.
^ -.;
£:
ft
-!JIF
13- '
I-**-'
VJf.
IVS..
Thursday
April 2, 1992
Part VI
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 122
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Application Deadlines, General
Permit Requirements and Reporting
Requirements for Storm Water
Discharges Associated With Industrial
Activity; Final Rule
-------
II 40 CFR Part 122
[FRL-4100-4]
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Application
Deadlines, General Permit
Requirements and Reporting
Requirements for Storm Water
Discharges Associated With Industrial
Activity .
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Water Quality Act
(WQA) of 1987 added section 402(p) to
the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section
402{p) of the CWA requires the
Environmental Protection.Agency (EPA)
to establish phased and tiered
requirements for storm water discharges
under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program.
On August 16.1991 (56 FR 40948). EPA
requested public comments on several
regulatory and policy issues regarding
NPDES permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity. On November 5,1991 (56 FR
. 56549), the Agency also proposed
extending the deadline for submitting
part 2 of group applications for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity. .
-' In response to comment received on
August 16,1991, proposal, today's action
describes a National Strategy for issuing
NPDES permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity. Today's action also contains a
final rule that revises minimum NPDES
monitoring requirements for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity. In addition, todays rule
establishes minimum requirements for
filing notices of intent to be authorized
to discharge under NPDES general
permits.
Today's rule also establishes a
deadline of October 1,1992 for part 2 of
group applications for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity." As noted above, this revised
deadline was proposed on November 5,
1991. In connection with group
applications, today's rule contains an
amendment to clarify the minimum
number of facilities that must submit
sampling information in part 2 of a group
application.
Finally, today's action codifies several
provisions of Section 1068 of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 or Transportation
Act into the NPDES regulations. Section
for storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from facilities
that were owned or operated by
municipalities. j
ELECTIVE DATE: The final rule becomes
effective May 4,1992.
ADDRESSES: The public record is located
at EPA Headquarters, EPA Public.
Information Reference Unit, room 2402.
401M Street. SW, Washington, DC, .
20460. A reasonable fee may be charged
for copying. !
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For further information on the rule .
contact the NPDES Storm Water Hotline
at (703) 821-4823 or. Kevin Weiss, Office
of Wastewater Enforcement and '-'
Compliance (EN-336). United States
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street SW., Washington, DC 20460, (202)
260-9518. . .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
L Background '
A. Environmental Impacts
B. Water Quality Act of 1987
C November 16,1990, Permit Application
Regulations . ! . -:
D. August 16,1991 Notice,
E. November 5,1991 Proposal
F. Intennadal Surface Transportation' ' :
Efficiency Act of 1991 .. . " .'
H. Today's Rule | .
A. Long-Term Permit Issuance Strategy
B. Minimum Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements for Storm Water
Discharges '
C. Application Requirements for General
' Permits .
D. Deadline for part 2 of Group
Applications i'
E. Clarification for Part 2 of Group
Applications i
F. Transportation Act Deadlines "
IIL Economic Impact
IV. Executive Order 12291
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
VL Regulatory Flexibility Act ...
VIL APA Requirements '" '.,
, L Background '!
The 1972 amendments to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA.
also referred to as the Clean Water Act ,
or CWA), prohibited the discharge of ;
any pollutant to navigable waters from a
point source unless the discharge is-
authorized by a NPDES permit Efforts
to improve water quality under the
NPDES program have focused."...-;.:.; -:
traditionally on reducing pollutants in: -
discharges of industrial process .; 4 ]'.
wastewater and from municipal sewage '
treatment plants. This program
emphasis has developed for a number of
reasons. At the onset of the program in ;
1972, many sources of industrial process
wastewater and municipal sewage-were?
not controlled adequately,
.and industrial process discharges were
easily identified as responsible for poor,
often drastically degraded water quality
conditions. However, as pollution
control measures were developed
initially for these discharges, it became
evident that more diffuse sources
(occurring over a wide area) of water
pollution, such as agricultural and urban
runoff, were also major causes of water
quality problems. Some diffuse sources
of water pollution, such as agricultural
storm water, discharges and irrigation
return flows, are exempted statutorily
from the NPDES program. Controls for
other diffuse sources have been slow to
develop' under the NPDES program. . .
A. Environmental Impacts
Several national assessments have
been conducted to evaluate impacts on
receiving water quality. For the purpose
of these assessments, urban runoff was
considered to be a diffuse source or
nonpoint source pollution, although in
legal terms, most urban runoff is
discharged through conveyances such as
separate storm sewers or other ;
conveyances which are point sources .
under the CWA and subject to the
NPDES program.
The "National Water Quality . ;
Inventory, 1990 Report to Congress"
provides a general assessment of water
quality based on biennial reports
submitted by the States under section
3O5(fa) of the CWA. In preparing section .
305(b) Reports, the States were asked to
indicate the fraction of the States'
waters that were assessed, as well as
the fraction of the States' waters that
were fully supporting, partly supporting,
or not supporting designated uses. The
Report indicates that of the rivers, lakes...
and estuaries that were assessed by.
States (approximately one-third of
stream miles, one-half of lake acres and
threerquarters of estuarine waters),
roughly 60 percent .to 70 percent are
supporting the uses for which they are
. designated. For waters with use
impairments, States were asked to
determine impacts due to diffuse
';.' sources (agricultural and urban runoff
and other categories of diffuse sources),
municipal sewage, industrial (process) .
-. -wastewaters, combined sewer
overflows, and natural sources, and then
;-?to combine impacts to arrive at
'': estimates of the relative percentage of
State waters affected by each source. In
this manner, the relative importance of
;.; -the various sources of pollution caubing .
-:-ase impairments -was assessed and _
^-weighted national averages were
^calculated. .
-------
, Based on 51 States, and.Territories.;
that provided information on sources of
.. pollution, the Assessment also -
concluded that pollution: from diffuse :
sources such as runoff from agricultural
urban areas, construction sites, land
disposal activities, and resource
extraction activitieais cited by the
States as the leading cause of water
quahty impairment* Diffuse sources
appear to be increasinglyimportant
cpnWbutors of use impairment as
discharges of industrial process
wastewaters and municipal sewage
plants come-under conjrol'and
intensified data collection efforts
provide additional information. Some
examples where use impairments are
cited as being caused by'diffuse sources
include: Rivers and streams, where 11
percent are caused by separate storm
sewers, 6 percent are caused by
construction and 14 percent are caused
by resource extraction; lakes, where 28
percent are caused by separate storm
sewers and 24sPercent are caused by
land disposal; the Great Lakes shoreline.
where 6 percent are caused by separate
storm sewers, and 41 percent are caused
by land disposal; for estuaries where, 30
percent are caused by separate storm
sewers; and for coastal areas, where 36
percent are caused by separate storm
sewers and 37 percent are caused by
land disposal. . . . .
The States conducted a more
comprehensive study of diffuse pollution
sources under the sponsorship of the
W^±^lS^!-d^erstate
:^^^^*"^~" "^^^^^^^^^^^^^^BBMi^Mi
.limited area); 2,000.000 acres of shellfish
Erowine wnfpm in *V.o r-..ir -r*; ,
«n'^t "*" "<"'Ye»w«nutea area): and
1300001 acres of shellfish growing waters
on the West Coast (5255 rfharvSt-
limited areas).
B. Water Quality Act of 1987
^SsSS&issay**
' o f w-«to
establish a comprehensive two phased
approach for EPA to address storm
water-discharges. Section 402(p)fi)
provides. that S>A or NPDES States -
cannot require a permit for certain storm
water discharges f until October 1. 1992, :
except for storm water discharges listed
^8e^Pn402&>)C2), Section 402(P)f2)
lists five types of storm water ^HWl '
discharges which are covered under
Phase I of the program and are required
to, obtain a permit before October 1
J.+Rj£t ' ' .*"" '
o «IZI"» v!"""!.'"8'' W1U1 respect to which
a permit has been issued prior to
February 4,1987;
CB) A discharge associated with ^
industrial activity;
(C) A discharge from a municipal
separate storm sewer system servins a
population of 250,000 mmOK*
(D) A discharge from.a municipal -
Sa fnn^^f^T 8yStem ^^ a
(E) A discharge for which the
mSlfiS^t0r-r ^ State.as the case
may be, determines that the storm water
discharge contributes to a violation of a
Assessment 1985". which indicated that
38 States reported urban runoff as a
major cause of beneficial use
impairment In addition. 21 States
reported construction site runoff as a
m|jor cause of use impairment
Studies conducted by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) * indicate that
urban runoff is a major pollutant source
which adversely affects .shellfish
growing waters. The NOAA studies
identified urban runoff as affectino ««=
578000, acres of shellfish gtWnJtaSs
on the East Coast (39 percent ofha^v est-
par^oltr ±f±^L**' fad"d'- *
The WQA clari'fied-and amended the
requirements for permits for storm water
discharges'in the new CWA section
"
.n. Quality of Sne'lfinti Growing Waters
on the East Coast of the United States" floA^
^'?8f S"al/ty °f Shellfi8h G^«8 W°ta fa
-»wu, mtu, |yciILUia
..---<*es associated with industrial
activity must meet all of the applicable
provisions of section 402 and sectSn 301
including BAT/BCT technology-based
requirements and that permitffor
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewer must meet a new statutory
standard requiring controls to reduce the
discharge of pollutants to the maximum
extent practicable (MEP). As with all
point source discharges under the CWA
storm water discharges are subject to
applicable water quality-based
standards.
Section 402(p)(4) establishes '
deadlines to implement the permit
program for: Storm water discharges
associated with tadusWal activity-
discharges from large municipal
separate storm sewer systems (systems
anT!?811 P°PUl1ti0n of 250.000 o^more);
and discharges from medium municipal
separate storm sewer systems (systems
serving a population of 100.000 or more
but less than 250.000). This section of U,e
Act specifies deadlines for EPA to
promulgate permit application
requirements, applicants to! submit '
£lapplicatio"ns' SPA and authorized
NPDES States to issue NPDES permits
and for permit compliance for the !'
identified storm water discharges
NPDES permits for all other storm
water discharges fall under phase II of
the program, and cannot be required
unuj October 1.1992,-unless a permit for
toe discharge was issued prior, to the
date of enactment of the WQA fi e
February 4.1987), or the discharge is
determined to be a significant
contributor of pollutants .to waters of the
United States or is contributing to a
violation of water quality standards.
EPA.inConsuitationwiththeStateg
is required to conduct two studies on '
phase n storm water discharges that are
-S?rlLtChai:8e8 f°r Which **
ana wfutb btates. cannot requh-e
permits prior to October 1,1992. The '
first study will identify those storm
water discharges or classes of storm
water discharges addressed by phase II
and determine, to the maximum extent
practicable, the nature and extent of
pollutants in such discharges. The
second study is for the purpose of .
establishing procedures and methods to
control phase n storm water discharges
to the extent necessary to mitigate
impactsion water quality. Based on the
two, studies, EPA in consultation with
State and local officials, is required to
issue regulations by no later than
October 1,1992, which designate classes
of Phase II 8tOrm water discharges to be
regulated to protect water quality and
establish a comprehensive program to
regulate such designated sources This
program must establish, at a minimum.
(A) priorities, (B) requiremenfs for State
storm water management programs, and
(C) expeditious deadlines.Thiprogram
may include performance standards
guidelines, guidance, and management
practices and treatment requirements
as appropriate.
C. 'November 16,1990, Permit
Application Regulations
EPA promulgated permit application
regulations for the storm water
discharges identified under section
402(pj(2) (B), (C). and (D) of the CWA.
including storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity, on
November 16,1990 (55 FR 47990). The
November 16,1990 regulations address '
requirements, including deadlines, for
two sets of application procedures for'
storm water discharges associated with
hi
M:
I
I
I
.
i
-------
11396 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 64 / Thursday. April 2. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
industrial activity: Individual permit
applications and group applications. In
addition, the notice recognizes a third
set of application procedures for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity: Those associated
with general permits. With these
requirements, EPA is attempting to
implement a flexible, cost-effective
approach for storm water permit
applications.
The requirements for individual
applications for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity are
set forth at 40 CFR'l2238(c)(l).
Generally,'the applicant must provide
comprehensive facility specific narrative
information including: (1) A site map; (2]
an estimate of impervious areas; (3) the
identification of significant materials
treated or stored on site together with
associated materials management and
disposal practices; (4) the location and
description of. existing structural and
non-structural controls to reduce
pollutants in storm water runoff; (5) a
certification that all storm water outfalls
have been evaluated for any
unpermitted non-storm water
discharges; and (8) any existing
information regarding significant leaks
or spills of toxic or hazardous pollutants
within three years prior to application
submittal. In addition, an individual
application must include quantitative
analytical data based on samples
collected on site during storm events.
Under § 122.26{e)(l) of the November 16,
, 1990 rule, individual applications were '
to have been submitted by November 18,
1991.3
The group application process allows
for facilities with similar storm water
discharges to file a single two part
permit application. Part 1 of a group
application includes a list of the
facilities applying, a narrative
description summarizing the industrial
activities of participants of the group, a
list of significant materials exposed to
precipitation that are stored by
participants and material management
practices employed to diminish contact
of these materials by precipitation (see
40 CFR 122.26(c)(2)(i)). Under the
November 16,1990 regulations, Part 1 of
the group application was to be
submitted to EPA no later than March
18,1991/* The regulation provides that
EPA has a 60 day period after receipt to
review the part 1 applications and notify
the groups as to whether they have been
approved or denied as a properly
constituted "group" for purposes of this
alternative application process. Part 2 of
the group application contains detailed
information, including sampling data, on
roughly ten percent of the faculties in
the group (today's notice contains a
more detailed description clarifying the
requirements of 40 CFR 122^8(c)(2)(ii)).
Under the November 16,1990
regulations, part 2 applications were to
' be submitted no later than 12 months
after the date of approval of the part 1
application. (Revisions to this deadline
are discussed below). Also under the
November 16,1990 regulation, facilities
that are rejected as members of a group
were to have 12 months from the date
they receive notification of their
rejection to file an individual permit
application (or obtain coverage under an
appropriate general [permit).*
The group application process has
been designed by EPA as a one-time
administrative procedure to'ease the
burden on the regulated community and
permitting authorities in the initial stage
of the storm waterjprogram.
The third application procedure
entails seeking coverage under a general
permit for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity.
Dischargers covered by a general permit
are excluded under 40 CFR 122.21(a)
from requirements to submit individual
or group permit applications. Conditions
for filing an application to be covered by
a general permit (typically 'called a
Notice of Intent (NQI)) are established
on a case-by-case basis. As discussed in
more detail below, today's notice
establishes final minimum requirements
for general permit NOI submissions.
The November 18,1990 regulations
also establish a two part application .
process for discharges from municipal .
separate storm sewer systems serving a
population of 100,000 or more. The
regulations lists 220 cities and counties
that are defined as having municipal
separate storm sewer systems serving a
. population of'lOO.OOOqr more and
allows for case-by-case designations of
other municipal separate storm sewers
to be part of these systems (55 FR 48073,
48074). The regulations provide that part
1 applications for discharges from large
municipal separate storm sewer systems
9 The deadline for submitting an Individual permit
application for dorm water discharge* associated
with industrial activity was extended from
November IB. 1691 to October 1.1992 (56 FR S6548.
