Special Report July 06, 2007GLSFC Special BulletinEPA to regulate discharge permits for commercial & recreational vesselsFederal Court revokes exclusion for discharges; implicates recreational vessels alsoFederal Register Notice, Vol. 72, No. 119 / Thursday, June 21, 2007Development of Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of VesselsThe USEPA is in the process of developing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for the discharge of pollutants (dumping dirty ballast water) incidental to the normal operation of vessels and is seeking comment and relevant information from the public on this matter. Subsequent to the 1999 lawsuit filed by conservation and environmental groups over EPA excluding commercial shipping from the requirement of securing an NPDES permit to dump ballast water which was almost always contaminated with foreign pathogens or invasive critters, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston (Northern District of California) ruled against EPA and revoked the exclusion the agency had created for commercial shipping. Surprisingly, Illston, in her final ruling also included recreational boats as well. That’s you and me. The Federal Register notice says: "The Federal Court in San Francisco (Judge Illston) issued a final order in September 2006 that revokes the regulatory exclusion for discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels effective September 30, 2008. As of that date, those (ballast) discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels previously excluded from NPDES permitting by the regulation will become prohibited unless the discharge is covered under an NPDES permit. The decision potentially implicates all vessels, both commercial and recreational, that have discharges incidental to their normal operation (e.g., deck runoff, graywater, etc). "Accordingly, the Federal Register notice was issued to make the public aware of this matter and obtain their input, in the form of public comment or relevant information, to further help the Agency in the timely development of an NPDES permitting framework, which has not existed to date for discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels.DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 6, 2007.Submit your comments: identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OW–2007–0483, by one of the following methods: ► www.regulations.gov - Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.► E-mail: [email protected] Attention Docket ID No. OW–2007–0483► U.S. Mail: Water Docket Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention: Docket ID No. OW–2007–0483. Please include a total of two copies in addition to the original.For additional information about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm For Further information contact:John Lishman, Water Permits Div, Office of Wastewater Mgmt: Phone 202-566–1364;e-mail: [email protected]; or Ruby Cooper, Water Permits Div: Phone 202-564–0757; e-mail: [email protected].The Federal Register notice does not contain or establish any regulatory requirements. Rather, it (1) provides the public with early notice of EPA’s intent to begin development of NPDES permits under section 402 of the CWA for discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels; (2) explains the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s decision (Northwest Environmental Advocates et al. v. EPA, No. CV 03–05760 SI) that determined such discharges are subject to NPDES permit requirements and describes the status of that litigation; and (3) requests comment and technical input on matters associated with the development of such permits.The USEPA is looking for assistance to determine which types of boats, and under what conditions, EPA should be required to regulate and be required to secure a NPDES discharge permit. EPA admittedly also doesn’t have the funding or wherewithal to develop such a program; that’s why they’re asking for our input. If we don’t give it, we are at risk of having a bunch of bureaucrats making some potentially nasty decisions that will impact our future, our recreation and our economy. Our input is critical here; our comments will tell the federal government and our courts we are not the culprits, we are not responsible and we are not the user group they should be looking to regulate. We do not have or dump ballast, we do not transport water from one water body to another; we do not dump "grey water" and we do not discharge water "incidental to the operation of our vessels." Specifically, the USEPA wants "public input on the following matters:"(1) What existing public and private data sources are available for use in identifying, categorizing, and describing the numbers and various types of commercial and recreational vessels currently operating in waters of the U.S. and that may have discharges incidental to their normal operation?(2) What is the best way to inform vessel owners of the need to obtain NPDES permit coverage and what existing public and private data sources are available that will assist in identifying vessel owners and operators?(3) What existing public and private data sources are available that identify the types of normal operations onboard commercial and recreational vessels that give rise to discharges and the characteristics of such discharges?(4) What existing information is available as to potential environmental impacts of discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels?(5) What international, federal, and state limitations or controls already exist on discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels?(6) What existing information is available on the types of pollution control equipment or best management practices currently used (or in active development), and what, if any, are the practical limitations on their use?(7) What existing information is available as to commercial and recreational vessel traffic patterns? Related documentsFederal Register - Vol. 72, No. 119 / Thursday, June 21, 2007 – pp. 34241-34249http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20071800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/E7-12022.pdf (PDF document)Rulemaking Petition Related to Ballast Water – 2 pageshttp://www.epa.gov/owow/invasive_species/ballast_water.html Decision on Petition for Rulemaking to Repeal 40 C.F.R. 122.3(a) – 18 pageshttp://www.epa.gov/owow/invasive_species/ballast_report_petition_response.pdf Federal Court decisions relating to EPA orders to regulate ballast discharge►March 2005 U.S. District Court Order Granting Summary Judgment (PDF) (19 pp, 124K) ►September 2006 U.S. District Court Order Granting Injunctive Relief (PDF) (21 pp, 150K) District Court Decision Vacating the Federal Regulation Excluding Discharges Incidental to Normal Vessel Operations from Clean Water Act Permitting as of September 30, 2008 – 2 pageshttp://www.epa.gov/owow/invasive_species/VesselFactSheet.pdf This link takes you directly to the Docket – with all comments posted to date.http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=EPA-HQ-OW-2007-0483 Remember, comments must be submitted by August 6, 2007.Dan Thomas, PresidentGreat Lakes Sport Fishing Council[email protected]
sorry but i think you need to be a lawyer to understand?
