the limited amount of effluent generated and

the high likelihood of its contamination at harmful levels can best
be addressed by storage of the effluent for treatment and disposal
onshore.
Firemain Systems

• Discharges form firemain systems are authorized for emergency

purposes when needed to ensure the safety and security of the
vessel and crew
• Minimize the discharges while the vessel is in shallow or contained

water bodies such as ports or protected waters.
• Do not discharge firemain systems in waters subject to this permit

• This is just sea water being pumped through the

firemain system back to the sea. This discharge
category should be allowed under the permit without
restrictions
• For safety reasons, the use of firemain systems should

not be restricted under any circumstance

except in emergency situations or when washing down the anchor
chain to comply with anchor wash down requirements when pulling
the anchor and anchor chain from waters.
Freshwater Layup

• Minimizing the use of disinfection agents used in freshwater layup

to the lowest effective level that will prevent aquatic growth.

• What documentation must the vessel carry to

document such decisions?

7

• EPA believes that this can be accomplished by following the

application rate suggestions provided by the treatment
manufacturers to keep the discharge of the disinfectants as low as
possible.
Graywater

• Vessel operators are required to minimize the discharge of

graywater while in port.
• For vessels that cannot store graywater, the owner/operator and

their crews should minimize the production of graywater in port and
in waters subject to this permit.
• All vessels that have the capacity to store graywater shall not

discharge the graywater in waters subject to this permit.
• For vessels greater than 400 gross registered tons that regularly

travel more than 1 nm from shore with the capacity to store
graywater for a sufficient period, graywater must be discharged
greater than 1 nm from shore while the vessel is underway.

• Graywater discharges are managed in accordance with

MARPOL Annex IV and it is recommended that EPA
reference this requirement in the VGP.
• Most commercial container vessels and tankers

operate with very small crews (15-30) compared to
hundreds or thousands on military and cruise vessels.
• What does “minimize” mean in this context, and what

records are required to demonstrate this? Does this
mean that daily showers or other activities must be
rationed? BMP is too vague.

• Vessels that do not travel more than 1 nm from shore shall

minimize the production of graywater and must dispose of
graywater on shore if appropriate facilities are available and such
disposal is economically practicable and achievable. Minimize the
discharge of graywater when the vessel is not underway.
• If graywater will be discharged in waters subject to this permit, the

introduction of kitchen oils must be minimized to the graywater
system. When cleaning dishes food and oil residue must be
removed as much as practicable before rinsing dishes. Oils used in
cooking shall not be added to the graywater system. Oil from the
galley and scullery shall not be discharged in quantities that may
be harmful.
• Soaps and detergents used in any capacity that will be discharged as

graywater into water subject to this permit must be non-toxic and
phosphate-free. The detergents must be free from toxic and
bioaccumulative compounds and not lead to extreme shifts in receiving
water pH.
• If a vessel is underway in a nutrient impaired water or a water that is

impaired for phosphorous, nitrogen, or for hypoxia or anoxia (low

8

dissolved oxygen concentrations) these steps must be followed:
- When the vessel has adequate graywater capacity, the vessel

owner/operator shall not discharge graywater into nutrient impaired
waters subject to this permit.
- Where the vessel does not have adequate storage capacity to

eliminate such discharges, graywater production and discharge must
be minimized in such waters. Any such discharge must be conducted
while the vessel is underway in areas with significant circulation and
depth to the extent feasible. Graywater stored while in such waters
can later be disposed of on shore or discharge in accordance with the
other requirements of this permit.
Motor Gasoline and
Compensating
Discharge

• Discharge of motor gasoline and compensating effluent must meet

oil limitations of less than 15 ppm.
• Minimize discharge while the vessel is in port
• Vessels shall not discharge motor gasoline and compensating

• This is applicable to outboard engines on man-over-

board (MOB) boats and lifeboats. Because these are
by definition emergency craft, we are unclear as to how
we prove compliance with the 15 ppm standard.

discharge into Federally protected waters
Rudder Bearing
Lubrication
Discharge

• The protective hull seal on rudder bearings must be maintained in

good operating order to prevent the leaking of lubricating oil. EPA
has determined that discharges of lubricants should not occur if
vessels are properly maintained. This waste stream, therefore, is
not an allowable discharge.