(November 5,0891)).
* The deadline for lubmitting part 1 of lite group
application wu extended from March 18.1991 to
September 30.1991 (SO FR 12098 (March 21.1991)).
The deadline for* facility that ta rejected as a
member of « group application to ubmit an
individual permit application ha* been revised to
provide that an individual application mutt be
ubmitted no later than 12 month* after the date of
receipt of the notice of refection or October 1.1992.
whichever comm£r*t (56 FR 56549, (November 5,
1991)). ' ' ,
(systems serving a population of 250,000
or more) were due November 18,1991.
Part 2 applications for discharges from
large systems are due on November 16,
1992. Part 1 applications for discharges
from medium municipal separate storm
sewer systems (systems serving a
population of 100,000 or more, but less
than 250,000) are due May 13,1992. Part
2 applications for discharge!! from
medium systems are due on May 18,
1993. Today's rulemaking does not
address, modify or change application
requirements or deadlines established
by the November 18,1990 regulations for
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewer systems serving a
population of 100,000 or more. '
D. August 16,1991 Notice
On August 16,1991, EPA published a
notice (56 FR 40948) requesting public
comment on four major areas:
(1) EPA's long-term permit issuance
strategy for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity;
(2) Proposed modifications to 40 CFR
122.44(i)(2) addressing minimum
monitoring and reporting requirements '
for NPDES permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity; "" ' '
(3) Proposed modifications to 40 CFR '"
122.28(b)(2) addressing minimum notice
of intent requirements for general ' .
permits;,
(4) Draft baseline general permits for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity in 12 States (MA, ME,
NH, FL, LA, TX, OK, NM.SD, AZ, AK.
ID) and 6 Territories (District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto '
Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the . . !
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and the Trust Territory of the'
Pacific Islands) without authorized ,
NPDES State programs; on Indian lands .
in AL, CA, GA, KY. MI, MN, MS, MT.
NC, ND, NY. NV. SC. TN, LIT. WI, and
WY; located within FederaS facilities "
and Indian lands in CO and WA; and '
located within Federal facilitieslin .
Delaware. " . '-..' .«*
One of the central purposes of today's.:,
notice is to address and/or take final, _.;
action on the first three items listed '..-
above. Each of these three items is . -. _
. discussed to more detail below. The
fourth component of the August 16,1991;'
proposal involving draft baseUne '
general permits for storm water will he --;
addressed to a separate rulemaktog '*-
presently scheduled for promulgation in ':
late spring of this year. - "
E.November5,1891 Proposal.
On November 5.1991, (58 FR W
as a result of issues and concerns
-------
.Federal.E^rterXVol S7..No. 64 /^Thursday, April>. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
11397
In comments on the March 21. .1991
.. proposed deadline extensions, EPA
. requested comments' on extending the
.' deadline for submitting part 2 of the
group application, from May 18,!l992 to
October 1,1992. hi the November 5,1991
notice, the Agency indicated that this
extension would provide an appropriate
opportunity to conduct sampling to
.support the part 2 application and-would
allow for 'permit issuing agencies to
issue general permits. -; ; .""
F. Intennodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1391
On December 18,1991. the President
signed the Intennodal Surf ace '
Transportation Efficiency Act (or
Transportation Act) of 1991, into law.
Section 1068 of the Transportation Act
addresses NPDES permit application
deadlines for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
facilities that are owned or operated by
muncipalities.
Section lO68(b}(lj of the
Transportation Act provides that EPA
. shall require individual permit
applications for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity that
are owned or operated by municipalities
on or before October -i. 1992; except that
any municipality that has participated in
a timely part 1 group application and
that is denied participation in the group
application shall not be required to
submit an individual application until
the 180th day following the date on
which the denial js made.
Section 1068(b)(2] of the
Transportation Act provides that part 1
of group applications for storm water.
discharges associated with industrial
activity that are owned or operated by a
municipality with a population of
250,000 or more shall be required on or
before September 30,1991. and part 2
applications on or before 'October 1,
1992. Part 1 of group applications for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity that are owned or
operated by a municipality with a
population of less than 250,000-shall be
required on or before May 18,1992, and
part 2 applications on or before May 17,
1993.
Section 1068(c) of the Transportation
Act provides that EPA shall not require
any municipality with a population of
less than 100,000 to apply for or obtain a
permit for any storm water discharge
associated with an industrial activity
other than an airport, powerplant, or
uncontrolled sanitary landfill owned or
operated by such municipality before
October 1.1992, unless a permit is
required by either section 402(pJ(2) (AJ
or (E) of the CWA. Section 1063(d) of the
Transportation Act defines uncontrolled
sanitary landfill to mean a landfill or
open dump, whether open or closed, that
does not meet the requirements for
runpn and runoff controls established
pursuant to subtitle D of the Solid Waste
. Disposal Act
Section 1068(e] of the Transportation
Act clarifies that the statutory deadlines
for group and individual applications
outlined above do not affect any storm
water discharge that is subject to the
provisions of either section 402fpl[2)[Ai
or 402(p)(2)(E} of the CWA. Section
402{p)(2KA}.of the CWA addresses
storm water discharges that had an
NPDES permit prior to February 4,1987.
Section 402{p)(2)(E) of the CWA .
addresses storm water discharges that
EPA or the State*, as the case may be.
determines that the storm water
discharge contributes to a violation of a
water quality standard or is a significant
contributor of pollutants to the waters of
the United States. As discussed in more
detail below, today's rule codifies the
application provisions of Section 1068 of
the Transportation Act
H. Today's Rule
Today's rule addresses the following:
(1) EPA's long-term permit issuance.
strategy for storm water discharges
. associated with industrial activity;
. (2} Modifications to 40 CFR 122.44(i)(2*
addressing minimum monitoring and
reporting requirements for NPDES
permits for stonn water discharges
associated with industrial activity,
(3) Modifications to 40 CFR
122.28(b](2) addressing minimnnj notice
of intent requirements for general
permits;
(4) Modifications to 40 CFR 122.26(e)
to establish a deadline of October 1.
1992 for part 2 of group applications for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity;
(5) An amendment to 40 CFR
122.26(c)(2] to clarify the minimum
number of facilities in a group that must
submit sampling information in part 2 of
a group application: and
(6) Modifications to 40 CFR 122;26(e)
to codify portions of Section 1068 of the
Transportation Act of 1991.
A. Long Term Permit issuance Strategy
Many of the initial concerns regarding
the NPDES storm water program
focussed on adapting the existing
NPDES permit program to effectively
address the large number of storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity. Potential issues with .
implementing the NPDES program for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity are raised not only by
the number of industrial facilities
subject to the program, but also by the
challenges presented in identifying and
assessing appropriate technologies for
preventing and reducing pollutants in
different classes of storm water and the
differences in the nature and extent of
storm water discharges..
Based on a consideration of comments
from authorized NPDES States,
municipalities, industrial faculties and
environmental groups on the permitting
framework and permit application
requirements for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity, EPA
has developed a strategy for permitting
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity that will serve as a
foundation for future program
development and technology transfer.
The Agency intends torae the flexibility
provided by the CWA « in designing a
workable and reasonable permitting
system.-
In an action related to this
rulemaking/EPA. hi conjunction with
the Rennselaerville Institute, has
initiated a project to develop
recommendations for streamlining and
improving the existing permit issuance
and compliance processes for storm
water discharges. In addition, the
project will examine whether and how
the currently unregulated phase II storm
water discharges should be addressed.
EPA will be issuing a Federal Register
notice to announce a series of meetings
that will address these phase n storm
water discharges.
The strategy in today's action consists
of two major components, a tiered
framework for developing permitting
priorities and a framework for the
development of State Storm Water
Permitting Plans.
1. Permitting Priorities
The Agency believes that most storm
water permitting activities can be
described in terms of the following four
classes of activities:
Tier IBaseline Permitting: One or
more general permits will be developed
initially to cover the majority of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity; '
* The Court in NRDC v. Train. 398 F. Supp. 1333
(DJD.C. 1975) afTA NRDC v. Castle. S68 F-2d 1369
(D.C. Cir. 1977). has recognized the administrative
burden placed on the Agency by requiring
individual permits fora large number of storm
water discharges. These courts have affirmed EPA'a
discretion to use certain administrative devices,
such as area permits or general permits to help
manage Its workload. In addition, the courts have
recognized flexibility in the -type of permit
conditions that are established. Including
requirements for best management practices. "See
August 16,1991 (S6 FR 40948) for further discussion
of the use of general permits for stonn water
discharges.
-------
11398 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 64 / Thursday. April 2, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
I
1
Tier IfWatershed Permitting:
Facilities within watersheds shown to
be adversely impacted by storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity will be targeted for individual or
watershed-specific general permits;
Tier IIIIndustry-Specific
Permitting: Specific industry categories
will be targeted for individual or
industry-specific general permits; and
* Tier IVFacility-Specific
Permitting: A variety of, factors will be
used to target specific facilities for
individual permits.
These four classes of activities will be
implemented over time and will reflect
priorities within given States. In most
States, tier I activities,.issuance of
baseline permits, will be the initial
starting point As priorities and risks
within the State are evaluated, classes
of storm water discharges or individual
' storm water discharges will be
identified for tier n, lH or IV permitting
activities. UsuaUy a storm water
discharge on a class of discharges will
not go through a sequence that involves
all four of the tiers associated with the
strategy, but may for example, go from
initial coverage under a Tier I baseline
.permit to coverage under a tier HI
industry-specific general permit.
a.'Tier IBaseline permitting. Tier I
general permits can initially cover the
majority of storm water discharges
associatedivith industrial activity in a
State. Consolidating many sources .
under a general permit greatly reduces
the administrative burden of issuing
permits for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity.
Under this approach:
Pollution prevention and/or best
management practices will be
established for discharges covered by
the permit;
Facilities whose discharges are
covered by the permit.will be certain of
their legal responsibilities and have an
opportunity to comply with the CWA;
EPA and authorized NPDES States
will begin to collect and review data on
storm water discharges from priority
industries, thereby supporting
subsequent permitting activities;
The public, including municipal
operators of municipal separate storm
sewers which may receive storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity, will have the opportunity to
review data and reports developed by
industrial permittees under section
308{b)6ftheCWA' .
The baseline permits will provide a
basis for coordinating requirements for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity with requirements of
municipal storm water management
programs in permits for discharges from
municipal separate storm sewer
systems. 'j
The baseline permits will provide a
basis for bringing selected enforcement
actions; and
The baseline permit along with the
State storm water permitting plans
(discussed below), will provide a focus
for public comment on draft permits and
subsequent phases of the permitting
strategy for storm water discharges.
Initially, the coverage of the baseline
permits will be broad. However, it is
anticipated that coverage will become
more specific and targeted as other
permits are issued for storm water " '
discharges associated with industrial :
activity pursuant to tier n through tier. .
IV activities. The Agency believes that
tier I permits can establish the
appropriate balance between monitoring
requirements and implemehtable
controls that will initiate facility-specific
controls and provide sufficient data for .
compliance monitoring and future '
program development Baseline general
permits are flexible enough to allow the
inclusion of tier n, in or IV types of .
permit conditions, such as industry
specific monitoring or control conditions
into the baseline general permit .
b. Tier IIWatershed permitting. '
Issuing permits on a watershed basis is
. potentially a desirable way to cost
effectively use Agency resources to '.' . ".
satisfactorily address risk. Facilities
within watersheds shown to be
adversely impacted by storm water
discharges associated; with industrial'
activity will be targeted for individual
and more specific general permitting
activities. This process can be initiated
by identifying receiving waters (or
segments of receiving waters) where
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity have been identified
as a source of use impairment or are
suspected to be contributing to use '
impairment Information developed
under sections 304(1), 305(b). and 319{a)
of the CWA along with information
from, other sources (including
information developed under the
baseline general permits for storm water
discharges), can be used in evaluating
impacts on receiving waters. This
information may identify classes of
storm water discharges that are of.
particular concern and portions of
watersheds where the sources of
concern are located. Appropriate
classes of storm water discharges in '
these locations can be targeted for
additional permit conditions which may
provide for additional information to .
characterize the discharge (e.g..
additional monitoring and reporting.
requirements) or, where appropriate, for
more stringent-controls. ' *" ' '
Information gathered under initial
permits for storm water discharges as
well as information from other sources
can be used to reassess water quality-
based controls. As discussed In more
detail below. State storm water
permitting strategies are expected to
have a major role in this process.
c. Tier IIIIndustry-specific
permitting. Specific industry categories
will be targeted for individual or . .
industry-specific general permits. These
permits will allow permiting authorities
to focus attention and resources on
industry categories of particular concern
and/or industry categories where
tailored requirements are appropriate.
The Agency will work with the States to
develop model permits for selected
classes of industrial storm water
discharges. In addition, the group
application process adopted in the
November 16,1990 regulation, (55 FR .
47990) will provide an additional
mechanism for developing industry-
specific general permits. Group
applications that are received can be
used to develop model permits for the
appropriate industries. . - .
d. Tier IVFacility-specific
permitting. Individual permits will be
appropriate for some storm water.
discharges in addition to those
identified .under tier II and tier HI
activities. Individual permits should be '
issued where warranted by the
environmental risks of the discharge, the
need for additional, and more complex
individual control mechanisms, a
facility's compliance history or the
potential to consolidate permit
requirements for a particular facility. For
example, individual NPDES permits for
facilities with process discharges should
be expanded during the normal process
of permit reissuance to cover storm
water discharges from the facility. This
provides an opportunity to develop more
facility specific individual controls .
without greatly increasing incremental
administrative burdens. '
2. State Storm Water Permitting Plans
EPA believes that State Storm Water..
Permitting Plans provide an effective
basis for ensuring adequate public input
evaluating program activities and.
priorities, and providing program
oversight during the earlier .stages of .-...
program development These plans will ,
provide an effective coordination and
tracking mechanism for evaluating the
initial permitting activities for.storm
water discharges required under section
402(p) of the CWA. In addition. State . .
Storm Water Permitting" Plans will . '. .
provide a framework within which.to' ' ,
'coordinate and asses the relationship
-------
.Federal .Register I VoL 57..
April 2. 1992 / Rules and Regulations 31399
J appropriate priorities between
Strolling storm water discharges '
W3er the'NPpES.prbgram with other '
jorVto address diffuse sources of
"Ir pollution, such as State Nonpoint
ce Control Programs developed
3er section 319 of the CWA.
PA has outlined below a number of
{'components .and elements of State
! are essential to assure
lu^~-ful implementation of the storm
ater initiative called for Jn section
p) of the CWA. At a minimum. State
,.m Water Permitting Plans should
dude a description of an oversight"
ategy regarding fhe implementation of
ENPDES permits for discharges from large
,&and medium municipal, separate storm
Ksewer systems; storm water discharges
£ associated with industrial activity; and
^case-by-case designations of storm
£water discharges needing a permit
£Plans. should be developed for each
; State by the NPDES authority (e-g. either
_£an authorizeANPDES State, or, where a:
^:- State does not have base program
f authorization, by EPA).
|;; EPA: is requesting that draft State
|f Storm Water Permitting Plans be
ft';' provided to the Office of Waste water .
£' Enforcement and Compliance by April 3,
^'1995. EPA anticipates that States will
£ update these plans on a regular basis.