Basically in laymen terms which is mostly common sense anyway, we recreational boaters need to empty our bilge and livewells from any water stored there before going from lake to lake or in the case of our brethren who live on the coastal waters need to empty both in the existing waters before coming to inland waters.
Not exactly. The specifics of the ruling by this judge will demand that each vessel have a permit to discharge any water that may need discharging during normal operating conditions. This ruling also extended to DECKWASH and other runoff from a vessel, that again, could happen during normal operating conditions.
The decision potentially implicates all vessels, both commercial and recreational, that have discharges incidental to their normal operation (e.g., deck runoff, graywater, etc). "
Basically in laymen terms which is mostly common sense anyway, we recreational boaters need to empty our bilge and livewells from any water stored there before going from lake to lake
I don't see anything in this that would affect a pontoon type boat, not that that would exempt them from having to be inspected. It seems rather vague, but I guess that allows for "in the field" ruelings.
Think about this,If anything other than water is/was spilled on the deck of the pontoon other than water there and you docked it for a while and a T storm moved thru dumping a bunch of rain, soaking the carpet and drained off into the lake. This would be polluting the waters with an unnatural liquid. I'm not playing devils advocate here, but i can see both sides to the issue.
Not exactly. I don't see the word DEMAND in the original quote, I see POTENTIALLY IMPLICATES. I don't think they really mean the same thing. Actually I think this is part of a bigger conspiricy. The USF&W has got the EPA to help them in their major mission of shutting down Cast and Blast trips and putting guides out of business! They won't be able to afford to operate their boats!And maybe there should be some regulations on pleasure boats. I think everyone has noticed some pretty foul discharges from some "Recreational Vessels" bilges. My car has to be inspected every year and meet EPA regulations. A permit could be as simple as boats being inspected once a year to see that the bilges are not full of oil etc. and that there are no major leaks or things we wouldn't want in the water anyway. Of course this could change after I get my inspection, but my car's check engine light could come on as soon as I leave the shop also. Of course this would cost some extra money, but isn't keeping the water clean worth something? I know most people would not have problems passing this kind of test, but we have to protect ourselfs from the slobs that don't give a rats bass about anything but themselfs. This along with the common sense of 10ga could go along way to help preserve the future of our sports.I'm not saying don't be involved in the comment period, but I just don't think it is all Gloom and Doom as it is being implied.
