833Z92002
Wednesday
Septembers. 1992
Non Construction-Industrial
Fact Sheet
» jj_|r| i^—n
Part III
Environmental
Protection Agency
Final NPDES General Permits For Storm
Water Discharges Associated With
Industrial Activity; Fact Sheet
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 57. No. 175 /-Wednesday. September 9.1992 /Notices
ENVIRONMENTAL (PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL-4202-5]
Final NPOES General Permits tor
Storm Water Discharges Associated
With Industrial Activity
AGENCY: Environmental Protection •
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of final NPDES general
permits.
SUMMARY: The Regional Administrators
of Regions I. IV. VI. VTU.IX. and X (the
"Regions" or the "Directors") are issuing
final National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) general
permits for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
(except discharges from construction
activity) in il States (Alaska. Arizona.
Florida. Idaho. Louisiana.'Maine. New
Hampshire. New Mexico. Oklahoma.
South Dakota, and Texas); the
Territories of Johnston Atoll. Midway •
and Wake Islands: on Indian lands in
Alaska. Arizona, California. Colorado.
Florida, Idaho. Maine, Massachusetts.
Mississippi. Montana. New Hampshire.
Nevada. North Carolina. North Dakota.
Utah, Washington, and Wyoming; from
Federal facilities in Colorado, and
Washington; and from Federal facilities
and Indian lands in Louisiana. New
Mexico. Oklahoma, and Texas.
These general permits establish
Notice of Intent (NOI) requirements.
prohibitions, requirements to develop
and implement storm water pollution
prevention plans, and requirements to
conduct site inspections for facilities
with dischargers authorized by the
permit. In addition, these general
permits establish monitoring _
requirements for certain classes of
facilities and. a numeric effluent • .
limitation for discharges of coal pile
runoff subject to the general permits.
ADDRESSES: Notices of Intent to be
authorized to discharge under these
permits should be sent to: Storm Water
Notices of Intent. PO Box 1215.
Newington, VA 22122.
Other submittals of information
required under these permits or
individual permit applications should be
sent to the appropriate EPA Regional
Office. The addresses of the Regional
Offices and the name and phone number
of the Storm Water Regional
Coordinator is provided in section FV.G
of the Fact Sheet.
The index to the administrative
records for these permits are available
at the appropriate Regional Office. The
complete administrative recordis
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. Specific record information
will be made available at the
appropriate Regional Office as
requested. '.'«w
DATES: These general permits wall be
effective on September 9.1992. This
effective date is necessary to provide
appropriate dischargers with the _
opportunity to comply with the October
111992 deadline for submitting an
NPDES application for storm water
discharges associated with industrial by
submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) to be
covered by the permits. .
Deadlines for submittal of Notices of
Intent (NOIs) are provided in section
IV JLZ of the Fact Sheet and Part ILA of
the general permits. Today's general
permits also provide additional dates for
compliance with the terms of the permit
and for submitting monitoring data
where required.
POR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For further information on the final
NPDES general permits, contact the
NPDES Storm Water Hotline at (703)
821-4823 or the appropriate EPA
Regional Office. The name, address and
phone number of the Regional Storm
Water Coordinators are provided in \
section W.G of the Fact Sheet.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
L Introduction
11. Pollutant* in Storm Water Discharges
Associated With Industrial Activity
IlL Coverage of General Permits
IV. Summary of Permit Conditions
A. Notification Requirements
1. Contents of NOIs'
2. Deadlines .
3. Additional Notification
4. Notice of Termination
B. Special Conditions
1. Prohibition on Non-Storm Water
Discharges
2, Releases of Reportable Quantities of
Hazardous Substances and Oil
C. Tailored Pollution Prevention Plan
Requirements
1. Pollution Prevention Team
2. Description of Potential Pollution
Sources
a. Drainage
b. Inventory of Exposed Materials
c. Significant Spills and Leaks
d. Non-storm Water Discharges
e. Sampling Data
f Risk Identification and Summary of
' Potential Pollutant Sources
3. Measures and Controls
a. Good Housekeeping
b. Preventive Maintenance
c. Spill Prevention and Response
Procedures
d. Inspections
e. Employee Training
f. Recordkeeping and Internal Reporting
Procedures
Sediment and Erosion Control
-Management of Runoff
4. Comprehensive Site Compliance
.Evaluation
D. Special Requirements
l.EPCRA Section 3}3
2. Salt Piles
3. Discharges to Large and Medium
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Systems . •
4. Coal Piles
E. Monitoring «nd Reporting Requirements
F. Regional Offices
G. Compliance Deadlines
V. Cost Estimates
VL Economic Impact (Executive Order 12291)
VTL Paperwork Reduction Act •
VOL 401 Certification
DC Regulatory Flexibility Act '
L Introduction
the Regional Administrators of the
United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) are issuing final general
permits for the majority of storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity as follows:
Region /—For the States of Maine and
New Hampshire; for Indian lands
located in Massachusetts. New
Hampshire, and Maine.
Region IV—fm the State of Florida;
and for Indian lands located in Florida.
Mississippi, and North Carolina.
Region VI—For the States of
Louisiana. New Mexico. Oklahoma, and
Texas; and for Indian lands located in
Louisiana. New Mexico (except Navajo
lands and Ute Mountain Reservation
lands). Oklahoma, and Texas.
Region VIII—for the State of South
Dakota; for Indian hinds located in
Colorado. Montana. South Dakota.
North Dakota. Utah (except Goshute
Reservation and Navajo Reservation
lands), and Wyoming; for Federal
facilities to Colorado; and for the Ute
Mountain Reservation to Colorado and
New Mexico. •
Region Df—fot .the State of Arizona;
for the Territories of Johnston Atoll, and
Midway and Wake Island: and for
Indian lands located in California and
Nevada: and for the Goshute
Reservation to Utah and Nevada, the
Navajo Reservation to Utah. New
Mexico, and Arizona, the Duck Valley
Reservation to Nevada and Idaho.
Region X—VOT the States of Alaska
and Idaho; for Indian lands located in
Alaska. Idaho (except Duck Valley
Reservation lands), and Washington;
and for Federal facilities in Washington.
These general permits may authorize
the majority of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity to
waters of the United States, including
discharges through large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer systems
and through other municipal separate
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
41237
storm sewer systems. As discussed
below, these permits do not authorize
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from construction
activities ' and several additional
classes of storm water discharges.
This notice contains four appendices.
Appendix A summarizes EPA's response
to major comments received on the draft
general permits published on August 16.
1991 (56 FR 40948). Appendix B provides
the language of the final general permits.
Except as provided hi part XI of the
permits, parts I through X apply to all
permits. Part .XI of the permit contains
conditions which only apply in the State
indicated. Appendix C is a copy of the
Notice of Intent (NQ1) form (and
associated instructions) for dischargers
to obtain coverage under the general
permits. Appendix D is a copy of the
Notice of Termination (NOT) form (and
associated instructions) that can be used
by dischargers wanting to notify EPA
that their storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity have
been terminated or that the permittee
has transferred operation of the facility.
On August 16.1991 (56 FR 40948). EPA
requested public comment on draft
general permits forming the basis for
today's final general permits. In addition
to addressing those storm water
discharges from industrial activity
addressed in today's permits, the August
16.1991. draft general permits addressed
storm water discharges from
construction activities. The permits in
this notice only address storm water
associated with industrial activity other
than construction activities. Elsewhere
in today's Federal Register. EPA is
publishing NPDES permits for storm
water discharges from construction
industrial facilities.
EPA received more than 330
comments on the August 16.1991. draft
general permits. In addition, public
hearings to discuss the draft general
permits were held in Dallas. TX;
Oklahoma City, OK Baton Rouge. LA:
Albuquerque, NM; Seattle. WA; Boise.
ID; Juneau. AK; Pierre, SD; Phoenix. AZ;
Orlando, FL; Tallahassee, FL; Augusta.
ME; Boston, MA: and Mancheser, NH.
EPA is incorporating, by reference.
portions of the detailed fact sheet for the
draft general permits published on
August 16,1991, as part of the final fact
sheet and statement of basis for today's
final permit The sections of the prior
fact sheet being incorporated 'are section
1, Background: section 4, Summary of
Options for Controlling Pollutants; and
section 5, The Federal/Municipal
Partnership: The Role of Municipal
Operators of Large and Medium
. Municipal Separate Storm Sewers.
H. Pollutants in Storm Water Discharges
Associated With Industrial Activity
The volume and quality of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity depend on a number
of factors, including the industrial
activities occurring at the facility, the
nature of precipitation, and the degree
of surface imperviousness. Ram water
may pick up pollutants from structures
and other surfaces as it drams from the
land. In addition, sources of pollutants
other than storm water, such as illicit
connections,1 spills, and other
improperly dumped materials, may
increase the pollutant loads discharged
from separate storm sewers. The
sources of pollutants in storm water
> Elsewhere in today's Federal Register. EPA it
publishing-final general permits for storm water
discharge* auociated with industrial activity from
construction sites in a number of States.
' niidt connections are contributions of
unpermitted nonstorm water discharge* to atom
sewers from any of • number of sources including
sanitary sewers, industrial facilities, commercial
establishments, or residential JiwUings. _
discharges differ with the type of
industry operation and specific facility
features. For example, air emissions
may be a significant source of pollutants
at some facilities, material storage
operations at others, and still other
facilities may discharge storm water
associated with industrial activity with
relatively low levels of pollutants.
From 1978 through 1983. EPA provided
funding and guidance to the Nationwide
Urban Runoff Program (NURP) to study
runoff from commercial and residential
areas. NURP included 28 projects across
the Nation conducted separately at the
local level but centrally reviewed.
coordinated, and guided.
One focus of the NURP program was
to characterize the water quality of
discharges from separate storm sewers
that drain residential commercial, and
light industrial (industrial parks) sites.
The majority of samples collected in
NURP were analyzed for seven
conventional pollutants and three
metals. Table 1 summarizes the data in
the NURP data base on concentrations
for these 10 pollutants and fecal
coliform. The data collected in NURP
indicated that on an annual loading
basis suspended solids in discharges
from separate storm sewers draining
runoff from residential, commercial, and
light industrial areas are approximately
an order of magnitude or more greater
than effluent from sewage treatment
plants receiving secondary treatment.
The study also found that annual
loadings of chemical oxygen demand
(COD) are comparable to effluent from
sewage treatment plants receiving
secondary treatment When analyzing
annual loadings associated with urban
runoff, it is important to recognize that
discharges of urban runoff are highly
intermittent and that the short-term
loadings associated with individual
events will be high and may have shock
loading effects on receiving water, such
as sag in dissolved oxygen levels.
TABLE I.-QUAUTY CHARACTERISTICS OF RUNOFF FROM RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AREAS
Constituent
TTSS «. .„„.—.„.»....—».-.
Soluble Phosphorus •
Total Lead .-.
Total Zinc -•— — - ..................•«•«••••—••
Fecal CoUtorm:
Warm Weather.
CoM Weather
Average residential or
239mg/l
12mg/l
94 mg/l
0.5 mg/l
0.15 mg/l
2.3 mg/l
1.37 mg/l
S3|ig/l
238ftg/l
353 pg'1
50,240 counts/100 gml
22.918 counts/100 gml
Weighted mean residential or
commercial site concentration
180 mg/l
12 mg/l
82 mg/l
0.15 mg/l
1.90 mg/l
0.86 mg/l
43|iO/'
I82pg/l
202rt/l
27.805 counts/100 ml
7,075 counts/100 ml
H
.....
NURP recommendations lor
load estimates
180-548 mg/l
12-19 mg/l
82-178 mg/l
0.42-0.88 mg/l
0.15-028 mg/l
1.90-4.18 mg/l
0.86-2.21 mg/l
43-118 «"
182-443 ug/l
202-633 WJ/I
Source: Developed from Resulis of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, Vol. 1-Final Report. EPA 1933.
-------
41238
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9,1992 / Notices
NURP also involved monitoring 120
priority pollutants. Seventy-seven
priority pollutants, including 14
inorganic and 63 organic pollutants,
were detected in samples of storm water
discharges from residential, commercial,
and light industrial lands taken during
NURP. Table 2.shows the priority
pollutants detected in at least 10 percent
of the discharge samples that were
tested for priority pollutants. The NURP
data also showed that a significant
number of these samples exceeded
various freshwater water quality
criteria.
Although NURP did not evaluate oil
and grease, other studies have
demonstrated that urban runoff is an
extremely important source of oil
pollution to receiving waters,9 with
hydrocarbon levels in urban runoff
typically being reported* at a range of 2
ing/1 to 10 mg/1. These hydrocarbons
tend to accumulate in bottom sediments
where they may persist for long periods
of time and can adversely affect benthic
organisms. ,
TABLE 2.—PRIORITY POLLUTANTS DE-
TECTED IN AT LEAST 10 PERCENT OF
NURP SAMPLES
Mttats and inorganics:
Antimony • •— «.
Btryttium , .,„„
GtMJmium.....
t^MMaW „.
L*Md "
MiCtoL '-'"•
a^toniufn i _m.u..... -»«ii Mm
Zinc ' -'--
PesbcidM:
linden* „„.. ..,.,
HalogMWMd AKptMtter
Methane tfcNoro- ' ....,.,,,
Phenol* and Creed*:
PnttMMte Esters:
Phthalate, bis (2-ethylhexyQ
Polycycbc Aromatic HycVocarbon*.
Frequency
of Detection
(percent)
13
52
12
48
58
91
23
94
43
11
94
20
19
17
15
11
14
19
10
22
10
16
' 12
15
* Per example. *ee "Controlling Urban Runoff: A
Practical Manual for Planning and De»igning Urban
BMP»". Metropolitan Wathington Council, of
Governments. July 1987.
Other studies have shown that many
storm sewers contain illicit non-storm
water discharges and that large amounts
of wastes are disposed of improperly in
storm sewers. Removal of these
discharges presents opportunities for
dramatic improvements in the quality of
storm water discharges. Storm water
discharges from industrial facilities may
contain, in addition to illicit connections
and improperly disposed wastes, toxics
and conventional pollutants when
material management practices allow
exposure to storm water.
In some municipalities, illicit
connections of sanitary, commercial. >
and industrial discharges to storm sewer
systems have had a significant impact
on the water quality of receiving waters.
Although NURP did not emphasize
identification of illicit connections to
storm sewers other than to ensure that
monitoring sites used in the study were
free from sanitary sewage
contamination, the study concluded that
illicit connections can result in high
bacterial counts and dangers to public
health.
Studies have shown that illicit
connections to storm sewers can create
severe, widespread contamination
problems. For example, the Huron River
Pollution Abatement Program inspected
660 businesses, homes, and other .
buildings located hi Washtenaw County,
Michigan, and found that 14 percent of
the buildings had improper storm drain
connections. Illicit discharges were
detected at a higher rate of 60 percent
for automobile-related businesses,
including service stations, automobile
dealerships, car washes, body shops,
and light industrial facilities. While
some of the problems discovered in this
study were due to improper plumbing or
illegal connections, a majority were
approved connections at the time they
were built but have since become
unlawful discharges.
NURP and other studies of urban
runoff insight on what can be
considered background levels of
pollutants for urban runoff, as these
studies have focused primarily oh
monitoring runoff from residential,
commercial, and light industrial areas.
However, NURP concluded that the
quality of urban runoff can be impacted
adversely by several sources of
pollutants that were not evaluated
directly hi the study and .that are
generally not reflected 4n the NURP
data, such as illicit connections,
construction site runoff, industrial site
runoff, and illegal dumping.
For some industrial facilities, the
types and concentrations of pollutants
in storm water discharges are similar to
the types and concentrations of
pollutants generally found in storm
water discharges from residential and
commercial areas. However, storm
water discharges from other industrial
facilities have a significant potential for
higher pollutant levels. In addition,
pollutant loadings per unit area from
some industrial facilities may be high
because of a high degree of
unperviousness.
Six activities can be identified as
major potential sources of pollutants in
storm water discharges associated with
industriaf-activity; (I) Loading or
unloading of dry biilk materials or '
liquids; (2) outdoor storage of raw
materials or products; (3) outdoor
process activities; (4) dust or paniculate
generating processes; (5) illicit
connections or inappropriate
management practices; and (6) waste
disposal practices.4 The potential for __
pollution from many of these activities"
may be influenced by the presence and
use of toxic chemicals. These activities
are discussed in more.detail below.
1. Loading and unloading operations
typically are performed along facility
access roads and railways and at
loading/unloading docks and terminals.
These operations include pumping of
liquids or gases from truck or rail car to
a storage faculty or vice versa,
pneumatic transfer of dry chemicals to
or from the loading or unloading vehicle.
transfer by mechanical conveyor
systems, and transfer of bags, boxes,
drums, or other containers from vehicle
by forklift trucks or other materials
tmndlt"B equipment Material spills or
losses may discharge directly to the
storm drainage systems or may
date in soils or on surfaces and
nt Practice*: Useful Tool*
t M
for Cleaning Up". Rogoahewaki. P. 1982. Proceedings
of the 1SS2 Hasardoua Material Spill* Conference:
-Manual of Practice: On Site Identification of Illicit
Connection*-. The Cadmu* Croup. 1890; "Design of
Urban Runoff Quality Control*". American Society
of Civil Engineer*. IBBfc "Urban Stonnwater Quality
Enhancement'Source Control. Retrofitting, and
Combined Sewer Technology-. Tomo. American
Society of Civil Engineer*. 1989; "NPDES Be«t
Management Practice* Guidance Document". EPA. .
197ft "Guideline* to Pollution Prevention: The
Peatidda Formulating Induatry". 1890. EPA/62S/7-
90/004: "Guide* to Pollution Prevention: The Paint
Manufacturing Induitry". 1990. EPA/825/7-90/005:
"Guide* to Pollution Prevention: The Fabricated
Metal Product* Industry". 1990. EPA/B2S/7-80/OOB:
and "AnalyaU of Implementing Permitting Activities
for Storm Water Discharges Auodated with
lndu»trial Activity". EPA. 1991.
-------
be washed away during a storm or
facility washdown.
2. Outdoor storage activities include
the storage of fuels, raw materials. .
byproducts, intermediates, final
products and process residuals.
Methods of material storage include
using storage containers (e.g., drums or
tanks), platforms or pads, bins, silos,
boxes, or piles. Materials, containers.
and material storage areas that are
exposed to rainfall and/or runoff may *
contribute pollutants to storm water
when solid materials wash off or
materials dissolve into solution.
3. Other outdoor activities include
certain types of manufacturing and
—commercial operations and land-
disturbing operations. Although many
manufacturing activities are performed
indoors, some activities, such as
equipment maintenance and/or
cleaning, timber processing, rock
crushing, vehicle maintenance and/or
cleaning, and concrete mixing, typically
occur outdoors. Processing operations
may result in liquid spillage and losses
of material solids to the drainage system
or surrounding surfaces, or creation of
dusts or mists, which can be deposited
locally. Some outdoor industrial
activities cause substantial physical
disturbance of land surfaces that result
in soil erosion by storm water. For
example, disturbed land occurs in
construction and mining. Disturbed land
may result in soil losses and other
pollutant loadings associated with
increased runoff rates. Facilities whose
major process activities are conducted
indoors may still apply chemicals such
as herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizer
outdoors for a variety of purposes.