I^These plans will assist EPA in
"* technology-transfer activities with other
\ States, evaluating the progress of States
< in implementing storm water permitting .
* activities, and in-identifying both
successes and difficulties with ongoing
.program implementation. The initial ..
. State Storm .Water Permitting Plan will
also entail prisliminpry planning,
,-, assessment and tracking that will be
,vj£;- essential to developing phase H State
Storm Water Management Programs
called for under section 4O2(p)(6) of the
CWA.
The basic framework for the Plan
should include the following elements
on a State-wide-basis:
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Systems
A list of municipal separate storm
sewer systems serving a population of
100,000 or more within the State;
For systems identified, a summary
of the estimated pollutant loadings as
initially provided in the permit .
application for such discharges, and as
otherwise updated;
The status of the issuance of
permits for discharges from municipal
separate storm sewer systems serving a
population of 100.000 or more, including
any NPDES permit number for such
discharges; and
An outline of the major components
of municipal storm water management
programs required under permits for
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewer systems, including a
detailed description of the
implementation of any innovative or
model municipal program components.
Storm Water Discharges Associated
With Industrial Activity
_ A description of the status of
activities to issue and implement
baseline general permits, including a
copy of any final general permit for .
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activitiy;'
Alistof categories of industrial
facilities that have storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity that are being considered for
industry-specific storm water general
permits;
A description of procedures,
including activities conducted under any
general permit (such as inspections,
review of notices of intent or review of
monitoring reports) to identify specific
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity that are appropriate
for individual permits;
A description of how permits for
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewer systems require the
development of muncipal storm water
management programs addressing the
control of pollutants in storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity. ' . : . .
Impacted Waters
A description of procedures to
identify receiving waters where
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewers, storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity, or
any other class of storm water
discharges are, or have the potential to.
cause or contribute to a violation of a
water quality standard, including a list
of waters identified by these procedures.
A plan to evaluate improvements to
water quality resulting from controlling
storm water discharges.
Case-by-Case Designations.
A description of procedures to
identify storm water discharges (other
than those currently subject to
requirements for obtaining a permit) that
contribute to a violation of a water
quality'standard or significantly
contribute pollutants to the waters of
the United States.
A list of storm water discharges
(and associated receiving waters) that
have been designated or are being
considered for designation under section
402(p)(2)(E) of the CWA as needing a
permit.
EPA strongly encourages public
participation and comment including
efforts to coordinate with appropriate *
Federal and State land managers, at the
State level during the development of
these plans. ',-''"'
These initial State storm water plan
components will assist the . '."
implementation of permitting efforts for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity and other priority
storm water discharges by creating a
framework for planning and prioritizing
State storm water permitting activities,
tracking State permit issuance efforts,
and providing EPA information for
technology transfer purposes among
NPDES permitting authorities and other
State agencies. The State Storm Water
Permitting Plans will provide a ...
framework for implementing die tiered
long-term strategy for permitting storm
water discharges associated with .
industrial activity, and so noted above,
it will assure preliminary State-wide
planning and assessment that will be ,
essential to developing phase n State
Storm Water Management Programs
required under section 402fj){6) of the
CWA. In reviewing State Storm Water
Permitting Plans, EPA will coordinate
with Federal Agencies -mat may .be
affected by components of the plans. "
3. States without NPDES General Permit -
Authority -. ...' .: , ,
As noted, the issuance of general
permits is an important component in
the recommended permit issuing.
strategy. Presently 38 States {and-1-
territory) have been authorized to'.
implement the NPDES permit program.
However, only 29 of these States have
been authorized to issue general
permits. If NPDES authority is not
obtained for any of the remaining 1O
States, individual NPDES permits based
on the submission of individual or group
applications will have to be issued for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity. It is important to
emphasize that under the CWA, EPA
cannot issue general permits in States
that have been authorized to administer
the base NPDES program,
EPA strongly recommends authorized
NPDES States without general permit
authority to obtain general permit.
authority as soon as possible. EPA is
currently working with these States to
provide technical assistance and
support and to expedite the
authorization process.
i
Fi
ft
-------
11400 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 64 / Thursday. April 2. 1992 /-Rules and Regulations
4. Response to Comments
a. Tiered priorities. Many commenters
agreed that EPA and authorized NPDES
States should prioritize permit issuance
efforts for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity, and
indicated that the tiered priorities
identified byEPA generally establish an
appropriate conceptual framework for'
such efforts. These commenters
generally indicated that the four tier
strategy provides appropriate
opportunities to identify high-risk
discharges. In response, the Agency
agrees and is retaining the four tiered
set of priorities as discussed-in the
August 16,1991 proposal.'
Some commenters indicated that they
thought EPA and authorized NPDES .
States should be bound to implementing
the tiered priorities consecutively in the
order reflected by the four tiers. These
commenters indicated that the draft
general permits noticed on August 16,
1991 by EPA violated the tiered priority
approach bacause the permits contained
some permit conditions which were
above a tier I baseline set of pollution
prevention measures. EPA disagrees'
with these comments. The Agency
wants to clarify that it only intends the
four tiered set of priorities to be used as
a general conceptual framework'which
can be used to describe efforts to issue
permits. The strategy for setting storm
water permit issuance priorities is riot
intended to be a set of regulatory
requirements binding on EPA, States, or'
industrial dischargers. Articulating
tiered priorities does not legally restrict
conditions in permits issued by EPA or
authorized NPDES States:-Rather all
NPDES permits, including permits for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity, must be in
compliance with sections 301 and 402 of
the CWA. A major purpose of
, articulating tiered priorities is-to assist
in identifying and developing
appropriate permit conditions for high-
risk facilities. Tier I baseline general
permits which have some of the
characteristics of tier II or in permits are
consistent with these objectives.
b. State Plans. Some States supported
the concept of Plans, but were ,
concerned that scheduling plan
development one year after the date of .
today's rule would hinder the initial _ .
development of storm water programs in
a number of States. These commenters .
indicated.that the NPDES storm water
program would be in its initial stage of
implementatipn-.and authorized NPDES
States would be busy conducting a
number-of critical activities,such as. .
obtaining general permit authority.
issuing baseline general permits, and
issuing permits for discharges from large
and medium municipal separate storm
sewer systems. They indicated that
these activities could be disrupted if
States placed top priority on developing
and submitting plans within a year of
today's action. EPA agrees with these
concerns, and believes that while
development of these plans should begin
early in the storm water permit issuance
process to help guide implementation,
draft plans do not need to be prepared
for submission until April 3,1995.
One State stressed that permitting
plans were necessary to assure national
equitability and prevent economic
disincentives in States with progressive
storm water management programs.
EPA believes that one of its goals in
overseeing the development of the
NPDES program is to ensure that NPDES
permits for storm water discharges
reflect the requirements of the CWA in
an equitable manner that reflects the '
technology-based and: water quality-
based requirements of the CWA. At the
same time; the Agency recognizes the
need to provide sufficient regulatory
flexibility to allow States to make
rational and reasonable permitting
decisions. For example, today's rule
provides permit writers with additional
flexibility to target high risk discharges
and establish group or facility specific
monitoring and reporting requirements
in NPDES permits for'storm water
discharges associated with, industrial
activity. In addition, permit conditions
for most classes of storm water
discharges will be. established on- a,
case-by-case basis. Nonetheless, the
Agency agrees with the commenter that
State Storm Water Permitting Plans can
provide an important tool to ensure that
NPDES storm water programs in . - .
different States reflect pollution control
requirements.consistent with the CWA
while maintaining the adequate
flexibility necessary io successfully
implement the NPDES storm water
program.
Several authorized NPDES States did
not support the idea of State Storm
Water Permitting Plans, but rather
indicated that annual EPA/State
agreements could be used as a tool for
oversight of the NPDES storm water
program. In response; the Agency
believes that the approach.in the Plans
is consistent with and can be- - -
implemented- as a component- of annual '
EPA/State agreements if there is an -
adequate level of detail and specificity
and the State and EPA Region agree on
including the elements noted above 'as
part of the annual oversight process: The
Agency believes that .by publishing a -
framework for these [Plans, it will"
provide States with notice of necessary
Plan elements, provide a nationally
consistent approach for evaluating
program progress, facilitate technology '
transfer activities, encourage public
participation, and ensure that risks are
evaluated ion the conjext of the entire
NPDES storm water program..
In the August 16,, 1991 notice; the .
Agency requested comments on whether
the guidelines for Plans sh'ould:be made
requirements that are incorporated into
EPA regulations, or remain non-binding
recommendations for States. Most of the
commenters that responded to this issue
urged EPA to make the guidelines for
Plans non-binding recommendations for
the States. While EPA notes mat it may
require preparation of such Plans '',
pursuant to Section 402(p)(6) of the '
CWA. the Agency agrees with the
commenters that establishing guidelines
for Phase I storm water permitting plans
as non-binding recommendations :
provides an amount of flexibility that is
appropriate at this point in the .
program's development'Therefore, the
Agency is clarifying that the guidelines,
for Phase I Plans and the request to -'. .
prepare and submit Plans to E3PA-are -.".'
non-binding recommendations at this ....
point hi time. . .' - ;.' -..i"-
B. Minimum Monitoring and Reporting :'x
Requirements for Storm Water- :_.- ="
Discharges--- '._;''. ' ' "V:'.;;
Current NPDES regulations at 40 CFJL ,.
122.44(i)(2j provide .that all NPDES .';" _
permits are to establish requirements to ':
report monitoring results with a '..'..' .
frequency dependent on the nature arid.. j
effect of the discharge, but in ho case '_ '
less than once a year. In the August 18, J
1991 proposal, EPA requested comment
. on six-major options for modifying 40'
CFR 122.44(i)(2) to provide mboimum' ]:.;
monitoring and reporting requirements ~"
specifically addressing storm' water' :-:
discharges associated with- industrial
activity. *' . '
In the August 16,1991 proposal the
Agency identified a number of-factors -
. that it would consider when evaluating
this issue: ,".;. -.-<'''
Difficulties in Sample Collection-- '>
Collection-of storm water samples may;--
pose a number of potential difficulties.--.
These difficulties.include detennining -: .
when a discharge will--occur;".safery- -.= ~^-
considerations, the potential for a:--;^-:-.
' multiple discharge points at a single
facility, the intermittent nature of the., -
event the limited number of events that-
occur in some parts-of the'country. and_;
variability flow rates." '_'""".' ".'..*.'!"
Variability b/pato-7-The.types .'an
concentrations of pollutants, in atdrjn -
water discharges associated with -*"
.' "-*%
a-,.
-------
l. 57..No. J64/Thursday. April 2. 1992 / Rules and .Regulations
11401
industrial activity depend on a number
of factors, including the nature of
industrial-activities-occurring at ihe site.
the nature of the precipitation event
generating the discharge, and the time'
period from the last storm. Variations in
these parameters at a site may result in
variation from event'to event in the
concentrations and types of pollutants'
in a given discharge." ' -. ; ,
Types 'of Permit Conditions-^Permits
for industrial process discharges and
discharges from PQTWs" traditionally "
.' have incorporated ^numeric and/or '
toxidty effluent limitations as V.."
conditions. Monitoring reports'for these
discharges provide a direct indication
whether the discharge-complies with
permit conditions. However, it is
anticipated that permits for storm water..
dischargers will contain a variety of
types of;controls. While -numericor :. , ..
toxidty limitations are expected to be
appropriate for some.storm water-..-. -. .
discharges^permits for other storm
water discharges are expected to
contain requirements to implement best
management or pollution prevention
' practice's. In these cases, discharge
sampling information may not provide1
as direct a link to compliance, with . .
permit conditions. However, effluent
monitoring-data can still play-an .;.-.. .
important role in identifying priority
facilities/providing information on
sources and types of pollutants which
can be evaluated when-designing or
modifying best management orpollution
prevention practices, and evaluating the
effectiveness of best management .
practices and pollution prevention
measures.
Administrative Burdens on Permitting
Agencies^Requiring each fatilitythat
discharges storm -water associated with
industrial activity to submit monitoring
data at least annually would result in a
significant increase in the number of
discharge monitoring reports received
by EPA Regions and authorized NPDES
States.7 Receiving annual monitoring
reports containing complex technical
information from each facility with a
storm water discharge associated with
industrial activity would require a
significant amount of permitting
resources dedicated to reviewing and
filing these reports.
7 EPA estimates that if all facilities with storm
water discharges associated with industrial activity
other than oil and gas facilities and inactive mining
operations were required to submit a discharge
monitoring report annually, almost 15% of all
discharge monitoring reports collected annually
under the NPDES program would be for dorm water
discharges associated with industrial activity.
Focused Permitting Efforts ...
The long-term permitting strategy
discussed earlier in today's notice '.
provides for a flexible, risk-based
' system for issuing permits and targeting
priority discharges. Flexibility has been
incorporated into the strategy to
facilitate efforts by EPA and authorized
NPDES States to identify priority
discharges and conduct permit issuance
activities which reflect Regional and
State priorities. Discharge sampling data
from targeted facilities can support the
development of priorities and cari: be :
. used to assist in assessing the
achievement of water management .
goals. As priorities and risks'within a
State are identified and evaluated,
classes of facilities will be targeted for
more specific permit issuance activities
(tiers n, HI arid IV of the strategy).
1. Overview of Proposed Options and ,
Comments .... ..'..
-In the August 16,1991 proposal, EPA
identified six major options (plus a no
change option) for establishing minimum
monitoring requirements in NPDES
permits for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity;
.These options only addressed minimum
requirements for discharge monitoring in
NPDES permits. All options retained '.'
authority .for NPDES permit authorities
to require more stringent monitoring
requirements where appropriate. The six
options (plus the no change option) were
as follows:. . :
No Change Option: Case-by-case : '"
monitoring conditions in permits for.'
storm water discharges, with a minimum
requirement to report monitoring'results
at least annually. "'-...
Option 1: Case-by-case monitoring
conditions in permits for storm water '
discharges with a minimum requirement
to report monitoring results at least
twice per permit term. :
Option 2: Case-by-case monitoring
conditions in permits for storm water
discharges with a minimum requirement
that facilities conduct annual sampling.
Facilities would not be required to '.
report monitoring information unless the
information was requested in a permit
or by the Director, but would be
required to retain information.
Options: Case-by-case monitoring
conditions in permits for storm water
discharges with a minimum requirement
that facilities (other than those from oil
and gas exploration or production
operations and inactive mining
operations where a past or present mine.
operator cannot be identified) conduct
annual sampling^ Facilities would not be
required rto report information .unless the
information was requested in a permit
or by the Director, but would be .
required to retain information. For
contaminated storm water discharges
. from oil and gas exploration or --
production operations or from inactive
mining operations where a pastor .
- present mine operator cannot be
identified, either, case-by-case - :v
monitoring conditions in permits for v'
storm water discharges with a minimum
requirement of annual sampling (without.
:.reporting)or, instead of sampling,.a .
ProfessionaLEngineer's (PE) certification
attesting that good engineering practices
were being employed to meet: ;.-':;. -.
appropriate permit conditions;
Option 4: Case-by-case monitoring
conditions in permits for storm water
discharges with a minimum requirement
that monitoring reports be submitted at
least annually for targeted classes of
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity located'ih the
watershed of receiving waters that are -
sensitive to or impacted by storm water
discharges.' ' "
Option 5: Case-by-case monitoring
conditions in permits for storm water
discharges with -no minimum :
requirement to report monitoring results..