GLSFC Special BulletinJuly 6, 2007 EPA to regulate discharge permits for commercial & recreational vesselsFederal Court revokes exclusion for discharges; implicates recreational vessels alsoThe USEPA is in the process of developing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for the discharge of pollutants (dumping dirty ballast water) incidental to the normal operation of vessels and is seeking comment and relevant information from the public on this matter. Subsequent to the 1999 lawsuit filed by conservation and environmental groups over EPA excluding commercial shipping from the requirement of securing an NPDES permit to dump ballast water - which is almost always contaminated with foreign pathogens or invasive critters - U.S. District Judge Susan Illston (Northern District of California) ruled against EPA and revoked the exclusion the agency had created for commercial shipping. Surprisingly, Illston, in her final ruling potentially implicated all vessels, both commercial and recreational. That includes you and me. Review the enclosed document, which includes EPA’s Federal Register announcement on the issue.Comments are due by August 6, 2007
General Comment:As a recreational boater, I would like to see the protection of the environmentand the prevention of non indigenous species from taking over native ecosystems.As a taxpayer, I would like to see my tax dollars spent on things that actuallymake a measurable difference to the above.Towards this, I would like to see recreational private boating excluded from theneed for an EPA permit to operate on a controlled body of water. Here is why:Recreational boating is usually transient and the amount of any "normaloperation" discharge would not be measurable. So don't spend a lot of moneysetting up a process that will only find "no significant difference" in waterquality.The only "ballast tank" that I am familiar with in recreational boating is onedesigned to increase a boat's wake for wakeboarding. These tanks generally haveto be drained back into the same body of water as they filled from becausekeeping that weight would make impossible to trailer the boat. Non indigenouscross contamination risk is minimal.Recreational small boaters rarely go outside of the aquatic ecosystem that theystart within. This make the transportation of invasive non indigenous speciesunlikely. Areas of the country that do have different ecosystems accessible toa boat have already enacted state legislation to prevent cross contamination (not only ballast tank water but also bilge water). We do not need to duplicategood state regulations at the federal level.Purchasing an EPA permit would not address any of the potential concerns andwould create a hardship on the general private citizen boating public. Permitthe big commercial boats if you want but leave the private boaters out of it.The lack of environmental impact and shear number to people that would beeffected by requiring EPA permits makes this a poor use of my tax dollars.Thank youCharles HartChattanooga, TN
I really dun care what I, as a boater, have to endure under this act. I don't deal with transporting any water from lake to lake anyway. Deck wash will need to be ammended out though, since there is little or nothing you can do to stop it anyway.But I am absolutely thrilled that the ballast waters of ocean going ships will FINALLY be included. I live along the great lakes and have endured invasive critter after other invasive species. Everything from Zebra mussels and Lamprey eels to Asian millfoil plants. I have seen once great salmon fisheries desimated, and forget about the panfish! Now the latest invader, VHS, may or may not have been brought in by ballasts, last I heard the Jury was still out on that. But if it was, as horrible as it is (it causes internal hemmohaging until the fish bleeds out and dies) it's still just 1 of the many evil things brought in by these balast tanks. So at this point, I'll buy into anything that puts a stop to it!
To whom it may concern:Docket ID No. : EPA-HQ- OW-2007-0483I was just informed that the USEPA is in the process of developing NationalPollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits under the Clean WaterAct (CWA) and that this is now proposed to include recreational vessels aswell as commercial vessels. I served in the US Navy and have operatedrecreational vessels of numerous types for almost 40 years. This proposalappears to be yet another attempt by environmentalist radicals to putfurther burdens on the boating community. I offer the following commentsregarding the "public input" requested.Specifically, the USEPA wants "public input on the following matters:"(1) What existing public and private data sources are available for use inidentifying, categorizing, and describing the numbers and various types ofcommercial and recreational vessels currently operating in waters of theU.S. and that may have discharges incidental to their normal operation?The answer to this is that virtually every recreational vessel anywhere hassome sort of "discharge" incidental to their operation. The types can begenerally grouped by propulsion (i.e. sail or power; number of engines,etc.) The part that will have the most negative impact on recreationalboaters is to accurately describe what "discharges incidental to theirnormal operation" actually is and what the purpose in controlling that is.(2) What is the best way to inform vessel owners of the need to obtain NPDESpermit coverage and what existing public and private data sources areavailable that will assist in identifying vessel owners and operators?Every vessel owner has to either document or register any powered vessel.However, this method involves the use of Federal and State records ofindividual boat owners to track them down to require them to be yet againburdened with another "permit" requiring a "fee" and unreasonableregulations. who is going to do this and what will be the cost? I see new,inflated bureaucratic departments and employment giveaways here for thepolitical "friends & family" job plan.(3) What existing public and private data sources are available thatidentify the types of normal operations onboard commercial and recreationalvessels that give rise to discharges and the characteristics of suchdischarges?I am aware of no "data sources" that are kept when boats discharge waterafter washing your hands or after a rain when there is run-off from the boattopsides. You see, 99% of all water discharge comes from small sinks, rainand minor discharges from bilge pumps. In fact, metal and fiberglass hulldesigns are usually constructed well sealed to the point that bilge waterseepage is almost non existent through openings in the hull.