4. Dust or particulate generating
processes include industrial activities
with stack emissions or process dusts
that settle on plant surfaces. Localized
atmospheric deposition is a particular
concern with heavy manufacturing
"industries. For example, monitoring of
areas surrounding smelting industries
has shown much higher levels of metals
at sites nearest the smelter. Other
industrial sites, such as mines, cement
manufacturing, and refractories.
generate significant levels of dusts.
5. Illicit connections or inappropriate
management practices result in
improper non-storm water discharges to
storm sewer systems. The likelihood of
illicit discharges to storm water
collection systems is expected to be
higher at older facilities, due to past
practices, as well as for facilities that
use high volumes of process water or
dispose of significant amounts of liquid
wastes, including process waste waters.
„. cooling voters, and rinse waters.
Pollutants from non-storm water
discharges to the storm sewer system of
individual facilities are caused typically
by a combination of improper
connections, spills, improper dumping.
and the belief that the absence of visible
solids in a discharge is equivalent to the
absence of pollution. Illicit connections
are often associated with floor drains
that are connected to separate storm
sewers. Rinse waters used to clean or
cool objects discharge to floor drains
connected to separate storm sewers.
Large amounts of rinse waters may
originate from industries that use regular
washdown procedures; for example.
bottling plants use rinse waters for
removing waste products, debris, and •
labels. Rinse waters can be used to cool
materials by dipping, washing, or
spraying objects with cool water, for
example, rinse water is sometimes
sprayed over the final products of a
metal plating facility for cooling
purposes. Condensate return lines of
heat exchangers often discharge to floor
drains. Heat exchangers, particularly
those used under stressed conditions
(such as exposure to corrosive fluids)
such as in the metal finishing and
electroplating industry, may develop •
pinhole leaks that result in
contamination of condensate by process
wastes. These and other non-storm
water discharges to a storm sewer may
be intentional, based on the belief that
the discharge (condensate in the
example previously discussed) does not
contain pollutants, or they may be
inadvertent, if the operator is unaware
that a floor drain is connected to the
storm sewer.
A. Waste management practices
include temporary storage of waste
materials, operating landfills, waste
piles, and land application sites that
involve land disposal. Outdoor waste
treatment operations also include waste
water and solid waste treatment and
disposal processes, such as waste
pumping, additions of treatment
• chemicals, mixing, aeration.
clarification, and solids dewatering.
Facilities often conduct some waste
management on site.
Coal Pile Runoff
The following description of coal pile
runoff is summarized from the "Final
Development Document for Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards
and Pretreatment Standards for the
Steam Electric Point Source Category"
(EPA-440/1-82/029), EPA. November
1982. A more complete description of
coal pile runoff can be found in the
• development document.
The pollutants in coal pile runoff can
be classified into specific types
according to chemical characteristics.
Each type relates to the pH of the coal
pile drainage. The pH tends to be of an
acidic nature, primarily as a result of the
oxidation of iron sulfide in the presence
of oxygen and water. The potential
influence of pH on the ability of toxic
and heavy metals to leach from coal
piles is of particular concern. Many of
the metals are amphoteric with regard to
their solubility behavior. These factors
affect acidity. pH, and the subsequent
leaching of trace metals:
• Concentration and form of pyritic
sulfur in coal;
• Size of the coal pile;
• Method of coal preparation and
clearing prior to storage: .-.».•• — ,.,..-,.•
• Climatic conditions, including
rainfall and temperature;
• Concentrations of calcium
carbonate and other neutralizing
substances in the coal;
• Concentration and form of trace
metals in the coal; and
• The residence time of water in the
coal pile.
Coal piles can generate runoff with
low pH values, with the acid values
being quite variable. The suspended
solids levels can be significant, with
levels of 2,500 mg/1 not uncommon.
Metals present in the greatest
concentrations are copper, iron,
aluminum, nickel, and zinc. Others
present in trace amounts include
chromium, cadmium, mercury, arsenic.
selenium, and beryllium.*
ID. Coverage of General Permits
These final general permits may
authorize all new and existing
discharges composed of storm water
associated with industrial activity. To
be authorized under today's general
permit, the owner or operator of a
facility with a storm water discharge
• associated with industrial activity must
submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to be
" covered, using an NCI form (or-
photocopy thereof) provided by the
Director. Unless notified by the Director
to the contrary, owners or operators
who submit such notification are
authorized to discharge storm water
associated with industrial activity under
the terms and conditions of thia permit.
Upon review of the NOI. the Director
may deny coverage under this permit
and require submittal of an application
for an individual National Pollutant
» A more complete description of pollutant* in
coal pile runoff is provided in the "Final
Development Document for Effluent .Limitation!
Guidelines and Standards and Pretreatment
Standards for the Steam Electric Point Source
Category." (EPA-440/1-82/029). EPA. November
1982.
-------
41240
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
Discharge Elimination System (NFDES)
permit.
Dischargers that have previously
submitted an individual permit
application or participated in a group
application are not precluded from
submitting an NOI to obtain coverage
under today's general permits. •
Seven types of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity are
not authorized by and may not be
covered by today's general permit Each
of these is discussed in turn below:
• Storm water discharges associated
with industriabactivity that are mixed
with sources of non-storm water other
than discharges that are either (1) in
compliance with a different NPDES
permit or (2) identified in the pannitas
being a class of non-storm water
discharge that can be authorized by the
permit and comply with the
requirements of the permit.
• Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that are subject
to an existing effluent limitation
guideline for storm water or a
combination of storm water and process
water •
* Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from facilities
with an existing NPDES individual or
general permit for the storm water
discharges. Storm water discharges that
are authorized by an existing NPDES
individual or general permit may be
authorized by this permit after the
existing permit expires, provided that
the permit did not establish numeric
limitations for such discharges. In
addition, storm water discharges that;
are not covered by an existing NPDES
permit may be authorized by this permit
even where other storm water
discharges from the same facility are
covered by a different NPDES permit:
• Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from
construction activities;7
•For the purpose oi thi* posit thi following .
effluent limitations guidelines address itotm water
or • combination of itorm water and proem water
cement manufacturing (40 CFR 411): feedlota (40
CFR 412): fertiliser manufacturing (40 CFR 418):
petroleum refining (40 CFR 419): phosphate
manufacturing (40 CFR 422): steam electric (40 CFR
423): coal mining (40 CFR 434): mineral mining end
processing (40 CFR 430): ore mining and dressing (40
CFR 440): and asphalt emulsion (40 CFR 443). This
permit may authorize storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity that are not
subject to an effluent limitation guideline even
where a different storm water discharge at the
facility is subject to en effluent limitation guideline.
' EPA is in the process of issuing separate general
permits for storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from construction activities. In
situations where construction activities occur at an
existing industrial facility, or where Industrial
activities addressed by 40 CFR 12&2ft(b) (I) through
(ix) or (xl), such as asphalt plants and concrete
plants, are employed at a construction site, the
• Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that the Director
has determined to be or may reasonably*
expect to be contributing to a violation
of a water quality standard;
• Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that may
adversely affect a listed or proposed to
be listed endangered or threatened
species or its critical habitat: and
• Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from inactive
mining, inactive landfills, or inactive oil
and gas operations occurring on Federal
lands where an operator cannot be
identified. '
IV. Summary of Permit Conditions
The conditions of today's general
permits have been designed to comply
with the technology-based standards of
the Clean Water Act (CWA). The
general permits contain a prohibition on
discharging sources of non-storm water.
requirements for releases of hazardous
substances or oil in excess of reporting
quantities, a set of tailored requirements
for developing and implementing storm
water pollution prevention plans.
monitoring requirements for selected
discharges, and numeric effluent
limitations for coal pile runoff.
A. Notification Requirements
General permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity must require the submittal of an
NOI prior to the authorization of such
discharges (see 40 CFR 12L28(b)(2)(i).
April 2.1992, (57 FR11394]). Consistent
with these regulatory requirements.
today's general permits establish NOI
requirements that operate instead of
individual permit application
requirements.
Dischargers submitting an NOI must.
use the form provided by the Director
(or photocopy thereof). A copy of the
NOI and accompanying instructions an
provided in appendix C. NOI forms an
also generally available from the Storm
Water Hotline ((703) 821-4823) and
appropriate EPA Regional offices (see
the Regional Offices section of today's
notice).
1. Contents of NOIs
The NOI must include the following
information:
• Name, mailing address, and
location of the facility for which the
notification is submitted. When a
mailing address for the site is not
available, the location can be described
In terms of the latitude and longitude of
the facility to the nearest 15 seconds
that the facility is located in:
• Up to four 4-digit Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) codes that
best represent the principal products or
activities provided by the facility or for
hazardous waste treatment storage or '
disposal facilities, land disposal
facilities that receive or have received
any industrial waste, steam electric
power generating facilities, or treatment
works treating domestic sewage, a
narrative identification of those
activities;
• The operator's name, address.
telephone number, and status as
Federal. State, private, public, or other
entity:
• The permit number of any NPDES
permit for any discharge (including non-
storm water discharges) from the site
that is currently authorized by an
NPDES permit:
• The name of the receiving wateiis).
or if the discharge is through a municipal
separate storm sewer, the name of the
municipal operator of the storm sewer
and the receiving water(s) for the
discharge through the municipal
separate storm sewer,
• An indication of whether the owner
or operator has existing quantitative
data describing the concentration of
pollutants in storm water discharges
(existing date should not be included as
part of the NOI):
• An indication as to whether the
facility has previously participated in
the group application process.* Where a
facility has participated in a group
application, the number EPA assigned to
the group application shall be supplied:
and
• For any facility that begins to
discharge storm water associated with
industrial activity after October 1.1992.
a certification that a storm water
prepared for the facility in accordance
with Part IV of this permit (A copy of
the plan should not be included with 1he
NOI submission).
The NOI must be signed in
accordance with the signatory
requirements of 40 CFR 12L22. A
complete description of these signatory
requirements are provided in the
instructions accompanying the NOI (see
appendix C). Completed NOI forms must
be submitted to the Director of the
NPDES program in care of the. following
storm water discharge associated with industrial
activity from the Industrial activity addressed by 40
r(>d)eanoe
sheet
• As discussed above, dischargers that have
previously participated in a group application are
not precluded from submitting an NOI to be covered
by today's permits. ,
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
41241
address: Storm Water Notices of Intent
P.O. Box IMS. Newington, VA 22122.
2. Deadlines
Except for the special circumstances
discussed below, dischargers who
intend to obtain coverage under today's '
general permit for a storm water
discharge from an industrial activity
that is in existence prior to October 1.
1992, must submit an NO1 on or before
October 1,1992. and facilities that begin
industrial activities after October 1.
1992. are required to submit an NOI at
least 2 days prior to the commencement
of the new industrial activity.
Oil and gas exploration, production,
processing, or treatment operations o* -
transmission facilities that are not
as of October 1.1992. in accordance
with 40 CFR lZi26(c)(l)(iii) but that
have a discharge after October 1.1992.
of a reportable quantity of oil or a
hazardous substance for which
notification is required pursuant to 40
CFR 110.6.40 CFR 117.21 or 40 CFR 302.3
are required to submit an NOI within 14
calendar days of the first knowledge of
such release.
Storm water discharges associated .
with industrial activity from any facility
owned or operated by a municipality
that has participated in a timely part 1
group application and where either the
group application is rejected or the
municipally owned or operated facility
is denied participation in the group
application by EPA must submit an NOI
on or before the 180th day following the
date on which the group is rejected or
the denial is made, or on or before
October 1,1992, whichever is later. This
deadline is consistent with section
1068(b) of the mtermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
A discharger is not precluded from
submitting an NOI at a later date.
However, in such instances, EPA may
bring appropriate enforcement actions^
EPA may deny coverage under trfll "~
permit and require submittal of an
individual NPDES permit application
based on a review of the completeness
and/or content of the NOI or other
information (e.g.. water quality
information, compliance history, history
of spills, etc.). Where EPA requires a
discharger authorized under the general
permit to apply for an individual NPDES
permit or an alternative general permit,
EPA will notify the discharger in writing
that a permit application is required.
Coverage under this general permit will
automatically terminate if the discharger
fails to submit the required permit
application in a timely manner. Where •
the discharger does submit a requested
permit application, coverage unde* this
general permit will automatically
terminate on the effective date of the
issuance or denial of the individual •
NPDES permit or the alternative general
permit as it applies to the individual
permittee. •
3. Additional Notification
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity that
discharge through a large or medium
municipal separate storm sewer-
system • must in addition to submitting
an NOI to the Director, submit a copy of
the NOI to the municipal operator of the
system receiving the discharge.
4 Noticejrf Termination
Wherea discharger is able to
eliminate the storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
a facility, the discharger may submit a
Notice of Termination (NOT) form (or
photocopy thereof) provided by the
Director. This will assist EPA in tracking
the status of the discharger.
A copy of the NOT anp! instructions
for completing the NOT are provided in
appendix D of today's notice. The NOT
form requires the following information:
• Name, mailing address, and
location of the facility for which the
notification is submitted. Where a street
address for the site is not available, the
location of the approximate center of the
site must be described in terms of the
latitude and longitude to the nearest IS
seconds, or the section, township and
range to the nearest quarter,
• The name, address and telephone
number of the operator addressed by the
Notice of Termination;
• The NPDES permit number for the
storm water discharge associated with
industrial activity identified by the
• An indication of whether the storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity have been eliminated
or the operatotuof the discharges has
- changed; and *"
• The following certification:
"I certify under penalty oflaw that all
storm water discharge, associated wUh
industrial activity from the identified facility
under this general permit, and that
discharging pollutants in storm water
associated with industrial activity to waters
of the United States is unlawful under the
Clean Water Act where the discharge is not
authorized by a NPDES permit I also
understand that the submittal of this notice of
termination does not release an operator
from liability for any violations of this permit
or the Qean Water Act-
permit have been eliminated or that I am no
longer the operator of the facility or
construction site. 1 understand that by
submitting this Notice of Termination, 1 am
no longer authorized to discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
• The term* large and medium municipal separate
storm sewer lyttemi (systems serving srpopulation
of 100000 or more) are defined at 40 CFR ™MQ>)
(4) and (7). Some of the cities and counties in which
these systems are found are listed in Appendices F,
C. H and I to 40 CFR part 122. Other large and
medium systems have been designated by EPA on a
case-by-caw basis
NOTs are to be sent to the Director of
the NPDES program in care of the
following address: Storm Water Notice
of Termination, P.O. Box 1185,
Newington. Virginia 22122.
The NOT must be signed hi
accordance with the signatory
requirements of 40 CFR 12Z22. A
complete description of these signatory
requirements is provided in the
instructions accompanying the NOT (see
appendix D).
B. Special Conditions
1. Prohibition on Non-Storm Water
Discharges
Today's general permits do not
authorize non-storm water discharges
that are mixed with storm water except
as provided below. Non-storm water
discharges that can be authorized under
today's permits include discharges from
fire fighting activities; fire hydrant
flushings; potable water sources,
including waterline flushings; irrigation
drainage: lawn watering; routine
external building washdown without
detergents; pavement washwaters
where spills or leaks of toxic or
hazardous materials have not occurred
(unless all spilled material has been
removed) and where detergents are not
used; air conditioning condensate;
springs; uncontaminated ground water,
and foundation or footing drains where
flows are not contaminated with process
materials such as solvents that are
combined with storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity.
To be authorized under the general
permits, these sources of non-storm
water (except flows from fire fighting
activities) must be identified in the
storm water pollution prevention plan
prepared for the facility. (Plans and
other plan requirements are discussed in
more detail below). Where such
discharges occur, the plan must also
identify and ensure the implementation
of appropriate pollution prevention
measures for the non-storm water
component(s) of the discharge. For
example, to reduce pollutants in
irrigation drainage, a plan could identify
low maintenance lawn areas that do not
require the use of fertilizers or
herbicides; for higher maintenance lawn
areas, a plan could identify measures
-------
41242
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
such as limiting fertilizer use based on
seasonal and agronomic considerations.
decreasing herbicide use with an
integrated pest management program.
introducing natural vegetation or more
hardy species, and reducing water use
(thereby reducing the volume of
irrigation drainage).
Today's permits do not require
pollution prevention measures to be
identified and implemented for non- •
storm water flows from fire-fighting
activities because these flows will
generally be unplanned emergency
situations where it is necessary to take
immediate action to protect the public.
The prohibition on unpennitted non-
storm water discharges in these permits
ensures that non-storm water discharges
(except for those classes of non-storm
water discharges that an conditionally
authorized) are not inadvertently
authorized by these permits. Where a
storm water discharge is mixed with
non-storm water that is not authorized
by today's general permits or another
NPDES permit, the discharger should
submit the appropriate application
• forms (Forms 1,2C, and/or 2E) to gain
coverage of the non-storm water portion
of the discharge.
2. Releases of Reportable Quantities of
Hazardous Substances and Oil •
These general permits provide that the
discharge of hazardous substances or oil
from a facility must be eliminated or
minimized in accordance with the storm
water pollution plan developed for the
facility. Where a permitted storm water
discharge contains a hazardous
substance or oil in an amount equal to
or in excess of a reporting quantity .
established under 40 CFR110.40 CFR
117, or 40 CFR 302 during a 24 hour
period, the following actions must be
taken:
• Any person in charge of the facility
is required to notify the National
Response Center (NRC) (800-424-6802;
in the Washington. DC. metropolitan
area, 202-426-2675) in accordance with
the requirements of 40 CFR 110.40 CFR
117. and 40 CFR 302 as soon as they
have knowledge of the discharge;
• The storm water pollution
prevention plan for the facility must be
modified within 14 calendar days of
knowledge of the release to provide a
description of the release, an account of
the circumstances leading to the release.
and.the date of the release. In addition.
the plan must be reviewed to identify
measures to prevent the reoccurrence of
such releases and to respond to such
releases, and it must be modified where
appropriate.
• The permittee must also submit to
EPA within 14 calendar days of .
knowledge of the release a written
description of the release (including the
type and estimate of the amount of
material released), the date that such
release occurred, the circumstances
leading to the release, and steps to be
taken to modify the pollution prevention
plan for the facility.
Anticipated discharges containing a
hazardous substance in an amount
equal to or in excess of reporting .
quantities are those caused by events
occurring within the scope of the
relevant operating system. Facilities that
have more than one anticipated
discharge per year containing a
hazardous substance in an amount
equal to or in excess of a reportable
quantity are required ttf: -1———"
• Submit notifications for the first
release that occurs during a calendar
year (or for the first year of this permit
after submittal of an NOI); and
• Provide a written description in the
storm water pollution prevention plan of
the dates on which such releases'
occurred, the type and estimate of the
amount of material released, and the
circumstances leading to the release. In
addition, the plan must be reviewed to
identify measures to minimize such
releases and the plan must be modified •
where appropriate.
Where a discharge of a hazardous
substance or oil in excess of reporting
quantities is 'caused by a nonstonn
water discharge (e.g., a spill of oil into a
separate storm sewer), that discharge is
not authorized by this permit and the
discharger must report the discharge as
required under 40 CFR 110,40 CFR 117.
or 40 CFR 302. In the event of a spill, the
requirements of section 311 of the CWA
and other applicable provisions of
sections 301 and 402 of the CWA
continue to apply. This approach is
consistent with the requirements for
reporting releases of hazardous
substances and oil that make a clear
distinction between hazardous
substances S&Aca&fSovad in-*terai
water discharges and those associated
with spills that are not considered part
of a normal storm water discharge (see
40CFRll7.12(d)(2)(i)).
C. Tailored Pollution Prevention Plan
Requirements
All facilities covered by today's
general permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity must prepare and implement a
storm water pollution prevention plan.
