State Disposal System (SDS) Permit Program Fact Sheet Permit Reissuance MNG Lafayette Road N Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155

Transcription

1 State Disposal System (SDS) Permit Program Fact Sheet Permit Reissuance Permittee: Facility name: Multiple Ballast Water General Permit 520 Lafayette Road N Saint Paul, Minnesota Current permit expiration date: September 30, 2018 Public comment period begins: July 23, 2018 Public comment period ends: August 22, 2018 Receiving water: Permitting contact: Minnesota State waters of Lake Superior surface waters of Lake Superior and waters that discharge, flow, or otherwise are transferred into Lake Superior that are under the jurisdiction of the State of Minnesota Beth Gawrys 520 Lafayette Road North Saint Paul, Minnesota elizabeth.gawrys@state.mn.us

2 Table of Contents Page Purpose and participation... 3 Applicable statutes... 3 Purpose... 3 Public participation... 3 General Permit Authority... 4 Facility Description... 4 General Description of Permitted Activities... 4 Background Information... 5 Current Regulatory Framework 5 Changes Proposed for Permit Reissuance 6 Components and treatment technology... 7 Recent Monitoring History..7 Receiving water... 7 Existing permit effluent limits... 8 Treatment Availability for Meeting Effluent Limits 8 Technology Based Effluent Limits (TBELs)...10 Water Quality Based Effluent Limits (WQBELs).10 Proposed permit effluent limits Total facility requirements (TFR) Antidegradation References 13 Attachment 1. Preliminary Determination for Antidegradation 15

3 Permit Reissuance Page 3 of 21 Purpose and participation Applicable statutes This fact sheet has been prepared according to Minn R , subp. 3, regarding a draft State Disposal System (SDS) permit to construct and/or operate vessel ballast facilities and to discharge into waters of the State of Minnesota. Purpose This fact sheet outlines the principal issues related to the preparation of this draft permit and documents the decisions that were made in the determination of the effluent limitations and conditions of this permit. Public participation You may submit written comments on the terms of the draft permit or on the Commissioner s preliminary determination. Your written comments must include the following: 1. A statement of your interest in the permit application or the draft permit. 2. A statement of the action you wish the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to take, including specific references to sections of the draft permit that you believe should be changed. 3. The reasons supporting your position, stated with sufficient specificity as to allow the Commissioner to investigate the merits of your position. You may also request that the MPCA Commissioner hold a public informational meeting. A public informational meeting is an informal meeting that the MPCA may hold to help clarify and resolve issues. In accordance with Minn. R and Minn. R , your petition requesting a public informational meeting must identify the matter of concern and must include the following: items one through three identified above; a statement of the reasons the MPCA should hold the meeting; and the issues you would like the MPCA to address at the meeting. In addition, you may submit a petition for a contested case hearing. A contested case hearing is a formal hearing before an administrative law judge. Your petition requesting a contested case hearing must include a statement of reasons or proposed findings supporting the MPCA decision to hold a contested case hearing pursuant to the criteria identified in Minn. R , subp. 1 and a statement of the issues proposed to be addressed by a contested case hearing and the specific relief requested. To the extent known, your petition should include a proposed list of witnesses to be presented at the hearing, a proposed list of publications, references or studies to be introduced at the hearing, and an estimate of time required for you to present the matter at hearing. You must submit all comments, requests, and petitions during the public comment period identified on page one of this notice. All written comments, requests, and petitions received during the public comment period will be considered in the final decisions regarding the permit. If the MPCA does not receive any written comments, requests, or petitions during the public comment period, the Commissioner or other MPCA staff as authorized by the Commissioner will make the final decision concerning the draft permit. Comments, petitions, and/or requests must be submitted by the last day of the public comment period to: Beth Gawrys 520 Lafayette Road North Saint Paul, Minnesota

4 Permit Reissuance Page 4 of 21 The permit will be reissued if the MPCA determines that the proposed Permittee or Permittees will, with respect to the facility or activity to be permitted, comply or undertake a schedule to achieve compliance with all applicable state and federal pollution control statutes and rules administered by the MPCA and the conditions of the permit and that all applicable requirements of Minn. Stat. ch. 116D and the rules promulgated thereunder have been fulfilled. More detail on all requirements placed on the facility may be found in the permit document. General Permit Authority Minn. R provides authority to the MPCA to issue a single permit to a category of permittees whose activities are the same or substantially similar. This single SDS permit that can apply to numerous facilities is referred to as a general permit. Title 40 CFR and Minn. R allows for the issuance of general permits to regulate categories of discharges if the sources within each category: a. Involve the same or substantially similar types of operations. b. Discharge the same types of wastes. c. Require the same effluent limitations or operating conditions. d. Require the same or similar monitoring. e. Are more appropriately controlled under a general permit rather than under individual permits. This SDS permit has been issued as a general permit under Minn. R , and the MPCA has determined that it is appropriate to continue to issue this permit as a general permit for the reasons previously stated. The MPCA adopts the rationale previously stated in support of issuance of this permit as a general permit in Facility Description General Description of Permitted Activities Ballast water is typically ambient water taken onboard a vessel to assist with vessel draft, buoyancy, and stability. Large vessels (e.g. container ships, bulk carriers, other cargo vessels, tankers, and passenger vessels) normally have dedicated ballast water tanks. The discharge rate and chemical and biological nature of the ballast water varies by vessel type, ballast tank capacity, deballasting equipment, and the source of the ballast water. This General Permit (permit) applies to all vessels transiting the Minnesota State waters of Lake Superior required to submit a Notice of Intent to obtain the United States Environmental Protection Agency Vessel General Permit (VGP). This proposed permit authorizes, subject to the terms and conditions of this permit, the discharge of ballast water to Minnesota State waters of Lake Superior.