(4) What existing information is available as to potential environmentalimpacts of discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels?Based on what I outlined above, the "environmental impact" of a few gallonsof water per year from recreational boats is too insignificant to even log.(5) What international, federal, and state limitations or controls alreadyexist on discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels?Recreational and commercial boats on the Great Lakes and all inlandwaterways are forbidden from discharging "black water", oil and garbageoverboard. All the EPA needs to do is talk to the Coast Guard and consultother Federal and state regulations on the subject. These are welldocumented and appear to be effective. I see no reason to create additionallaws and restrictions. Enforce the laws you have and you will not need theadditional ones.(6) What existing information is available on the types of pollution controlequipment or best management practices currently used (or in activedevelopment), and what, if any, are the practical limitations on their use?"Pollution control" equipment on most recreational vessels amounts to wasteholding tanks and garbage bags and baskets. Garbage and trash are disposedof when returning to port. Holding tanks for "black water" are pumped out atauthorized pump out facilities; and recreational vessels do not carrydisposable or dischargeable ballast. What else could this judge and the EPApossibly have in mind?(7) What existing information is available as to commercial and recreationalvessel traffic patterns?Commercial vessels used for transport of people or cargo generally followestablished shipping routes. The great part about recreational boating isthat we do not need to follow traffic patterns. We are free to go where wechoose, generally without restrictions, are not required to submit recordsof our travels or obtain permits for doing those things. It is calledfreedom and the EPA should think before proceeding down this seemingly neweffort by the government to document its citizens and their activities andlevy taxes and fees through "permits" for things that are totally ludicrous.My question to the EPA is "What is your underlying reason for this newthrust to permit boaters?". What environmentalist group got bored and cameup with this one; and who's ear do they have in the federal government toeven get this off of the ground?Jacob E. Schu
Development of Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels [Federal Register: June 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 119)][Notices][Page 34241-34249]From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov][DOCID:fr21jn07-35]-----------------------------------------------------------------------ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY[EPA-HQ-OW-2007-0483; FRL-8329-7]Development of Clean Water Act National Pollutant DischargeElimination System Permits for Discharges Incidental to the NormalOperation of VesselsAGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).ACTION: Notice of intent; request for comments and information.-----------------------------------------------------------------------SUMMARY: This notice provides the public with early notification thatEPA is in the process of developing National Pollutant DischargeElimination System (NPDES) permits under the Clean Water Act (CWA) forthe discharge of pollutants incidental to the normal operation ofvessels and is seeking comment and relevant information from the publicon this matter. Beginning development of NPDES permitting is necessaryin light of a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of California in which the Court found that an EPA regulation,which excludes certain discharges incidental to the normal operation ofvessels from NPDES permitting, exceeded the Agency's statutoryauthority. The Court issued a final order in September 2006 that willvacate (revoke) the regulatory exclusion for discharges incidental tothe normal operation of vessels effective September 30, 2008. As ofthat date, those discharges incidental to the normal operation ofvessels previously excluded from NPDES permitting by the regulationwill become prohibited unless the discharge is covered under an NPDESpermit. The decision potentially implicates all vessels, bothcommercial and recreational, that have discharges incidental to theirnormal operation (e.g., deck runoff, graywater, etc). Although theGovernment is appealing this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals forthe Ninth Circuit, we believe it is prudent to initiate responsiveaction now rather than await the outcome of that appeal. Accordingly,today's notice is being issued to make the public aware of this matterand obtain their input, in the form of public comment or relevantinformation, to further help the Agency in the timely development of anNPDES permitting framework, which has not existed to date fordischarges incidental to the normal operation of vessels.DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 6, 2007.http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2007/June/Day-21/w12022.htm
C. De Minimis Sources of PollutionFinally, both EPA and the Shipping Coalition argue that the exemption for vessel discharges other than ballast water should remain in place because the other discharges are “de minimis sources of pollution.” EPA Br. at 9-10; Shipping Coalition Br. at 33. The Ninth Circuit has previously found that “the EPA . . . is permitted . . . to exempt de minimis sources of [pollution] from pollution controls.”
De minimis, in a more formal legal sense, means something which is unworthy of the law's attention.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis
Ballast Water Regulation (January 2007)EPA has formally appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit two earlier lower court decisions that would vacate, as of September 30, 2008, EPA's long-standing rule exempting ballast water discharges from Clean Water Act permitting requirements. The appeal includes the scope of the exemption for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. Meanwhile, EPA, the U.S. Coast Guard, and other federal agencies are working on procedures intended to address concerns with invasive species associated with ballast water discharges. http://www.nstcenter.com/writeup.aspx?reportid=25
Author
Topic: Are you a boater? Better Beware! (Read 7004 times)