Option 6: Case-by-case monitoring
conditions inipermits for storm water .
discharges, with a minimum requirement
for the first permit for the discharge that
monitoring results be reported at least '
once a year. After a facility has
submitted five years of data, monitoring
"conditions:for storm water would be
established oh a case-by-case basis with
-no'minimum requirementto conduct
annual sampling. ' .'.-
In addition, the Agency indicated that .
'it would consider developing,a final: '
regulation Which combined aspects of::
several of the articulated options (see
August 16,1991 (58 FR 40957)}. The
various'benefits and concerns with each
option were discussed in the August 16,
1991 notice. ..,
The comments received on the options
reflected differing opinions regarding the
need and use of .monitoring in the'
NPDES.storm water program. Some of
the comments expressed views on the -
benefits and drawbacks of different:
monitoring strategies in different
situations. An underlying theme that
emerged from the comments' was that -a
number of factors, such as the -risk to
water quality that different types and
classes of storm"water discharges :
associated with industrial activity
present, the nature of permit conditions
(e.g. such as numeric limitations and
best management practices), and the .'
nature of .the operation of the facility '
should be considered when establishing
-------
f 11402 -Federal Register / VbU 57. No. 64 ./.Thursday. April- £-1992 / Rules and -Regulations
monitoring conditions' in- NPDES permits
tforstorrri-waterldischarges.- .---
i Other-commenters'suggested that-EPA
should allow, alternatives to monitoring.
Some commenters urged the Agency to
expand option 3 to allow other- classes-
of facilities in addition to oil and gas -
operalions.to obtain a PE certification.
to allow facUHy.operators to conduct .. .
inspections,, or certify compliance with a
checklist of pollution, prevention
measures or best management practices "
(BMPs) in lieu of sampling-Other-
commenters suggested'.that other
individuals were as-tjualified or more
qualified than PEs to, perform site
.inspections and that .additional ..
flexibility, should.be provided with ...
regard to the inspection requirement
For example, .some commenters.
indicated thdt.certiSed construction \
Jnspectpjjs'were more appropriate for .
' conducting jrispeciitms.at construction .
,. sites than-PBs. Who might not be -: .
familiar with" soiliand erosion practices
oKntorm/w^r management '. !r ,.,:
technolo'gie's.'Othercominenters .
suggested'.&at site.perspnnel would
typically hjeiri the bei* position tq. .
i e valuate/the1' impjementatio'n of pollution
prevention measures 'and BMPs. .
Other comments urged EPA to.
consider the costs and technical
difficullies,of*ample collection and
analysis "when establishing minimum
monitoring requirements, and
encouraged Ihe'Age'neiytp' 'consider
alternative^' to 'clistliaigeVampIihg.Bucli
as allowing site inspections inljipu of "
n3tonlforuig..In the &ugust:iB. 1991 ,
notice. EJPA had requested Comriients'on
monitoring requirements foruiactive '" '
mining operations', and: some comments
spedficallyadidreBssS-'tHls issue:' '
, " '.,$'-,.>..' V."-..- --- ? . ',:. -...-'. .-
Z-Todsy's-Rule-,.-, --.^f-f.r.- . . ?.:-.. .-
In response to -connneRts, today's- ;
rulemakmg adopts'aft approach -that is a
combination or- hybrid -of -a number'of -
' options identified'in the August 18, -1991
proposal, particularly options 3 and 5.
The final rule provides for establishing
monitoring conditions in NPDES permits
for storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity-mi a case-by-;
case basis. At a minimum, a permit for
such* a discharge must require ther , -
discharger to conduct. an annual , .
inspection of- the. facility .site to identify
areas contributing to. -a..stonn. water .
discharge associated with industrial -
aclivity_and_-eValuate. whether measures
to reduce pollutant loadings identified in
a stbrm.water pollution-prevention plan
' ODC adequatetiiMi.pxoperJy implemented
in nccoolance.with.the. lenna of the ..'. ,.
. ..
l, measures are needed.
The dischargee must be required to .
maintain for a-period of-threeyears a ,-:
record summarizing the results of the -
inspection and-acertification.that-the
facility-is in compliance, with-the.plan
and the permit or identifying any >. =.
incidents of non-compliance. Such.:-<,..
report and certification must.be signed. .
by 9 corporate official.in accordance
with-40CER12Z22. .].-, ; ..;''-
' Today's rule -establishes, a minimum
requirement for annual inspections for
most storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity. The Agency
believes-that a minimum frequency of at
least annual inspections is appropriate
to ensure evaluation of changing
conditions and practices-at a site.."
(especially-those caused by wet weather
and winter conditions occurring- .
throughout a year) and-to ensure '
adequate implementation of pollution' ;
prevention measures on a regular basis.
While option .3 of the August 18,1991
proposal, had requested comment on a
minimum frequency .of «very three years
for a PE-cerufication for oil and gas -. -
operations and certain inactive sites, the
Agency believes that.providing .- .-,.....
additional flexibility.in.who conducts -.
site inspections will sufficiently lower.
compliance costs in some cases to allow
a higher frequency of inspections to be .
feasible. As discussed below, the. .-,
Agency is providing additional
flexibility in estabh'shing monitoring or .
inspection.requirements for storm water
Hifffji^rgpy fnnm inflgti"" 'mining -. . ,.' .
operations, No.commenters on the draft
general permits ia.the .August IS. 1991..
Federal-Register notice, specifically
indicated tha.t it would be infeasible to- -.
comply.with-requireineats in. the draft ,.
general permits to conduct annual -.... -.
inspections- The Agency believes mat a
minimum annual frequency of .-. --:'-
inspections compensates £orJes» formal
requirements with respect 4o specifying.
who must conduct--the .inspection. A. - .:'
minimum annual frequency is also
Consistent with the minimum
requirements for discharges other than
storm water-to report monitoring'.
information at least annually. ..
; A minimum of an annual inspection or
report of monitoring results is not
required for storm water discharges
associated vyith.industriaL activity from
inactive mining operations where
annual, inspections are impracticable. .-
Rather.:permits for-stonn water.:. .-
discharges from inactive mining.-'
operations may .require certification ... :
once every.-three years=by a Registered -.
Professional.Engineer that the facility is
in compliance^vith the permit;or ,.-.
provide for.altemativerequkements; ;.t
This provision will provide Additional ..
flexibility to address inactive mine .
operations. Muring activities-have a-
somewhat unique history-of--'- ->
development and inactivefnining sites
can be dispersed diffusely fat remote. -
hard to reach locations-where = :
.employees may typically not beonsite
to-conduct site-evaluations. In addition.
the inactive natureof these sites may:.
limit changes to potential-fofslonh- "
water discharges from the'site to
contain-pollutants, thereby warranting
less frequent inspections. The Agency
anticipates that certification by
Professional Engineers may often be
appropriate for the'se sites given the "
nature of typical coritrbls for these sites.
and the Knrited-amount of activity
occurring' at them.-Alternative - "'
requirementa may be appropriate for '
storm water dferfiarges 'from'inactive "
mining opetetions in some '" '
circumstances-. For'exam'ple, storm-
operaterCTnndt-beldentifiedipresent-
unique circumstahces.becautk! ofthe :
remote nature and high' number of sites
on large Federally owhedareiis. '"" '" '.
The'Agency; believB'ithat-'ftils nile will -
provide sufBcient flexibility ftff permit
vmters to lestabUsh monitoring '
requirements tiiait reflect the potential -
risk of the discharge'and that are.' '' ..
appropriately related to the nature of the
permit eoaditions fora discharge.;- v.
Today's regttlatory'modification does;" -
not preclude discharge sampling aWol'* _
reporting requirements iri'NPpES '; """
pernjtsforfitbrm'watefdischargea'' ''
associated with'fadustriatactivity/:. \ ;
While' today's rufe'change'proyidfes '
additionalfJexibiTity;toestablish. "'_'
monitoring requirements, ft uoe's not,
lunit the authority of EPA: of iiuthoriized
NPDES States'to establish^amp&ng "^
requirements" where Appf^pnate basecf
onacohsideraKbnotnskicfr'bther
factors. ..''"'"'". '
The Agency recognizes that different.
types of permit conditions .an?..
appropriate for different types of storm
water discharges, filumeric effluent
limitations are appcbpriatp for some . ,r
classes of storm.water discharges.'End-'
bf-pipe numeric isffluent" limitations are.'
' typically used foi'some types'or!, classes
of storm water discharges a88qciated_ ^
'with industrial activitjr.'Tyjpically, ^ v.
NPDES permits for these'clasises of '."^ ".'
discharges 'will, contain numenc'efflue^it
limitations,' and sampling requirements
will be appropriate' fdrth'ese permits."
* For example, the Agency-bu unwdwunaric -
effluent limitation guideline* lor tan cUwei of.
discharge* (bet-ate coopoiodlentfaeljrirf »»«tn '
water or ofotorinr water cocobtocd «rl«h prece**;. -
water..
-------
-Regi»t«r: / -Vol;
64 »/ Thursday. -'April 2-:1992;V'-au!es and -Jtegu)atJc)nA"-:
However, for many;other types of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity. NPDES pennita for'"
. the discharge will require the < ' ' '
implementation of pollution prevention
measures and/or BMPs. Where permits
require the implementation of pollution
prevention measures and/or BMPs, and.
do not establish numeric.-effluent :
Kmltations. conducting inspections to
-. identify sources of pollution '-and to '-;' '' >
! evaluate whether fee' pollution ' ': '< « -'<
prevention-measuresahd/ortBMPs :<>*;
-required by:the permit1 are being---.: -:i * -
.effectively implemented and are in } ^:
'. compliance with the terms of the permit"
may provide.a better indication than -
discharge sampling of whether a facility;
is complying with the permit. As a -
result the Agency believes that today's
rule will also reduce discharge-sampling
burdens on some industrial facilities
with -storm water discharge permits that
require the'implementation'of pollution
preventionjneasurea and BMPs rather
than numeric effluent limitations, while
providing more effective and efficient
environmental benefits. - ' .
' Today's rule does not affect the
manner in which'the NPDES regulations'
address discharges other than storm < : -
'water associated witn'ihdustrial'-:s '';-- -.. ;>
.=activity:Tle-provision8.df40CFR '..
''
than storm -water associated with -
industrial activity establish
requirements to report monitoring " '
results with a frequency dependent on
the nature and effect of the discharge,
but in no case less than once a year. In
addition, today's rule does not change
the manner in which the NPDES
regulations address storm water-
discharges which are subject to an
effluent limitation guideline (e.g. a '
minimum of annual monitoring is still
required for these facilities}.
3.Response to Comment '\, .'.,." . :. ..
Somecommenters-questionedithe - ;
value of sampling data-for storm :water:
' : discharges in certain situations'. In -
response; the Agency believes that, in
certain instances.' storm water 'discharge
monitoring data will play a number of
critical roles in the NPDES program. As
discussed above, some permits for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity will establish
technology or water quality-based
numeric limitations. Discharge .
monitoring reports will be an important
means of assessing compliance with
these requirements: -Discharge
monitoring, including monitoring
requirements in permits that do not
establish numeric limitations, plays a
number of other functioria-in the-p'ermit "
program; ' ' .-:".- .Vy "'.''' :'
Discharge monitoring data «an be '-' '-'
used to assist:in the evaluation of the ' "- '
risk of discharges by indicating the " '"'
types and the conoentralioris of ": ' ' ' ' ":
pollut ant parameters in the :discharg₯.- '>'
Discharge monitoring data 'clan also 'tie' ' ' ' -"
used to support the development -of ' *<>'*
' future permit conditions' and controls,^ ' v-
" assist iri1dentifying86urce%r6f' <: vi;7'"4:- '
pollutants at-aiadlity;'aB8ist;tri th'ey? -"-
: evaluation -of the'effectiveriess of :'« ;'''";
- pollution prevention measures :arid :-> ' "''
'of facilitieSibut'Aat'across^th'e-board. =:- :;-
. monitoring requirements forall facilities ; -
Vithr storm waterdischargeaf'ass'ociated r..
with industrial activity may not be an. *;.: ;
'appropriate orcost-«ffective:U8e of '< .*':, >
tesotirces: A number of )ustincatid'rtsw:;
>( water quality-based ImpactsVStorm'- ::'"-"'
water discharge m'pnitbririg.da'ta ^wlll » '''
have an important role, along with other
information, in ideritifymg'fciciHtiesor
classes of facilities where tier II. HI and
IV permit issuance activities are ' ' " ; ' '
appropriate. . " ' *' -';:' '' "'_ ['
' Several 'commenters offered'a number
of suggestions for monitorhtg-p'rograms
for storm water discharges. In response; '
EPA generally recognizes thfrt'theryare "
a number of innovative arid Hsk-ba8ed: :
approaches to developing monitoring ;
strategies for storm water discharges
' assbciatedwth industriaifactivity: Por ;
- example,'monitoringTequlrement8 -for r
-: storm water-discharges associated with
that are impacted by 6r sensitive tp;:;:-'";{;'
storm water discharges aa proposed'iia'~.
option 4. In order to encourage States'to
explore efficient, innovative and cost-
effective monitoring programs, today's
rule provides flexibility to establish r .
different monitoring strategies and does:
not adopt option4t although.the-.= -; .-
minimum requirements adopted today '
do not preclude the use of. an option 4
type approach'where appropriate. (The
same is true'for options 1,2, or 6; EPA or
authorized NPDES States retain the-
flexibility to use these types of
approaches on a permit-specific basis}.;"
"The Agency b'eiieves'that-this approach
' offers the'greatest potential for using
1 permits to generate information on '- "
' prioritystorm'-watef discharges .that can
' be used:t6 assist-in the development of
controls: *':' ~. ' -- -
Many commeriters urged-EPA to '
provide sufficient regulatory flexibility
to permit writers to 'establish discharge
sampling and reporting requirements for.
storm water discharges 'associated with'
industrial activity 'on a .case^byrcase'
basis. Many commenters favored-
establishing-discharge sampling
requirements in a risk-based manner. A-
number of-these commenters suggested
that it was important-to sample storm
water discharges associated-with' ' '' :
- industrial-activity from priority classes
ibility could-aTldw-establishing:-'
:-monitoring and reporting'reqinrements:--,-;.- ~
in a'risk-based'raannen^soirie' types *«« 2-
'.of facilities may.not be significant ','<; '' J- -"' :>
rrcontribii'tors ofipoUutaritSAwherilhey '* x X:- '.; *.
:-were in cpiiipliance'withL^ollutiorii$ j."«**., s-
^prevehtiori measures or.plansi<3) mr^-^ ;:"-ik'.-'
' sbme'situatibris site inspections would -V-7^
be more appropriate thaninonitoring-for
determining permit compliance; (4};EPA ."
arid authorized NPDES States-have . : -':
limited ability-to effectively review data;
' {5}'the potential burdens on small ~,, -:.< -.- - j
: businesses arid facilities in arid climates-.'
could be significant; {6} tiiere wouldbefy; -:.;.
difficulties in cnaracterizing storm-water. ..'"'
: disteharges with'sampUng data; and (7}' ' : :
EPA needs to focus on storm water '".« '
discharges with the'highest'riak. Some ' :
cpmmenters summarized: these concerns
by indicating-that they beHeved that for:; >;
; :spme storm water .discharges associated''...'.