5 Permit Reissuance Page 5 of 21 Background Information The volume of ballast water discharged to Lake Superior is significant. More ballast water was discharged to Minnesota Lake Superior harbors than any other Great Lakes port. 1 Annually, for the time period , the Duluth-Superior harbor received nearly four billion gallons of discharged ballast water and Two Harbors received over two billion gallons of discharged ballast water from ocean-going vessels and Great Lakes-only vessels. 2 Ballast water discharges may contain aquatic invasive species (AIS) which can cause, and in some cases already have caused, damage to water quality and the environment in both the Great Lakes and interior Minnesota lakes and rivers. AIS compete with native species for food and habitat, alter aquatic ecosystems, and cause significant economic impact. The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have implemented rules and issued a nationwide permit, respectively, to help control the spread of AIS through ballast water discharges. Since December 2008 when EPA issued its original Vessel General Permit (2008 VGP), many developments have occurred at the federal level. The 2008 VGP did not include numeric discharge limits for most ballast water discharges. To help determine how to better regulate ballast water, in 2009 EPA tasked the Science Advisory Board (SAB) to provide advice on technologies and systems that vessels could utilize to minimize the impacts of AIS in ballast water discharges. This 2011 SAB report determined that technologies existed that were able to meet the International Maritime Organization (IMO) D-2 discharge standard. The SAB urged EPA to adopt a risk-based approach to minimize the impacts of invasive species rather than relying solely on the numeric standards adopted by IMO and to emphasize ballast water management practices to help reduce the risk of invasion. Permittees must detail these management practices in a ballast water management plan that is required for all vessels plying Minnesota waters. EPA and the USCG also requested that the National Research Council (NRC) undertake a study to provide technical advice on the derivation of numeric limits for living organisms in ballast water in anticipation of reissuing the 2008 VGP. The NRC was not able to develop numeric discharge standards because of limited data on the risk-release relationship of AIS. NRC outlined a process of model development and data collection that can help future development of numeric ballast water discharge standards. The USCG type approves ballast water management systems (BWMSs) to assure that the treatment systems can meet the discharge standard in 33 CFR and , which is equivalent to the standard set in the IMO D-2 regulation. USCG type approval of BWMSs for Great Lakes-only vessels, especially for those Great Lakes-only vessels built before 2009 (Lakers) when regulators and industry were considering treatment technologies, has been progressing more slowly than type approval for ocean-going vessels. The characteristics of Lake Superior waters, design of older Lakers ballast water tanks, and the smaller market of freshwater vessels contribute to the slower pace of development of BWMSs to meet Lakers needs. The EPA has not issued any new studies or reports on ballast water discharges and treatment since Current Regulatory Framework This general SDS ballast permit was first issued in 2008 and reissued in This permit addresses the requirements of Minn. Stat, to Since 2008, EPA and the USCG have made regulatory advances in controlling ballast water discharges and the associated spread of AIS. In 2012, the USCG adopted rules incorporating the IMO D-2 discharge standard and establishing a process to test and approve ballast water treatment systems to ensure that treatment is being accomplished. 1 NBIC database information for the time period NBIC database information for the time period Personal correspondence, Juhi Saxena, EPA, May 31, 2018.

6 Permit Reissuance Page 6 of 21 In December 2013, EPA reissued its VGP that adopted IMO D2 standards and established a schedule for certain vessels to meet the standard. In 2013, the MPCA issued a 401 certification for the 2013 VGP. This certification required the federal permit to conform to the following to ensure that it complies with state water quality standards: 1. Ships in Minnesota waters are required to obtain and comply with the conditions of the existing Minnesota s SDS permit or subsequent modifications of the permit. 2. Ships are required to conduct ballast water exchange for voyages originating outside the EEZ regardless of installation of treatment systems. 3. Minnesota may prohibit a discharge, require a discharge to occur in a particular area, or require emergency treatment of any ballast water it designates as high risk ballast water. 4. Lakers are required to comply with certain ballast water best management practices. 5. Additional monitoring requirements were imposed. Permittees were given the option to: a. Monitoring ballast water once per year; or b. Conduct a Biological Study if treatment was not installed on the ship, either on their own or in cooperation with others. Changes Proposed for Permit Reissuance MPCA has long stated its preference for a federal solution that is adequately protective of Minnesota waters to address AIS in ballast water. For this reason, the MPCA removed requirements from the 2008 permit that are were addressed by federal law or are required in the VGP. Likewise, the MPCA included requirements in this permit that will help Lakers meet the IMO-D2 discharge standards contained in all previous MPCA ballast water discharge permits and in the VGP for ocean-going vessels and for Lakers built after A treatability study requirement for Lakers in this permit builds off the monitoring requirement contained in the MPCA 401 certification. Additionally since EPA has not issued a draft permit for review yet, MPCA chose to include two of the 401 certification requirements into this general permit. This general permit includes the following additional requirements: 1. Continue the requirement for Lakers to meet the IMO-D2 discharge standards when treatment technology is available and approved by the USCG, but with an extended schedule. 2. Conduct treatability studies to advance development of treatment technologies specifically for Lakers. 3. Include two MPCA 401 VGP certification requirements: 1) that Minnesota may prohibit a discharge, require a discharge to occur in a particular area, or require emergency treatment of any ballast water it designates as high risk ballast water and 2) ships originating outside the EEZ conduct ballast water exchange regardless of installation of treatment systems. 4. Extend the permit duration to ten years. 5. Prohibit discharges in those portions of Lake Superior described as a prohibited outstanding resource value water in Minn. R , subp. 3.

