State Disposal System (SDS) Permit Program Fact Sheet

Transcription

1 State Disposal (SDS) Permit Program Fact Sheet Permittee: Vessels specifically identified in the tice of Coverage. Permit Number: MNG Current Permit Expiration: September 30, Public Comment Period Begins: August 12, Public Comment Period Ends: September 11, Receiving Water: 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 Proposed Action: Permit Reissuance Permitting Contact Elizabeth Gawrys Industrial Division 5 th Floor 520 Lafayette Road rth St. Paul, Minnesota

2 Table of Contents Purpose and Participation... 3 Purpose... Public Participation... Permit Description... 4 Background Information... Current Regulatory Framework... Requirements Reviewed for the Proposed Permit... Receiving Water (s)... 7 Use Classification... Proposed Permit Discharge Limits... 7 Technology Based Effluent Limits... Water Quality Based Effluent Limits... Additional Requirements... 8 ndegredation and Anti backsliding... 8 References.9 Appendix.10 2

3 Purpose and Participation Purpose This fact sheet has been prepared according to Minn R , subp. 3 for the proposed reissuance and modification of the general State Disposal (SDS) permit authorizing the discharge of ballast water from certain vessels into certain waters of the State of Minnesota. 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 which 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 1 through 3 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. 3

4 You must submit all comments, requests, and petitions during the public comment period identified on page 1 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. During the public comment period, however, you may request that the draft permit be presented to the MPCA s Citizens Board (Board) for final decision. You may participate in the activities of the Board as provided in Minn. R Comments, petitions, and/or requests must be submitted by the last day of the public comment period to: Beth Gawrys Industrial Division 5 th Floor Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road rth St. Paul, MN The permit will be reissued as modified 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 vessels subject to this permit may be found in the Permit document. 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 Permit Description Background Information This permit applies to vessels of a certain size that rely on ballast water to maintain 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. 4

5 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. The Duluth Superior harbor and the Two Harbors port each annually receive over a billion gallons of ballast water. Minnesota s Lake Superior harbors receive ballast water discharges from both ocean going vessels (Salties) and Great Lakes only vessels (Lakers). The Duluth Seaway Port Authority estimates that approximately 5% of the ballast water discharged to Lake Superior is from Salties and 95% is from Lakers. Ballast water discharges from Salties and Laker vessels 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 discharge limits for ballast water. 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 standards, but were not able to meet a more stringent standard that the USCG was reviewing that was times more restrictive than the IMO D 2 standard. The SAB urged EPA to adopt a riskbased 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. EPA and the USCG also requested that the National Research Council (NRC) to 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 will help future development of numeric ballast water discharge standards. Currently Regulatory Framework This general SDS ballast permit was first issued in 2008 (2008 permit). Since 2008, EPA and the USCG have made significant strides in controlling the 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. In March, the EPA reissued its VGP with an effective date of December ( VGP). The VGP adopts the IMO D2 standard and establishes a schedule for vessels to meet the standard. In addition, the VGP requires ballast water exchange for Salties entering the Great Lakes from beyond 5

6 the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). However, the VGP does not require treatment for Lakers that were built prior to January 1, 2009 (pre 2009 Lakers). In August 2012, the MPCA issued a 401 Certification for the VGP. This certification required the federal permit to conform to the following to ensure that state water quality standards are complied with: 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 vessels 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. Once per year monitoring of ballast water is required. Ships without treatment systems are required to conduct a Biological Study of ballast water, either on their own or in cooperation with others. Requirements Reviewed for the Proposed Permit Because of improvements in federal regulation, the MPCA has concluded that many requirements in the 2008 permit are no longer needed and are redundant. 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 proposes to remove requirements from the 2008 permit that are already addressed by federal law or the VGP, including Minnesota s 401 Certification. In general, the proposed permit requires compliance with state law requirements. However, as explained in more detail below, the MPCA has included a schedule for treatment for pre 2009 Lakers, because the VGP does not include pre 2009 Lakers in the treatment schedule. Applicability The 2008 and the VGPs require that vessels greater than or equal to 300 gross tons or with a ballast water capacity of 8 cubic meters or greater submit a tice of Intent to receive permit coverage. The 2008 permit had an additional requirement that the vessel be 50m in length or greater to be eligible to receive permit coverage. Removing the 50m in length criteria may result in more vessels requiring permit coverage from the MPCA. To maintain consistency with the EPA permitting process and cause less confusion for the shipping industry, MPCA proposes to adopt EPA s eligibility criteria. Components and Treatment Technology In considering the proposed permit, the MPCA considered the new USCG rules. The USCG rules, 33 CFR Part 151, for ballast water management 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 treatment system. USCG approval of ballast water treatment systems under 46 CFR Subpart is required before the operation or installation of ballast water treatment systems (BWTS). The MPCA has concluded that the process in the USCG rule will ensure that treatment systems are functional and 6