'-with industrial:abtivity. oyeriy-broadC; v;f
.idiBcharge monitoriiig.requirements- ; -: ;!'£ : .': .
;could'be'cburiterproductive toward .the!'- i.-.-, '..
goals of therprpgram, as?significani.«'-;r v/si ...
iiresourceswbuid have-to be expended ;'-;k^ »-
'cpllectingand analyzing discharge.:: .'.:'.;/,/.
samples.'thereby limiting available ;>- : ":
'resources at some facih'tiea,-such-as.. :: -
certain small businesses.'to implement:
measures that would result to the;:-<^ '*> ' '
removal: pi pollutants ui:their storm ? :: .
-. -water' discharges. .Other.commenters "-' .
raised concerns regarding sainphng . ' -.;
storm water discharges from^specific;' =" = ..
. classe8;of industries. For .example,- . -
. 'representatives of the construction - - ' -.
industry contended that'mbrritoring . ; .
'storm- water from construction sites has -
'limited usefulness due to the changing '..'.'....
" nature of the activity. '.. ',-.- - .
- As discussed above' EPA has : ' ' * > -
'-designed today's rule to address all of.- T -:''.
. these concerns; Since today'sTule >; : "-;-;','' '
provides'additional flexibility-in'the:"-.-. ;
NPDES regulatory framework to '?
establish monitoring requirements for -: '
storm water discharges associated with
.industrial activity, .the Agency believes
that the concerns raised by the- ': ' :"
commienters^ where appropriate.'can be
addressed during the permit issuance
process under.the flexible regulatory;
framework eatabliehed by'today:s rule; '
In particular: the Agency believes that
. today's rule, which relies on'site' ' " ' :
inspections as minimum requirements.
provides a more!efficient and-cost- ': '
' effective approach for evaluating the
-------
31404 Federal Register / VoL 57. No. 64 / Thursday. April 2. 1992 / Rules and Regulations;'
effectiveness of permit program
implementation. The Agency notes that
site inspections are typically an integral
part of pollution'prevention measures
and best management practices for .
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity.9
Option 3 of the August 16.1991
proposal would have provided flexibility
when establishing monitoring
requirements for storm water discharges
from oil arid gas exploration or
production operations or from inactive
mining operations where a past or
present mine-dperator cannot be
identified by allowing either a minimum
requirement of annual sampling (without
reporting) or, instead of sampling, a
Professional Engineer's (PE) certification
attesting that good engineering practices
were being employed to meet
appropriate permit conditions. The
Agency requested comment on whether
the PE certification was appropriate and
whether it should be extended to other
classes of facilities. . ' ] . . .
Some commenters suggested that
other individuals were as qualified or
more qualifierd than PEs to perform site !
inspections and that additional
flexibility should be provided with
regard to thelnspection requirement.
For example^ some commenters
indicated that certified construction'
inspectors were more appropriate for ~
conducting inspections'at construction "
sites than.PEs *ino might not'be familiar
with soil an'd'erosion practices or storm
water management technologies. Other
commenters suggested that site
personnel would typically be in the best
position to evaluate the implementation'
of pollution prevention measures and
BMPs. In response,' today's rule provides
flexibility to allow site'mspections to be
'conducted by persons other than PEs.''
While the Agency believes it is
appropriate to require PE certifications
in certain circumstances, the approach
taken with today's rule will provide
additional flexibility in developing these
requirements. »"-.,: , ;
A number of commenters suggested .
that PE certifications were appropriate -.
For example.EPA noticed tfraft general permits
for8toanwaterUUU^a^ud ULC4X. (56 FR/. .
40906)). Under the draft general.pennil*. permittee*
Out operate corntrtxAion activities are lequlied to
Inipect alt eroatoa controb'oa «w> tito at leewt onoe
every sevencaicxiar-day*"(«cepai* rflCSb^S).SB
FR 409S9). , ....
for classes of storm water discharges .
associated with industrial activity other
than those from oil and gas operations.
These commeaters indicated that such a
certification could, in many cases, be
less burdensome than discharge
monitoring, and that such certifications
could provide a.closer link to..-.
compliance with pollution prevention
measures and-best management .
practices. As discussed above..today's
rule provides that requirements to
conduct annual site inspections can .be
established as minimum monitoring- .
requirements in permits for storm water'
discharges. The Agency agrees with
these, comment* to the.extent that it is .
convinced that site inspections can . .
provide an appropriate means for
evaluating compliance, with pollution .
prevention measures and best
management practices for storm water.
discharges.from different types of-.. ..
facilities. In addition, site inspections
can be less .burdensome than sampling .
storm water discharges for some
facilities. Requiring annual inspections .
and reviewing documentation as part of
routine compliance inspections or at the
time of permit reissuance also makes .
effective iise of Ihe limited resources of i .
permit issuance; authorities, by allowing .
. permit issuing agencies more time .to. .;.
. focus raissues other than receiving,, -..-
re vie wmg and filing monitoring data- ...
Pom? 5y»m,nn»Tirar» indicated .that EPA
. and authorized NPDES States Bhould,..
only require facilities to monitor storm:.
water discharges associated with
industrial activity where the permit
issuing agencies can evaluate the data.
The Agency, recognizes that EPA and .
some authorized NPDES States .cannot. '
provide adequate .resources to ensure. ;
that all yliffr.lv rg^ monitoring 'data-can ..
be. inspected. However,! the Agency .
. believes that even where, discharge. -..-
monitoring data is not reviewed on an
.ongoing basis by a permit issuing ..:
authority,, the data can still be very
usefuLfacilities which [discharge should
, review their discharge sampling data to
.... identify sources and types of pollutants. .
..in discharges, and to evaluate, the; .< .> .-.,
effectiveness of pollution prevention
. measures and BMPs. Where an NPDES
. permit does not require & discharger to .
.report sampling data, EPA or an: .., .. ..
j authorized NPDES. State.will typically -
\ be able to .request .the data on a case-by-
'... case basis, or request .that the data ;be. ..
",..'. submitted for consideration prior to-
permit reissuance. . .....: .- ... , .
Some commenters expressed concerns
... . about minimum monitoring requirements
., > for storm water discharges from inactive
. mining operations. EPA agrees that in -
'.some circumstances, discharge sampling
or annual,inspection* may be
particularly burdensome at inactive
mining operations, because mining
operations often are found in remote
areas that are not necessarily supported
by infrastructure that allows easy
access. In addition, at some inactive
mining operations, inspections may not.
be as integrally related to pollution. ".
prevention-measures for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity, as pollution prevention
measures wiltnot focus on day to day
management activities. EPA'has :. .
modified today's rule accordingly.
A number of commenters addressed
the specific monitoring requirements in
the draft general permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial' :
activity in the August 16,1991 notice.
The Agency wants to clarify that the
amendments to 40 CFRl22.44{i)(2} in
today's rule establish minimum "''
monitoring and reporting requirements
for NPDES permits for storm water .
discharges associated with industrial
activity. The Agency will respond to
comments on the specific monitoring'
requirements in the draft general :..-..-
permits jn the August 18,1991 notice as
- part of the fact sheets and/or ::. . .-
. administrative records for those.permits.
C. ApplicationReq'uirements-for. . '...,.. .'.
General Permits ... ' .._ . . /.'..I,:,,'.,/' "
Theprovisioasof40CFR122.Zl(a) .
exclude persons -covered by general. ...:'
permits from requirements to Btibmit
individual permit applications.. - ;
Currently, the general permit regulations
at 40 CFR 122^8, however, do not
address the issue of how a potential
permittee is to apply to be covered
under a general permit Rather, , - ..
: conditions fbrfiUng an application .to be '
covered by a general permit (typically
called a Notice of Intent (NOI)) have
been established on a case-by-case .
. basis. NOI requirements established in -
general permits operate uisteadi of
individual permit application - . .
requirements for the discharge* covered
: by the general permit.^:-..;.- .;'..- ;.. v-.- - .
" 1. August 18,1991 Proposal / ' ' ' "
The August 16.1991 notice proposed
several modifications to the NPDES ;
regulatory framework for general
permits. (Theproposedchangea ''
' addressed NPDES general permits for all
.classes of discharges and sludge
disposal, and-was not limited to storm
water discharges). The proposal
addressed procedures for becoming
authorized to discharge under a general
permit minimum requirements for NOIs
to be covered by a general permit and
deadlines for submitting NOIs.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. S7. No. 64 / Thursday. April 2. 1992 / Rules arid Regulations 11405
2. Today's Rule ..
Today's rule finalizes modifications to
the NPDES regulatory framework for
general permits addressing procedures
for becoming authorized to discharge
under an NPDES general permit,
minimum requirements for notices of
intent (NOI) to be covered by a general
permit, and deadlines for submitting
NOIs.
The regulatory framework provided
by today's rule requires that, except for
in two situations, an NOI must be
submitted by a discharger (or treatment
works treating domestic sewage) in
order to be authorized to discharge (or
in the case of a sludge disposal permit
to engage in a sludge use or disposal
practice) under an NPDES general
permit The first situation where an NOI
will not have to be submitted to
authorize discharges under a general"
permit is where the Director notifies the
discharger that its discharge is covered
by the permi^The second situation
where NOIs are not required under a
general permit is where the Director
provides in the general permit that a
submission of an NOI is not required,
where the Director finds that an NOI
requirement is inappropriate for that
general permit
In making a .decision that an NOI is
inappropriate for a general permit the
Director will consider the type of
discharge, the expected nature of the
discharge, the potential for toxic end
conventional pollutants in the
discharges, the expected volume of the
discharges, other means of identifying
discharges covered fay the permit and
the estimated number of discharges to
be covered by the permit. Also, in
making this decision, the Director is
required to describe the reasons for not
requiring an NOI in the fact sheet of the
general permit Under today's rule, such
a finding could only be made for.
discharges other than discharges from
POTWs, combined sewer overflows
(CSOs), primary industrial facilities, and
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity. The Agency believes
that given the potential environmental
significance and NPDES program
priorities associated with discharges
from POTWs. CSOs, primary industrial
facilities, and storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity, it is
appropriate la require NOIs in all
general permits for these discharges.
Today's rule establishes minimum
requirements for NOIs in NPDES general
permits at 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)(ii). This
provision requires that the contents of
the notice of intent be specified in the
general permit and shall require the
submission of information necessary for
adequate program implementation, . -
including at a minimum, the legal name
and address of the owner of operator.
the facility name and address, type of
facility or discharges, and the receiving
stream(s). This provision specifies
minimum NOI requirements. General "
permits may require that additional ,;
information be reported in NOIs where
appropriate!., --...- '-.';.--. ;
The NOI provisions of this mle allow
the Director to establish alternative
notice of intent requirements for general
permits for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
inactive mining inactive oil and gas
operations, or inactive landfills
occurring on Federal lands where an
operator cannot be identified. The
Agency is currently developing general
permits for storm water discharges from
inactive mines, inactive oil and gas
operations and inactive landfills
occurring on Federal lands. During the
process of developing and issuing these
permits. EPA will work with authorized
NPDES States to determine appropriate
NOI requirements for these permits
given the unique nature, distribution.
and occurrence of these discharges.
Today's rule also provides that
general permits requiring the submittal
of NOIs shall specify deadlines for -
submitting notices of intent and the
date(s) when a discharger is authorized
to discharge under the permit
The Agency believes that deadlines
for submittal of an NOI are an important
part of NOI requirements, and that
general permits should state when NOIs
must be submitted. In addition, the
permit should,clarify when a discharge
is authorized under the permit In many
cases, the Agency anticipates that
general permits will provide that a
discharger obtains coverage under the
general permit after a specified time
period passes after the date of submittal
of an NOI. This' approach will provide
the NPDES authority with an
opportunity to review the NOI prior to
the authorization'of the discharge. In
other situations, it may be appropriate
for general permits to provide that a
discharge is authorized as soon as a
complete and timely NOI is received.
The August 16,1991 notice proposed
in 40 CFR 122^8(b)(2)(iii) that unless a
general permit provided alternative time
periods, an NOI was to be submitted 60
days before the date of intended permit
coverage. The final rule amends this
paragraph such that no default deadline
for submission is specified. Rather, the
deadline for NOI submission will be
established on a permit-specific basis.
Today's rule simply requires that this
issue be addressed in the general permit
but leaves the permitting authority this
decision of which approach is most ' -
appropriate. The approach in the final -
rule will avoid the confusion that arose
with the proposed regulatory language
used in the Augustie, 1991 notice. >
Today's rule also requires that NPDES -
general permits shall specify whether a '
discharger that has submitted a;--:' '- -
complete and timely notice of intent to-"
be covered in accordance with the.
general permit and that is eligible for
coverage under the permit is authorized
to discharge either in accordance with
the permit upon receipt trf the notice of
intent by the Director, after-a waiting'
period specified in the general permit
on a date specified in the general permit,
or upon receipt of notification of
inclusion by the Director. EPA has
rewritten the proposed language in 40'
CFR 122JZ8(b)(2}(iv) to make this
provision clearer,-but has not changed
its intent The Agency believes that the
approach taken in the final rule retains
the flexibility of the proposal while
accomplishing the same purpose.
The Agency is finalizing this
regulatory framework for NOIs with
NPDES general permits to encourage the
use of general permits, to provide for
more consistent NOI requirements, and
to ensure that dischargers covered by
general permits provide appropriate
information. Further, the Agency
believes that today's regulatory
framework provides a regulatory
framework that is consistent with
existing practices of EPA and authorized
NPDES States.
3. Response to Comments
Most commenters addressing the
proposed framework for NOIs supported
the concept as a useful tool for the
NPDES program. Some of these
commenters urged EPA to use NOIs as a
tool to minimize burdens on the
authority issuing permits and reduce
costs relative to submitting individual
permit applications.'Commenters
indicated that an additional reason for
using NOIs was to assist in clarifying
whether a facility was covered by a
given general permit.
The Agency agrees with these
comments. NOIs serve a number of
functions. NOI requirements in general
permits can establish a clear accounting
of the number of permittees covered by
the general permit, the nature of
operations at the facility generating the
discharge, and their identity, location
and receiving waters. NOIs can be used
to develop a data base of facility-
specific information. NOIs can be used
as a screening tool to identify discharges
where individual permits are
-------
11406 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 64 / Thursday. April 2. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
I
«i;
\
appropriate. For example, the
identification of discharges to receiving
waters with impaired water quality can
be used to target facilities for priority
permitting efforts. Also, the NOI can be
used to identify classes of discharges
appropriate for more specific general
permits covering a more limited set of
discharges. The NOI can provide
'information needed by the Director to
notify dischargers that a more specific
general permit was issued. The NOI also
can identify the permittee to provide a
basis.to develop and implement
enforcement and compliance monitoring
strategies and priorities. In addition, the
administrative burdens on the
permitting issuing agency and the costs
to dischargers can be reduced by
replacing more complicated permit
application requirements with simplified
requirements.
One State commented that EPA
should not mandate by regulation the
information required in an NOI, which it
believed should be left to the State or
EPA Region issuing a general permit In
response, the Agency believes that
today's regulatory framework provides
sufficient flexibility for developing NOI'
requirements, and that the minimum
information requirements of today's rule'
represent essential information
necessary formeeting the'program
objectives outlined above. Under
today's rule, the minimum requirements
for NOIs include the legal name of the
owner or operator and the facility name-
and address. EPA believes that this
information is essential to identify the
location of the facility for compliance
purposes and to provide mailing
addresses necessary to Conduct any
correspondence. The minimum NOI
requirements also include a description
of the type of facility or dischargers.