The storm water permits address
pollution prevention plan requirements
for a number-of categories of industries,
including: Baseline requirements for all
industries; special requirements for
certain facilities subject to Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act (EPCRA) section 313; special
•requirements for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
through large and medium municipal
separate storm sewer systems; and
special requirements for facilities with
outdoor salt storage piles. These tailored
requirements allow the implementation
of site-specific measures that address
features, activities, or priorities for
control associated with the identified
storm water discharges. This framework
provides the necessary flexibility to
address the variable risk for pollutants
in storm water discharges associated
with the different types of industrial
activity addressed by these permits.
This approach also assures that
facilities have the opportunity to
identify procedures to prevent storm
water pollution at a particular site that
are appropriate, given processes
employed, engineering aspects,
functions, costs of controls, location.
and age of the facility (as contemplated
by 40 CFR 125.3). The approach taken
also allows the flexibility to establish
controls that can appropriately address
different sources of pollutants at
different facilities.
The pollution prevention approach
adopted in today's general permits
focuses on these two major objectives:
(1) To identify sources of pollution
potentially affecting the quality of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from the facility, and
(2) to describe and ensure
implementation of practices to minimize
and control pollutants in storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from the facility and to ensure
compliance with the terms and
conditions of this permit
The storm water pollution prevention
plan requirements hi the general permit
are intended to facilitate a process
whereby the operator of the industrial
'facility thoroughly evaluates potential
pollution sources at the site and selects
and implements appropriate measures
designed to prevent or control the
discharge of pollutants in storm water
runoff. The process involves the
following four steps: (1) Formation of a
team of qualified plant personnel who
will be responsible for preparing the
plan and assisting the plant manager in
its implementation. (2) assessment of
potential storm water pollution sources,
' (3) selection and implementation of •
appropriate management practices and
controls, and (4) periodic evaluation of
tiie ability of the plan to prevent storm
water pollution and comply with the
terms and conditions of this permit
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
41243
EPA believes the pollution prevention
approach is the most environmentally
sound and cost-effective way to control
the discharge of pollutants in storm
water runoff from industrial facilities.
This position is supported by the results
of a comprehensive technical survey
EPA completed in 1979.10 The survey
found that there are two classes of
management practices industry uses to
control the non-routine discharge of
pollutants from sources such as storm
water runoff, drainage from raw
material storage and waste disposal
areas, and discharges from places where
spills or leaks have occurred. The first
class of management practices includes
. those that are low in cost applicable to
a broad class of industries and
substances, and generally are
considered essential to a good pollution
control program. Some examples of
practices in this class are good
• housekeeping, employee training, and
spill prevention procedures. The second
class includes management practices
that provide a second line of defense
against the release of pollutants. This
class addresses containment mitigation,
cleanup, and treatment
Since publication of the 1979 survey,
EPA has imposed management practices
and controls in NPDES permits on a
case-by-case basis. The Agency also has
continued to review the appropriateness
and effectiveness of such practices,11 as
well as the techniques used to prevent
and contain oil spills.1* Experience with
these practices and controls has shown
that they can be used in permits to
reduce pollutant discharges in storm
water in a cost-effective manner. EPA
has developed guidance entitled "Storm
Water Management for Industrial
Activities: Developing Pollution
Prevention Plans and Best Management
Practices". EPA. 1992 to assist .
permittees in developing and
'• See "NPDES Beit Management Friction
Guidance Document" US. EPA. December 1979.
EPA-eOO/9-79-045.
* 'For example, tee "Beit Management Practices:
Useful Tools for Cleaning Up". Thron. R
Rogoshewski. P. 19S2. Proceedings of the 1982
Hazardous Material Spills Conference: The
Chemical Industries' Approach to Spill Prevention".
Thompson. C..' Coodier. \. 1980. Proceedings of the
1980 National Conference of Control of Hazardous
Materials Spills: a series of EPA memorandum
entitled "Best Management Practices in NPDES
Permits—Information Memorandum". 1983.1985.
1988.1987.1988: Review of Emergency Systems:
Report to Congress". EPA. 1988: and "Analysis of
Implementing Permitting Activities for Storm Water
Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity".
EPA. 1981.
" See for example. "The Oil Spill Prevention.
Control and Countermeasures Program Task Force
. Report". EPA. 198& and "Guidance Manual for the
Development of an Accidental Spill Prevention
Program", prepared by SAIC for EPA. 1986.
implementing pollution prevention
measures.
1. Pollution Prevention Team
As a first step in the process of
developing and implementing a storm
water pollution prevention plan,
permittees must identify a qualified
individual or team of individuals to be
responsible for developing the plan and
assisting the facility or plant manager in
its implementation. When selecting
members of the team, the plant manager
should draw on the expertise of all
relevant departments within the plant to
ensure that all aspects of plant
operations are considered when the plan
is developed. The plan must clearly ^
describe the responsibilities of eacfi
team member as they relate to specific
components of the plan. In addition to
enhancing the quality of communication
between team members and other
personnel, clear delineation of
responsibilities will ensure that every
aspect of the plan is addressed by a
specified individual or group of
individuals. Pollution Prevention Teams
may consist of one individual where
appropriate (e.g., in certain small
businesses with limited storm water
pollution potential).
2. Description of Potential Pollution
Sources
Each storm water pollution prevention
plan must describe activities, materials.
and physical features of the facility that
may contribute significant amounts of
pollutants to storm water runoff or,
during periods of dry weather, result in
pollutant discharges through the
separate storm sewers or storm water
drainage systems that drain the facility.
This assessment of storm water
pollution risk will support subsequent
efforts to identify and set priorities for
necessary changes in materials.
materials management practices, or site
features, as well as aid to the selection
of appropriate structural and "*~~
nonstructural control techniques. Plans
must describe the following elements:
a. Drainage. The plan must contain a
map of the site that shows the pattern of
storm water drainage, structural
features that control pollutants in
runoff.13 surface water bodies (including
wetlands), places where significant
materials *4 are exposed to rainfall and
19 Nonstructural features such as grass swales
and vegetative buffer strips also should be shown.
" Significant materials include, but are not
limited to the following: raw materials: fuels:
solvents, detergents, and plastic pellets: finished
materials, such as metallic products: raw materials
used in food processing or production: hazardous
substances designated under section 101(14) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response. .
runoff, and locations of major spills and
leaks that occurred in the 3 years prior
to the effective date of this permit. The
map also must show areas where the
following activities take place: Fueling.
vehicle and equipment maintenance
and/or cleaning, loading and unloading.
material storage (including tanks or
other vessels used for liquid or waste
storage), material processing, and waste
disposal. For areas of the facility that
generate storm water discharges with a
reasonable potential to contain
significant amounts of pollutants, the
map must indicate the probable
direction of storm water flow and the
pollutants likely to be in the discharge.
Flow* with a significant potential to .
cause soil erosion also must be
identified.
b. Inventory of exposed materials.
Facility operators are required to
carefully conduct an inspection of the
site and related records to identify
significant materials that are or may be
exposed to storm water. The inventory
must address materials that within 3.
years prior to the effective date of the
permit have been handled, stored,
processed, treated, or disposed of in a
manner to allow exposure to storm
water. Findings of the inventory must be
documented in detail in the pollution
prevention plan. At a minimum, the plan
must describe the methods and location
of on-site storage or disposal: practices
used to minimize contact of materials
with rainfall and runoff: existing
structural and nonstructural controls
that reduce pollutants in runoff: and any
treatment the runoff receives before it is
discharged to surface waters or a
separate storm sewer system. The
description must be updated whenever
there is a significant change in the types
or amounts of materials, or material
management practices, that may affect
the exposure of materials to storm
water.
c. Significant spills and leaks. The
plan must include a list of any
significant spills and leaks of toxic or
hazardous pollutants that occurred in
the 3 years prior to the effective date of
the permit. Significant spills include, but
are not limited to, releases of oil or
hazardous substances in excess of
quantities that are reportable under
section 311 of CWA (see 40 CFR 110.10
and 117.21) or section 102 of the .
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA): any
chemical the facility is required to report pursuant
to EPCRA Section 313; fertilizers; pesticides; and
waste products, such as ashes, slag, and sludge that
have the potential to be released with storm water
discharges. (See 40 CFR 122.26(b)(B)).
-------
41244
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
Act ICERCLA) {see 40 302.4). Significant
•pill* may also include releases of oil or
hazardous substances that are not in
excess of reporting requirements and
releases of materials that are not
classified as oil or a hazardous
substance.
The listing should include a
description of the causes of each spill or
leak, the actions taken to respond to
each release, and the actions taken to
prevent similar such spills or leaks in
the future. This effort will aid .the facility
operator as she or he examines existing
spill prevention and response
procedures and develops any additional
procedures necessary to fulfill the
requirements of part IVJX3.C. of this
permit.
7TNon-storm water discharges. Each
pollution prevention plan must include a
certification, signed by an authorized
individual, that discharges from the site
have been tested or evaluated for the
presence of non-storm water discharges.
The certification must describe possible
significant sources of non-storm water.
the results of any test and/or evaluation
conducted to detect such discharges, the
test method or evaluation criteria used.
the dates on which tests or evaluations
were performed, and the on-site
drainage points'directly observed during
the test or evaluation. Acceptable test or
evaluation techniques include dye tests.
television surveillance, observation of
outfalls or other appropriate locations
during dry weather water balance
calculations, and analysis of piping and
drainage schematics1*.
Except for flows that originate from
fire fighting activities, sources of non-
storm water that are specifically
identified in the permit as being eligible
for authorization under the general
permit must be identified in the plan.
Pollution prevention plans must identify
and ensure the implementation of
appropriate pollution prevention
measures for the non-storm water
discharge.
EPA recognizes that certification may
not be feasible where facility personnel
do not have access to an outfall.
manhole, or other point of access to the
conduit that ultimately receives the
discharge. In such cases, the plan must
describe why certification was not
feasible. Permittees who are not able to
certify that discharges have been tested
or evaluated must notify the Director in
accordance with part VIA. of the
permit.
" In general, smoke test* should not be used tor
evaluating the discharge of non-storm water to a
separate storm sewer as many sources of non-storm
water typically pass through a trap that would limit
the effectiveness of the smoke lest.
e. Sampling data. Any existing data
on the quality or quantity of storm water
discharges from the facility must be
described in the plan. These data may .
be useful for locating areas that have
contributed pollutants to storm water.
The description should include a
discussion of the methods used to
collect and analyze the data. Sample
collection points should be identified in
the plan and shown on the site map.
/. Risk identification and summary of
potential pollutant sources. The
description of potential pollution
' sources culminates in a narrative
assessment of the risk potential that
sources of pollution pose to storm water
quality. This assessment should clearly
point to activities, materials, and
physical features of the facility that
have a reasonable potential to
contribute significant amounts of
pollutants to storm water. Any such
activities, materials, or features must be
addressed by the measures and controls
subsequently described in the plan. In
'conducting the assessment the facility
operator must consider the following
activities: loading and unloading
operations; outdoor storage activities;
outdoor manufacturing or processing
activities; significant dust or particulate
generating processes; and on-site waste
disposal practices. The assessment must
list any significant pollution sources at
the site and identify the pollutant
parameter or parameters (i.e..
biochemical oxygen demand, suspended
solids, etc.) associated with each source.
.3. Measures and Controls
Following completion of the source
identification and assessment phase, the
permittee must evaluate, select, and
describe the pollution prevention
measures, best management practices
(BMPs), and other controls that.will be
implemented at the facility. BMPs
include processes, procedures.
schedules of activities, prohibitions on •
practices, and other management
practices that prevent or reduce the
discharge of pollutants in storm water
runoff.
• EPA emphasizes the implementation
of pollution prevention measures and
BMPs that reduce possible pollutant
• discharges at the source. Source
reduction measures include, among
others, preventive maintenance.
chemical substitution, spill prevention,
good housekeeping, training, and proper
materials management. Where such
practices are not appropriate to a
particular source or do not effectively
reduce pollutant discharges, EPA
supports the use of source control
measures and BMPs such as material
segregation or covering, water diversion.
and dust control. Like source reduction
measures, source control measures and
BMPs are intended to keep pollutants
out of storm water. The remaining
classes of BMPs, which involve
recycling or treatment of storm water,
allow the reuse of storm water or
attempt to lower pollutant
concentrations prior to discharge.
The pollution prevention plan must
discuss the reasons each selected
control or practice is appropriate for the
facility .and how each will address one
or more of the potential pollution
sources identified in part IVJX2. of the
plan. The plan also must include a
schedule specifying the time or times
during which each control or practice _
'will be implemented. In addition, the
plan should discuss ways in which the.
controls and practices relate to one
another and, when taken as a whole,
produce an integrated and consistent
approach for preventing or controlling
potential storm water contamination
problems. The portion of the plan that
describes the measures and controls
must address the following minimum
components.
a. Good housekeeping. Good
housekeeping involves using common
sense to identify ways to maintain a
clean and orderly facility and keep
contaminants out of separate storm
sewers. It includes establishing
protocols to reduce the possibility of
mishandling chemicals or equipment
and training employees in good
housekeeping techniques. These
protocols must be described in the plan
and communicated to appropriate plant
personnel.
b. Preventive maintenance. Permittees
must develop a preventive maintenance
program that involves regular inspection
and maintenance of storm water
management devices and other
• equipment and systems. The. program
description should identify the devices,
equipment,, anj} systems tbfijfirfll be
inspections and tests; and address
appropriate adjustment, cleaning, repair,
or replacement of devices, equipment
and systems. For storm water
• management devices such as catch
basins and oil/water separators, the
preventive maintenance program should
provide lor periodic removal of debris to
ensure that the devices are operating
efficiently. For other equipment and
systems, the program should reveal and
enable the .correction of conditions that
could cause breakdowns or failures that
may result in the release of pollutants.
c. Spill prevention and response
procedures. Based on an assessment of
possible spill scenarios, permittees must
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
specify appropriate material handling
procedures, storage requirements,
containment or diversion equipment,
and spill cleanup procedures that will
minimize the potential for spills and in
the event of a spill enable proper and
timely response. Areas and activities
that typically pose a high risk for spills
include loading and unloading areas,
storage areas, process activities, and
waste disposal activities. These
activities and areas, and their
accompanying drainage points, must be
described in the plan. For a spill
prevention and response program to be
effective, employees should clearly
understand the proper-procedures and
t — — * ~ __J LA»*K tleiA AM«*4**mani
necessary to respond to spills.
d. Inspections. In addition to or as
part of the comprehensive site
evaluation, qualified facility personnel
must be identified to inspect designated
equipment and areas of the facility at
appropriate intervals specified in the
plan. A set of tracking or followup
procedures must be used to ensure that
appropriate actions are taken in
response to the inspections. Records of
inspections must be maintained.
e. Employee training, The pollution
prevention plan must describe a
program for informing personnel at all
levels of responsibility of the
components and goals of the storm
water pollution prevention plan. The
training program should address topics
such as good housekeeping, materials
management, and spill response
procedures. A schedule for conducting
training must be provided in the plan.
Where appropriate, contractor
personnel also must be trained in
relevant aspects of storm water _
pollution prevention.
f. Recordkeeping'and internal
reporting procedures. The pollution
prevention plan must describe
procedures for developing and retaining
records on the status and effectiveness
ofplanTmplementation. At alnlnimum.
records must address spills, monitoring.
and inspection and maintenance
activities. The plan also must describe a
system that enables timely reporting of
storm water management-related
information to appropriate plant
personnel.
g. Sediment and erosion control. The
pollution prevention plan must identify
areas that due to topography, activities.
soils, cover materials, or other factors
have a high potential for significant soil
erosion. The plan must identify
measures that will be implemented to
limit erosion in these areas.
h. Management of runoff. The plan
must contain a narrative evaluation of
the appropriateness of traditional storm
water management practices (i.e-
practices other than those that control
pollutant sources) that divert, infiltrate.
reuse, or otherwise manage storm water
runoff so as to reduce the discharge of
pollutants. Appropriate measures may
include, among others, vegetative
swales, collection and reuse of storm
water, inlet controls, snow management.
infiltration devices, and wet detention/
retention basins.
Based on the results of the evaluation,
the plan must identify practices that the
permittee determines are reasonable
and appropriate for the facility. The plan
also should describe the particular
pollutant source area or activity to be
controlled by each storm water
management practice. Reasonable and
appropriate practices must be ^
implemented and maintained according
to the provisions prescribed in the plan.
In selecting storm water management
measures, it is important to consider the
potential effects of each method on
other water resources, such as ground
water. Although storm water pollution
prevention plans primarily focus on
storm water management, faculties must
also consider potential ground water
pollution problems and take appropriate
steps to avoid adversely impacting
ground water quality. For example, if the
water table is unusually high in- an area.
an infiltration pond may contaminate a
ground water source unless special
preventive measures are taken. Under
EPA's July 1991 Ground Water
Protection Strategy. States are
encouraged to develop Comprehensive
State Ground Water Protection
Programs (CSGWPP). Efforts to control
storm water should be compatible with
State ground water objectives as
reflected in CSGWPPs.
4. Comprehensive Site Compliance
Evaluation
The storm water pollution prevention
plan must describe the scope and
' content of comprehensive site
inspections that qualified personnel will
conduct to (1) confirm the accuracy of
the description of potential pollution
sources contained in the plan, (2)
determine the effectiveness of the plan.
and (3) assess compliance with the
terms and conditions of the permit. The
plan must indicate the frequency of such
evaluation which in most cases must be
at least once a year.18 The individual or
»• Where ei»iu«litutaepectione are rtiown in the
plan to be Impractical for inactive mining lite*, due
to remote location and inaeeeMibillty. sttt
uepecttoni rauit be conducted at lent one* every
three yeut. However, it tout one inspection muat
tetce piece before October 1. ISM. For mining eitee
thet become Inactive after October 1. ISM. the tint
individuals who will conduct the
inspections must be identified in the
plan and should be members of the
pollution prevention team.
Material handling and storage areas
and other potential sources of pollution
must be visually inspected for evidence
of actual or potential pollutant
discharges to the drainage system.
Inspectors also must observe erosion
controls and structural storm water
management devices to ensure that each
is operating correctly. Equipment
needed to implement the pollution
prevention plan, such as that used
during spill response activities, must be
inspected to confirm that it is in proper
working order. - -Tr —-
The results of each site inspection
must be documented in a report signed
by an authorized company official. The
report must describe the scope of the
inspection, the personnel making the
inspection, the date(s) of the inspection.
and any major observations relating to
implementation of the storm water
pollution prevention plan. Inspection
reports must be retained for at least
three years after the date that the permit
expires. . . .
Based on the results of each
inspection, the description of potential
pollution sources in part IV.D.2. and
measures and controls in part IV.D.3 of
the plan must be revised as appropriate
within two weeks after each inspection.
Changes in the measures and controls
must be implemented on the site in a
timely manner, and never more than 12
weeks after completion of the
inspection.
D. Special Requirements
1. EPCRA Section 313
Today's permits establish special
requirements for certain permittees
subject to reporting requirements under
section 313 of the Emergency Planning
and Community-Right-to-Kp'»w-Act
(EPCRA) (also known as title m of the
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA)). EPCRA
section 313 requires operators of certain
faculties that manufacture (including
import), process, or otherwise use listed
toxic chemicals to report annually their
releases of those chemicals to any
environmental media. Listed toxic
chemicals include more than 300
chemicals listed at 40 CFR 372.