7 Permit Reissuance Page 7 of 21 MPCA has removed the requirement to report ballast water discharges 24 hours prior to arriving at a Minnesota port. This requirement was in both the 2008 and 2013 general permits and the information has not been used by regulators to manage ballast water discharges. Separately from the current permit requirement to submit 24 hour ballast water reports, the USCG requires that ballast water discharge information be reported to a national database housed at a website with the Smithsonian called the National Ballast Information Clearinghouse (NBIC). An annual report is also sent to EPA as required by the VGP. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) received funding to implement a pilot program to track invasive species called a Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Alert Risk Mapper (NAS ARM) system for the eight states in the Gulf and Atlantic region. Recently the USGS has received funding to expand the current pilot program to nationwide, including the Great Lakes waters. 4 This system is expected to be completed by early fall 2018 and will be a way for regulatory agencies to track invasive species. MPCA staff is satisfied with the national reporting requirements for annual reports and monitoring data and the new nationwide ARM system; data in the NBIC is available via the webpage at Components and treatment technology In considering the proposed permit, the MPCA considered the new USCG rules. The USCG rules for ballast water management at 33 CFR Part 151 include numeric discharge limits for oceangoing vessels only. In order to meet the promulgated numeric discharge limits, some ships will need to employ a ballast water management system (BWMS). USCG approval of BWMSs under 46 CFR Subpart is required before the operation or installation of BWMS. The MPCA has concluded that the process in the USCG rule will ensure that BWMSs are functional and effective, and that the USCG, not the MPCA, has the technical expertise and experience to determine whether a particular treatment system is appropriate for a vessel. As noted above, the permit will require a Treatability Study applicable to Lakers. MPCA staff will review and comment on the work plan for the Treatability Study. Recent monitoring history The MPCA s 401 certification required that Laker owners, individually or in partnership, test for and identify invasive species in ballast water discharges. This sampling effort identified five AIS that had not previously been found in the waters of Lake Superior. One additional species was found in ballast water uptake water. The study validated that AIS are able to move from port to port between Great Lakes through ballast water uptake and discharge. The sampling did not show whether these species can survive and grow in Lake Superior. The full report can be found at RELEASE_31May2018_2_ForSignature.pdf. Receiving water Minnesota State waters of Lake Superior surface waters of Lake Superior are assigned a use classification as a 1B, 2A, 3A, 3C, 4A, 4B, 5, 6 water, under Minn. R and In addition, Lake Superior is designated as an Outstanding Resource Value Water under Minn. R (subp. 1.A. and subp. 3.B.). This permit prohibits discharges in those portions of Lake Superior north of latitude 47 degrees, 57 minutes, 13 seconds, east of Hat Point, south of the Minnesota-Ontario boundary, and west of the Minnesota-Michigan boundary, as described in 4 Personal Correspondence. Daniel Wesley. USGS May 7, 2018.

8 Permit Reissuance Page 8 of 21 Minn. R , subp. 3. This location, as shown in Attachment 1, is a designated prohibited ORVW and ballast water discharge is prohibited in this area. Existing permit effluent limits Treatment Availability for meeting effluent limits The 2013 MNG30 permit issuance required Laker permittees to install BWMS to meet the numeric discharge standards for ballast water discharges after a Laker s first scheduled drydocking after March 30, 2018 unless the permittee could show that a BWMS was not commercially available and compatible for the vessel. If no BWMSs were available or compatible, permittees were required to submit documentation showing that no BWMS are type approved by the USCG or that the USCG type approved BWMSs are not compatible with their vessels. The proposed 2018 reissuance retains the requirement for Laker owners to install BWMSs or provide justification that available BWMSs are not compatible. However, due to the current lack of BWMSs that are compatible with Lakers, the permit requires Laker owners to install or provide justification why they cannot install BWMSs for their next drydocking and any subsequent drydocking for the life of the permit. Permittees must continue to evaluate BWMSs for Laker compatibility as they are developed. The permit requires permittees to submit this documentation of incompatibility by February 28 of the year prior to the Laker s next drydocking. MPCA chose this date because permittees expect to need at least one year of lead-time to purchase and plan for any vessel modifications that may be necessary to install BWMS equipment. As of the March 30, 2018 deadline in the 2013 permit, six BWMSs were type approved by the USCG. The USCG approved three additional BWMS in June The U.S. Coast Guard maintains a list of type approved BWMS and approval certificates on its Marine Safety Center website: Regulations-standards-CG-5PS/Marine-Safety-Center-MSC/Ballast-Water/ The BWMSs that are currently type approved generally fall into two categories consisting of a primary physical filter followed by treatment with either ultraviolet radiation or dosing with a chlorine-based biocide. The chlorine-based biocide is either generated on-board through electrolysis of a saline sidestream or the chemical is stored on board. USCG Type Approved BWMS Manufacturer (Country) Model System Type Capacity Optimarin (Norway) OBS/OBS Ex Filtration + UV 167 3,000 m 3 /h Alfa Laval (Sweden) Pure Ballast 3 Filtration + UV 150 3,000 m 3 /h TeamTec OceanSaver AS (Norway) OceanSaver MK II Filtration + Electrodialysis 200 7,200 m 3 /h Sunrui (China) BalClor Filtration + Electrolysis 50 8,500 m 3 /h Ecochlor, Inc. (USA) Ecochlor BWTS Filtration + Chemical Injection ,200 m 3 /h Erma First (Greece) Erma First FIT Filtration + Electrolysis 100 3,740 m 3 /h Techcross, Inc. (Republic of Korea) Electro-Cleen System Electrolysis ,000 m 3 /h Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd (Republic of Korea) Purimar BWMS Filtration + Electrolysis ,000 m 3 /h