7 effective, and that it is the USCG, not the MPCA, that has the technical expertise and experience to determine whether a particular treatment system is appropriate for a vessel. Reporting and Monitoring The VGP requires that ballast water 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 required by the VGP which is sent to EPA. MPCA staff is satisfied with the national reporting requirements for annual reports and monitoring data; data in the NBIC are publicly available via the webpage at However, the proposed permit keeps requirements to submit a 24 hour notice to the MPCA before arrival at a Minnesota port. The MPCA staff believes that this reporting information could be useful in preventing the spread of newly identified AIS. Implementation Schedule In general, the MPCA has concluded that it is reasonable to conform to the schedule in the VGP for meeting ballast water discharge limits. At the time the 2008 permit was issued, an implementation schedule was included in the permit that MPCA and stakeholders believed was achievable. However, technology development and approval has been slower than the schedule developed in 2008 permit, particularly for Lakers. Despite Minnesota providing funding through the Legislative Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources to help develop technologies for Lakers, the development of treatment systems for Lakers has not progressed at the same pace as was anticipated during the development of the 2008 permit. Rigorous, land based testing of existing, commercially available systems at the GSI Land Based Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation (RDTE) Facility located in Superior, Wisconsin, has yielded mixed results when using ambient waters from the St. Louis River estuary of Lake Superior. For this reason, it is responsible to conform to the federal permit schedule, which provides some additional time for installation. The VGP does not include a schedule to require pre 2009 Lakers to meet ballast water discharge limits. The VGP does have a reopener clause stating that EPA will carefully follow the development of treatment technologies for pre 2009 Lakers and modify the permit if such systems exist before the permit term ends. However, because this language represents good intentions and does not require the treatment technology to be installed, the MPCA has decided to retain a schedule for Lakers under the proposed permit. The MPCA will require pre 2009 Lakers to install a BWTS type approved by the USCG under 40 CFR Subpart after the first scheduled drydocking after March 30, 2018, if such a system is commercially available and compatible for the permittees s vessel. If this schedule cannot be met, the Permittee is required to certify to the MPCA that such a system is not type approved by the USCG under 46 CFR Part 162 and commercially available and compatible for the permittees s vessel by submitting a report each year describing the status of treatment system availability. While the MPCA's goal is to be consistent with the federal requirements as much as possible, the MPCA disagrees with the decision of the EPA to not include a date by which pre 2009 Lakers are required to install treatment systems. While the MPCA is well aware that there are significant impediments to finding treatment systems that can be successfully retrofitted to these vessels, the MPCA believes that 7

8 such ballast water treatment systems are not an impossibility. The MPCA believes that such technology may become available if regulatory pressure to have such a technology is maintained. Lakers built before 2009 represent a significant portion of the ballast water that is discharged in Minnesota waters. If these vessels are not subject to the requirement to employ ballast water treatment and meet the numeric discharge limits for ballast water, the threat of ship mediated introductions of AIS has not been fully addressed. As a result, the MPCA has chosen to maintain this requirement, albeit with an extended schedule. Receiving Water(s) Use Classification 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 , , In addition, Lake Superior is designated as an Outstanding Resource Value Water under Minn. R Proposed Permit Discharge Limits Technology Based Effluent Limits (TBELs) The VGP has both numeric and non numeric TBELs for ballast water discharges. Numeric discharge limits are specified for AIS, biocides and other treatment residuals. practices are required in the VGP that serve as non numeric TBELs. These include specific management practices, plans, training and ballast water exchange for Salties coming into the Great Lakes, regardless of the installation of a ballast water treatment system. The proposed permit has additional requirements over the VGP which are non numeric TBELs. These additional requirements include and Sediment Plans (BWMPs) that are approved by MPCA staff. This proposed permit is not requiring additional or new numeric or non numeric TBELs over the 2008 permit. The VGP contains the same AIS discharge standards as the 2008 MPCA permit, except for the addition of Vibrio cholera in the VGP. The proposed permit requires that chemical additives that may be used in treatment systems cannot be discharged at levels which cause or contribute to an exceedance of state water quality standards in Minn. R and Minn. R Water Quality Based Limits 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 a Water Quality Based Effluent Limit (WQBEL). EPA has provided funding to conduct studies that will collect data necessary to develop a WQBEL. MPCA plans on participating with the EPA in the development of WQBELs for ballast water discharges once studies have produced the data sufficient to begin this process. 8