• Some ships use seawater as a lubricant, and in that

case, the discharge should be allowed without
restriction.

• Vessel operators should employ all necessary control measures

such as regular maintenance and inspections to ensure that leaks
do not occur.

9

Seawater Cooling
Overboard
Discharge

• EPA has not prohibited the discharge of the heated seawater

because it is infeasible with existing vessel design to prohibit their
discharge.
• Reduce discharges of seawater cooling overboard in ports or

enclosed water bodies to reduce impacts from the heated waters
• When possible, seawater cooling overboard should be discharged

when the vessel is underway so that any thermal impacts are
dispersed.
• Maintenance of all piping and sweater cooling systems must meet

the requirements of Seawater-Piping Biofouling Prevention (see
below).
• The EPA recommends that the vessel owner/operators use shore

based power when the vessel is in port if:
- Shore power is readily available for vessel owner/operators from

utilities or port authorities.
- Shore based power supply systems are capable of providing all

needed electricity required for vessel operations.

• We strongly disagree with this attempt to promote Cold

Ironing (use of shore-based power system) in this
venue and request that the reference be removed from
the permit. Cold ironing poses significant safety,
operational and cost concerns for our operations.
• As a practical matter, use of shore power will only

reduce generator cooling water discharge, and not the
cooling water for pumps and heat exchangers that
make up the majority of a ship’s overboard discharges.
• The vast majority of ships entering U.S. ports do not

have shore power capability and the U.S. port
infrastructure does not exist to support cold ironing at
any significant level.
• Until such time as the infrastructure issues and the

practical issues of safety and security related to
connect/disconnect and operating on shore power are
addressed, this editorial advocacy for shore power
should be deleted.

- The vessel is equipped to connect to shore-based power and

such systems are compatible with the available shore power.
Small Boat Engine
Wet Exhaust

• Vessel owner/operators should use low sulfur or alternative fuels

for their small boat engines to reduce the concentration of
pollutants in their discharge.

• We request that the mother vessel’s NOI and permit

include on-board life-boats and MOB’s.

• Vessels that generate wet exhaust must be maintained in good

operating condition, well tuned, and functioning according to
manufacturer specifications to decrease pollutant contributions to
wet exhaust.
• Vessel operators are encouraged to consider four-stroke engines

in lieu of two-stroke engines to minimize the discharge of pollutants
to waters subject to this permit.

10

Sonar Dome
Discharge

• Water from inside the sonar dome may not be discharged within

waters subject to this permit for maintenance purposes.
• Vessel operators should not use bioaccumulative biocides on the

exterior of sonar domes when other viable alternatives are
available.

Underwater Ship
Husbandry

• EPA has not identified an alternative to underwater ship

husbandry, a viable treatment technology, or specific practices that
will eliminate all releases of contamination. Dry dock cleaning is
the preferred alternative to underwater ship husbandry whenever
possible. However, the Agency is requiring that vessel operators
employ removal and cleaning methods that reduce the
environmental impacts due to releases of biocides, hull coating
materials, and invasive species.
• Vessel owner/operators must minimize the transport of attached

living organisms when they travel into U.S. waters from outside the
U.S. economic zone or when traveling between COTP zones.
Minimization techniques include preventing the hull from fouling
using appropriate anti-foulant paint and frequently removing fouling
organisms from the hull.
• Whenever possible, hull cleaning should be conducted when the

vessel is in drydock or where the removal of fouling organisms or
spent antifouling coatings paint can be contained. If water-pressure
based systems are used to clean the hull and remove old paint,
use facilities which treat the washwater prior to discharge to
remove the antifouling compound(s) and fouling growth from the
washwater.