The criteria for facilities that must
report under section 313 are given at 40
CFR 372.22. A facility is subject to the
annual reporting provisions of section
eite iiupection muit Uke piece .on the dete two
yeen efter euch • eite become* inective,
-------
41246
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
313 if it meets all three of the following
criteria for a calendar yean
• It is included in Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes 20 through 39;
• It has 10 or more full-time
employees; and
• It manufactures {including imports),
processes, or otherwise uses a chemical
listed in 40 CFR 372.65 in amounts
greater than the "threshold" quantities
specified in 40 CFR 372^5.
There an* more than 300 individually
listed Section 313 chemicals, as well as
20 categories of Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI) chemicals for which reporting is
required. EPA has the authority to add
to and delete from this list The Agency
has identified approximately 175
chemicals that it is classifying for the
purposes of this general permit as
"Section 313 water priority chemicals".
For the purposes of this general permit,
section 313 water priority chemicals are
defined as chemicals or chemical
categories that (1) are listed at 40 CFR
372.65 pursuant to EPCRA section 313;
(2) are manufactured, processed, or
otherwise used at or above threshold
levels at a facility subject to EPCRA
section 313 reporting requirements; and
(3) meet at least one of the following
criteria: (i) Are listed in appendix D of
40 CFR part 122 on either Table n
(organic priority pollutants). Table m
(certain metals, cyanides, and phenols),
or Table V (certain toxic pollutants and
hazardous substances); (ii) are listed as
a hazardous substance pursuant to
section 311(b)(2)(A) of the CWA at 40
CFR 116.4; or (iii) are pollutants for
which EPA has published acute or
chronic toxicity criteria. A list of the
water priority chemicals is provided in
addendum B to the permit in appendix
B.
Summary of Special Requirements
' The special requirements in today's. .
permits for facilities subject to reporting
requirements under EPCRA Section 313
for a water priority chemical state that
storm water pollution prevention plans,
in addition to the baseline requirements
for plans, must contain special
provisions addressing areas where
Section 313 water priority chemicals are
stored, processed, or otherwise handled.
The permit provides that appropriate
containment drainage control, and/or
diversionary structures must be
provided for such areas. At a minimum,
one of the following preventive systems
or its equivalent must be used:
• Curbing, culverting, gutters, sewers,
or other forms of drainage control to
prevent or minimize the potential for
storm water run-on to come into contact
with significant sources of pollutants; or
• Roofs, covers, or other forms of
appropriate protection to prevent
storage piles from exposure to storm
water and wind.
.In addition, the permit establishes
requirements for priority areas of the
facility. Priority areas of the facility
including the following:
• Liquid storage areas where storm
water comes into contact with any
equipment tank, container, or other
vessel used for section 313 water
priority chemicals;
• Material storage areas for section
313 water priority chemicals other than
liquids;
• Truck and rail car loading and
unloading areas for liquid section 313
water priority chemicals; and
• Areas where section 313 water
priority chemicals are transferred,
processed, or otherwise handled..
The permit provides that site runoff
from other industrial areas of the facility
that may contain section 313 water
priority chemicals or spills of section 313
water priority chemicals must
incorporate the necessary drainage or
other control features to prevent the
discharge of spilled or improperly
disposed material and to ensure the
mitigation of pollutants in runoff or
leachate. The permit also establishes
special requirements for preventive
maintenance and good housekeeping.
facility security, and employee training.
Storm water pollution prevention •
plans for facilities subject to these
special requirements must be reviewed
by a Registered Professional Engineer
(PE). The PE must be able to certify that
the storm water pollution prevention
' plan has been prepared in accordance
with good engineering practices.The PE
must personally •»""<«• the faculty and
be familiar with the requirements of
today's permit before making a
certification. The permit requires that a
_PE certification be made every three
years. Where significant modifications
an made to the facility,'such as the
addition of material hiindH"S areas or
chemical storage units, permittees are
required to obtain an additional PE
certification as soon as practicable. The
PE certifications do not relieve the
discharger of the duty to prepare and
implement fully a storm water pollution
prevention plan mat is in accordance
with the permit
Sampling requirements for storm
water discharges from EPCRA section
313 are discussed below. Facilities
should review monitoring data and
evaluate pollution prevention measures
suitable for reducing pollutants in
discharges.
Requirements for Priority Areas
The permit provides that drainage
from priority areas should be restrained
by valves or other positive mean's to
prevent the discharge of a spill or other
excessive .leakage of section 313 water
priority chemicals. Where containment
units are employed, such units may be
emptied by pumps or ejectors; however.
these must be manually activated.
Flapper-type drain valves must not. be
used to drain containment areas, as
these will not effectively control spills.
Valves used for the drainage of
containment areas should, as far as is
practical, be of manual, open-and-closed
design. If facility drainage does not meet
these requirements, the final discharge
conveyance of all ih-facility storm . •
sewers must be equipped to be
equivalent with a diversion system that
could, in the event of an uncontrolled
spill of section 313 water priority
chemicals, return the spilled material or
contaminated storm water to the facility.
Records must be kept of the frequency
and estimated volume (in gallons) of '
'discharges from containment areas.
Additional special requirements are
related to the types of industrial
activities that occur within the priority
area. These requirements are
summarized below:
• Liquid storage areas. Where storm
water comes into contact with any
equipment tank, container, or other
vessel used for section 313 water
priority chemicals, the material and
construction of tanks or containers used
for the storage of a section 313 water
priority chemical must be compatible
with the material stored and conditions
of storage, such as pressure and
temperature. Liquid storage areas for
section 313 water priority chemicals
must be operated to minimize
discharges of section 313 chemicals.
Appropriate measures to minimize
discharges of section 313 chemicals may
include secondary containment
provided for at least the entire contents
of the largest single tank plus sufficient
freeboard to allow for precipitation, a
strong spill contingency and integrity
testing.plan. and/or other equivalent
measures. A strong spill contingency
plan would typically contain, at a
a description of response
plans, personnel needs, and methods of
mechanical containment (such as use of
sorbants, booms, collection devices,
etc.). steps to be taken for removal of
spill chemicals or materials, and
procedures to ensure access to and
availability of sorbents and other
equipment The testing component of the
plan would provide for conducting
-------
Federal Register/^ol. 57. No. ITS / Wednesday. September 9.199? / Notices
41247
integrity testing of storage tanks at set
intervals such as once every five years.
and conducting integrity and leak testing
of valves and piping at a minimum •
frequency, such as once per year, to
addition, a strong plan would include a
written and actual commitment of
manpower, equipment and materials
required to comply with the permit and
to expeditiously control and remove any
quantity of spilled or leaked chemicals
that may result in a toxic discharge.
• Other material storage areas.
Material storage areas for section 313
water priority chemicals other than
liquids that are subject to runoff.
leaching, or wind must incorporate
drainage or other control features to
minimize the discharge of section 313
water priority chemicals by reducing
storm water contact with section 313
water priority chemicals.
• Truck and rail car loading and
unloading areas. Truck and rail car
loading and unloading areas for liquid
section 313 water priority chemicals
must be operated to minimize
discharges of section 313 water priority
chemicals. Appropriate measures to
minimize discharges of section 313
chemicals may include the placement
and maintenance of drip pans (including
the proper disposal of materials
collected in the drip pans) where
spillage may occur (such as hose
connections, hose reels, and filler
nozzles) when making and breaking
hose connections; a strong spill
contingency and integrity testing plan;
and/or other equivalent measures.
• Other transfer, process, or handling
areas. Processing equipment and
materials handling equipment must be
operated to minimize discharges of
section 313 water priority chemicals. .
Materials used in piping and equipment
must be compatible with the substances
handled. Drainage from process and
materials handling areas must minimize
storm water contact with section 313
water priority chemicals. Additional
protection such as covers or guards to
prevent exposure to wind, spraying or
'releases from pressure relief vents to
prevent a discharge of section 313 water
priority chemicals to the drainage
system, and overhangs or door skirts to
enclose trailer ends at truck loading/
unloading docks must be provided as
appropriate. Visual inspections or leak
tests must be provided for overhead
piping conveying section 313 water
priority chemicals without secondary
containment
2. Salt Piles
Today's general permits contain
special requirements for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from salt storage facilities.
Storsgs piles of gal: u*ed *>r deidng w
other commercial or industrial purposes
must be enclosed or covered to prevent
exposure to precipitation, except for
exposure resulting from adding or
removing materials from the pile. This.
requirement only applies to runoff from
storage piles discharged to waters of the
United States. Facilities that collect all
of the runoff from their salt piles and
reuse it in their processes or discharge it
subject to a separate NPDES permit do
not need to enclose or cover their piles.
Permittees must comply with this
requirement as expeditiously as
practicable, but in no event later than
three years from the date of permit
issuance.
3. Discharges to Large and Medium
Separate Storm Water Systems
Permittees which discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
through large or medium municipal
separate storm water systems >T are .
required to submit a signed copy of their
NOI to the operator of the municipal
separate storm sewer system.
Facilities covered by these permits
must comply with applicable
" Laift and nMdium municipal Mparate •torm
tewmyaton* art system* located tarn
incorporated dly with • population of 10OOOO or
mm. or in • county identified M having • Ui«e or
OMdium system (ue 40 CFR 122JB(b)(4) and (7) and
ippendiCM F through I to part 122).
requirements in municipal storm water
management programs developed under
NPDES permits issued for the discharge
of the municipal separate storm sewer
system that receives the facility's
discharge/provided the discharger has
been notified ofiuch conditions. In
addition, permittees that discharge
storm water associated with industrial
activity through a municipal separate
storm sewer system serving a
population of 100.000 or more must make
their pollution prevention plans
available to the municipal operator of
the system upon request by the
municipal operator.
4. Coal Piles
Today's permits establish effluent
limitations of 50 mg/1 total suspended
solids and a pH range of 6.0-9.0 for coal
pile runoff. Any untreated overflow from
facilities designed, constructed, and
operated to treat the volume of coal pile
runoff associated with a 10 year. 24 hour
rainfall event is not subject to the 50
mg/1 limitation for total suspended
solids. Permittees must comply with this
requirements expeditiously as
practicable, but in no event later than
three years from the date of permit
issuance.
E. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
Today's permits establish discharge
monitoring requirements for certain
classes of industrial facilities. These
monitoring requirements are
summarized in Table 3. For the most
part special monitoring requirements
are limited to discharges associated
with specific industrial activities at
facilities within the identified class.
such as landfills or coal piles. Facilities
with storm water discharges that are
subject to monitoring requirements are
not required to monitor storm water
discharges that are not addressed by a
monitoring requirement so long as the
two discharges are segregated and the
flows do not commingle.
MLUNO CODE •MO-CO-M
-------
41248
Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
BaVVSaaBVVBUBBBBai
^^••••^•i
Typecf
FadBty
EPCRA,
Section 313
Facilities
Subject to
IRiOQUUttDBQIS 1
ferWater
Priority
Primary Metal
Industrie*
(SIC 33)
Land Disposal
Units/
Incinenlon/
BIFs
.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^.^^^.^^.^.^.^.^.^.^•^^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•••BI^IMI^I^IIBBSISJI^I^I^SHSMBH
Table 3. GENERAL PERMTT MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Typeaf
Storm Water Discharge
Stocm water discharges that come into
contact witt any equipment, tank,
container, or other venal or ana used
for atonfe of a Section 313 water
priority chemical, or located at a truck
or rafl car loading or unloading ana
where a Section 313 water priority
chemical is handled
with industrial activity
Storm water discharges horn active or
inactive land disposal unitf without a
stabilized «"** Out have received any
waste from industrial facilities other
tt»« j*mt «t nirt ifan ntitaM* Mid BtOTin WitW
qifVlPTIj™ IltUk UJCtnWsUOI* IUU Dll *
that bum hazardous waste
..• •:..
PemTaUllCtCn
Oil and Crease, BODS. COD.
TSS. Total Kjehlahl Nitrogen.
Total Phospbontt. pH. acute
whole effluent toxicity. any
Section 313 water priority
chemical for which the facility
reports
Oil and Grease. COD, TSS,
pH. acute whole effluent
toxicity. Total Recoverable
Lead. Total Recoverable
Cadmi""*. Total Recoverable
Copper. Total Recoverable
Arsenic. Total Recoverable
Chromium, and any pollutant
limited in an effluent guideline
to which the facility is subject
Ammonia, Total Recoverable
Magnesium, Magnesium
(dissolved). Total Xjeldahl
Nitrogen, COD. TDS. TOC.
Oil and Grease, pH. Total
Recoverable Arsenic, Total
Recoverable Barium. Total
Recoverable Cadmium, Total
Recoverable Chromium. Total
5SS?
Semi-
annual
i
Semi-
annual
Semi-
annual
JS5
Annual
Annual
Annual
Cyanide. Total Recoverable
Lead. Total Mercury. Total
Recoverable Selenium. Total
Recoverable Silver. Acute
Whole Effluent Toxicity.
Oil and Grease. pH. COD.
TSS
Storm water discharges from areas that
an used for wood treatment, wood
surface application or storage of treated
or surface protected wood
Wood
Treatment
Facilities
Plus Penuchlorophenol and
Acute Whole Effluent Toxicity
Facilities mat use chlorophenolic
formulations
Plus Acute Whole Effluent
Toxicity
Facilities that use creosote formulation!
Plus Total Recoverable
Arsenic. Total Recoverable
Chromium. Total Recoverable
Copper
Facilities mat use chromium-arsenic
formulations
-------
Federal Register / Vol 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
41249
T«bk3. GENERAL FERMTT MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Tjpe of
facility
Industrial
Facilities with
CndPilM
Battery
Reclaimers
Tjrpeof
Storm Water Discharge
•••iBMiMBM^BBaBBMam^Bie^^"""1
discharges from coal pile
Airports
(with over
50,000 flight
operations per
year)
Coal-fired
Steam Electric
Facilities
runoff
Storm water discharges from areas for
storage of lead acid batteries,
reclamation products, or waste
products, and anas used for lead acid
battery i
^^MM^^M
Storm water discharges from aircraft or
airport dewing areas
Animal
Handling/ •
Meatpacking
Facilities
Chemical and
Allied Product
Manufacturers/
Rubber
Manufacturers
(SIC 28 and
30)
Automobile
Junkyards
Storm water discharges from coal
handling sites (other than runoff from
coal piles which is not eligible for
coverage under mis permit)
Storm water discharges from animal
handling areas, manure management
areas, production waste management
areas exposed to precipitation at meat
packing plants, poultry packing plants.
facilities that manufacture animal and
marine fats and oils .
Storm water discharges that come into
contact with solid chemical storage piles
Storm water discharges exposed to:
(a) over 250 auto/truck bodies with
drivelines. 250 drivelines. or any
combination thereof
(b) over 500 auto/truck units
(c) over 100 units dismantled per year
where automotive fluids are drained or
stored
Oil and Grease, pH, TSS.
Total Recoverable Copper,
Total Recoverable Nickel,
Total Recoverable Zinc
Oil and Crease, COD. TSS,
pH. Total Recoverable Copper.
Total Recoverable Lead
Oil and Grease. BODS, COD.
TSS. pH, and the primary
ingredient used in the deicing
materials '
Semi* -
•Semi*
Annual
Annual
Oil and Grease. pH, TSS.
Total Recoverable Copper,
Total Recoverable Nickel,
Total Recoverable Zinc
BODS. Oil and Grease, COD,
TSS, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
(TKN). Total Phosphorus. pH.
Fecal Coliform
Annual
Annual
Retain
omte
Oil and Grease. COD. TSS.
pH. any pollutant limited in an
effluent guideline to which the
facility is subject
Annual
Retain
onsite
Retain
onsite
Retain
onsite"
Oil and Grease. COD. TSS.
pH. any pollutant limited in an
effluent guideline to which the
facility is subject
Annual
Retain
onsite
-------
41250
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday. ^September 9.1992 / Notices
y Table 3. GENERAL PERMIT MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Type of
Facility
Lime
Manufacturing
Facilities
Oil-fired -
Steam Electric
Power
Generating
Facilities
Cement
Manufacturing
Facilities and
Cement Kilns
Ready-mix
Concrete
Facilities
Ship Building
and Repairing
Facilities
Typeof
Storm Water Discharge
Storm water discharges mat have come
mt/t ivMitart until lints* stnnof nilfiC
Storm water discharges from oil
with industrial activity (except those
from material storage piles that are not
eligible for coverage under this permit)
All storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity
All discharces asfodatwf
with industrial activity
•nntctcfs
Oil and Grease. COD, TSS.
pH, any pollutant limited in an
effluent guideline to which the
facility is subject
Oil and Grease, COD. TSS.
pfl, any pollutant limited in an
effluent guideline to which the
facility is subject
Oil and Grease. COD, TSS.
pH. any pollutant limited in an
effluent guideline to which the
facility is subject
Oil and Grease, COD. TSS,
• pH. any pollutant limited in an
effluent, guideline to which the
facility is subject
Oil and Grease, COD. TSS.
oH. anv pollutant limited in an
effluent guideline to which the
facility is subject
££5
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
J55
Retain
onsite
Retain
onsite
Retain
onsite
Retain
onsite
Retain
onsite
M CODE MtO-SO-C
-------
•Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1?92 / Notices
41251
Where a given storm water discharge
is addressed by more than one class of .
monitoring requirements, then the
monitoring requirements for the
applicable classes of activities are
additive. Monitoring requirements must .
be evaluated on a outfall-by-outfall
basis. If a particular discharge fits under
more than one set of monitoring
requirements, the facility must comply
with both sets of sampling requirements.
Discharges composed entirely of
runoff from coal piles must be monitored
in a manner that ensures that the runoff
is not diluted or otherwise intermingled
with storm water from other sources or
other types of discharges. This is
necessary to'erisllre that coafplie'lunofr
complies with the numeric effluent
limitations hi today's permit
As noted in Table 3, only those
facilities required to conduct semiannual
monitoring must report monitoring
results to EPA on a regular basis. Other
facilities required to conduct monitoring
must only submit the results of their
sampling data if the data are requested
by EPA. Facilities that are not identified
in Table 3 are not required to conduct
discharge monitoring unless the Director
provides written notice that monitoring
is necessary.
All samples must be collected from
the discharge resulting from a storm
event greater than 0.1 inches in
magnitude and that occurs a* least 72
hours after the previously measurable
(greater than 0.1 inch rainfall) storm
event. A minimum of one grab sample
may be taken for discharges from
holding ponds or other impoundments
with a retention period greater than 24
hours. For ail other discharges, data .. -
must be reported for both a grab sample
and a composite sample. The grab
sample must be taken during the first
thirty minutes of the discharge. If the
collection of a grab sample during the
first thiFty-Bunuics is practicableca grab
sample can be taken during the first
hour of the discharge. In such cases the
discharger must submit with the
monitoring report a description of why a
grab sample during the first thirty
minutes was'inipracticable. The
composite sample must either be flow-
weighted or time-weighted. Composite
samples may be taken with a continuous
sampler or as a combination of a
minimum of three sample aliquots taken
in each hour of discharge for the entire
discharge or for the first three hours of
the discharge, with each aliquot being
-separated by a minimum period of
fifteen minutes. Composite samples do
not have to analyzed for pH, cyanide,
whole effluent toxicity, and oil and
grease. Oniygrab sample's need to be •
analyzed for these parameters where
these parameters are specified. Samples
must be analyzed in accordance with •
the analytic methods approved under 40
CFR136.
The permit allows the use of
substantially identical outfalls to reduce
the monitoring burden on a facility.