This description is necessary to provide
information to screen whether the
discharge is eligible for coverage under
the general permit.and to allow the .
permit writer to begin to identify priority
discharges. Finally, the minimum NOI
requirements include the receiving
stream(s). This information is necessary
to adequately identify the discharges to
impaired receiving waters where water
quality-based permits are necessary.
Some commenters indicated that they
believed that all discharges should be
required to submit an NOL Various
reasons were provided to support this
approach, including that .the NPDES .
authority needed to know of all facilities
that discharged storm water to a given
water body, and that dischargers should
not be required to comply with a permit
unless they submit a notification. In .
response, the Agency'believes that most
i
general permits will require the
submittal of NOL However, there may
be some situations where it may be
more appropriate to have the Director
notify dischargers that they are covered
by a general permit or( that NOI
requirements are otherwise not
appropriate. '
For example, issuing a general permit
without NOI requirements may be an
appropriate way for EPA and authorized
NPDES States to minimize
administrative burdens and compliance
costs in permits for small discharges . "
which have been determined to have
. minimal or no. impacts on receiving
waters. Today's regulation provide some
flexibility to address these situations.
In the August 16,1991 notice. EPA
requested comment on whether it is
appropriate to require NOIs for the large
number of contaminated storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from oil and gas exploration and
production operations. Most
commenters on this issue indicated that
they thought NOIs should be required in
general permits for storm water '
discharges from oil and gas operations. '
One State commented that it believed
that it would be inappropriate to
exclude a class of discharges from the
requirements to submit an NOI unless
there is. an alternative method that can
and will be used to track these
discharges. A different commenter
indicated that oil and gas operations
were adequately monitored through the
Spill Prevention Control and '
Countenneasure (SPCC) program and
that NOIs for NPDES general permits
would not be necessary. A luunber of
the commenters expressed confusion
over the relationship between this
provision and section! 402(1X2) of the -
CWA10, and suggested that requiring
»° Section 402(1)(2) of thejCWA provides that '.
NPDES permit, shall not be, required for storm
water runoff from mining operation* or oil and gas
exploration, production, processing or treatment
operations or transmission facilities, composed
entirely of flows which are from conveyances or
systems of conveyances (including but not limited .
to pipes, conduits, ditches, and channels) used for
collecting and conveying precipitation runoff and
which are not contaminated by contact with or that
has not come into contact with, any overburden,
raw material, intermediate products, finished
product, byproduct or waste product* located on the
site of such operation. EPA published permit
application regulations consistent with section
402(1)(2) on November 16.1990 (55 FR 480030).
These regulations require permit applications for
discharges composed entirely of storm water
associated with industrial activity from oil or gas
exploration, production, processing, or treatment
operations, or transmission facilities only when a
discharge of storm waters results In a discharge of a
importable quantity for which notification is or was.:.
required pursuant to 40 CFR11721.4O CFR 302-8, or .
40 CFR lias at anytime smfce November 16,1987. or.:
the discharge contributes to a violation of a water-'
NOIs in NPDES permits for storm water
discharges from oil and gas operations
would minimize this confusion.
After evaluation of the comments.
EPA believes, that except for the
situation of inactive oil and gas
operations on Federal lands discussed
below, it is not appropriate to exclude
contaminated storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
oil and gas exploration and production
operations from the minimum NOI
requirements, and therefore, today's rule
does not treat storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
oil and gas operations differently than
other storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity in this regard. As
a result, today's rule does not contain a
specific reference to storm water
discharges from oil and gas operations.
The Agency believes that NOI
requirements in general permits for
storm water discharges from oil and gas
operation will provide for a dear
tracking mechanism that is currently
unavailable under the SPCC program ".
In addition, as was pointed put by . ;.
commenters, the NOI process can be ..
used to identify facilities with
contaminated runoff, and therefore
minimize confusion with respect to the
provisions of section 402(1)(2] of the
CWA. . . .
One commenter requested -.
clarification on the procedures that
would-be followed to ensure that .
permits requiring Director notification
instead of facility submission of an NOI
are in compliance with the procedural
requirements of the CWA and the
NPDES regulations. The Agency does
not believe that today's rule Conflicts .
with the NPDES regulations or the
CWA. The Agency believes that the
existing NPDES regulations provide for
adequate public notice and public
comment opportunities when general
permits are issued. (See 40 CFR 124.10,
quality standard, (see 40 CFR 122-28{c)(l)(iii)).
. Permit applications are not required for a discharge
composed entirely of itbrm water from a mining
operation unless the discharge comes into contact -
with any overburden, raw material, intermediate
products, finished product, byproduct, or waste
products located on the site of such operations. '
1' EPA requested comment on using Information
collected under the SPCC program to (Tack storm
'waterdischarges. However, this approach has*. . .
number of limitations. Including that the SPCC
; program currently does not require facilities nub|ect
to SPCC requirements to submit notifications. In
addition, many facilities subject to the SPCC
program are not subject to the NPDES storm water
" program either because they do not have a storm
water discharge to waters of the United States or
because they are not activities that ara addressed '
. by the regulatory definition of storm water
discharge associated with industrial activity at 40
CFR 12i28(b)(14) (e.g, certain pipelines).
-------
Federal,liegster:/;.VoL.S7f^o.:^4i/.'r
-------
I1 11408 Federal Register / Vol.. 57. No. 64 / Thursday. April.2.. 1992./ Rules and Regulations
receives notice of approval of the part 1
anplication. " .- '.
' EPA notes that the extension to'
October 1,1992 provides authorized
NPDES States with additional time to
issue general permits for storm water'
discharges associated with industrial
activity. On August 18,1991. (56 FR . '
40948); EPA published a proposal '.
requesting public comment on draft
general permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity in States and territories without
authorized NPDES programs.12 The
Agency intends to make every effort to
issue these general permits in the spring
of!992.
However, EPA has decided against
basing the deadline for submitting part 2
of the group applications on the date
that general permits are issued by
Individual States because of the
potential confusion and uncertainty that."
would arise. Although the Agency "^
proposed draft general permits, for storm
water discharges in States without
authorized State NPDES programs in
one nqtice«'it may not finalize all of
these permits on the same date. The .
Agency expects that various region-
specific, State-specific, or industrial
category-specific issues may take
different amounts of time to address. It .
should also be noted that the August 16,
1991 proposal does not address general
permits in authorized NPDES States.: .
Each authorized NPDES State that will -.
issue general permits for storm water. .
discharges associated with industrial
activity-will have to go through the .
procedures for issuing general permits of
that State. Different permit issuance
procedure?,, along with other factors, .
will .result-in these permits being-issued.
at different .times. All of .these factors
indicate that a tremendous amount of .
uncertainty and confusion would result .
if EPA attempted to tie regulatory . .
deadlines for submitting permit
applications to the dates when general
permits are issued for particular States.
This is particularly important to the
group application process where ,
facilities from many different States
may be in the same group.
In addition, the'Agency anticipates
that there will be situations where the
permitting authority determines that
"Thcr'notice addmies'draft general permits In
12 Slate* IMA. ME.-NH. PL. LA. TX. OK. MM, SD.
AZ.AK. ED),1 and six Territories (District of| ' '
Columbia,' the Commonwealth of Puerto Rioo,
Guam. American Samoa, the Commonwealth of tha"
Northern Marianalilands. and the Trust Territory '
of tha Pacific blind*) without authorized NPDES'
State programs; on Indian lands In AU CA, GA. KY,"
ML MM. MS."MT. NC. ND.TIY. NV. EC. TN, UT. WL.
and WY: located within federal facilities and Indian
landi to CO indWA:«nd located within federal '
facltlliei in Delaware. ' '
general permits, are inappropriate for a
given class of storm water discharges.,
Additional confusion would arise in
these situations if application deadlines,
were tied to the dates of general permit
issuance.,The Agency is also concerned.
that unacceptable delays may result
under this approach in States where the
issuance of a general,permit is delayed.
EPA also disagrees with the ' .
suggestion that' the deadlines for
submitting part 2 of the application
should be based on .the date on which a
part 1 application is accepted. EPA
believes that establishing a fixed ..' ,
deadline of October 1,1992 for.part 2 of
the group application is warranted for
the same reasons that the Agency
articulated above and in the proposal.
Tfiis approach provides an equitable
deadline for these facilities, reduces
confusion and uncertainty in the
regulated community, and provides
sufficient time to complete the sampling .
necessary to obtain quantitative data.
EL Clarification for Pap 2 of Group
Applications . .'.' -::--.' '." .
The November 16,1J990 regulations
established procedure's for group .
applications for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity. The
group application process allows for.-. '-.
facilities with similar storm water, ":
discharges to file a single two part
permit application. Part 1 of a .group '.
application includes a list of the ....
facilities.applying,:a narrative; ... , .. .-.
description summarizing the industrial
activities of participants of the group, .a
list of significant materials exposed to.
precipitation that areistored by - r . .. .
participants and material management
practices employed .to diminish contact .
of these materials by precipitation (see.:
40 CFR 122JJ8{cH2)(i)), In addition, the.
part 1 application must identify-the
group participants that will submit .
quantitative data (sampling data) in part
2 of the group application. These
participants must be representative of
the group.- . ^ ..-- ..:,.. . . > ,,
In part 2 of the group application, the
subset of facilities identified.in the Part
1 application must submit quantitative
data. -The provisions of 4O CFR '
122.28(c)(2)(ii) establish a minimum
criteria for identifying facilities from
which sampling data must be'submitted!
EPA had proposed thati'in general,
groups submit data-fronvat least 10 -": ' '
percent of the facilities to the-grpup.'
With a rninimiinv'nf.10 facilities' " " "V .
; submitting data' (December /V1988 (53" ~'
FR49435)).In the-finalrule,i EPA, V;/.;.'
allowed groups'of'4 to 10 members to..
apply if 60 percent of me ^facilities ": -''"
submitted data (November 16,1990 (55
FR 48067)),
During the group application process.
the regulated community exhibited some
confusion regarding the minimiim
number of facilities that must submit..
sampling data for groups, with 11 to 99
members. For groups with.ll to 99 .
members, some groups have interpreted
the language in the November 16,1990.
regulations to require 10 percent df.the
facilities to submit sampling data, while
other groups have interpreted fhe
language to require a minimum of 10 .
facilities to submit sampling data.
In today's action,.EPA wants to clarify
that for groups with 20 or fewer . :
members, at least 50 percent of the
dischargers participating in the group
must submit quantitative data.. For
example, at least nine facilities must
submit quantitative data if a group is
composed of 17 members. For groups
with 21 to 09 members, at least 10
dischargers participating in the group .
must submit quantitative data. For
example, at least ten facilities must.. '
submit quantitative data if a group is
composed of 25 members. For groups- .
with 100 to 1,000 members, at least 10
percent of the dischargers participating-
in the group must submit quantitative. .
data. For groups with more than 1,000 .-
members, no more than 100 dischargers - ._
participating in the group must submit .
quantitative data. .'. ; > v". . :'",
For groups witla more than 10 "'/'.
members, either a minimum of two
dischargers from each precipitation zone
indicated in appendix E of 40 CFR part .
122 in which tenor more members of the
group'are located, or one discharger
from.'eachprecipitatiorizqneMndicate.d '"
in appendix E of 40 CFR part 122 in ' ' .
which'nine or fewer inembera; of the "-
group are located,'must be identified to
submit quantitative data. For groups of 4
to 10 members, at least one'facility in
each precipitation zone in which
members of the group are located must '
submit data. EPA has made a correction -
to the group application requirements to'
reflect the .above, which represents -
EPA's original intertt in the November-; j -'
16,1990 rule. ' ' , " :'. '..;'
F. Transportation Act Deadlines ' .
Section 1068 of the Transportation' Act
addresses permit application deadlines, ..
for. storm, water discharges assoc&tejl ;. J
with industrial activity'that are 6wned:,:.
or operated by municipalitiejL Today's. .
' rule codifies three changes to\ existing . '
regulatory deadlines to reflecitjhe new .
mpdification8-ad.dres8 .individual.;,' '^^,-.'..
application deacUines, and the third .,. r
addresses group'application'deadlines.' ,
-------
April 2,'.1992 / Rules arid'Regulations 11409
The deadlines for submitting
individual permit applications for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity that are owned or
operated by municipalities are
consistent with the October 1.1992
regulatory deadline that EPA :''-.-
established on November 5,1991 (58.FR
56548) with two exceptions: "'
(1) Municipal facilities that have been
identified in a parti group application
that has been submitted in a timely
manner where eithef.the-group.-:--. ;..
application is denied or the particular
. .facmty.is-rejectedlromtb.e.group, are -:.
not required to submit an individual
application until the 180th day following
the date on which the denial or rejection
is made; and . . -. ,
(2) Facilities owned or operated by a
municipality'with a population of less
than 100,000 other than an airport,
powerplant, or uncontrolled sanitary
landfill are not required to submit a
permit application at this-tune unless a
permit is required under either section
402(p)(2) (A) or (E) of the CWA.
With regard to facilities that are either
part of a.group that has been denied or
which are individually rejected from' a
group, today's rule codifies alternative
deadlines for storm Water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
facilities that are 'owned or operated by
a municipality and that .are rejected as
members of-a part 1 group application.
Such dischargers shall submit an
individual application no later than 180
days after the date of receipt of the
notice of rejection or October 1,1992,
whichever is later. A ' ''.'' '-'
With respect to facilities owned or
operated by municipalities with a
population of 100,000 or less, EPA
believes that Congress intended this
language to. place all of their storm
water discharges (exceptlor those from
airports, powerplarits and uncontrolled
sanitary landfills) into Phase n of the
storm water program.
Today's rule also codifies the
Transportation Act's alternative
deadlines for group applications for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activities that are owned or
operated by municipalities with a
population of less than 250,000.
Reflecting the new provisions of Section
1068 of the Transportation Act, the
group application deadlines for these
facilities are now May 18,1992 for part 1
applications and May 17,1993 for part 2
applications.
EPA also wants to clarify that the
Transportation Act did not affect any of
the regulatory application'deadlines for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from facilities that are
either not owned or operated by a
municipality or that are owned or
operated by a municipality With a;'
population of 250,000 pr.mbrei'The ''';;
legislative history for the Transportation
Act clarified that "nothing In the
conference report affects most of the
dates for submitting stormwater permit
applications established in EPA's recent
rulemaking published in the Federal -
Register.on November 5^1991^ ..* . The
conference report, while silent on the .
deadlines for these privately owned .
industries, is not intended to override '-.'
the dates established in EPA's :. . '-'.='
rulemaking action^'CVok137Cong. Rec.
H11509 (daily ecL November 28,1991),
Rep. Hammerschmidt). .Thus, the permit
application deadlines for storm.water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from privately owned and ' '
operated facilities, including those that
discharge through a municipal separate
storm sewer to waters of the United .