9 Permit Reissuance Page 9 of 21 BIO-UV Group (France) BIO-SEA B Filtration + UV 55 1,400 m 3 /h Table adapted from USCG Marine Safety Center: The chlorine-based management systems were deemed incompatible with Lakers due to the increased potential for corrosion of ballast water tanks and appurtenances. Ocean-going vessels typically use coatings to protect ballast tanks, pumps, and piping from the corrosive effects of seawater. Since Lakers are restricted to the fresh water environment of the Great Lakes and are not subject to the comparatively harsh seawater conditions, they typically have uncoated steel ballast tanks that are not designed for this type of chemical addition. Additional study is needed to determine whether this type of system conclusively induces unacceptable increases in rates of corrosion or if alternate corrosion prevention systems exist that can mitigate the effects of chemical addition on uncoated steel components. The UV-based management systems were deemed incompatible for Lakers due to hold-time requirements. The USCG type approval certificates for both systems that use UV specify a minimum hold time of 72 hours prior to discharge. Although this does not represent an incompatibility with the vessel itself, the 72-hour hold time exceeds transit times for most of the routes traveled by Lakers. Vessel owners also identified filter performance as a cause for concern for installation and use of BWMSs. Similar to UV, the incompatibility arises not from incompatibility with the vessel itself, but from the conditions in which it must be able to operate. Many ports are located in areas that are typically high in total suspended solids (TSS), such as river outlets. High TSS concentrations can significantly decrease filtration rates and extend ballast uptake times. Vessel owners have speculated on the degree to which uptake rates may increase due to decreased filtration rates, but site specific testing has not been completed to quantify real-world filter performance in Great Lakes ports identified as being high in TSS. As stated above, the 2018 issuance of the Minnesota Ballast Water General Permit () retains the condition that was included in the 2013 issuance that requires Laker owners to install BWMS on their Lakers by the next scheduled drydock or, if no BWMSs are compatible, to submit documentation that the existing USCG type approved BWMS are not compatible with the vessels. MPCA determined that this requirement is justified because BWMSs continue to receive USCG type approval and new BWMS can be expected to enter the market over the 10-year life of this general permit. It is important that Laker owners continue to evaluate BWMSs and install, as soon as possible, a compatible BWMS that can meet the VGP numeric discharge requirements. In addition to the permit condition requiring Laker permittees to install BWMSs or provide justification for why USCG type approved BWMSs are not compatible, the 2018 issuance of MNG30 requires Laker permittees to take an active role in investigating the features of existing BWMSs that they identified as incompatible with Lakers or Great Lakes operating conditions. To this end, the permit requires Laker permittees to conduct a Ballast Water Treatability Study (Study). The goals of the study are to identify and investigate weaknesses and gaps in knowledge of existing BWMSs and to better describe performance requirements and operating conditions necessary for BWMSs to be effective and compatible with Lakers. Permittees are expected to investigate and quantify issues that make BWMSs incompatible, such as: equipment corrosion rates due to active substances; filter performance; the effects of low temperature and low salinity on BWMS performance; and hold-time requirements or potential reductions to hold times. Permittees are required to work with BWMS manufacturers or independently to develop and demonstrate effective and compatible BWMSs. The permit does not include a final due date for the Study. Instead, the permit requires permittees to submit annual updates on the progress of the Study to the MPCA for review to ensure that permittees are making progress toward the ultimate goal of developing an effective and compatible BWMS. MPCA expects the Study to continue for as long as necessary until a BWMS is available that is effective at meeting the numeric discharge requirements and is compatible with Lakers. If an effective and compatible BWMS is developed and a permittee commits to installing the BWMS on its Laker, the permittee may request to cease additional work on the study.