Permittees that intend to use this
provision must justify and document in
writing why one outfall is representative
of others. All facilities must include the
written justification in the facility storm
water pollution prevention plan. Where
a facility that is subject to semi-annual
monitoring requirements (EPCRA •
section 313, waste disposal sites, wood
preserving facilities, battery reclaimers.
coal pile runoff, and primary metal
facilities) does not monitor a
substantially identical outfall, the
permittee must submit the justification
of why an outfall(s) is representative of
others with the discharge monitoring
report. Other facilities required to
conduct monitoring under the permit
(e.g. those with annual monitoring
requirements) are not required to submit
the justification unless it is requested by
the Director. These facilities must keep
the justification in the storm water
pollution prevention plan.
The permit allows for temporary
waivers from sampling based on
adverse climatic conditions. This
temporary sampling waiver is only
intended to apply to insurmountable
weather conditions such as drought or
dangerous conditions such as lightning.
flash flooding, or hurricanes. These
events tend to be isolated incidents and
should not be used as an excuse for not
conducting sampling under more
favorable conditions associated with
other storm events. The sampling waiver
is not intended to apply to difficult
logistical conditions, such as remote
facilities with few employees or
discharge locations which are difficult to
access.
The location for submittal of all
reports is contained in the permit
Consistent with Office of Management
and Budget Circular A-105. facilities
located on certain Indian Lands in
Arizona, Utah. New Mexico. Idaho,
Nevada, and Colorado should note that
permitting authority has been
consolidated in one EPA Region where a
reservation crosses the boundaries
between the Regions. For example, all
NPDES permitting for Navajo lands is
handled by EPA Region IX. The permits
require dischargers that must submit
monitoring information annually to
provide copies to receiving large or
'- medium municipal separate storm Sewer
systems and States that have requested
this information.
The permit requires retention of
monitoring records for six years, since
not all facilities who monitor will be
required to submit the results annually.
In addition, pollution prevention plans
must be kept for the life of the permit
F. Regional Offices
Notices of Intent to be authorized to
discharge under these permits should be
tent to: Storm Water Notices of Intent
PO Box 1251. Newington. VA 22122.
Other submittals of information
required under these permits or
individual permit applications should be
sent to the appropriate EPA Regional
Office:
CT.MA.ME.NH.RI.VT
United States EPA. Region I,
Water Management Division. (WCP-
2109).
Storm Water Staff.
John F. Kennedy Federal Building, room
2209.
Boston. MA 02203.
Contact Veronica Harrington, (617) 565-
3525.
NJ. NY, PR, VI
United States EPA. Region II. Water
Management Division, (2WM-WPC),
Storm Water Staff. 26 Federal Plaza.
New York. NY 10278. Contact: lose
Rivera. (212) 262-2911.
AL. FL, GA. KY. MS. NC, SC, TN
United States EPA. Region IV, Water
Management Division. (FPB-3). Storm
Water Staff. 345 Courtland Street. ME..
Atlanta. GA 30365. Contact: Chris
Thomas. (404) 347-3012.
AR, LA, NM (except see Region IX for
Navajo lands and see Region VIII for
Ute Mountain Reservation land), OK,
TX
United States EPA. Region VI. Water
Management Division. (6W-EA).
Storm Water Staff. First Interstate
Bank Tower at Fountain Place. 1445
Ross Avenue. 12th Floor. Suite 1200.
Dallas. TX 75202. Contact: Region VI
Storm Water Hotline at (214) 655-
7185.
CO, MT, ND, SD, WY, UT (except see
Region IX for Goshute Reservation and
Navajo Reservation lands)
United States EPA. Region VIII, Water
Management Division. NPDES Branch.
(8WM-C). Storm Water Staff. 99918th
Street. Denver. CO 80202-2466.
Contact: Vern Berry. (303) 293-I630r
-------
41252
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. ITS / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
Note—For Montana Indian Lands,
please use the following address:
United States EPA. Montana Operations
Office. Federal Office Building.
Drawer 10096.301 South Park. Helena.
MT 59620-0026. Contact Paul
Montgomery. (406) 449-5486.
AZ, CA, HI, NV. American Samoa.
Guam, the Goshute Reservation in UT
andNV, the Navajo Reservation in UT, •
NM. andAZ, the Duck Valley
Reservation in NV and ID, Johnston
Atoll, Midway and Wake Island
United States EPA. Region DC. Water
• Management Division, (W-5-1). Storm
Water Staff. 75 Hawthorne Street San
Francisco. CA 94105. Contact: Eugene
Bromley. (415) 744-1906.
AK. ID (except see Region DC for Duck
Valley Reservation lands), OR, WA
United States EPA. Region X Water
Management Division. (WD-134).
Storm Water Staff. 1200 Sixth Street
Seattle. WA 98101. Contact: Steve
Bubnick. (206) 553-6399.
G. Compliance Deadlines
For most permittees, today's permits
establish deadlines of April 1.1993 for
development of pollution prevention
plans and October 1,1993 for
compliance with the terms of the plan.
Alternative deadlines are provided for
facilities where industrial activities
commence after October 1.1992; certain
oil and gas operations; and municipal
operators of facilities that have
participated in a timely part 1 group
application where either the group
application is rejected or the facility is
denied participation in the group
application by EPA.
For facilities where industrial activity
commences after October 1.1992, but on
or before December 31.1992, the storm
water pollution prevention plan must be
prepared and provide for compliance
with the terms of the plan and the
permit on or before 60 calendar days
after the commencement of industrial
activity. For facilities where industrial
activity commence on or after January 1,
1993. the storm water pollution
prevention plan must be prepared, and
provide for compliance with the terms of
the plan and the permit on or before the
date of submission of a NOI to. be
covered under this permit
For storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from an oil and
gas exploration, production, processing,
or treatment operation or transmission
facility that is not required to submit a
permit application on or before October
1,1992 in accordance with 40 CFR
122J6{c)(l)(iii). but after October 1.1992
has a discharge of a reportable quantity
of oil or a hazardous substance for
which notification is required pursuant
to either 40 CFR 110.6,40 CFR 117.21 or
40 CFR 3024. the storm water pollution
prevention plan must be prepared and
must provide for compliance with the
terms of the plan on or before the date
60 calendar days after the first
knowledge of such release.
For storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity *om a facility
that is owned or operated by a
municipality that has participated hi a
timely group application and where
either the group application is rejected
or the facility is denied participation in
the group application by EPA, the
pollution prevention plan must be .
prepared on or before the 365th day
following the date on which the group is
rejected or the denial is made, and must
provide for compliance with the terms of
the plan and this permit on or before the
545th day following the date on which
the group is rejected or the denial is
made.
The permits provide additional time
for complying with the additional
requirements for EPCRA section 313
facihties and for salt storage faculties.
The portions of a plan addressing these
additional requirements must provide
for compliance with the plan on or
before October 1,1995. In addition, the
permits provide that facilities with coal
pile runoff are required to comply with
the numeric effluenHimitations of the
permit by October 1,1995. However,
storm water pollution prevention plans
for facilities subject to these additional
requirements must be prepared by April
1.1993 (or, for facilities that commence
industrial activity after October 1.1992,
before the facility commences industrial
activity) and provide for compliance
with the baseline terms and conditions
of the permit (other than the numeric
effluent limitation) as expeditiously as
practicable, but by no later than
October 1.1993 (or. for facilities that
commence industrial activity after
October 1,1992. on or before 60 calendar
days after the commencement of
industrial activity).
V. Cost Estimates
1. Pollution Prevention Plan
Implementation
Storm water pollution prevention
plans for the majority of facilities will
address relatively low cost baseline
controls for the majority of industrial
facilities. EPA's analysis of storm water
pollution prevention plans indicates that
the cost of developing and implementing
the costs of these plans is variable and
will depend on a number of the
following factors: The size of the facility,
the chemicals stored or used at a
facility, the nature of the plant
operations, and the plant designs (e.g...
the processes used and layout of a plan).
and the housekeeping measures
employed. Table 4 provides estimates of
the range of costs of preparing and
implementing a storm water pollution
prevention plan. It is expected that the
low cost estimates provided in Table 4
are appropriate for the majority of
smaller facilities. High cost estimates
are also provided.
6. SARA title III facilities. Table 5
provides estimates of the range of costs
of preparing and implementing a storm
water pollution prevention plan for
facUities subject to the special
requirements for facilities subject to
SARA Title HI section 313 reporting
requirements for chemicals classified as
"Section 313 water priority chemicals".
EPA expects the majority of facilities to
have existing containment systems that
meet the majority of the requirements of
these permits. High cost estimates
correspond to facilities that are
expected to be required to undertake
some actions to upgrade existing
containment systems to meet the
requirements of these permits.
TABLE A.-SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED RANGES OF COSTS FOR COMPUANCE WITH STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLANS
WITH BASELINE REQUIREMENTS
SubmitUl of NOI .-
NounoDon ot Muraopmy .—...—— ——.-.—.. _...—„-. —
Plan prTMrilFiy< .I,, i ***
Plan tfirtwnantatton '• ~—
LowCottt '
FtotYMT
CMS
S14
14
1.518
90
Annual
Coats
1 $294
HighCotts
FntY«v
Costs
$14
14
76.153
35.400
Annual
Costs
$M71
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 /Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
41253
TABLE 4 -SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED RANGES wtXwrs FOR COMPLIANCE WITH STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLANS
WITH BASELINE REQUIREMENTS—Continued
. . ' ' - .
Reportable Ow
Total—
Site Compaance Evaluation/Plan Rav*on_ _ — —
HntYear
COM •'
1.636
Annual
CoM
267
t
561
HighCoM
First Year
COM
.8.501
120.062
Annual
COM
8.875
16*46
'No
This table identifies estimated low
and high costs to develop and
implement storm water pollution
prevention plans.
Low costs of implementing program
components are zero where exist'
programs or procedures is i
adequate.
Costs in 1992 dollars.
The estimated costs for plan
preparation and plan revisions includes
costs of preparing/revising plan to
address baseline requirements and any
applicable iffe'dal reTfuinfffielKS, such as
EPCRA Section 313 requirements.
However, the costs of implementing
special requirements, such as those for
EPCRA Section 313 facilities are not
otherwise addressed in this table.
The high cost estimate for
requirements to address reportable
' quantities of hazardous substances will
occur in the year the reportable quantity
release occurs and will not necessarily
occur in the first year of permit
compliance.
TABLE 5 -SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ADomoNAL COSTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH STORM WATER POLLUTWN PREVENTION PLANS
TABLE 5.-&UMMARY OP C5T gUBJECTTO S£Cr^H 313 OF gpCRA «„, WATER PRIORITY CHEMICALS
Plan Preparation : ~~~
Liquid Storage ATM* _ ~~ . —
Malarial Storage Area* - — ~
Loading ATM* &~, —
Dralnaga/Runrjff ,.„.,
Houaelunping/Mahtenanc* < —
Facility Security '. : — ~
EmptoyMTraMng- — — " —
PE Certification : ' ~— - ~~
Monitoring CoM _ — — — —
Toxtatty Reduction- ' —
TOTALS
LOW COM
COM
during Drat
3 year*
S630
'• 630
Annual
COM
__
2.42*
2,477
High CoM
COM
during first
3yaara
$11500
560
21.000
11.190
7.750
3.240
54,940
Annual
COM
S5957
1.403
1.000
4.847
3.046
16553
This table identifies estimated
additional low and high costs to develop
and implement storm water pollution
prevention plans for EPCRA section 313
facilities subject to special conditions.
Low costs of implementing program
components are zero where existing
programs, procedures or security is
assumed adequate.
The high costs for preparing pollution
prevention plans to include EPCRA
section 313 additional requirement were
addressed as part of the estimated high
costs for preparation of baseline
pollution prevention plans (see Table 4).
PE Certification is only required once
every three years. Cost shown if
averaged over three year period.
Costs for toxicity reductions will only
be incurred during the last two years of
the permit. Thus, this cost has been
averaged over a five year period.
2. Salt Storage Facilities
Salt pile covers or tarpaulins are
anticipated to have a fixed cost of $400
and an annvl cost of $160 for medium-
sized piles and a fixed cost of $4,QOO and
an annual cost of $2,000 for very large
piles; Structures such as salt domes are
generally expected to have a fixed cost
of between $30.000 for small piles ($70 to
$80 per cubic yard) and $100.000 for
larger piles ($18 per cubic yard) with
costs depending on size and other
construction parameters.'
3. Coal Pile Runoff
The effluent limitations for coal pile
runoff in the draft permits can be
achieved by these two primary methods:
limiting exposure to coal by use of
covers or tarpaulins and collecting and
treating the runoff. In sdine cases, coal
pile runoff may be in compliance with
the effluent limitations without covering
of the pile or collection or treatment of
the runoff. In these cases, the operator
of the discharge would not have a
control cost.
The effluent limitations for coal pile
runoff in the draft permits can be
achieved by limiting exposure of storm
water to coal by use of covers or
tarpaulins and storm water runon
berms. The use of tarpaulins and berms
to prevent exposure is expected to be
practical for coal piles smaller than
30,000 cubic meters. EPA expects the
majority of industrial facilities subject to
the requirement will have coal piles
smaller than 30.000 meters.
The cost of covering up to a 30.000
cubic meter coal pile with covers or
tarpaulins is anticipated to cost
approximately $0.70 per cubic yard, or
$0.91 per cubic meter. For a 30,000 cubic
meter pile the cost of tarpaulins alone.
would be $27.440. The cost of a benn to
divert storm water runon that may flow
under a covered pile and exit as
-------
41254
Federal Register / Vol. 57. Ho. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notice*
polluted runoff i> expected to be $7 per
linear foot of berm. For a 30.000 cubic
meter coal pile that is twenty feet in
height, it is anticipated that a 450 foot
berm at a cost of $3.150 would be
needed. Therefore, the total cost of
tarpaulins and a berm to avert exposure
of storm water to a coal pile 30.000 cubic
meters in size would be $30.590.
For those facilities which manage coal
piles greater than 30.000 cubic meters,
EPA assumes that these facilities will
use the technology specified in the
steam/electric effluent guidance based
upon costs indicated in the guidance. If
facilities can not meet permit limits
using this control technology and cannot
afford another control technology, they
have the opportunity of seeking an
individual permit
Table 6 provides estimates of the
costs of treating coal pile runoff.l •
These costs are based on a
consideration of a treatment train
requiring equalization, pH adjustment
and settling, including the costs for
impoundment (for equalization), a lime
feed system and mixing tanks for pH
adjustment and a darifier for settling.
fhe costs for the impoundment area
include diking and containment around
each coal pile alid associated sumps and
pumps and piping from runoff areas to
the impoundment area. The costs for
land are not included. The lime feed
system employed for pH adjustment
includes a storage silo, shaker, feeder,
and lime slurry storage tank,
instrumentation, electrical connections,
piping, and controls.
Additional costs may be incurred if a
polymer system is needed. In this case,
costs would include impoundment for
equalization, a lime feed system, mixing
tank, and polymer feed system for
chemical precipitation, a clarifier for
settling, and an acid feeder and mixing
tank to readjust the pH within the range
of 6 to 0. The equipment and system
design, with the exception of the
polymer feeder, add feeder, and final
mixing tank, are essentially the same as
shown in Table 6. TWO tanks are
required for a treatment train with a
polymer system, one for precipitation
and another for final pH adjustment
with acid. The cost of mixing is
therefore twice that shown in Table 6.
The polymer feed system includes
storage hoppers, chemical feeder.
solution tanks, solution pumps.
interconnecting piping, electrical
connections, and instrumentation. The .
costs of clarification are identical to that
of Table 6. A treatment train with a
polymer system requires the use of an
acid addition system to readjust the pH'
within the range of 6 to 9. The
components of this system include a
lined acid storage tank, two feed pumps.
an add pH control loop, and associated
piping.*lectrical connections, and
instrumentation.
Additional information regarding the
cost of these technologies can be found
in "Development Document for Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards
and Pretreatment Standards for the
Steam Electric Point Source Category,"'
(EPA-440/182/029), November 1982.
EPA.
TABLE 6.—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED
COSTS FOR TREATMENT OF COAL PILE
RUNOFF
«• The type and degree of treatment required to
meet the effluent limitation! of these permit* vary
depending on factor, such ei the amount of »ulfur in
the coal. This section describe* a model treatment
scheme for estimating costs for compliance with the
effluent limitations. Dischargers may implement
other less expensive treatment approaches to
enable them to discharge in accordance wjth these
limits where appropriate. • '
mM1* —
Opsfition •nd
Mainttnano ($/
Urn* Fa*d SyMam:
totaled Capital Coat
(I)
Operation and
Maintenance (*/
(Inrti/yr)
Land Raqukwmnki
(lt"Z) , , --
Mixing Equipment
metaled Capital Coat
(D
Operation and . .
MBtokmnc* (S/
Onrti/vri . •
Land Requirements
m"B „„
Oartfication:
Instated Capita! Coat
($) ..
Operation and
Maintenance ($/
(kwh/yr) ,, „
Land Raqujramantt
i~_i
90,000
cubic
pea
6450
i
138400
5.780
34X10"4
5400
65.750
<- ! f
2460
14X10**3
2.000
182450
3400
14X10**3
0.
120.000
cubic
WfefjT QQ£J
paa
6450
255.700
10455
34X10"4
5400
81420
2.430
34X10"3
2.000
237.450
3450
34X10"3
0.1
Sourer "Devato
nt Document tor Effluent Umi-
cory".
Costs
and Standards and Piatreatroant
r Ste^r, Electnc ^pjint Stwo* Crta-
. (EPA-440/182/028). Novwnbar 1882. EPA).
ertmate* are in 1882 dona*.
VI. Economic Impact (Executive Older
12291)
EPA has submitted this notice to the
Office of Management and Budget for
review under Executive Order 12291.
VD. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has reviewed the requirements
imposed on.regulated fadlities in these
final general permits under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. EPA did not prepare
an Information .Collection Request (ICR)
document for today's permits because
the information collection requirements
in these permits have already been
approyedjby the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) in submissions made
for the NPDES permit program under the
provisions of the Clean Water Act
Vm. 401 Certification
Section 401 of the CWA provides that
no Federal license or permit induding
NPDES permits, to conduct any activity
that may result in any discharge into
navigable waters shall be granted until
the State in which the discharge
originates certifies that the discharge
will comply with the applicable
provisions of sections 301,802.303.306,
and 307 of the CWA. The section 401
certification process has been completed
for all States, Indian lands and Federal
fadlities covered by today's general
permits. The following summary
indicates where additional permit
v requirements have been added as a
result of the certification process and
also provides a more detailed discussion
of additional requirements for Maine.
Louisiana. New Mexico. Oklahoma and
Texas.
Region I
Maine: See the following and part
XLA for additional 401 conditions.
The State of Maine induded the
following requirements as conditions for
Certification of the Storm Water
General Permit Test organisms for
certain whole effluent toxidty testing
requirements pertaining to discharges of
storm water associated with industrial
discharges shall indude Ceriodaphnia
dubia and SaJvelinus fontinalis (Brook
Trout). The EPA and the State of Maine
currently agree to require that half of all
freshwater vertebrate whole effluent
toxidty testing for most individual
permits, shall be conducted using the
State's Brook Trout. Salvelinus
fontinalis Chronic or Acute protocols.
The remainder of the toxidty tests
utilize the Region L fathead minnow
acute or chronic protocols.
