EPA's Vessel General Permit and Small Vessel General

justified the application of significantly more stringent effluent limitations or other permit
conditions had they been known at the time of permit issuance;
• Treatment technologies known of at the time of permit issuance perform better than
understood at the time of permit issuance such that this improved performance would
have justified the application of significantly more stringent effluent limitations or other
permit conditions had this been understood at the time of permit issuance;
• Scientific understanding of pollutant effects or of invasion biology has evolved such
that this new information would have justified the application of significantly more
stringent effluent limitations or other permit conditions had this been understood at the
time of permit issuance; or
• The cumulative effects of any discharge authorized by the VGP on the environment are
unacceptable.
As they pertain to ballast water, EPA’s control measures can be compared to USCG’s Ballast
Water Rulemaking. Under the VGP, EPA will modify their permit and reinitiate if “new
information” becomes available. In comparison, the U.S. Coast Guard program includes a
mandatory review of ballast water numeric standards after 3 years. Though EPA’s reopener
clause provides flexibility in modifying the permit at any time, the Coast Guard’s numeric
standards review provides a systematic and concrete requirement for assessing the ability to
require more stringent requirements.
As described in the Exposure Section, the VGPs require few anti-fouling/hull husbandry
practices or technologies that are likely to result in substantial changes to biofouling ANS
invasion rates. This is partially because developing technologies are not yet widely available.
To ensure the protection of listed species, EPA will identify and implement, as appropriate,
additional actions (e.g., require anti-fouling coatings (AFCs); require debris containment
systems; require more stringent ballast water standards) as soon as practicable (including in
future permit iterations). Before they transmit the next draft of the VGPs to OMB for
interagency review, they will:
1) Compile information on new developments in AFCs (to minimize exposure to hullfouling
ANS and copper loading) and debris containment systems (to minimize the
release of ANS and biocides during underwater husbandry).
2) Identify whether there are more efficacious BMPs or technologies for underwater
husbandry and for anti-fouling coatings with fewer secondary environmental impacts that
could be required of vessels.
With the technical assistance of the Services, EPA will identify metrics to evaluate whether
vessel mediated ANS invasion rates are being reduced over time. As appropriate, EPA will
identify and implement additional actions (e.g., require anti-fouling coatings; require debris
containment systems; require more stringent ballast water standards) as soon as practicable
(including in future permit iterations) to ensure the protection of listed species.
With the technical assistance of the Services, EPA will identify metrics for assessing vesselrelated
copper loadings to waters inhabited by ESA-listed species (i.e., using the number of ships
reporting copper hull treatments in eNOIs for particular areas as a proxy). If the metric has been
exceeded, EPA will, as appropriate, identify and implement additional actions to reduce any
322