10 Permit Reissuance Page 10 of 21 Technology based effluent limits (TBELs) The permit has both numeric and non-numeric TBELs for ballast water discharges. Numeric discharge limits are specified for AIS, biocides and other treatment residuals. Management practices are required in the VGP that serve as non-numeric TBELs. EPA has established three ballast water management measures specific to existing Lakers. These include developing sediment management measures, minimizing the amount of ballast taken in nearshore environments, and requiring inspection of sea chest screens and repair as necessary. In addition, this permit requires that Ballast Water and Sediment Management Plans (BWMPs) be reviewed and approved by MPCA staff. The BWMPs are required for ballast water discharges to the Minnesota State waters of Lake Superior from vessels regulated by the VGP, regardless of the installation of a ballast water treatment system. As described earlier, a new permit requirement is that ballast water exchange be conducted on all vessels entering the Great Lake from outside the EEZ, which is a requirement contained in Minnesota s certification. This permit contains the same AIS discharge standards as the 2013 MPCA permit. The permit requires that chemical additives that may be used in treatment systems cannot be discharged at levels which cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards in Minn. R and Minn. R Water quality based effluent limits (WQBELs) As described above, there is currently not enough information on the relationship between propagule pressure and the invasion risk in ballast water to be able to calculate numeric a Water Quality Based Effluent Limit (WQBEL). EPA provided the funding in 2017 through the U.S. Maritime Administration portion of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative to conduct studies on the presence of AIS carried between Great Lakes ports in ballast water. This requirement for Lakers was a part of Minnesota s 401 certification to the VGP. Proposed permit effluent limits The permit continues to require discharge limits equivalent to IMO D-2 for Lakers or provide a demonstration to the MPCA that there are no USCG approved BWMS that are commercially available and compatible with the vessel. Total facility requirements (TFR) All SDS permits issued in the State of Minnesota contain certain conditions that remain the same regardless of the size, location, or type of discharge. The standard conditions satisfy the requirements outlined in Minn. R These conditions are listed in the Total Facility Requirements chapter of the SDS permit. These requirements cover a wide range of areas, including recordkeeping, sampling, reporting, changes in operation and permit modification and reissuance. Antidegradation and anti-backsliding MPCA has completed an antidegradation review using the procedures consistent with Minn. R These rules require the Agency to analyze antidegradation when changes in existing water quality are not reasonably quantifiable. Under the proposed general permit and preliminary antidegradation review, the dischargers must continue to comply with mandatory BMPs to control discharge events. Permittees are required to develop and comply with a Ballast Water and Sediment Management Plan (Plan) as approved by the MPCA. The Plan must include the management practices required by parts through (as applicable) of the 2013 EPA VGP. Lakers were not required by the VGP to meet numeric discharge requirements; however, Minnesota s 2013 Vessel Discharge Permit required Lakers to meet the numeric discharge requirements after the first scheduled drydocking unless USCG had not approved compatible BWMSs. As of the date of this document, no BWMS that has received USCG approval has been determined to be compatible with Lakers. Minnesota has maintained the permit requirement that Lakers need to install BWMSs to meet numeric discharge standards at the first possible drydocking after a BWMS becomes available.

11 Permit Reissuance Page 11 of 21 Further, the MPCA Vessel Discharge Permit requires Laker permittees to take an active role in the development of BWMSs for their vessels by completing a Ballast Water Treatability Study (Study). MPCA s 2013 and proposed 2018 permits require Laker permittees to provide justification for why BWMSs are not compatible with their vessels; the Study requires Laker permittees to investigate these incompatibilities in order to develop BWMSs that are compatible. The preliminary antidegradation review demonstrates that water quality is not and will not be degraded. Therefore, the MPCA has made a preliminary determination that the project will satisfy antidegradation standards in Minnesota Rules The antidegradation review and MPCA conclusions are attached.

12 Permit Reissuance Page 12 of 21 References 1. Albert, Ryan, et al. United States Environmental Protection Agency. June Availability and Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment Technology: Background and Issue Paper. 2. Briski, Elizabeth, et al. October Journal of Applied Ecology. Role of domestic shipping in the introduction or secondary spread of nonindigenous species: biological invasion within the Laurentian Great Lakes. Vol. 49, Number 5, pgs Great Ships Initiative. November 18, A Ballast Discharge Monitoring System for Great Lakes Relevant Ships: A Guidebook for Researchers, Ship Owners, and Agency Officials. 8. Great Waters Research Collaborative. May Releases Study on Laker Ballast Water. Lake Superior Research Institute. 9. Lloyd's Register Group Limited. (September 2012). Ballast Water Treatment Technologies and Current System Availability. Fifth Edition, London. 10. Miller, A.W, et al. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. September, 2011.Status and Trends of Ballast Water Management in the United States, Fourth Biennial Report of the National Ballast Information Clearinghouse, submitted to the United States Coast Guard. 11. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. August, State Disposal System (SDS) Program Fact Sheet,. 12. Moore, Brad. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. September, 26, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order approving the issuance of the Ballast Water Discharge State Disposal System General Permit. 13. National Research Council, Water Science and Technology Board Assessing the Relationship Between Propagule Pressure and Invasion Risk in Ballast Water. National Academies Press. 14. NSF International. September Generic Protocol for the Verification of Ballast Water Treatment Technology. 15. United States Coast Guard Marine Safety Center. Ballast Water Management System Switchboard. 10/26/ United States Environmental Protection Agency. March National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Vessel General Permit (VGP) for Discharge Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels. Factsheet. 16. United States Environmental Protection Agency. March National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Vessel General Permit (VGP) for Discharge Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Permit. 17. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board. Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment Systems: a Report by the EPA Science Advisory Board. July 12, 2011.