States, are not changed by today's rule -
with the exception of the part 2 : :
application deadlines discussed
elsewhere in today's notice. Also, where
a facility is privately owned and
operated, but has a service'contract !
with a municipality, the facility is not
considered .to be "municipally = ". -. - . '.
operated". For example, a privately
owned and operated landfill that ''..
receives municipal waste pursuant to a
contract'With a municipality or some
other form of reimbursement .from a . :
municipality can not avail itself of the
application deadline extensions in the
Transportation Act; which apply only to
facilities owned or.operated by
municipal governments. ! ' '
As outlined above, section 1068 of the
Transportation Act contains special
provisions for municipalities with a .
population of less than 100,000. Section
1068{c) of the Transportation Act ' .
defines two classes of industrial
facilities that are owned or operated by
municipalities with a population of less. .
than 100,000. The first group of facilities.
is comprised of airports, powerplants,
and uncontrolled sanitary landfills that
are owned or operated by a municipality.
with a population of less than 100,000. It.
is clear that Congress did hot intend,hi
section 1088(c) to change.the existing
individual application deadlines for
these discharges. Group application
requirements for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
these facilities are addressed by section
1068(b) of the Transportation Bill. As
discussed above, the group application
deadlines for these facilities are May 18,".
1992 for Part 1 applicaitons and May 17,
1993 for part 2 applications.
The second group is comprised of
facilities with storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity other '
than airports, powerplants or '
uncontrolled'sanitary landfills that are
' owned or bperated by municipalities
with a population of less than 100,000.
Section 1068(c) provides, that EPA shall
.not require this second-group of " ' '
industrial facilities to apply for or obtain
a permit before Octobe'rl, 1992, unless a
permit is required under either section
402(p)(2) (A) or (E) of the CWA. '
'; .-With-respect to this second group of
facilities, today's rule reserves the ' '
.regulatory deadlines for stbmvwater
applications. The Agency'intends to -.
address these fatilities'in a -manner that
is similar to other storm water ' '.
discharges addressed by section ' ':
402(p}(l) or the CWA." Currently, the
Agency intends to evaluate storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity that are owned or operated by a"
municipality with a population -of less
than 100,000. (except for thosefrom '
powerplants, uncontrolled sanitary
landfills and airports) along'with other
storm water discharges addressed by
section 402(p)(l) in two studies required
. under section 402(pj(5) of the CWA.
These studies will be used to:support
the development of regulations'under :
section 402fp)(6).14 It is dear front the * ;
legislative history of the Transportation
Act that Congress intended to address:'
these discharges hi -this"manrief, l.e^'as
discharges subject to the permit '
moratorium of section 402(p)(l) of the
CWA. ''EPA defined industrial activity
in such a way as to require'many cities '
with a population-under 100,000 to make'
application for stonnwaterprmitsi / '
notwithstanding the moratorium on ;:
permit'requirements that the Congress
thought it was puting hi place "* * * This
legislation will clarify that small cities'
need not apply for permits associated '
with some of the industrial facilities' '.'
they own or operate until October iv '
1992,. [the] date.for the general.
moratorium on their permit ...
requirements." (Vol. 137 Cong. Rec.
S18596 (daily "ed. November 27,1991),.:
Sen. Chafee).4;iM]unicipalities with ".'
populations of less than lOOJOOO would .'
1' Section 4CZ(pMl) of th« CWA,creales a
moratorium on Issuing NPDES permits uh.lij October
1.1992 for'storm water discharge* that are not
identified in section 4O2(pK2) of the CWA.
" Section 402(p)(6) of the CWA requires EPA,in
consultation with State and local officials, la
required to issue regulations by no later than
October 1,1992. which designate additional storm
water discharges to be regulated to protect water
quality.and establish a comprehensive program to
regulate such designated sources. This program
must establish, at.a minimum. (A) priorities. (B)
requirements for State Storm Water Management
Programs, and (C) expeditious deadlines. The
program may include performance,standards.: -.;
guidelines, guidance, and management practices .
and treatment requirements as appropriate.
-------
'11410 Federal Register / Vol. -.57. -No.--64 /."Thursday;' April X;:1992:'/ 'Rules and 'Regulations
"i
c
not be;required lo apply-forperinits'for ''
stormwater discharges associated with "'
industrial activities except'for power '
plants, uncontrolled sanitaiy landfills; '
and airports." (Vol. 137 Cong. Rec: :
H11509 (daily edj-November-28.199t)f'
Rep. Haminerschmidt): -
1. Determining" the Population of '' " '"
Municipalities' '" _ '_ . '".'." _.;v .
The Transportation Act establishes
phased requirements for NPDES permits
for storm water discharges associated - :
with industrial activity from facilities
that are pwned or operated by .
municipalities with specified
populations. However, the . .'-....
Transportation Act uses a different
classification; scheme than-is used in"
section 402(p) o.ftthe CWA.to define ..
classes'of municipal separate storm ;
sewer systems'.. Under!section.402(p) of. .
the CWA.'municipal separate stormv". _j
s'ew^rsysteniB.ir& classified on;.the: 1
basis.of.ppptdatipiijierved.by the . .. .'.'.
system, yniiejc.tfie "transportation Act r .
the po'p'ulatibh used;for classifying. . .
industrial pperatioitt} owned.oi: operated.
by municipalities is*the population of the..
municipality. This distinction is .
Important because" a number of .',.
municipal entities with a population of .:'
100,000 or more are not addressed by the
regulatory definitions of large and ' .
medium municipal separate, storm sewer-
systems. .Y..,' ''-. ,\; ' '.
40 CFR. 12228(b){4) 'ami {7) Specifically':
identify*173 cities'and 47 couhties:as .';
having large or medium municipal- . ' ''
separate storm sewerjsystems (ereyent-flawont&tlie active: .,
portiori'of th'»MSWLE;unit during .the; ' ~
peak discharge from a 25^yeaj- storm. In. -
addition, all MSWLF units ani required
to design,. cons.tiiict, and-matEitaini a run-
off control sysiera from the active-: >
portionxif the landfill to collei^ and -;'
control "at least the vrajerypl^inie! '_ '"'.' '. '
resulting from a S4rlipur,;25^yi3aiS storm.- -'
Runoff from4he active portion-of-the-\- "-'
unit must be haniiled In accordance with ;.
122.
municipal separate storm sewer systems only ...
ipecincaUy Identify counties with a population of
10OOOO in nnlnobrponitod;tirbaniz»d arearof tbe'":
county. -j-.-',-- -.«».-..- . - .
: >? For example, if a district with acummuUtiv*..-:
service population of 3SOOOO operates two sewage.
trtatment pIaAts.'on> br.whidb serves SOOOOa and' - '
' the other which serves 'swob/DotS blank wiU be^ ' '"'
. considered to. be a fadUty that to owned or operated
., by a municipality .with a populatioaof 2SOOOO or ,-
more. . '*, ~... i '.':-'..".: ''' .....
' Under tUs approach.'^A would base the' ''Z.',' .
"population of faciliHeiD operated Tjy a State'DOT on7' ''
v the entlra State.popolatibn rather.lhan flier -' r-V- ^V
. population of the local government entity with tend:U
r use authority (e^.city. towni'township.,connty>in.':.-..;;
- which the facility U'physically Tocatod. EPA ....
, believes that this approach U;appropriafe Because":-';:.
" the State DOT facflity.witttyi>icaUy:be operatedf:'"-';.':
. fa Wy indepe.ndenU>.ot ,';.
notice wa« fajiied. EPA wa§ lii the proces* pt'*. .'.""
implementing' NPDES requirements for storm water" .
dlscharges-asKK^tad'witn'mdiis'Maljictryity'rrom*
r ~ '
explainedi-that firf'NPDEgpermlt undi»"Uie dWA.[ ^
would be the appro^iatip'mectianisni lor eiuiuring '. >.,
that poinVsdorce ditjchargeir of nrnoff lijdm MSWtFo" ,
;^t,::are protectivo <>fhuih«nTie«lai:aiia'VMi ehvlroranenr'':
'.-.- (see October 9,' 1991. (56 FR 51054)). .'-' -.-^ i '-.- -
-------
Federal Register-'4 :VoL S7^No; .64? / -Thursday.-April 2. 1992,- J -Rules and..Regniatioas -, A35421
effective date for these requirements are
October 9.1993. . -...- -.
Operators of landfills that are owned.
or operated by a municipality with.a ' ...
population of less than 100,000 with a
.storm water discharge associated "with
industrial activity ?° that are - ?: i ;
'uncontrolled'.jnust submit an NPDES.
. permit application lor their .discharge, or
obtain coverage under .an appropriate.'
,..f . generaljiermit.'.--..r:^..t^--v.L.:i,".,-; .--:"* v!1'-
. . .EPAremains.concerned about the .;...;
.> risks tp .surface water quality posed .by.--
..:.: landfills,ai.The Agency wants to.darify-
. that storm Water.diBcharges from -., .f.I?t-
:.. _- landfills :that are owned or operated by .-..-
a municipality with a population of less.
than 100,000 can-still be required to ...
obtain an NPDES permit even .where.
they are hi. compliance with subtitle D
requirements where .they are designated
under section 402(p)(2HE} of the CWA
as needing an NPDES permit because
they.are significant contributors of
. pollutants to waters,of :the United States
. or they contribute to a violation of a. ,
water quality standard, i . . .
m. Economic Impact
'. .__. EPA has preparedIan Information i.t :;
. Collection Ileguest (ICR)'.for the purpose
permits, and for States to submit State .:
Storm Water Permitting Plans. -. .. . A ,.
.EPA estimates that the total-annual" -.-
cost of complying with the revised .! -.. :
monitoring reporting requirements for =;
storm-water discharges is $l£756446.i ;< :
.The -Agency/estimates that today's .rule. -
results in a annual reduction in costs to.
the regulated community of $8*873,520 i- j
over, the priorregulatory ^requirement- ±'<-.-.
-. -EPA estimates that the annual fcosts of - i
complying with NOI submissions- v -.-..- -,. (.-,
s required by NPDES permits-to be .> -s :>* * ;
- $28234&ifowever, EPA believes that--: >
-today's rule will not Increase the-i *v.. .>; -.
' exitifcig burdens of complying with-'NOI >..
requirements. .; , -v *>;-? '. '-.- ' ; .-
EPA estimates (hat the annua} costs to'
State governments and EPA of .... - > =
reviewing monitoring reports-for storm :
water discharges is $136,156. The: : ;' «
Agency estimates thai the annual costs- -
to States and EPA of reviewing NOIs is .-
S21O9ia However. EPA believes that -: ?
today's rule will not increase the . - - .
existing burdens of reviewing NOIs. : '
EPA estimates the total annual costs of
preparing and reviewing State-Storm : '
Water-Permitting Plans to $351348. = .-:
industrial process, and stormwater . ,. ,
dischargers. For. storm water -.-. . - .
. discharger*, the average burden,per, .. . .
; response will decrease by 3JJ hours per ,
repondent :-. . :.-. ^ ,...5. ; ... s. .. '_..
Send comments regarding :the:burden ..
estimate-or any other aspect of ihia ? : J
-<»Uection of infonnation.:inchiding , - '. ,
.^uggestiona-for reducing this-imrden. to;
.Chief,: Information Policy 'Branchu-PM*. .
^723Y.4J.S.-Er»vironmentd Election1 -j&-
Agency. 401 M Street SWj Waahuigtonvo
.DC 20460; and 4o the Office-of * - -i- s . : «i v
:information«n3 Hegulatqry-Affairs,'i'..i,iy.
.Office, of Aiariagement and'Burjgeti:!.r-.'^ %.
^Washington; DC 20503, taarked^ .i:.; nvov :
rAttentiontDeskOfficerforfiPA,", :
".The existing landfill .criteria in part 257 address
all landfills except those covered by the revised
criteria in'part 258; which address municipal
landfills which receive household hazardous wastes
or hazardous wastes from small quantity *
generators. By contrast the NPDES regulatory
definition of "storm water discharge associated
with industrial activity" addresses landfills that
receive or have received any industrial wastes
(wastes received from any of the other classes of '
facilities addressed by the regulatory definition of
storm water discharges associated with industrial
activity)(see40CFR 12Z28{b)j[14J)."' ;.' . ".
»» Surface waterimpacts associated with solid '
; waste landfills-are well characterized: hi the August
30.1988^63 FR 33317) NPRM addressing solid waste
disposal, facility criteria under RCRA subtitle .D..;
. EPA noted that state inspection data, case study
evidence, rislc'charactenzation studies, and the '
current limited use of design controls indicate that
some solid waste landfills have degraded surface
water quality and that this degradation could
continue. Older landfils are of most concern
because they may Have received large volumes of
hazardous waste and. in general, their use of design
controls was very limited. States-reported that of
the 1.100 municipal solid waste landfills which
monitored discharges to surface water. 860-were
cited for surface water impacts. EPA believes that
newer and future solid waste landfills may present
lower risks because subtitle C regulations keep
moat hazardous waste out of solid waste landfills.
In addition, design controls for solid waste landfills
have improved, and are expected to continue to
taprove with the implementation of subtitle D
requirements (see October 9.1991 (68 FR 50981)). ,
. " burclen imposed on'federal. Stateland' _'
,. local jjoyerhzngpto. andjntjusfiy byj.., ~..,-,.
'.' ] te^ay's.reyiskJns'torequlr^entotqV^iV
submit annual monitoring reports,
. minimum notice of intent (NOI)
requirements for NPDES general
' : '-'}:''':> *.-" -...«,.*.'^i ;.-,-. '-..:- :'
. = .-Executive Order 12291 requires EPA; -s
and other agencies'to perform regulatory-.
.. analyses, of major regtilationa.Jvfa^or »:'-..-
tregulationsare those^vhich impose a .
cost on the economy of $100 milHon or . .
more annually or.have certain other ,.
economic impacts. Today-SiTegulatory.
amendments generally make &e NPDES .-
permit applications more flexible and I ;
less burdensome for the regulated . :
community. These regulations do. no.t ,
satisfy any of the criteria specified in:,',
section l(b) of the Executive Order anck :.-
as such, do not constitute a major rule.
This regulation was submitted to the ; -.
Office of Management and Budget ;
(OMB) for review. . ..
V. Paperwork Reduction Act .
The information requirements in this
rule have, been approved by the Office .
of Management and Budget (OMB) -:;
under provisions of the. Paperwork: ..-..
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 350J et.seq-s.rid
have been assigned OMB Control . : .
number 2040-O004. -...,-
Public reporting burden for. this :
collection of information is -.estimated to
average 17.46 hours per response, an -
increase of 1.50 hours. This mcludes
time for reviewing instructions, - ;
searching existing data sources,
gathering the data needed, and . -
completing and reviewing--the collection
of information. The 17.48 figure is an .:
average for all dischargers under the ;
NPDES program, includuig POTWs.
v * Under the Regulatory Flexibility; Act, 5
-U.S.C. 601 etseg^i EPA is jequired to
prepare a Regulatory Flexibility . v
Analysis to assess the impact of rules on..
: amallentities. No" Regulatory Flexibility ..
-.Analysis is required, however, where. .-
the headof. the. agency certifies, that the ..
"rule will not have a significant economic '
impact on a substantial number of .small:
.entities:-, -f-. .. -. {s~..r,:*.t... \.i ?,..
-.: Today's .-amendments to the .J.-i-jt .:.-:;;
regulations iwo.uldigenefally make the::>c.