9 Additional Requirements In 2008, the Minnesota Legislature adopted Minn. Stat which requires vessels to develop, and the MPCA to approve, BWMPs. The statute also requires vessels to keep records of ballast activities. The statutes detail what a BWMP and ballast water record book should contain, and provides for the MPCA s approval of the BWMP. Both the BWMP and the record book are requirements in the proposed permit. ndegredation Minn. R. chs and 7052 establish the nondegradation standards and implementation procedures for surface waters of the state in the Lake Superior Basin. In re issuing this permit, the MPCA adopts the rationale with regard to nondegradation that it adopted when it first issued the general permit. 9

10 References 1. Albert, Ryan, et al. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Availability and Efficacy of Treatment Technology: Background and Issue Paper. June 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. A Ballast Discharge Monitoring for Great Lakes Relevant Ships: A Guidebook for Researchers, Ship Owners, and Agency Officials. vember 18, Great Ships Initiative. Report of the Land Based Freshwater Testing of the Siemens SiCURE. March 15, Great Ships Initiative. Final Report of the Land Based, Freshwater Testing of the AlfaWall AB PureBallast Treatment. March 17, Great Ships Initiative. Final Report of the Land based, Freshwater Testing of the Lye (NaOH) Treatment, May 13, Great Ships Initiative. Final Report of Land Based Freshwater Testing of a Treatment Involving Sodium Hypochlorite (NaOCl), May, Lloyd's Register Group Limited. (September 2012). Treatment Technologies and Current Availability. Fifth Edition, London. 9. Miller, A.W, et al. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. September, 2011.Status and Trends of in the United States, Fourth Biennial Report of the National Ballast Information Clearinghouse, submitted to the United States Coast Guard. 10. Moore, Brad. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order approving the issuance of the Discharge State Disposal General Permit. September, 26, National Research Council, Water Science and Technology Board Assessing the Relationship Between Propagule Pressure and Invasion Risk in. National Academies Press. 12. NSF International. Generic Protocol for the Verification of Treatment Technology. September United States Environmental Protection Agency. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) Vessel General Permit (VGP) for Discharge Incidental to the rmal Operation of Vessels. Factsheet, March. 14. United States Environmental Protection Agency. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) Vessel General Permit (VGP) for Discharge Incidental to the rmal Operation of Vessels Permit, March. 15. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board. Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment s: a Report by the EPA Science Advisory Board. July 12,

11 Appendix Table 1. Comparison of Minnesota and Federal Discharge Controls Condition MPCA BW Permit MPCA 401 Cert. EPA VGP MN Statute/Rule Prohibited Discharge Areas and Sediment Plan Treatment Installation Schedule BW Treatment Plans & Specs, based on MPCA BWP, based on MPCA BW Permit, based on MPCA BW Permit, based on MPCA BW Permit Prior tification, based on MPCA BW Permit DMRs/Annual Report IMO Treatment standards Treatment for Lakers Exchange Monitoring of ballast water Emergency Control BW =, based on MPCA BW Permit, based on the MPCA BW Permit, based on MPCA BW Permit t for Minnesota waters of Lake Superior, but not reviewed and approved by EPA or MPCA, differs from MPCA BWP schedule (pre 2009 Lakers not covered) Covered by USCG type approval, but not to MPCA, but only for vessels built >2009, under conditions, when treatment is being used, but may be inherent authority under general conditions, plus annual sampling or a biological study for non treating vessels, when treatment is being used : Minn. R , subps. 3 and 4 : Minn. Stat , state authority enables emergency orders Table 2 Status of Treatment Development Numerous s (BWMSs) are currently available that have G8 Type Approval per the IMO process. The following list only includes those systems that have received type approval from foreign flag administrations. There are currently no BWMSs that are type approved from 11

12 the USCG; further, no systems are likely to receive USCG approval prior to There are 13 systems that have received USCG AMS approval. In addition, some systems that may receive USCG approval may not be appropriate for use by Lakers as marketed (without modification). For instance, although systems using electrochlorination may be effective at treating freshwater, a sidestream of sea or brackish water would need to be available onboard to generate the NaOCl. This system may be appropriate for Salties, but Lakers would not have access to a natural source of ions. Manufacturer Name Process Description Capacity (m3/hr) Active substance Suitable for Fresh Water 1 Comments 21st Century Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. ARA PLASMA BWTS Ballast Water filtration + plasma + UV 150 2,600 Alfa Laval PureBallast system filtration + Advanced Oxidation (UV/TiO 2 ) 250 3,000 Land based fresh water testing completed at GSI Duluth Superior laboratory; were on 15 April Alfa Laval PureBallast 2.0 and PureBallast 2.0 Ex filtration + Advanced Oxidation (UV/TiO 2 ) 250+ Land based fresh water testing completed at GSI Duluth Superior 1 Suitability for use in fresh water is based on manufacturer claims. Although systems may be suitable for use in freshwater, they may not be appropriate for use by vessels confined to the Great Lakes 12