13 Permit Reissuance Page 13 of 21 Vessel Discharge Antidegradation Review - Preliminary MPCA Determination Antidegradation Procedures Overview The purpose of an antidegradation review is to achieve and maintain the highest possible quality in surface water of the State (Minn. R ) and in waters of the Lake Superior basin (Minn. R ). Antidegradation generally specifies three tiers of water quality protection: Tier 1 protection requires existing uses and the water quality necessary to support those uses to be maintained and protected this protection is assured when all applicable water quality standards are met; Tier 2 protects existing high water quality, which is water quality that is better than that required by the standards necessary to support propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water; Tier 3 requires the maintenance and protection of water quality necessary to preserve specific water resources of outstanding value. The antidegradation procedures ensure that protection applies to all waters and standards and that the second and third levels of protection are addressed where applicable. Antidegradation standards and requirements are found in Minnesota Rules parts to and for the Lake Superior Basin in Minnesota Rules parts to This review utilizes the procedures in Minn. R , which require an antidegradation determination for general permit issuance, but also relies on procedures in Minn. R This section outlines the procedures when the considerations are for a 401 certification of general federal licensees. The antidegradation standards in Minn. R require review if the discharge contains a new or expanded discharge of bioaccumulative substances of immediate concern (BSIC) to an outstanding resource value water (ORVW) or an outstanding international resource value water (OIRW). These are identified in Minn. R and include mercury and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls). MPCA is required to provide a Preliminary Determination upon whether the Agency believes the permittees have satisfied antidegradation rules and may proceed with the regulated activity (Minn. R , subp. 4, and Minn. R ). Background Ballast water is typically ambient water taken onboard a vessel to assist with vessel draft, buoyancy, and stability. Large vessels (e.g. container ships, bulk carriers, other cargo vessels, tankers, and passenger vessels) normally have dedicated ballast water tanks. The discharge rate and chemical and biological nature of the ballast water varies by vessel type, ballast tank capacity, de-ballasting equipment, and the source of the ballast water. The purpose of the permit is to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species in state waters of Lake Superior by incorporating practices to reduce the amount of invasive species in the uptake and discharge of ballast waters. When vessels take ballast water from ports where aquatic species exist that are not present in state waters of Lake Superior, these species may survive the voyage and be discharged in Minnesota ports. Thus, ballast water can be a vector for transport of Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) or non-indigenous species. MPCA has determined that the permit is a required measure to help prevent the spread of AIS into Minnesota waters from ports where the AISs already exist.

14 Permit Reissuance Page 14 of 21 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit that covers discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels (Vessel General Permit, or VGP). It was first issued in 2008, reissued in 2013, and is set to expire December MPCA s SDS permit applies to all vessels transiting the Minnesota State waters of Lake Superior required to submit a Notice of Intent to obtain the VGP. This proposed permit authorizes, subject to the terms and conditions of this permit, the discharge of ballast water to Minnesota State waters of Lake Superior. In the reissuance of the SDS permit, MPCA includes requirements that will require Lakers to meet the numeric IMO-D2 discharge standards contained in all previous MPCA ballast water discharge permits and in the VGP for ocean-going and post-2009 Lakers. A ballast water treatability evaluation requirement for pre-2009 Lakers is a requirement under this proposed permit. This proposed permit also may prohibit a discharge, require a discharge to occur in a particular area, or require emergency treatment of any ballast water the Agency designates as high risk. Finally, it requires ships whose voyages originate outside the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) to conduct ballast water exchange regardless of installation of treatment systems. Under the antidegradation requirements, all existing uses of each water must be maintained ( tier 1 protection). For the purposes of assuring protective antidegradation requirements, waters were evaluated by MPCA for Class 2 standards as waters of high quality on a parameter-by-parameter basis as defined in Minn. R subp. 21. This ensures that the antidegradation procedures provide tier 2 protection. Tier 2 protection prohibits the lowering of high water quality unless such resulting water quality is necessary to accommodate important economic or social changes in the geographic area in which degradation of existing high water quality is anticipated. The remainder of this document is the process of MPCA s review and demonstrates compliance with each subpart of the applicable antidegradation regulations included in Minn. R The rule language of each subpart is followed by MPCA s assessment of each requirement. Summary MPCA s review demonstrates that waters are not being degraded compared to the existing control document and existing and beneficial uses are protected. The permit will require that Lakers meet discharge limits and employ ballast water best management practices as described in their BWMP. If the vessel cannot meet discharge limits, it must show that there is not a USCG type approved BWMS that is commercially available and compatible for the vessel. Therefore, the MPCA has made a preliminary determination that the project will satisfy antidegradation standards in Minnesota Rules and Antidegradation Review Rationale Applicable antidegradation standards Minn. R , Subp. 1 Scope. This part applies to activities regulated by the following control documents: C. section 401 certifications for new, reissued, or modified general federal licenses and permits; and D. other control documents that authorize net increases in loading or other causes of degradation and where changes in existing water quality of individual surface waters cannot reasonably be quantified through antidegradation procedures.