NPDES regulation* more flexible ^^ and i«;.:-
kss burdensome forpermitteesK-::.:-iv,';i.-ii-::
. Accordingly. I hereby certify* pursuant ;-... =
Tto^US-C 605{b).,that these := .. \\£? -.,*..&$*
.amendments .will not have a- significant .:
; impact on a substantial numberof small:.-
entities. .- .; ' ; = ..;. :?r
\T[I.:APA Requirementa ;'' "-~-'-~ '-'"'- ';::>'
.- The. amendments to permit ,'.! .. .-. ; -. .; ..
application deadKnes for storm water : ,
discharges associated with industrial :
activity from -facilities' owned or - : , :.; . :
operated by. municipalities are. being ". :
-adopted without notice and comment. :
As .they merely codify the provisions of .
section 1068 of the Intermodal Surface ^ .-
Transportation-Efficiency Act of 19914;.: ;-.
they constitute interpretive rules for. '' . : ':
which notice and comment is not-. .->?.;«,'-.-
. required. EPA requested comment on^'f &*
-..the issue of the minimum number -of rr-..<.-'..
facilities that must submit sampling data .-
. in a group application in a December 7.- '
1988 notice (53 FR 49416). Additional : .
notice and comment is not required for.
the clarification to the .group -application .
regulations made.in today's rule because
the Agency has already -taken comments-
on this issue and today's action only- - .
clarifies -the- approach that .was intended
by the November 16. 1990 rule. - . . i
List of Subjects in 40 CFR:Part 122 ;
Administrative practice- and: .-...:_ . -
procedure;- Environmental protection.
Reporting and record keeping - - ;
-------
j - -
11412 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 64 / Thursday, April 2. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
requirements. Water pollution control.
General-permits, Storm water.
Authodtyt'CIean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. 1251
eticq. ' '
Dated: March 23. 1992.
William K.Rellly.' :
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the .
preamble, title 40 of the Code of . .
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 122 EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS; THE NATIONAL
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM .
1. The authority citation for part 122
continues to read as follows: . .
Authority: Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. 1251
''
Subpart B Permit Application and
Special NPDES Program Requirements
§ 122ifi .-,
2. Section i?!?.,7fl is amended by
adding paragraph (b)(15), and revising
paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(D). (e)(l). (e)(2]{i).
(e)(2)(«i) and (e)(2)(iv) to read as
follows: -,;;.' . . "
S122L28 .Storm Water dt*charg«s '
(appUcsbto to State NPDES programs. wxs
§12325). '
located, or one discharger from each '<
precipitation zone indicated in appendix
E of this part in which nine or fewer -.
members of the group are located, must
be identified to submit quantitative
data. For groups-of 4 to 10 members, at
least one facility in each precipitation - .'
zone indicated in appendix E of-this part
in which members of the group*are
located must be identified to submit . .
quantitative data: A description of why
the facilities selected torperform
sampling and analysis are'' . '' .
representatives? the group as a whole in
terms of the: information provided in .:: -
paragraphs (c)(l)(i)fB> and (c)(l)(i){C) of
this section, shall accompany this .
. section. Different factors impacting the
nature of the .storm water- discharges,- ,,'
such as the processes- used and material-
management shall be represented; to
the extent, feasible, in a manner roughly
equivalent to their proportion in-the . ^
grOUD. . ~<^l^ ;':.'<-:' -KT ' =<:: J;iV. V '
*,.?;
- .; ' I '
fb)* * *»"-" ' '" ' "
(15) Uncontrolled sanitary landfill
means a landill or open dump, whether-
in operation or closed, that does not
meet the requirements for runon or
runoff controls established pursuant to
subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act -" ' '
(C) ---..! .
' (2) -,. - .
(i) *...- .
(D) For groups of more than 1,000
members, identify at least 100
dischargers participating in the group
application from which quantitative
data will be submitted. For groups of 100
or more members, identify a minimum of
ten percent of the dischargers
participating in the group application
from which quantitative .data will- be
submitted. For'groups of between 21 and
S3 members identify a minimum of ten
dischargers participating in the group
application from which quantitative
data will be submitted. For groups of 4
to 20 members,-identify a minimum of 50
percent of the dischargers-participating -
in the group application from which
quantitative data.will be submitted. For-
groups with more than 10 members.
either a minimum'of two dischargers
from each precipitation zone indicated
in appendix E of this part in which ten
or more members of the group are
(e) .": :';T ;'>- " ; '
(1) Individual applications, (i) Except
as provided-lit paragraph (e)(lKii).of this
section, for any storm- water discharge
associated with industrial-Activity - , -.
identified in paragraphs (b)(14) (i)
through (xi) of this section; that is not
part of a group application as-described
in paragraph fcj(2j oftnist section or "r: ~~
which is not authorized by a storm- " ";-'
water general permit-Hiperinit" ""' -'
application made pursuant to paragraph
(G) of this section'shall be submitted to
meDirect6rbypctobejlV1992;:_;' :
(ii) For any storm wajer discharge
associated with industrial activity from
a faculty that is owned or operated by a
municipality with a 'population, of less. '
than 100,000'other .than; an airport,
powerplant or'uncontrolled.sanitary. .
landfill, permit applications '_."''
requirements are reserved. ' ' ;
(2) * * * . !
(i) Part 1. (A) Except;as provided iii' -
paragraph (e)(2)(i)(B) of this section, part
1 of the application shall be submitted to
the Director.-Office of Wastewater. -,-
Enforcement and Compliance by . ....
' September 30,' 1991; ....> . ~r .,.. : v -
(B) Any municipaiity-with a... .;. .
population of less than 250,000.shall not
be required to submit a part 1 - -,.....: - .
application before May. 18.199£;.c.: ,-.-
(C) For any-storm.water discharge;;-.--
, associated with industrial activity from-
a facility that is owned or operated by a
municipality with a population of less-
than 100,000 other than an airport,' >-i
powerplant or .uncontrolled sanitary,--;:
landfill,-permit applications,.'.':': ."'
requirements, are, reserved. ". > .. .--.;.-...
(iii) Part 2. (A) Except as provided in
paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(B) of this section.
part 2 of the application shall be
submitted to the Director. Office of ;
Wastewater Enforcement and
Compliance by October 1,1992;
(B) Any municipality with a.
population of less than 250.000 shall not
be-required to'submit a part 1 '
application before May 17; 1993.
(C) For any storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity from
a facility 1hat is owned or operated by a
municipality with a population of less
than i.00.000 other than an airport," :. '
powerplant or uncontrolled sanitary' '
landfill, permit applications-'
requirements are reserved. ".
(iv) Rejected facilities. (A) Except as .
provided in paragraph (e)(2)pv)|B) of
this section, facilities that are rejected
as members of-the group shall submit an
individual application {or obtain '" "" ".
coverage under an applicable general -'
permit) no later than 12 months after the
' date of receipt of tlie notice of rejection""'
or October 1.1992, whichever comes
'first. . ,^j,-.\\j:.:.-.f-i -.-.J.. ."'
(B) Facilities that are owned or .^.
. operated by. a municipality and "that are
' rejected as members of part I group" . '.
apph'cation stiall submit an individual'
application io later than 180 &&jfs after ^
- the date of receipt" of the notice of ';?.""'
rejection'or October 1.1992,. wliichever"
is later.
2a. Section 122.28 is amended by
redesignating current paragraph (b)(2)
as (b}(3) and by adding a new paragraph
(b)(2) to read as follows:
§122.28 GanaraJ permits (appljcable to
state NPOESproflram»,««»5
, . . .
(Q Authorization to discharge, or
authorization to engage in sludge use
and disposal practices, (i) Except'as'. :;'"
provided in paragraphs (b)(2)(v) and -.
(b)(2)(vi) of this section, dischargers (or
treatment works treating domestic '
sewage) s'eeklng coverage under a ;;.'.
general permit shallVubmit to the ....-." .i..'
Director a written notice of intent .to be- .-
covered by the general permit'A ' ..--*
discharger (or treatment works treating
domestic sewage) who. fails to submit a_..
notice of intent in accordance with the
: terms of the permit ia not authorized to = ;
discharge, (or fa the case of shidge.";;. :.
disposal'permit to engage in a sludge" .
use or disposal practice), under the
' terms of the general permit unless the
general permit in'accordance-with '' "
paragraph [b)(2)(v) of..this'section. ' .','. i
contains a provision that a notice of-
intent is not required or the Director
-------
Federal Register '/ Vol. 57, No. 64 / Thursday, April 2. 1992 / Rules and Regulations 11413
notifies a discharger (or treatment works
treating domestic sewage) that it is
covered by a general permit in
accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(vi) of
this section. A complete and timely,
notice of intent (NOI), to be covered in
accordance with general permit
requirements, .fulfills the requirements
for permit applications for.purposes of
§§ 122.6,12Z21 and 122L26. :
(ii) The contents of the notice of intent
shall be specified in the general permit
and shall require the submission of
information necessary for adequate
program implementation, including at a
minimum, the legal name and address of
the owner or operator, the facility name
and address, type of facility or
discharges, and the receiving stream(s).
General permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from inactive mining, inactive
oil and gas operations, or inactive
landfills occurring on Federal lands
where an operator cannot be identified
may contain alternative notice of intent
requirements. All notices of intent shall
be signed in accordance with § 122.22.
(in) General permits shall specify the
deadlines for submitting notices of
intent to be covered and the date(s)
when a discharger is authorized to
discharge under the permit;
(iv) General permits shall.specify
whether a discharger (or'treatment
works treating domestic sewage) that
has submitted a complete and timely
notice of intent to be covered in
accordance with the general permit and
that is eligible for coverage under the
permit, is authorized to discharge, (or in
Qie case of a sludge disposal permit, to
engage in a sludge use or disposal
practice), in accordance with the permit
either upon receipt of the notice of intent
by the Director, after a waiting period
specified in the general permit on a date
specified in the general permit or upon
receipt of notification of inclusion by the
Director: Coverage may be terminated
or revoked in accordance with
paragraph (b){3) of this section.
(v) Discharges other than discharges
from publicly owned treatment works.
combined sewer overflows, primary
industrial facilities, and storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity, may, at the discretion of the
Director, be authorized to discharge
under a general permit without
submitting a notice of intent where the
Director finds that a notice of intent
requirement would be inappropriate. In
making such a finding, the Director shall
consider the type of discharge: the
expected nature of the discharge; the
potential for toxic and conventional
pollutants in the discharges; the
expected volume of the discharges;
other means of identifying discharges
covered by the permit; and the
estimated number of discharges to be
covered by the permit The Director
shall provide hi the public notice of the
general permit the reasons for not
requiring a notice of intent.
(vi) The' Director may notify a
discharger (or treatment works treating
domestic sewage) that it is covered by a
general permit, even if the discharger (or
treatment works treating domestic
sewage) has not submitted a notice of
intent to be covered. A discharger (or
treatment works treating domestic
sewage) so notified may request an
individual permit under paragraph
(b)(3)(iii) of this section.
§12226 [Amended]
3. In redesignated paragraph
12Z28(b)(3)(u). the reference: "(b)(2)(i)"
is revised to read "Cb)(3)(i)".
4. In paragraph 122^8(c)(3), the
reference; "122.28(b)(2)(i) (A) through
OF)" is revised to read "122J28(b)(3}(i) (A)
through (GJ-
Subpart CPermit Conditions
5. Section 122.44 is amended by
revising paragraph (i)(2) and adding
paragraphs (i)(3) through (i)(5) .to read as
follows:
§122.44 Establishing limitations,
standards, and other permit conditions
(applicable to State NPDES programs, see
§ 123.25).
*****
(0* * *
(2) Except as provided hi paragraphs
(i)(4) and (i)(5) of this section,
requirements to report monitoring
results shall be established on a case-
by-case basis with a frequency
dependent on the nature and effect of
the discharge, but in no case less than
once a year. For sewage sludge use or
disposal practices, requirements to
monitor and report results shall be
established on a case-by-case basis with
a frequency dependent on the nature
and effect of the sewage sludge use or
disposal practice: minimally this shall
be as specified in 40 CFR part 503
(where applicable), but in no case less
than once a year.
(3) Requirements to report monitoring
results for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity which
are subject to an effluent limitation
guideline shall be established on a case-
by-case basis with a frequency
dependent on the nature and effect of
the discharge, but in no case less than
once a year.
(4) Requirements to report monitoring
results for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity (other
than those addressed in paragraph (i)(3)
of this section) shall be established on a
case-by-case basis with a frequency
dependent on the nature and effect of
the discharge. At a minimum, a permit
for such a discharge must require:
(i) The discharger to conduct an
annual inspection of the facility site to
identify areas contributing to a storm
water discharge associated with
industrial activity and evaluate whether
measures to reduce pollutant loadings
identified in a storm water pollution
prevention plan are adequate and
properly implemented in accordance
with the terms of the permit or whether
additional control measures are needed:
(ii) The discharger to maintain for a
period of three years a record
summarizing the results of the
inspection and a certification that the
facility is in compliance with the plan
and the permit and identifying any
incidents of non-compliance;
(iii) Such report and certification be
signed hi accordance with § 122.22; and
(iv) Permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from inactive mining operations
may, where annual inspections are
impracticable, require certification once
every three years by a Registered
Professional Engineer that the facility is
in compliance with the permit, or
alternative requirements.
(5) Permits which do not require the
submittal of monitoring result reports at
least annually shall require that the
permittee report all instances of
noncompliance not reported under
§ 122.41(1) (1). (4). (5). and (6) at least
annually.
* » * «
(FR Doc. 92-7279 Filed 4-l-fl2: 8:45 am)
BILUNQ COOE 6SCO-SO-M
-------
-------
Alabama
California
Cojowdp
Connecticut
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentiwlcj'
Louisfcffis
Maiyland
Nchfaskg
Nevada
New Jersey
NewYoric
North Carolina
North Da&m
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
South CatoJina
South Dakota
Tennessee
iVyomiag
Approved State
NPDESPemiit
Program
10/19/79
11/01/86
05/14/73
03/27/75
09/26/73 '
04/01/74
05/Q1/95
06/28/74
11/28/74
10/23/77
01/01/75
08/10/78
09/30/83
08/27/96
09/05/74
10/17/73
- 06/30/74
05/01/74
10/30/74
Q6/IQ/74
06/12/74
09/19/75
04/13/82
10&8/75
10/19/75
06/13/75
03/11/74
11/19/96
09/26/73
06/30/78
09/17/84
06/1Q/75
12/30/93
12/28/77
07/07/87 '
03/Z1-/74
06/30/76
03/31/75
11/14/73
05/10/82
02/04/74
01/30/75
.43
Approved to
&5guJateF 06/26/91
11/01/86
. . 09/22/89
i 03/04/82
' 03/10/92
: 10/23/92
; 05/01/95+
! PI/28/91
! 09/30/91
i 01/04/84
; 04/02/91 '
! 08/12/92
' 11/24/93
I 09^30/83
[ 08/27/96
: 09/30/91
: 11/29/93
i 12/15/^7
; 09/27/91
| 12/12/85
i -04/29/83
07/20/89
: 07/27/92
04/13/82
10/J5/92
09/06/91
01/22/90
08/17/92
*«
02^>3/82
08/02/91
09/17/84
09/03/92
12^0/93
04/18/91
04/2P/91
09/26/89
05/10/82
12/19/86
Program
41
02
12/31/96
-------
------- |