Environmentalists and industry stakeholders are panning a U.S. EPA permit released last week regulating water pollution from commercial vessels.

The new permit affects commercial vessels 79 feet in length or longer and incorporates the Coast Guard's mandatory ballast management and exchange standards. It also establishes pollution limits for discharges, including deck runoff, ballast water and graywater from showers, sinks and laundry machines (Greenwire, Dec. 19).

"American Waterways Operators is still deeply concerned that the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program, which was developed to control water pollution from fixed, land-based facilities, is a very poor fit to regulate discharges from mobile sources, like vessels," said Anne Burns, spokeswoman for the national trade association, which represents tugboat, towboat and barge owners.

"It doesn't provide for uniformity and consistency critical to interstate maritime commerce," Burns said. "One of our highest priorities is for the 111th Congress to seek support for a more suitable framework for the regulation of discharges."

EPA also allowed individual states to impose additional restrictions on ships through a certification process, which Burns said could pose problems.

"Maritime commerce serves 38 different states," Burns said. "One company could have to deal with a number of regulations in a few days."

With misgivings, enviro groups welcome rule

Environmentalists, however, put a different spin on the permit and the state regulations.

Debbie Sivas, director of the Stanford Law School Environmental Law Clinic, represented Northwest Environmental Advocates, the Ocean Conservancy and San Francisco Baykeeper in a lawsuit that forced EPA to issue the permit.

Sivas said a number of states felt EPA did not give them enough time to devise additional state-based regulations. Sivas' clients were open to allowing the states to have additional time, she said, but EPA was not interested, adding that she is hopeful the next administration will allow states to submit more requirements.

Benjamin Grumbles, EPA's assistant administrator for water, said the agency's top priority was to issue the first-ever national permit for vessel discharges on time.

Marcie Keever, clean vessels campaign director for Friends of the Earth, criticized the permit, which she said would allow cruise ships to dump unlimited quantities of untreated graywater as little as 1 nautical mile from U.S. shores. The permit also requires cruise ships to monitor their graywater discharges once every three months, which Keever said was inadequate.

Despite the environmentalists' concerns, Sivas said she was gratified that EPA finally issued the permit after years of litigation.

"In that sense, it's a good start," Sivas said. "We need to get these sources into the permitting process. There's no question you can't jump whole hog into it when these sources have never been regulated before."

Sivas said she was disappointed that the agency had not done more to protect water quality, and hopes EPA will strengthen standards in the permit over time. She said it is possible that both industry stakeholders and environmental groups will decide to sue the agency over the permit's final form.

Janis Searles Jones, vice president and general counsel for Ocean Conservancy, also welcomed the rule's finalization. "The rules are long overdue, but we're pleased with the steps the EPA has taken," she said, noting that the ballast water requirements would help reduce invasive species' threats.

Extension

Commercial shippers and cruise line operators originally were supposed to comply with the EPA permit last week, only a day after it was announced. A judge, however, extended that deadline to Feb. 6, 2009, to give vessel operators time to make changes.

EPA "requested the court give everyone a little more time ... to understand and comply with the many requirements in the federal permit and the conditions attached or to be attached by various states as part of their water quality certification process," Grumbles said. "We respect the authority of states to include additional conditions or restrictions and believe the new effective date will help everyone understand and comply with all federal and state provisions."

Burns praised the decision to move the deadline. "It would just be impossible to comply with them the day we find out what they are," she said.

Sivas agreed, saying her clients had no problem with the extension. "We didn't oppose that, so industry can digest the permit and all the [state] certifications that ... have come in the door in recent days."

Altogether, EPA estimates, about 61,000 U.S.-flagged and 8,000 foreign-flagged vessels will need to comply with the Clean Water Act permit. They will have to undergo specific corrective actions and inspections and follow recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

EPA was forced to issue the permit after the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California revoked a 1973 permit exemption for commercial and recreational vessels in 2006. A three-judge panel for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later upheld the district court decision.

Although the court's decision originally required a permit for recreational boats, as well, Congress exempted those vessels earlier this year.

S. 3298, from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), established a two-year moratorium on discharge permit requirements for fishing and recreational boats (E&ENews PM, July 30).