15 Permit Reissuance Page 15 of 21 The MPCA is proposing the reissuance of State Discharge System (SDS) MNG30000 for the discharge of ballast water in state waters of Lake Superior. A 401 Certification was issued on March 28, 2013, for the EPA VGP, which expires in December When the EPA VGP is reissued, 401 Certification will be necessary. Because MPCA has not seen a draft of the VGP as of June 2018, MPCA is proposing to adopt requirements in the previous 401 certification in this draft of the proposed SDS permit. Existing uses will be maintained and protected and attainment of water quality standards will not be precluded Minn. R , Subp. 2 Protection of existing uses. The commissioner shall issue control documents that will maintain and protect existing uses. Minn. R , Subp. 3 - Protection of beneficial uses. The commissioner shall not issue a control document that would permanently preclude attainment of water quality standards. Minnesota rules require protection of existing uses and maintenance of the level of water quality necessary to protect those uses. Existing uses in Lake Superior include drinking water, support of aquatic life, recreation, industrial consumption, wildlife, aesthetic enjoyment, and navigation. It is currently listed as impaired for mercury and PCBs, but the underlying use related to these impairments (fish consumption) is an existing use. As detailed above and in the proposed permit, management and treatment of ballast water is regulated through this proposed permit and EPA s VGP. The changes in receiving water cannot reasonably be quantified due to the transitory nature of vessel discharges, the number of vessels, the number and variability of ports and ballasting locations. Another reason degradation is difficult to quantify is that shipping has been conducted in Minnesota for many decades and expanded after the opening of the Saint Lawrence Seaway in Therefore, existing water quality is the use of Lake Superior as a navigational water. The movement of cargo and thus the release of ballast water has prompted the introduction of aquatic life since this date. Monitoring invasive species and methods to do so are relatively new (developed over the past 3 decades). A 2005 court case (Northwest Environmental Advocates et al. v. EPA) required permit control of vessel discharges and was upheld in 2008 by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This resulted in the requirements for vessels to use BMPs and IMO-D2 discharge standards. Without this permit and these standards, there would be an ongoing threat of AIS. By imposing treatment practices and standards, this control document maintains the existing use of the water and does not preclude attainment of water quality standards. Prudent and feasible alternatives that avoid a net increase in loading Minn. R subp. 4 Protecting surface waters of high quality. A. For the purpose of this part and on a parameter-by-parameter basis, class 2 surface waters not identified as impaired pursuant to section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act are considered of high quality. Items B to E apply to class 2 surface waters that are of high quality.

16 Permit Reissuance Page 16 of 21 Lake Superior was listed as impaired for mercury and PCBs in For all other parameters, it is considered of high quality. The parameters of concern are aquatic invasive species discharged from ballast water and are not expected to impact listed impairments. Water quality standards of concern involving invasive species include Minnesota Rule , subpart 3, and part , subparts 2, 2d, and 7. B. The commissioner shall not issue a control document when the commissioner makes a finding that prudent and feasible prevention, treatment, or loading offset alternatives exist that would avoid net increases in loading or other causes of degradation. When the commissioner finds that prudent and feasible alternatives are not available to avoid net increases in loading or other causes of degradation, a control document shall only be issued when the commissioner makes a finding that the issuance of the control document will prudently and feasibly minimize net increases in loading or other causes of degradation. The development of this permit and the corresponding work with the U.S. Coast Guard has shown that alternatives exist that will result in a net in decrease in loading of AIS for certain categories of vessels. One purpose of this SDS permit is to require further study on the installation of such treatment technologies on Lakers built before This requirement goes beyond requirements in EPA s VGP. C. The commissioner shall issue a control document that authorizes a net increase in loading or other causes of degradation only when the commissioner makes a finding that issuance of the control document is necessary to accommodate important economic or social change. Although the MPCA found the permit will not allow degradation, the MPCA offers the following observations regarding the economic or social change accommodated by the permit reissuance. The standard in rule that is applicable to general permits does not define how to evaluate the important economic or social change. In this case, much of the economic activity is within a limited geographic area, and MPCA will consider the criteria in Minnesota Rule part , applicable to individual permits, to evaluate the economic and social change. Minn. R subp. 5 Protecting surface waters of high quality (1) economic gains or losses attributable to the proposed activity, such as changes in the number and types of jobs, median household income, productivity, property values, and recreational, tourism, and other commercial opportunities; (2) contribution to social services; (3) prevention or remediation of environmental or public health threats; (4) trade-offs between environmental media; and (5) the value of the water resource, including: a. the extent to which the resources adversely impacted by the proposed activity are unique or rare within the locality, state, or nation; b. benefits associated with high water quality for uses such as ecosystem services and high water quality preservation for future generations to meet their own needs; and c. factors, such as aesthetics, that cannot be reasonably quantified; and (6) other relevant environmental, social, and economic impacts of the proposed activity. This control document is necessary to maintain and accommodate the economic and social changes brought about by the shipping industry in the state of Minnesota. Lake Superior has been used as a path for movement of commercial goods for over a hundred years, but the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959 allowed more vessels from foreign ports to enter Lake Superior and increased the chance of NIS introduction.

17 Permit Reissuance Page 17 of 21 A study was conducted by Martin Associates ( The Economic Impacts of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway System ) and published October 18, 2011, with a proposed update expected in July 2018 (not released as of the date of this report). The first table attached to this document is Exhibit II-9 on page 38 of the report which details economic impacts by state, including the economic impacts generated by traffic from all sources: US domestic commerce; Canadian domestic commerce; bi-national commerce between the two countries; and international traffic moving between the Great Lakes Seaway region and overseas destinations. The impacts are measured for the year It shows that Minnesota moves approximately 30,000,000 tons of cargo annually. The direct and indirect jobs, income, business revenue, and tax information is given below. Exhibit II-9, page 38, The Economic Impacts of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway System The below graphic relates to information on related user impacts, which measure jobs, income, output and tax impacts with shippers/consignees and supporting industries that move cargo through the Marine terminals at each of the 32 ports modeled for this study. This is on page 87 of the report in Exhibit VI-3. In 2010, million tons of cargo were handled at Great Lakes-Seaway system ports and terminals; creating the impacts to users in Minnesota listed below. It is important to note the majority of related user impacts occur in the US as a result of iron ore and coal moving on the Great Lakes-Seaway system.