The State of Maine indudes the
requirement for the substitution of the
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1992 /.Notices
41255
State's protocols for the EPA's protocols.
as part of the State Certification for
each permit The Region I EPA received
a December 18,1990, MOU from the
State defining the freshwater vertebrate
species substitution requirement To
expedite permit issuance, draft
individual permits and fact sheets
include the State's brook trout protocol
based on the MOU. The Region does not
object to the certification conditions
requiring the use of the Maine protocols '
for the species Ceriodaphnia dubia and
Salvelinus fontinalis (Brook Trout). The.
State of Maine shall provide the
appropriate brook trout protocol.
Maine Indian lands: No 401
-eor.dhions. -
Massachusetts: Indian lands only, no
401 conditions.
New Hampshire: no-401 conditions.
New Hampshire: Indian lands only, no
401 conditions.
Region IV
Florida: no 401 conditions. Florida:
Indian lands only, no 401 conditions
(two separate permits for two different
tribes).
Mississippi: Indian lands only, no 401
conditions.
North Carolina: Indian lands only, no
401 conditions.
Region VI
Louisiana: see the following and Part
XI.B for 401 conditions. Louisiana Indian
Lands: see the following and Part XIJ5
for 401 conditions.
As a condition for certification under
Section 401 of the CWA. the State of
Louisiana required inclusion of the
following limitations necessary to insure
compliance with State water quality
standards. These limitations are
required under Louisiana Annotated
Code 33:IX.708 (LAC 33:IX.708). In
accordance with a July 17,1992, letter
from the State clarifying certification
requirements, the Oil and Gas
Exploration and Production facility
limitations will be effective on the
effective date of the permit. Oil and gas
exploration facilities in Louisiana have
been subject to the LAC 33:IX.708
limitations since March 20,1991. The
general permit establishes a three year
compliance date for facilities other than
oil and gas exploration and production
facilities; the General Limitations will
become effective October 1.1995. This
compliance schedule is included to
allow the facilities not currently
regulated under NPDES or State
discharge permits time to implement the
pollution prevention plan components
necessary to achieve the discharge
limitations.
(1) General Limitations: Effective 10/
1/95.
. Total Organic Carbon (TOCU
OTiGiMM ,
Dairy
Maximum
SOmg/l
1Smg/l
(2)i Oil & Gas Exploration and
Production Facilities: Effective 10/1/92.
annual or semi-annual monitoring
required under the permit Should any
test result exceed the following action
levels (the water quality standard), the
permittee must submit the monitoring
results to the State within 24 hours of
receiving the test results from the •
laboratory. The parameters to be tested
and the associated action levels are:
Chamical Oxygan Oamand (COD),
Tots) Organic Carbon (TOO
Ol* Omasa- .
Dairy
Maximum
100 mg/l
SO mg/l
15 mg/l
Chlorides: (a) Maximum chloride
concentration of the discharge shall not
exceed two times the ambient
concentration of the receiving water in
brackish marsh areas.
(b) Maximum chloride concentration
of the discharge shall not exceed 500
mg/l in freshwater or intermediate
marsh areas and upland areas.
. Monitoring requirements for Total.
Organic Carbon (TOG) and Oil and
Grease have been added to all facilities
required to monitor annually or semi-
annually. Facilities without monitoring
requirements must insure the pollution .
prevention plan developed in
accordance with part IV will insure
compliance with these effluent
limitations. The definitions of brackish
marsh, freshwater marsh, intermediate
marsh, upland area, and saline marsh at
LAC 33:IX.708 have been included in
part X. of the permit
New Mexico: See the following and
part X.C for 401 conditions. New Mexico
Indian lands (except Navajo lands and
Ute Mountain Reservation lands): see
the following and part X.C. for 401
conditions.
As a condition for certification under
Section 401 of the CWA. the State of ^
New Mexico required inclusion of the
following conditions necessary to insure
compliance with State water quality
standards. These conditions apply only
to permittees with facilities discharging
into waters of the State of New Mexico
designated by the latest edition of
Water Quality'Standards for Interstate
and Intrastate Streams in New Mexico
for use as a domestic water supply. A
list of these waters as of June 29.1991. is
included with the final permit For all
discharges to domestic water supply
waterbodies. the final permit establishes
an annual monitoring requirement for all
parameters for which the state has
established a domestic water supply
water quality standard. This testing
requirement is in addition to any other
P&YWMtOf
aaskfAfsVl aWsWlir
Dnaofvari barium _.„
Piiinrvad t hrotnium
ptttohj^< !••<{„. ___. -^..JT^-
Total marcury n ....i.!, , ...,,,,,,TrrTT
DiMOtvari nHrata (at N)
Dtatfutti ctMfM*
Djttfitv*(1 uraniufn
Radhjm-226 + radhim-22B
n^Muuta^^te
ntjponewi*
Quantity
Action Laval
0.05 mg/l
1.0 mj/l
0.010 mg/l
0.05 mg/l
.0.05. mg/i
0.002 mg/l
10.0 mg/l
0.05 mg/l
0.05 mg/l
0.2 mg/l
5.0 mo/1
30.0 pCi/l
Results of the domestic water supply
testing requirement will be used to
evaluate whether a public health risk
was present after mixing (dilution) with
the stream and further determine if an
individual or alternative general permit
was necessary. To insure protection of
domestic water supplies, this condition
applies to all affected waterbodies'
within the State of New Mexico where
EPA Region 6 is the permitting authority.
including Indian Nations and Federal
Facilities. The 24-hour report for
discharges on Indian Nations must be
sent directly to EPA Region 6, with a
copy provided to the-governing body of
the Indian Nation.
Much of the State of New Mexico is
characterized as arid or semi-arid, with
long periods between rain events. Due
to this climate pattern, characterized by
seasonal precipitation and a build-up of
pollutants on the ground between storm
events, the State requested inclusion of
* a requirement for a minimum of 60 days
between sampled events and a minimum
of 150 hours since the previous
measurable storm event. These
requirements would insure the sampling
results would be more representative of
the quality of storm water discharges in
the State. For consistency, this condition
applies to all areas within the State of
New Mexico where EPA Region 6 is the
permitting authority, including Indian
Nations and Federal Facilities.
Oklahoma: See the following and part
XI.D for 401 conditions.
Oklahoma Indian lands: See the
following and part XI.D for 401
conditions.
Under section 301 of the CWA and 40
CFR 122.44. EPA is required to include
-------
41256
Federal Register / VoL 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1982 / Notices
permit conditions necessary to insure
compliance with more stringent
conditions of State law. On'April 28.
1992. the Agency published a
supplemental notice for the draft •
Oklahoma General permit in the Federal
Register (57 FR17909). This notice
added a requirement based on the 1988
Oklahoma Water Quality Standards.
prohibiting new point source discharges
to several classes of high quality
waterbodies of the State. On June 25.
1992. the Oklahoma Water Quality
Standards were revised, modifying the
discharge prohibition section upon
which the April 28,1992. proposed
permit conditions were based. The final
permit conditions reflect the
requirements of Oklahoma Annotated
Code Title 785. chapter 45 (OAC 785:45-
5-25). effective June 25.1992. Today's
notice of the final permit also serves as
final notice of the Agency's decision on
the April 28,1992. Federal Register
Notice.
In order to comply with OAC 785:45-
5-25, the permit will not authorize any
new point source discharge of storm
water associated with industrial activity
to "new" point source discharges of
storm water associated with industrial
activity (those commencing after the
June 25.1992. effective date of the
Oklahoma Water Quality Standards—
OAC 785:45) to the following waters:
(i) Waterbodies designated as
"Outstanding Resource Waters" and/or.
"Scenic Rivers" in appendix A of the
Oklahoma Water Quality Standards;
(ii) Oklahoma waterbodies located
within the watersheds of waterbodies
designated as "Scenic Rivers" in
appendix A of the Oklahoma Water
Quality Standards; and
(iii) Waterbodies located within the
boundaries of Oklahoma Water Quality
Standards appendix B areas which are
specifically designated as "Outstanding
Resource Waters" in appendix A of the •
Oklahoma Water Quality Standards.
Ln j-idition to this general permit
exclusion on coverage, the Agency
would like to emphasize that OAC
785:45-5-25 also prohibits the issuance
of any NPDES discharge permit (other
than for storm water runoff from
temporary construction activity) for new
point source discharges to ORWs or
Scenic Rivers, that commences after
June 25,1992;
Outstanding Resource Waters and
Scenic Riven are located in the
following river basins identified in
Oklahoma Water Quality Standards.
Basin I—Middle Arkansas River.
Barren Fork and certain listed
tributaries; and the Upper Illinois River
above Barren Fork confluence and
certain listed tributaries. • .
flown*—Lower Arkansas River. Lee
Creek and certain listed tributaries.
Basin 4—Lower Red River Upper
Mountain Fork River and certain listed
tributaries.
For specific applicability, or a
complete listing affected waterbodies.
permittees should refer to the Oklahoma
Water Quality Standards, appendices A
and B. or contact the Oklahoma Water
Resources Board.
To address possible statutory changes
regarding the "new discharge"
prohibition, the following reopener
clause has been added at the request of
the State. This permit may be reopened
and modified if the State of Oklahoma
adopts new or revises existing water
quality requirements regarding the
discharge of storm water."
Texas: See the following and part XLE
for 401 conditions. Texas Indian lands:
See-the following and part XLE. for 401
conditions.
As a condition for certification under
section 401 of the CWA, the State of
Texas required inclusion of the
following conditions necessary to insure
compliance with State water quality
standards.
The following effluent limitations are
required under the Texas Water Quality
Standards (31 TAG 319.22 and 319.23).
All pollution prevention plans
developed pursuant to this permit must
enable the discharger to comply with the
limitations listed below.
All Discharges to Inland Waters
The maximum allowable
concentrations of each of the hazardous
metals, stated in terms of milligrams per
• liter (mg/1). for discharges to inland
waters are as follows:
ToMiMW
Tottnwtsi
Barium.
NteM.
SMrtum.
Zinc.
0.1
UO
0.06
OS
OS
OS
1.0
0.005
1.0
0.05
0.05
1.0
O2
24
0.1
UO
MO
0.006
2.0
0.1
0.1
2.0
grab
AfMnte-
Bwtum
C«dn*jm_.
Chromium..
Coppw™
Zinc.
0.1
14)
0.1
0.5
OS
0.5
UO
0.005
1.0
0.1
OJK
(My
0.2
2.0
02
1.0
1JO
1.0
2JD
0.005
ZJO
O2
0.1
2JD
03
4JO
03
5.0
2.0
1.5
3JO
0.01
3.0
03
02
6.0
03
4.0
02
6.0
2JO
1.5
3.0
0.01
3.0
O2
02
6.0
All Discharges to Tidal Waters
The imntf1"""1 allowable
concentrations of each of the hazardous
metals, stated in terms of milligrams per
liter (mg/1). for discharges to tidal
waters are as follows:
The definitions of "inland" and "tidal"
waters has been included in part XLE of
the Texas permit Inland waters are
those not defined as tidaT Waters. Tidal .
waters include those waters of the Gulf
of Mexico within the jurisdiction of the
State of Texas, bays and estuaries
thereto, and those portions of the river
systems which are subject to the ebb
and flow of the tides, and to the
intrusion of marine waters.
Since the majority of discharges
covered by mis permit have never
before been regulated by NPDES permit,
a three year compliance schedule for the
limitations has been included to allow
dischargers an opportunity to develop
and implement the pollution prevention
plan controls necessary to achieve
compliance. Unless already required
under semi-annual or annual monitoring
requirements of the permit, sampling for
the hazardous metals listed above will
not be required. The permittee will,
however, be responsible for compliance
with the discharge limitations at all
times following the October 1.1995.
effective date of the limitations.
The Texas Surface Water Quality
Standards also contain a whole effluent
toxidry standard requiring all
discharges to exhibit greater than 50%
survival of the appropriate test
organisms in 100% effluent for a 24-hour
period (i.e. 24-hr LC50 > 100%). As a
condition for certification. the^State
required modification of the toxidty test
protocol contained in the permit to
conform to that specified to demonstrate
compliance with the State standard. The
test protocol for the Texas general
permit requires the use of a five dilution
acute freshwater toxidty test, reporting
of pass/fail on 50% or greater survival in
the 100% effluent dilution, and reporting
of pass/fail on statistically significant
difference in toxidty between the
control the 100% effluent dilution. In
addition, the State required inclusion of
acute toxidty testing for the chromium-
arsenic formulations category of wood
treatment facilities. The results of the
toxidry testing will be used to
demonstrate compliance with the State
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
41257
water quality standard and identify
discharges that will require more
stringent pollution prevention plans
and/or individual or alternative general
permit coverage.
General Permits for EPA Region 6
With regard to reporting the results of
any toxicity testing required under the
permit the permits for Louisiana. New
Mexico. Oklahoma, and Texas have
been modified to require the submittal
of a summary of the'results. with the full
toxicity report retained by the permittee.
The results are to include pass/fail
information on 50% survival in the 100%
dilution after 24 hours in addition to the_
pass/fail information 6Tva statistically
significant difference in toxicity
between 100% effluent and the control.
The format to be used is included as
Tables in the final permit. The Texas
permit also requires only submittal of
the summary table, which are modified
to include the five-dilution series test
required as a condition for State
certification. The net cost to the
permittee is expected to be minimal.
since the information necessary to
determine 50% or greater survival in the
100% dilution is readily available from
the results of the test used to determine
a statistically significant difference
between the control and the 100%
dilution. NO additional testing is
required. The additional information
gained will allow the permittee and the
Agency to prioritize action on
discharges exhibiting relatively greater
toxicity (i.e. those showing greater than
50% lethality would be more toxic than
those exhibiting only a statistically
significant difference in survival). The
use of simple test report summaries will
reduce the report mailing cost and
simplify completion of Discharge
Monitoring Reports (DMRs) for the
permittee; while also reducing the
administrative burdfn.on the permitting
authority, both for review and document
storage.
In addition to conditions required for
State Section 401 certification. EPA
Region 6 has made the following
modifications to the Louisiana, New
Mexico. Oklahoma, and Texas general
permits. First, the area covered by each
permit has been clarified to include all
administered by EPA Region 6 in the
appropriate State. This clarification was
included to insure coverage on federal
lands and Indian Nations. EPA Region 6
does not administer NPDES authority on
Navajo Nation lands in New Mexico
(administered by EPA Region 9) and Ute
Mountain Tribal lands in New Mexico
(administered by EPA Region 8]^
Region VIII
South Dakota: No 401 conditions.
South Dakota Indian Lands: No 401
conditions.
Montana Indian Lands: No 401
conditions.
North Dakota Indian lands: No 401
conditions.
Wyoming Indian lands: No 401
conditions. -
Utah Indian lands (except the Goshute
Reservation and Navajo reservation
lands in Utah): No 401 conditions.
Colorado federal facilities: See Part
XI.F for 401 conditions.
Colorado Indian lands and New
Mexico Indian lands (including only the
:^Navajo Reservation lands and Ute
Mountain Reservation lands located in
Colorado and New Mexico): See part
X1.F for 401 conditions.
Region IX
Arizona: See part XI.G for 401
conditions. Arizona Indian lands
(including Navajo reservation lands in
Utah and New Mexico): No 401
conditions. California Indian lands: No
401 conditions. Nevada Indian lands
(including the Goshute Territory in Utah
and the Duck Valley reservation lands
in Idaho): No 401 conditions. Johnston
Atoll: No 401 conditions. Midway and
Wake Island: No 401 conditions.
Region X '
Alaska: See part XI.H for 401
conditions. Alaska Indian lands: No 401
conditions. Idaho: See part XI.I for 401
conditions. Idaho Indian lands (except
the Duck Valley reservation lands in
Nevada and Idaho): No 401 conditions.
Washington Indian lands: See part XI.)
for 401 conditions. Washington federal
facilities: See part XL] for 401
conditions.
DC. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
U.S.C. 601 et. seq.. EPA is required to
prepare a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis to assess the impact of rules on
small entities. No Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis is required, however, where
the head of the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Today's permits provide small entities
with an application option that is less
burdensome than individual
applications or participating in a group
application. The other requirements
have been designed to minimize
significant economic impacts of the rule
on small entities and does not have a
significant impact on industry. In
addition, the permits reduce significant
administrative burdens on regulated
sources. Accordingly. I hereby certify
•pursuant to the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. that these
permits will not have a significant
impact on.a substantial number of small
entities.
Authority: Clean Water Act. 33 USC1251 et
•560*
Dated: August 28,1992.
Patricia Meaney,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 1.
Dated: August 28,1992.
Patrick M. Tobin.
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IV.
Dated: August 27,1992.
B.I.Wynne,
Regional Administrator. Region VI.
Dated: August 28.1992. •
Kerrigan Clough. • .
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.
Dated: August 28.1992.
Daniel W. McCovern.
Regional Administrator. Region IX.
Dated: August 27.1992.
Dana Rasmus sen. ' •
Regional Administrator. Region X.
Appendix A—Summary of Responses to
Public Comments on the August 16,1991
Draft General Permits
Definition of Storm Water Discharge
Associated With Industrial Activity
Some commenters on the August 16.
1991 draft general permits expressed or
suggested confusion over the scope of
the regulatory definition of "storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity" which the Agency had
promulgated on November 16.1990 (55
FR 47990). In EPA's view, however.
while the August 16.1991 notice did not
request comments on modifying the
regulatory definition, the Agency
believes that it is appropriate to add a
preface to today's general permit that
clarifies the NPDES regulatory
framework for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity. In
addition, the Agency has corrected
several typographicarerrors and
inadvertent omissions to the text of the
definition of "storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity" in
the "Definitions" section of today's
general permits.
Coverage Issues
Consistent with Tier I of United States
Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) long-term permitting strategy, the
"August 16.1991 draft general permits
were intended to allow the majority of
storm water discharges associated with
-------
41258
Federal Register /Vol. 57. No. J75 / Wednesday. September 0.1992 / Notices
industrial activity (located in the State '
•for which the permit was issued) the
opportunity to obtain coverage.
However, the draft permits provided
four limitations on coverage. The draft
permits proposed to exclude certain
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity, including those (1)
that storm water effluent limitations
guidelines coven (2) that an existing
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES} permit
authorizes; (3) that the Director
designates as causing or expected to
cause a water quality standard
violation; and (4) that originate from
inactive mining or oil and gas operations
on Federal lands where an operator
cannot be identified.
Several commenters urged EPA to
provide maximum opportunities for
facilities with storm wafer discharges
associated with industrial activity to
obtain coverage under the general
permits. A number of commenters were
concerned that several provisions of the
August 16:1991 draft permits could be
interpreted to mean that if one storm
water discharge at a facility was
ineligible for coverage under the general
permit, then any remaining storm water
discharges on site would also be
ineligible.
In response. EPA intends that the
limitations on coverage be applied on a
discharge-by-discharge basis, as
opposed to a facility-by-facility basis. In
response to concerns raised in the
comments, the Agency has clarified two
provisions of the permit to reflect this
concept. The first provision addresses
storm water discharges that are subject
to an effluent limitation guideline. *• The
Agency wants to clarify that if a facility
has multiple storm water discharges.
with one or more storm water
discharges subject to an effluent
limitation guideline and one or more
discharges not subject to an effluent
limitation guideline, then the
discharge(s) that are not subject to an
effluent limitation guideline may obtain
coverage under today's permits.
However, the discharges from the
facility that are subject to an effluent
limitation guideline may not be covered
by today's permits because today's .
termits do not'incorporate the
imitations for these discharges.