• We request clarification on this discharge category and

the types of vessel to which it applies
• As a practical matter, water flooded sonar dome water

exchange is conducted under controlled conditions at
sea, and exchange or discharge of sonar dome water
in port would only be an emergency situation. However,
occasionally a sonar dome may have to be emptied for
an inspection. The maintenance requirements of the
vessel’s master/captain may require this to be done in
port for safety reasons.
• In-service under-water hull cleaning should be

addressed in the permit. In service hull cleaning is
required to reduce ship drag to minimize fuel use and
reduce emissions. In-service hull cleaning requires 1218 hours to complete, depending on vessel size.
Therefore, it must be completed while in port with a
relatively long turn-time.
• Maersk Line has now eliminated TBT coatings from its

owned container vessel fleet. However, BMPs requiring
substitution of non-TBT paints or silicone paints is not
justifiable. The total environmental impact of the paint
system should be taken into account, especially the
energy and GHG emission impact of a paint not
performing optimally.
• Does the permit require regular cleaning of the hull

and, if so at which intervals?

• Vessel owner/operators who remove fouling organisms from hulls

while the vessel is waterborne must employ methods that minimize

11

the discharge of fouling organisms and antifouling hull coatings.
These shall include:
- The use of a soft brush or sponge to remove organisms while

minimizing removal of antifouling coatings and biocide releases
into the water column
- Limiting use of hard brushes and surfaces to the removal of hard

growth
- When available land feasible, use vacuum cleaning technologies

to minimize the release or dispersion of antifouling hull coatings
and fouling organisms into the water column.
• Cleaning of copper based antifoulant paints must not result in any

visible cloud or plume of paint in the water; if a visible cloud or
plume of paint develops, shift to a softer brush or less abrasive
cleaning technique. Production of a visible cloud or plume of paint
containing copper antifoulant paint is a permit violation.
• Vessels that use copper based anti-fouling paint must not clean the

hull in copper impaired waters within 365 days after paint
application unless there is a significant visible indication of hull
fouling.
Welldeck
Discharges

• Welldeck discharges containing graywater from smaller vessels

should not be discharged within waters subject to this permit
except in cases of emergency.

Please provide additional information on this discharge
category and the vessels types to which it applies

• Welldeck discharges from gas turbine engines may not be

discharged within waters subject to this permit
• Welldeck discharges from equipment and vehicle washdowns must

be free from garbage and must not contain oil in harmful quantities
• Should these wastes be present, the vessel operator must retain

the discharge for onshore disposal.

12

Graywater Mixed
with Sewage from
Vessels

• All graywater discharges containing sewage are required to meet

the relevant standards contained within this proposed permit for
graywater.

This is currently covered under MARPOL Annex IV. We
recommend that EPA cross-reference the existing
requirements

• Discharge minimization requirements, prohibitions, standards, and

other requirements applicable to graywater as appropriate are also
required for graywater containing sewage.
• While not a requirement of this permit, vessel operators should be

aware that CWA Section 312 and its implementing regulations
contains requirements for discharges of sewage from vessels.

Oil seals from
transverse
thrusters, poddrives, azimuth
drives, and
stabilizer fins.

We request that this discharge category be added to the
VGP.

Galley Food Waste
Grinder

The overboard from the galley food waste grinder has not
been included in the draft VGP. This is currently managed
in accordance with MARPOL Annex V and we request it
the category be added to the VGP with a reference to the
MARPOL requirements.

Steel wire hawsers

Steel wire hawsers are used by oil tankers and others.
Such wires are maintained with grease which may be
exposed to the sea water while the vessel is performing
mooring operations.

Life Boats, Rescue
Boats, and Any
Other Carried Craft
Onboard:

We request that discharges from these small craft be
added to the VGP as a specific discharge and that they
not be regulated under a separate permit. Separate
permits for the mother vessel and smaller onboard craft
would be unduly burdensome.

13

Swimming pool
drains on container
vessels

We request that this discharge category be added to the
VGP. In general, seawater without additives is used in
onboard swimming pools on container vessels

Non-MARPOL
Annex I bilge water.

Bilge water is not defined in the permit and a complete
definition should be included in Appendix A. The definition
appears to be covering only Oily Bilge Water as regulated via
the MARPOL Convention (Annex I). We request that the VGP
also include non-oily bilge water from cargo space etc. (i.e.,
not covered by MARPOL)

14