18 Permit Reissuance Page 18 of 21 Exhibit VI-3, page 87, The Economic Impacts of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway System The below graphic is specific to the Duluth Seaway Port Authority. As shown in 2017, more than nine million tons of cargo passed through the Duluth port, having a total value of $695,343,161. This is data only for the Duluth side of the Port of Duluth-Superior and does not include data for Silver Bay and Two Harbors. Data from Duluth Seaway Port Authority, July 2018 This economic activity provides thousands of jobs in related industries in and around Duluth. This area of Minnesota is also important for tourism and recreation because of the outstanding water resources. The waters of Lake Superior are unique and in need of protection and preservation for future generations. Therefore, this permit allows the state to regulate the discharge of ballast water to the extent that the ongoing threat of AIS introduction will be reduced. The impact of AIS on businesses and households is summarized in the report titled The Costs of Aquatic Invasive Species to Great Lakes States (Anderson Economic Group, March 5, 2012). This report finds that economic activity on a large scale is disrupted as a result of AIS, and that real costs are imposed on industries, consumers, and governments. This includes direct expenditures on combating an AIS or repairing the damage it has done. It also includes indirect costs such as reduced productivity and higher prices in industries particularly affected by AIS. The industries most acutely affected include sport and commercial fishing, water treatment, power generation, industrial facilities using surface water, and tourism. Governments and private actors such as non-profits devote significant resources to addressing AIS.

19 Permit Reissuance Page 19 of 21 Minnesota DNR s 2017 annual report for invasive species has 24 full-time positions and approximately 103 summer staff. Invasive Species Prevention Planners continue to coordinate with local government staff overseeing their counties AIS prevention funds, and help maximize the effectiveness of Minnesota s $10 million AIS prevention aid program. Although this is not limited to work in Lake Superior, it reflects the money that is spent once AIS are introduced to Minnesota. This further highlights the need for the proposed general permit and work to further prevent the introduction of AIS. D. The commissioner shall issue a control document that would result in a net increase in loading or other causes of degradation to waters of high quality only if the commissioner determines that issuance of the control document will achieve compliance with all applicable state and federal surface water pollution control statutes and rules administered by the commissioner. The MPCA finds this control document will not result in a net increase in loading or other causes of degradation. The proposed conditions of the permit will allow discharges at a comparable rate to the existing control document at the outset of permit issuance, but will require treatment to be installed on all Lakers for which a compatible BWMS exists. Should no compatible BWMS exist, the permit allows Lakers to continue operation but requires permittees to actively research and develop compatible BWMSs. E. The commissioner shall provide an opportunity for intergovernmental coordination and public participation before issuing a control document that would result in net increases in loading or other causes of degradation. The MPCA will follow requirements of Minn. R to insure that public participation is conducted before final issuance of the control document. Protection of restricted & prohibited outstanding resource value waters Minn. R , subp. 5. Protection of restricted outstanding resource value waters. The commissioner shall issue control documents that restrict net increases in loading or other causes of degradation as necessary to maintain and protect the exceptional characteristics for which the restricted outstanding resource value waters identified under part , subparts 1 and 2, were designated. Minn. R , subp. 1. Restricted outstanding resource value waters. A. Lake Superior, except those portions identified in subpart 3, item B, as a prohibited outstanding resource value waters; The waters of Lake Superior have been designated as restricted ORVWs since The discharges in question were ongoing at the time of the 1984 designation and this permit will not increase them from that baseline or from the existing SDS permit. As described above, the permit incorporates additional requirements that will reduce the potential loading from existing conditions, as well as reduce the loading from the conditions present in Lake Superior was designated because of its extremely high water quality, such that it is not enough just to meet the standard; the high, natural quality of the water must be protected. Lake Superior is unique among the Laurentian Great Lakes. The fact that it is at the headwaters of the St. Lawrence watershed and its shores are sparsely populated have resulted in the lake remaining in its original oligotrophic condition. However, in spite of its large size, Lake Superior is more vulnerable to anthropogenic pollution than other lakes. The water in Lake Superior has a very long residence time; it would take about 177 years to completely replace the water currently in the lake basin. For comparison, Lake Huron has a retention time of 21 years. Also, Minnesota has an obligation as one of the stewards of this large but fragile headwater lake not to degrade its waters for downstream users. The MPCA expects that continuing the shipping activities that had been active for more than 25 years before the designation will not have an effect on the outstanding characteristics. The additional restrictions in this permit provide assurance that the exceptional characteristics will be maintained and protected.

20 SDS Permit Program Fact Sheet Permit Reissuance Page 20 of 21 Minn. R , subp. 6. Protecting prohibited outstanding resource value waters. The commissioner shall issue control documents that prohibit a net increase in loading or other causes of degradation to prohibited outstanding resource value waters identified under part , subparts 3 and 4. Minn. R , subp. 3. Prohibited outstanding resource value waters. B. those portions of Lake Superior north of latitude 47 degrees, 57 minutes, 13 seconds, east of Hat Point, south of the Minnesota-Ontario boundary, and west of the Minnesota-Michigan boundary; The prohibited designation was adopted in state rules on March 9, The draft permit will specifically prohibit discharges to this area to prevent degradation of the outstanding characteristics of Lake Superior. There is no reason to anticipate any ballast water discharges within the prohibited ORVW waters. This area is not on a shipping route and has no ports where cargo would be loaded thus necessitating a release of ballast water. Waters designated as prohibited resource value waters in Lake Superior