The second provision in the August
16.1991 draft general permits addressed
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from facilities with an
existing NPDES permit. The Agency
notes that this language was somewhat
ambiguous, in that it could apply to
storm water discharges with an existing
NPDES permit or to facilities with an
existing NPDES permit Thus, today's
permits have been clarified to provide
that only storm water discharges that
are authorized by a different NPDES .
permit cannot be authorized by today's
permit.
One commenter indicated that the
'proposed generaTpennif language
implied that coverage under the general
permit would be permanently restricted
for facilities that are currently permitted
under the NPDES program for their
storm water discharges.
In response. EPA has clarified today's
general permits to provide that for storm
water discharges currently subject to an
individual NPDES permit, dischargers
may apply for coverage under the
general permit when the existing permit
expires, provided that the existing
individual permit does not contain
numeric effluent limitations. Facilities
with existing NPDES permits for storm
water discharges that have established
numeric limits for these discharges are
generally not eligible for coverage under
the general permit.
One commenter requested that EPA
clarify that a given industrial facility
may be issued two separate NPDES
permits, one for process wastewater and
another for storm water. In response,
EPA wants to clarify that facilities with
an existing NPDES permit for process
wastewaters and/or other non-storm
water discharges are allowed to obtain
coverage for their storm water
discharges under today's general
" For the purposes of this permit, the following
effluent limitations guidelines address storm water
or a combination of storm water and process water
cement manufacturing (40 CFR 411): feedlots (40
CFR 412): fertiliser manufacturing (40 CFR 41S):
petroleum refining (40 CFR 418): phosphate
manufacturing (40 CFR 422): steam electric power
generation (40 CFR 423): coal mining (40 CFR 434):
mineral mining and processing (40 CFR 436): ore
mining and dressing (40 CFR 440): and asphalt (40
CFR 443).
Two commenters expressed confusion
regarding the exclusion of inactive and
abandoned mining and oil and gas
operations on Federal lands from
coverage under the draft general permit
These commenters thought mat EPA
was exempting such sites from
regulation under the November 16,1990
rule by excluding these sites from
coverage under the general permit.
In response, the Agency explained in
the August 16.1991 draft permits that it
is developing a distinct set of general
permits that more appropriately control
pollutants from inactive mining and
inactive oil and gas operations on
Federal lands where an operator cannot
be identified due to the unique nature of
these types of storm water discharges.
EPA wishes to reaffirm that today's
general permits do not provide coverage
for storm water discharges from these
inactive sites because an-alternate draft
general permit is currently being .
developed. Such discharges do.
however, remain subject to the
requirement to submit a NPDES permit
application. .
The Department of the Interior, which
has extensive land management
responsibilities, requested that storm
water discharges from inactive landfills
on Federal lands where an operator
cannot be identified be addressed in a
similar manner as inactive mining and
Inactive oil and gas operations on
Federal lands. The commenter indicated
that the significant number and
geographic distribution of such sites on
Federal lands favored an approach that
was similar to controlling storm water
from inactive mines and oil and gas
operations, on Federal lands. The
commenter also indicated that NPDES
requirements should be coordinated .
with ongoing efforts by Federal land
managers to address inactive landfills.
and that the best way to accomplish this
is to issue different general permits'
tailored for these discharges. In
response. EPA has excluded from
coverage under today's permit those
storm water discharges from inactive
landfills on Federal lands where an
operator cannot be identified. The
Agency will address these discharges in
conjunction with distinct permitting
efforts addressing storm water
discharges from inactive mining
operations and inactive oil and gas
operations on Federal lands.
One commenter thought that EPA was
requiring facilities with storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity to obtain coverage under the
.general permit and was precluding
dischargers from submitting individual
permit applications or participated in
appropriate group applications.
The Agency wants to clarify that by
encouraging the use of general permits
to address storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity, and
August 16.1991 proposal was not
limiting the application options to Notice
of Intents (NOIs) and coverage under a
general permit The submittal of an NOI
to be covered by a general permit is only
one of three application options for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity identified by the
November 16.1990. NPDES storm water
application regulations.
A number of commenters expressed
confusion as to whether they must apply
for coverage under today's general
-------
41259
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
permit if a group application has already
been submitted. EPA wishes to clarify
that while facilities that had
participated in approved and completed
group applications are not required to
obtain coverage under today's general
permit: they do have the option to do so.
Requiring an Individual Permit
Application
The August 16.1991 draft general
permit provided that EPA may require
the submission of an individual permit
application at any time during the term
of the permit. The draft permit further
provided that where EPA requests an
individual permit application and an
owner or operator fails to submit a
timely application, the coverage of the
permit must be terminated on the date
the application is due.
Several commenters questioned EPA's
authority to terminate permit coverage.
They believed that EPA must specify
requirements for permit coverage
termination, such as an adjudicator?
process that would allow the permittee
a formal appeal. Additionally, one
commenter was concerned with the
discretionary authority granted to EPA
in requiring individual permit
applications and felt that certain
guidelines should be set forth.
In response, today's permits reflect 40
CFR 122.28(b)(3) (as amended on April 2.
1992. (57 FR11412)). which establish
procedures for EPA to require a
discharger authorized by a general
permit to apply for and obtain an ' ,
individual permit and for any interested
person to petition the Director to require
an individual permit EPA also has
broad authority under Section 308 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA) to require
information, such as individual
applications.
Where the discharger fails to submit a
timely application, such a failure would
constitute noncorapliance by the
permittee with a permit condition and
would constitute grounds for permit
termination (see 40 CFR 122.64). EPA
would follow the applicable procedures
in 40 CFR 124 in terminating permit
coverage. In addition. 40 CFR 124.52
provides guidelines for EPA to
determine that a facility required
covered by a general permit be required
to obtain an individual permit.
This discretionary authority is critical
. because it allows the Director to identify
facilities that may be significant
contributors to water pollution or
facilities that have other site-specific
conditions that would be better
addressed under an individual permit. In
general, EPA will make decisions on
terminating coverage under the general
permit in a manner that is consistent
with the goals and objectives of the
Agency's four-tiered, long-term
permitting strategy for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity (see April 2.1992. (57 FR 11394)).
One commenter disagreed with the
statement in the draft general permit
that storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that are not
authorized by the general permit or
another NPDES permit are not in
compliance with the CWA. This
commenter stated that the simple
submission of an individual permit
application or participation in an
approved group application should
satisfy the discharger's legal obligations
under the CWA, WJjUe time.lv. jubrnjag!.
of an individual permit application or
participation in an approved group
application constitutes compliance with
EPA's storm water permit application
regulations, it does not by itself, provide
for compliance with the CWA
requirement that storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity to
waters of the United States be
authorized by an NPDES permit.
NOI Requirements
The August 16,1991 draft permits.
included a requirement that each
discharger submit an NOI to be
authorized to discharge under the
permits. Under the August 16,1991 draft
permits, NOIs had to provide the name.
mailing address, and location of the
facility for which notification was
submitted: up to four 4-digit SIC codes
describing the facility; the operator's
name, address, and telephone number
the latitude and longitude of the facility:
the name.of the receiving water or. if the
discharge is through a municipal
separate storm sewer, the name of the
.municipal operator of the storm sewer.
and existing sampling data.
A number of commenters on the
August 16,1991 draft general permits
indicated that NOI requirements were
generally lessTjuTaensome than
individual permit applications and that
NOIs are a useful tool in the permitting
process. A number of commenters
indicated that a standardized NOI form
would be extremely useful and would
ease burdens on the regulated
community, fa response, the Agency has
developed a standardized NOI form,
which is included in Appendix C of
today's notice. Copies of the NOI form
are available from EPA Regional Offices
(see the ADDRESSES section of today's
notice) or from the Storm Water Hotline
at (703) 821-4823.
Some commenters noted that the
information required in the NOI was
adequate, sufficient, and/or appropriate.
However, commenters raised several
concerns with specific requirements of
the NOI. Several commenters suggested
that NOIs should require additional
information describing the facility.
These commenters suggested a number
of additional information requirements.
including descriptions of raw materials
that are received by the facility;
materials that are produced or
processed by the facility, raw materials
that are used or stored at the facility in
substantial amounts; approximate
amounts of materials at the facility that
fall under the above categories each
yean how these materials are handled;
any precautions taken to prevent
pollutants in storm water runoff: and the
-size of the facility and a
characterization of the surrounding area.
The commenters indicated that this
information would assist EPA in
identifying priority facilities. Several of
these commenters indicated that the
limited information in an NOI is not
sufficient to support further conclusions
or determinations on when and whether
Tier D-IV permits should be required or
other evaluations of the risks posed by
storm water discharges from various
industrial categories.
In response, the Agency notes that it
will use information from a number of
sources, to evaluate appropriate Tier II,
in. and IV permits. For example, the
Agency will use information from group
applications and from monitoring data
collected pursuant to today's permit to
assist in the development of Tier III
(industry-specific) permits. The Agency
can use information in section 305(b)
reports, along with information from
other sources, to develop Tier II
(watershed) permits. In addition, the
Agency will review individual permit
applications, information from
municipal operators of large and
medium municipal separate storm sewer
systems, and other information to
develop Tier IV (individual) permits. In
- addition, today's permits require
facilities to develop storm water
pollution prevention plans that contain
more detailed, facility-specific
information, which the Agency can
request for review. Given these other
sources of information and the initial
status of program development, the
Agency does not believe that such
additional information is necessary in
NOIs at this time. The Agency is
requiring that dischargers provide the
permit number of any NPDES permit for
other discharges from the facility and
the group application number if the
facility has participated in a group
application. Obtaining this information
will allow the Agency to coordinate
permitting and compliance monitoring
-------
41260
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
efforts associated with other discharges
with actions taken with respect to
today's permits. Obtaining the permit
numbers of non-storm water NPDES
permits will allow EPA to have access
to information about a permittee's
activities with a minimal burden placed
on the discharger and EPA. This
information will be particularly useful in
identifying priorities for storm water
permit issuance and in developing Tier
II, in. and IV permits.
One commenter suggested that EPA
provide expanded instructions to assist
facilities in accurately determining their
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
code(s). their locations by latitude and .
longitude, and the names of the
receiving waters. In response, EPA notes
that the NOI only requires dischargers
to provide a latitude and longitude
where a street address for the site is not
available. In addition. EPA has provided
additional guidance on obtaining this
type of information in the "Guidance
Manual for the Preparation of NPDES
Permit Applications for Storm Water
Discharges Associated with Industrial
Activity." April 1991. EPA-505/8-81-002.
This manual is available from the
National Technology Information
Service (NTIS) by calling (703) 487-4650
(NT1S publication number PB-92114578.
$35.00). EPA believes that identifying the
longitude and latitude of a site presents
a minimal burden to a small number of
dischargers.
One commenter raised concerns about
being required to submit sampling data
that have been collected by a facility
without the intention of having the data
submitted in order to evaluate potential
problems. They were concerned that
such data may not be reliable, and in .
some cases may be meaningless. Other
commenters suggested that the
requirement to submit quantitative data
* be limited to the previous three yean.
One mining company suggested that
EPA delete the requirement to submit
existing quantitative data because
processing and classifying the data
would impose a substantial burden on
Agency resources.
Based on additional consideration of
this provision, the NOI requirements for
today's permits do not require the
submittal of existing quantitative data
(sampling data), but rather require
dischargers to indicate whether they
have sampling data available describing
their storm water discharges. As
discussed below, the Agency believes
that these data can serve useful
purposes, and is requiring facilities to
maintain records of existing data in their
storm water pollution prevention plans.
The Agency believes that this approach
will provide dischargers with an
opportunity to explain problems with
data quality. The Agency has made this
change to reduce the administrative
burdens associated with submitting and
handling NOIs. The Agency notes that it
can request this information from the
discharger where appropriate.
One commenter recommended that
the NOI be used to cross-check with
other requirements and available data.
In response. EPA is requiring that NOIs
include the number of any NPDES
permit for any discharge (including non-
storm water discharges) from the site
that is currently authorized by an
NPDES permit In addition, dischargers
are required to indicate whether the
facility has previously participated in
the group application process. EPA
believes that this information will
greatly assist in its efforts to cross-check
other information regarding the facility.
Several commenters requested that '
EPA clarify whether a pollution
prevention plan must be included in the
NOI. In response, the Agency has
modified the language in today's permits
to clarify that dischargers are not
required to submit a pollution
prevention plan when they submit an
NOI.
One commenter indicated that
dischargers should only have to submit
information required in the NOI if that
information is available. In response, the
Agency believes that the information
required in the NOIs by today's permits
will not impose excessive burdens on ,
dischargers. The Agency believes that
the information required in the NOIs is
appropriate given the goals and
functions, of these permits. For example
EPA must know where the industrial
facility is located in order to conduct
site visits. The street address of the
facility, or, where it is not available the
facility's latitude and longitude (or
section, township, and range), can be
used to identify the site location. The *~
SIC codes that best represent the .
principal products made or activities
conducted by the facility will give EPA
an indication of the nature of the
industrial activity at the facility. An
alternative indicator of the industrial
activity is required for classes of
facilities that do not have SIC codes that
accurately describe the principal
products or services provided (e.g.
hazardous waste treatment storage or
disposal facilities, land disposal
faculties that receive or have received-
any industrial waste, steam electric
power generating facilities, or treatment
works treating domestic sewage). This
information gives an indication of the
pollution potential of the facility and is
necessary to evaluate oversight and
enforcement priorities for followup
actions by EPA. In addition, this
information can be used to identify
particular classes of discharges where
industry-specific general permits may be
appropriate or where individual permits
may be necessary. Today's permits
require up to four SIC codes to
characterize facilities that conduct
multiple activities that are addressed by
more than one SIC code. The operator's
name, address, and telephone number
are necessary to support
communications with the permittee and
to allow EPA to request information or
provide guidance. The permit numbers)
^additional NPDES permit(s) for any
discnarge(snincluding non-storm water
discharges) from the site that are
currently authorized by an NPDES
permit will allow EPA to coordinate
oversight and compliance monitoring
activities taken under today's permits,
such as inspections, with other actions
taken pursuant to other NPDES permits.
The name of the receiving waters) will
allow EPA to identify discharges to
impaired, sensitive water bodies, or
high-value water resources that require
additional oversight and compliance
evaluation. Permittees that discharge to
a large or medium municipal separate
storm water permits require the
applicant to provide the name of the
municipal operator of the storm sewer.
The name of the municipal operator of
the storm sewer provides EPA with the
opportunity to coordinate compliance
monitoring activities and the
identification of priority discharges with
municipalities. An indication of whether
the owner or operator has existing
quantitative data describing the
concentration of pollutants in storm
water discharges informs EPA of
additional data to review in
characterizing the nature of the
discharge. An indication of whether the
,fecjlity has pseviously participated in
the group application process allows
EPA to implement the group application
process better and eliminates
redundancy or overlap between that
process and coverage with general
permits. The certification that a storm
water pollution prevention plan has
been prepared for the facility in
accordance with the permit ensures that
plans for new facilities have been
developed and assists the Agency's
compliance monitoring efforts.
One commenter indicated that
facilities such as remote oil and gas
operations may not have mailing
addresses. In response, the Agency has
modified today's permits so that where
a mailing address for a site is not
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
41261
available, the location can be described NO! Deadlines
in terms of the latitude and longitude of
the facility.
One commenter suggested that it
would be more reasonable to allow
permittees to be automatically covered .
by a renewed general permit. EPA
disagrees with this comment. The
Agency believes that it is appropriate
for permittees to reapply every five
years under a general permit in the same
manner as they would with an
individual permit application, and does
not believe that the requirement to
resubmit an NOI every five yean
creates excessive burdens on
dischargers. This information also
allows EPA (o update Its record of
permittees.
One commenter indicated that
identification of Department of Defense
POD) facilities by a single SIC code'
may present a problem because there
may not be an appropriate code or
several activities may be taking place at
different portions of the installation. In
response, the Agency wants to clarify
that the NOIs associated with today's
permits provide for up to four SIC codes
that best describe the facility. In
general, a Federal facility, such as a
DOD installation, that has an industrial
activity on the facility should use the
SIC code that would describe the same
specific industrial activity at a private
facility.The Agency also notes that
some DOD bases or installations will
have different industrial activities at
multiple locations at the installation. In
such cases, the facility should submit
one NOI for each location conducting a
different industrial activity.
One commenter recommended that in
addition to the signature by a
responsible corporate officer (as defined
by 40 CFR12222) the person having
overall responsibility for environmental
matters should be required to sign the
NOL The tommenter indicated that this
information would simplify EPA's efforts
to contact a permittee. In response, EPA
is concerned that such a requirement
may cause confusion among dischargers
during the initial application process.
The Agency notes that today's permits
require permittees to develop storm
water pollution prevention plans that
provide for a description of a storm
water pollution prevention team. This
requirement is intended to provide a
clear description of personnel that are
responsible for implementing permit
requirements. Therefore, the Agency
does not believe that it is necessary to
require the person having overall
responsibility for environmental matters
to sign the NOI.
In the August 16.1991 draft general
permits. EPA proposed that NOIs to •
obtain coverage under the permits be
submitted within 180 days of the date of
issuance of the general permits or at
least 30 days prior to the
commencement of construction of a new
storm water discharge associated with
industrial activity. Subsequent to the
August 10.1991 notice. EPA extended
the regulatory deadlines for submitting
individual permit applications (see
November 5,1991 (56 FR 56549)) and
part 2 of group applications (see April 2.
1992 (57 FR 11394)) for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity to October 1.1992.
Today's final general permits provide
that NOIs for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
industrial faculties existing on or before
October 1.1992. must be submitted on or
before October 1.1992. The Agency has
selected the October 1,1992 date to
provide consistency with the deadlines
for submitting individual permit
applications and Part 2 of group
applications. Using the October 1.1992
deadline will minimize confusion
regarding these deadlines, particularly
where EPA issues permits for different
States on different dates. In addition,
the October 1,1992 deadline provides an
equitable framework for complying with
permit application requirements.
Today's permits provide that facilities
with industrial activity addressed by the
storm water program that begin to
operate after October 1.1992, must
submit an NOI at least 2 days prior to
the commencement of the industrial
activity at the facility. The Agency
believes that this short time period is
appropriate for new discharges or new
sources which begin operation after
October 1.1992 because development-of
a storm water pollution prevention plan
and submittal of an NOI can be
anticipated and planned for prior to the
initiation of operations.
Several commenters requested
clarification of whether a new NOI must
be submitted where the operator of the
discharge changes. In response, 40 CFR
122.61 requires that permittees notify
EPA when a permit is transferred to a
new owner or operator. In addition, 40
CFR 12i28(b)(2)(i) requires that
dischargers seeking coverage under a
general permit submit an NOI. The
Agency considers an operator change at
a facility to be analogous to a new
discharger seeking coverage under the
permit and has clarified in today's
permits that where an operator of a
facility with a discharge covered by the
permit changes, the new operator of the
facility must submit an NOI at least 2
days prior to the change.
One commenter requested that EPA
clarify that not all oil and gas operations
are required to obtain NPDES permit
coverage for their storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity and asked EPA to clarify the
deadlines for submitting an NOI for
those facilities that are required to
obtain NPDES permit coverage.