13 Manufacturer Name Process Description Aqua Eng. Co., Ltd. China Ocean Shipping Co (COSCO) Shipbuilding Co. DESMI Ocean Guard A/S Ecochlor AquaStar TM Blue Ocean Shield Ballast Water DESMI Ocean Guard BWTS Ecochlor BWTS filtration + electrolysis + neutralization hydrocyclone + filtration + UV Capacity (m3/hr) 200 5, ,500 Active substance filtration + ozone + UV 75 3,000 filtration + biocide (ClO 2 ) ,000 Suitable for Fresh Water 1 Comments laboratory; on 15 April DESMI has completed land based testing in waters PSU and UV T 38 48% Enrolled in USCG STEP on two vessels; on 15 April 13

14 Manufacturer Name Process Description Capacity (m3/hr) Active substance Suitable for Fresh Water 1 Comments Erma First ERMA FIRST BWTS filtration + hydrocyclone + electrolysis + neutralization (sodium bisulfite NaHSO 3 ) 50 3,000 GEA Westfalia Separator Group Gmbh Ballast Master ultrav filtration + electrolysis + neutralization (sodium thiosulfate, Na 2 S 2 O 3 ) 250+ Hitachi Plant Technologies, Ltd. Hyde Marine, Inc Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Hitachi Ballast Water (ClearBallast) Hyde GUARDIAN TM ballast water management system EcoBallast filtration + pre coagulant (enhanced flocculation) 200 2,400 filtration + UV 60 6,000 filtration + UV 500 2,400 Enrolled in USCG STEP; currently used in Lake Superior on board NPS vessel Ranger III; on 15 April 14

15 Manufacturer Name Process Description Capacity (m3/hr) Active substance Suitable for Fresh Water 1 Comments Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. HiBallast TM filtration + electrolysis/electrochlorination 500 8,000 on 24 June JFE Engineering Corporation JFE BallastAce filtration + biocide (NaOCl) + cavitation + neutralizing agent (sodium sulfite, Na 2 SO 3 ) 1,000 4,500 Kuraray Co., Ltd. MICROFADE TM filtration + biocide (calcium hypochlorite, Ca(ClO) 2 ) + neutralizing agent (sodium sulfite, Na 2 SO 3 ) 125 4,000 MAHLE Industrial Filtration Ocean Protection filtration + UV 250+ Mitsui Engineering and Shipbuilding Co. Ltd. FineBallast OZ (the Special Pipe Hybrid Ballast Water combined with Ozone treatment version) filtration + cavitation + ozone + neutralization NEI Treatment s, LLC Venturi Oxygen Stripping (VOS) deoxygenation + cavitation 300 6,800 Enrolled in USCG STEP 15

16 Manufacturer Name Process Description NK Co. Ltd Ocean Saver AS Ocean Saver AS OptiMarin AS Panasia Co. Ltd. NK O3 BlueBallast (Ozone) OceanSaver OceanSaver (Mark II) OptiMarin Ballast (OBS) GloEn Patrol TM Ozonation filtration + deoxygenation + cavitation + electrolysis filtration + electrolysis Capacity (m3/hr) 250 8, , ,600 Active substance filtration + UV 20 5,400 Suitable for Fresh Water 1 filtration + UV 50 6,000 Comments on 15 April on 18 June on 29 April 16

17 Manufacturer Name Process Description Capacity (m3/hr) Active substance Suitable for Fresh Water 1 Comments Quindao Headway Technology Co., Ltd. OceanGuard TM filtration + electrolysis + ultrasound 50 9,350 on 15 April RWO CleanBallast filtration + electrolysis + neutralization (sodium thiosulfate, Na 2 S 2 O 3 ) 150 3,750 RWO has conducted land based testing in waters at 0.4 PSU; Electrolysis unit produces hydroxyl radicals when used in fresh water; on 15 April Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. Purimar TM filtration + electrolysis + neutralization (sodium thiosulfate, Na 2 S 2 O 3 ) 250 6,500 Severn Trent Dera BalPure BP 500 filtration + electrochlorination + neutralization (sodium thiosulfate, Na 2 S 2 O 3 ) 5000 Enrolled in USCG STEP; on 15 April 17

18 Manufacturer Name Process Description Shanghai Cyeco Environmental Technology Co., Ltd. SunRui Marine Environment Engineering Company Cyeco TM BalClor TM filtration + UV filtration + electrochlorination + neutralization (sodium thiosulfate, Na 2 S 2 O 3 ) Capacity (m3/hr) 250 & ,000 Active substance Suitable for Fresh Water 1 Comments >10 PSU and temperatures >15 C) on 15 April Techcross Inc Electro Cleen TM electrolysis + neutralization (sodium thiosulfate, Na 2 S 2 O 3 ) 300 Wuxi Brightsky Electronic Co., Ltd. BSKY TM Ballast Water filtration + UV 100 6,000 18