In response, section 402(1)(2) of the
CWA provides that EPA shall not
require a permit for discharges of storm
water runoff from mining operations or
oil and gas exploration, production,
processing or treatment operations, or
transmission fadlMties if the atoHB=*vater
discharge is not contaminated by
contact with, or does not come into
contact with, any overburden, raw
material, intermediate product, finished
product, byproduct, or waste product
located on the site of such operations.
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 122£8(a)(2)
codify this provision, and today's permit
does not attempt to require coverage for
discharges that are excluded under the
CWA from the NPDES program. EPA's
regulations at 40 CFR 122.26{c)(l)(iii)
state that the operator of an oil and gas
operation is not required to submit a
permit application for their storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity unless the facility has a
discharge of storm water resulting in the
release of oil or a hazardous substance
that exceeds the reporting quantities
established under 40 CFR 110.6,40 CFR
11721. or 40 CFR 302.6 or contributes to
a violation of a water quality standard.
The Agency wants to clarify .that oil
and gas operations that discharge
contaminated storm water at any time
between November 16.1987 and
October 1.1992, and that are currently
not authorized by an NPDES permit,
must submit an NOI, an individual
permit application, or participate in an
approved group application by no later
than October 1.1992. The Agency also
wants to clarify that facilities that
evaluate their storm water discharge
after a release of a reportable quantity
of oil or a hazardous substance that
occurs after October 1,1992, and
determine that their storm water
discharge is contaminated must either
submit an NOI to be covered by today's .
permits within 14 days of their first
knowledge of the release or submit an
individual permit application. This
provision does not require operators of
oil and gas operations to submit an NOI
where they do not have a contaminated
storm water discharge. Operators of oil
and gas operations that release a
reportable quantity of oil or a hazardous
-------
41262
Federal Register / Vol. 57.-No. ITS / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
•substance in a storm water discharge
who do not believe that their storm
water discharge is contaminated may
submit an individual permit application
in accordance with the requirements of
40CFRl22.26(c)(l)(iii).
EPA believes the 14-day time frame is
appropriate because of the risk
associated with such facilities. The
Agency also notes that facilities with a
reportable quantity release of a
hazardous substance or oil are required
to notify die National Response Center
(NRC) as soon as they know of the
release, and that the facility should have
the information necessary for submitting
an NOI readily on hand.
Some commenters requested
clarification oT whether dischargers that
missed the deadlines for submitting an
NOI may ultimately obtain general
permit coverage. A number of these
commenters were particularly
concerned about dischargers unaware of
the requirement to. obtain an NPDES
permit for their discharge by October 1.
1992. These commenters urged EPA to
provide flexibility in allowing them to
submit an NOI to be authorized to
discharge under the general permit after
the deadlines specified in the general
permit.
In response. EPA recognizes that there
will be situations where it will be
appropriate to allow a discharge to be
authorized under the general permit
after the deadline for submitting an NOI.
For example, some facilities may only
become aware of the general permit or
that their storm water discharge must be
authorized by an NPDES permit after the
deadline for submitting an NOI has
passed. The Agency recognizes that the
NPDES storm water program is
relatively new; at least in terms of '
implementation activities, and the
application deadlines have changed on
several occasions, which may have
confused some dischargers. While
ignorance of NPDES storm water
- requiremotfci'Ur zoi a shield from
enforcement for discharging without a
permit, the Agency recognizes the
administrative advantages in allowing
an existing discharger to obtain
coverage under the general permit
In response to these concerns, today's
permits clarify that a discharger that
misses either the October 1,1992
deadline or the 48-hour deadline for
facilities that commence construction
after October 1.1992. is not precluded
from submitting an NOI and being
authorized to discharge under the
general permits at a later date. EPA
wants to clarify that where a discharger
has submitted an NOI after the
deadlines specified in the permit the
Agency has the authority and reserves
the right to bring appropriate
enforcement actions.
Notice of Termination
Some commenters noted that facilities
with "paragraph (xi)" storm water
discharges could eliminate their storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity by eliminating
exposure of material to storm water. In
addition, several commenters indicated
that a facility can change industrial
activity or otherwise discontinue
industrial activity and can eliminate its
storm water discharge associated with
industrial activity where significant
materials no longer remain exposed to
storm water. Some of these commenters
requested that EPA provide a
mechanism for reporting to EPA when
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity at a facility have been
eliminated.
In response, the Agency wants to
clarify that the regulatory definition of
storm water discharge associated with
industrial activity is provided at 40 CFR
122£8(b)(14). Paragraph (xi) of the
regulatory definition provides that
facilities under Standard Industrial .
Classification (SIC) codes 20.21.22.23.
2434, 25.265.27.283.285.30.31 (except '
311). 323.34 (except 3441), 35.38.37
(except 377). 38,39. or 4211-25 which are
not otherwise addressed by other
categories of the definition have a storm
water discharge associated with
industrial activity only where material
handling equipment or* activities, raw
materials, intermediate products, final
products, waste materials, by-products.
or industrial machinery are exposed to
storm water.'0
In response to these concerns, today's
permits have been modified to allow
permittees to submit a Notice of
Termination (NOT) to EPA indicating
that the storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
their facility have been eliminated.
Non-Storm Water Discharges
The August 16.1991 draft permit
required all discharges covered by the
permits to be composed entirely of
storm water and discharges of material
other than storm water to be in .
"The txcluiion contained in paragraph (xi) was.
however, vacated and remanded to EPA for further
proceedings. NRDCv. EPA. No. 00-70671 (0th Or.
June 4.18B2). EPA interprets the effect of the Courfi
remand ai requiring the Agency to conduct further
proceedingi to address the Court's decision. Thus. •
EPA will not require that faciUtiei identified by
paragraph (xi) without exposure to •ubmit •torn
water application* until the Agency hai had the
opportunity to complete additional proceeding, in a
manner continent with the Ninth Circuit deciiion
and the proviaioni of section 402(p)(2)(B) of the
CWA.
compliance with a different NPDES
permit issued for the non-storm water
discharge. EPA indicated that it was
taking this approach because these
general permits were not intended to
authorize process wastewater
discharges.
A number of commenters strongly .
supported the prohibition or noted that
it appeared reasonable. However, a
number of comments addressing this
provision raised technical concerns that
certain non-storm water discharges are
commonly allowed to discharge via a
separate storm sewer or are otherwise
mixed with storm water discharges.
These commenters indicated that some •
classes of nonstonn water discharges —
could not easily be separated from
•drainage or separate storm sewer
systems and that separating such
discharges from storm sewer systems
usually would not provide any
environmental benefits. Some of these
commenters maintained that a strict
prohibition on non-storm water
discharges would significantly limit the
number of facilities obtaining coverage
under the general permit.
In response to these comments. EPA
believes that it is important to retain a
modified version of this provision in the
permit to clarify that certain non-storm
water discharges, such as process waste
waters or wastes improperly disposed
through a storm drain, are not
authorized by today's general permits
for storm water discharges. However,
today's permits provide for two sets of
circumstances where storm water
discharges that are mixed with storm
water may be authorized by this permit
Consistent with the proposal, today's
permit authorizes storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity that are mixed with non-storm .
water discharges in compliance with a
different NPDES permit However, the
monitoring requirements and
•compliance point for numeric limitation?*
for the non-storm water discharge must
be addressed in the permit for the non-
storm water discharge. In addition, the
Agency also recognizes that discharging
some classes of non-storm water via
separate storm sewers or otherwise
mixed with storm water discharges is
largely unavoidable and/or poses little
if any environmental risk. Therefore, the
Agency has clarified that today's
permits authorize storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity that are mixed with discharges
from firefighting activities, fire hydrant
flushing, potable water sources
including water-line flushings, landscape
irrigation drainage, routine exterior
building washdown which does not use
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
41263
detergents, pavement washwaters
where spills or leaks of toxic or
hazardous materials have not occurred
(unless all spilled material has been
removed) and detergents are not used.
air conditioning condensate (but not
including cooling water from cooling
towers, heat exchangers or other •
sources), springs, uncontaminated
ground water, and foundation or footing
drains where flows are not
contaminated with process materials
such as solvents provided that the non-
storm water component of the discharge
is identified in the pollution prevention
plan. In addition, the plan must identify
and ensure the implementation of
appropriate pollution prevention—
measures for each of the non-storm
water component(s) of the discharge.
As a general matter. EPA believes
that where these classes of non-storm
water discharges are identified in a
pollution prevention plan and where
appropriate pollution prevention
measures are evaluated, identified and
implemented, they can be effectively
controlled under today's permit. The
Agency also notes that it can request
individual permit applications for such
discharges where appropriate and
necessary. The Agency is not requiring
that flows from firefighting activities be
identified in plans because of the
emergency nature of such discharges
coupled with their low probability and
the unpredictability of their occurrence.
The Agency notes that the approach in
today's permits taken for non-storm
water discharges is parallel to the
approach taken for non-storm water.
discharges to large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer systems
in its November 16,1990 rulemaking (55
FR 47990). The non-storm water
discharges addressed in today's permits
are similar to those addressed in the
November 16,1990 rulemaking. although
several modifications to the lisjhave
been made that provide addhftmal
clarity and that recognize the industrial
nature of facilities covered by today's
permits. The modifications also reflect
the generally higher degree of control
thafindustrial facilities can exercise
over the generation of non-storm water
discharges on a site. For example,
routine exterior building washdown that
does not use detergents and pavement
washwaters where spills or leaks of
toxic or hazardous materials have not
occurred (unless all spilled material has
been removed) and where detergents
are not used have been specified in
today's permits to specifically identify
nonstorm water discharges that are'
commonly expected from industrial
sites. The reference to spills is to ensure
that washwaters used to clean spills are
not flushed to the storm sewer and
directly to waters of the United States.
Releases of Reportable Quantities of
Hazardous Substances
The August 16.1991 draft general
permits provided that the permits would
not relieve the permittee of reporting
requirements for releases of hazardous
substances in excess of reportable
quantities established under 40 CFR117
and 40 CFR 302. The draft permits
further provided that discharges of
hazardous substances in storm water
discharges are to be minimized in
accordance with the applicable storm .
.water pollution prevention plan and can
in no case contain a hazardous
substance equal to or in excess of a
reportable quantity.
A number of commenters strongly
supported the prohibition, or noted that
it appeared reasonable. However,
several other commenters indicated that
the prohibition on releases of hazardous
substances in excess of reportable
quantities acted as a series of effluent .
limitations and that the Agency had not
established such limitations consistent
with the technology-based or water
quality-based standards of the CWA.
These commenters indicated that the
reportable quantities established under
40 CFR 117 and 40 CFR 302 were not
developed as numeric effluent
limitations under the NPDES program.
One of these commenters indicated that
some hazardous substances still had
reportable quantities of 1 pound that
had been originally established by
Congress. However, a number of the
commenters that objected to the
prohibition as a 'perceived effluent
limitation agreed that the reporting of
such discharges was appropriate and
that a facility with such a discharge
should not be exempt from liability
provisions under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response. Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) or the
CWA. Some of these commenters also
noted that the use of best management
practices aimed at preventing and/or
cleaning up the release, instead of
numeric end-of-pipe limitations, is the
most effective way to address these
discharges.
In response, the Agency has modified
this provision in today's permits to
provide additional consistency with the
reporting requirements for releases of
hazardous substances and oilin excess
of reporting quantities at 40 CFR 110.40
CFR 117. and 40 CFR 302. to provide
clarification that the Agency does not
intend for the prohibition on releases in
excess of reporting quantities to act as
numeric effluent limitations, and to
address, such releases in a manner
consistent with the approach taken in
today's permits with respect to pollution
prevention plan implementation.
Today's permits require that the
discharge of hazardous substances or oil .
in the storm water discharge(s) from a
facility must be minimized in
accordance with the applicable storm
water pollution prevention plan for the
facility. Where a release containing a
hazardous substance in an amount
equal to or in excess of a reporting
quantity established under either 40 CFR
117 or 40 CFR 302 occurs during a 24-
hour period, the permittee must:
• Notify the National Response
Center (NRC) as soon as he or she has
knowledge, of the discharge; .
• Notify the appropriate EPA
Regional Office within 14 calendar days
of knowledge of the release. The notice
must contain a written description of:
the.release (including the type and
estimate of the amount of material
released), the date that such release
occurred, the circumstances leading to
the release, and steps to be taken to
identify measures to prevent the
reoccurrence of such releases and to
respond to such releases as needed; and
• Modify the storm water pollution
prevention plan for the facility within 14
days of knowledge of the release to
describe the release, the circumstances
leading to the release, and the date of
the release. In addition, the plan must be
reviewed and where appropriate
modified by the permittee to identify
measures to prevent the reoccurrence of
such releases and to respond to such
releases as needed.
The Agency has clarified that today's
permits do not authorize the discharge
of hazards substances or oil resulting
from an on-site spill of non-storm water
materials. This is consistent with CWA
and CERCLA requirements for
hazardous substances and oil for
anticipated intermittent point source
discharges at 40 CFR 117.12(d)(i).21
The Agency believes that this
approach will result in the same
objectives as the appfoacn* in the August
16,1991 draft permits (i.e.. to provide the
Agency with information that allows for
considering whether an individual
permit is appropriate), while minimizing
confusion and concerns regarding the
provision. Further, this approach
11 40 CFR I17.l2(d)(2)(i) excludes discharges that
are continuous or anticipated intermittent
discharges from a point source, identified in an
NPDES permit from reporting requirements if the
discharge of the hazardous substance results from
the contamination of storm water, provided that the
storm water is not contaminated by an on-site spill
of a hazardous substance.
-------
41264
Federal Register / Vol 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
provides additional flexibility for
implementing appropriate pollution
prevention measures. Hie Agency also
believes that ample enforcement
authority under the CWA and CERCLA
exists for addressing releases of
hazardous substances in excess of
reportable quantities and that the
approach taken in today's permits
complements those authorities.
One discharger raised concerns that
the prohibition implied that discharges
of a hazardous substance up to an
applicable reportable quantity was
acceptable andlhat a permittee was not
required to do anything unless such a
release occurred. In response, EPA does
not intend to imply that discharges of
hazardous substances up to an
applicable reportable quantity are
acceptable in the sense that a discharger
should do nothing until discharging a ;
hazardous substance or oil in excess of
a reportable quantity. The Agency notes
that any point source discharge of
pollutants to waters of the United States
without a permit is prohibited under
section 301 of the CWA. In addition,
today's permits do not establish numeric
effluent limitations for such storm water
discharges from industrial activities
(except for coal pile runoff). Rather, the
permits requires dischargers to develop
and implement best management
practices and pollution prevention
measures to reduce and/or control
pollutants in the discharge even in cases
where the discharge does not contain
hazardous substances or contains
hazardous substances at levels
significantly lower than reportable
quantities.
Pollution Prevention Plan Requirements
At the heart of the August 16,1991
draft permits were flexible requirements
for site-specific storm water pollution
prevention plans to be developed and,
implemented to minimize and control
pollutants in storm water discharges.
The Agency adopted this approach in- --
order to address adequately the variable
storm water management/pollution
prevention opportunities at different
types of industrial facilities.
In general, many commenters
supported requiring storm water
pollution prevention plans to achieve
Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable (BAT) and
Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology (BCT) requirements in lieu
of numeric limitations. Many of these
commenters indicated that pollution
prevention measures (e.g.. source
reduction measures and elimination of
pollutant sources) were for many
industrial facilities the most practicable
and cost-effective approaches to .
reducing pollutants in storm water
discharges.
A number of commenters supported
the .flexibility that the proposed
requirements provided for developing
tailored plans and pollution prevention
strategies. Some of these commenters
indicated that this approach allowed
facilities to use their own expertise and
knowledge of the facilities and that
industrial operators were in the best
position to develop and implement
storm water pollution prevention
strategies. Other commenters noted that
it was essential for facilities to take the
lead role in determining requirements
that are reasonable and necessary for
their facility. Others urged the Agency .
to maintain flexibility'to'address unique
industry-specific or facility-specific
conditions. Several commenters
indicated that they believed that broad
effluent limitations or national
performance standards for pollution
prevention requirements were not
appropriate at this time and that
industry should be given flexibility to
establish specific pollution prevention
measures for their facilities.
One commenter indicated that based
on experience at industrial sites, the
most effective means of controlling
pollutants in storm water was the .
requirement for each permittee to
develop and implement a pollution .
prevention phut This commenter
indicated that the plan requirements in
the August 16,1991 proposal appeared
to be both effective and enforceable, as
well as easily understood by the people
responsible for complying with the
general permit
Several commenters indicated that
requirements to develop and implement
storm water pollution prevention
measures should be limited to a subset
of all facilities with storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity. One commenter. while noting
-.-thatfoUutian pfeventieurmcasures can
be effective in some cases, indicated
that industrial facilities should have the
option of preparing a pollution
prevention plan or meeting a numeric
effluent limitation or other performance
standard. This commenter alternatively
suggested that only facilities that have
been shown to contribute significantly
to storm water-related impacts on
receiving waters should be required to
comply with requirements to develop a
plan. Another commenter suggested that
numeric limitations be provided as a
floor. The commenter further suggested
that facilities should not be required to
implement pollution prevention
measures for storm water discharges
that contain pollutants at levels lower
than the concentrations provided in the.
numeric limitation. One commenter
indicated that permittees should only be
required to develop pollution prevention
plans if monitoring data shows that
these are appropriate or necessary. A
mining company indicated that runoff
from an industrial facility may actually
be of better quality than the receiving
water and that a blanket requirement
that all facilities with storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity prepare plans is not appropriate.
In response. EPA notes that the CWA
requires NPDES permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity (see section 402(p)(2)(B)). In
addition, the CWA requires NPDES
permits for storm water discharges that
are significant contributors of pollutants
to waters of the United States, or that
contribute to a violation of a water
quality standard (see section
402(p)(2)(E) of the CWA). All NPDES
permits for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity must,
at a minimum, establish BAT/BCT
requirements (see section 40Z(p)(3) of
the CWA). Thus, consistent with the
requirements of the CWA, the
requirements in today's permits to
develop and implement storm water
pollution prevention plans apply to all
permittees whether the Agency has
made a showing that a facility is
contributing to a water quality impact or
not or whether pollutants in tiie
discharge from a facility exceed the
concentrations in discharges from
surrounding land uses.
The Agency believes that Congress
establishes this technology-based
framework because it was aware of the
technical and administrative difficulties
of making a showing that a single
facility is a significant contributor to
specific water .quality impacts and it
determined that mandatory minimum
pollution control requirements were
appropriate for industrial facilities with
storm water discharges. Today's permit
establishes BAT/BCT requirements in
terms of requirements to develop and
implement storm water pollution
prevention plans." These requirements
apply to all permittees.
The Agency notes that the
requirement to develop and implement
storm water pollution prevention plans
is not the only option the Agency had
for establishing BAT/BCT requirements,
and that many NPDES permits
incorporate numeric limitations to
reflect application of BAT/BCT
requirements. However, the Agency
»in addition, today'* ptnniti ettebll»h • numeric
effluent limitation for coal pile runoff.
-------
41265
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
currently does not have sufficient data
to develop appropriate numeric effluent
limitations for all of the varied sources
of storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity covered by these
permits. The Agency also notes that
faculties covered by today's permits
have varied potential for having many
different pollutants in their storm water
discharges. While today's permits do not
provide permittees with the option of
meeting a numeric effluent limitation in
lieu of developing and implementing
pollution prevention measures, the
Agency notes that facilities that wish to
pursue numeric effluent limitations for
their storm water discharges may submit
data sufficient to support the
development of such limitations either
through the individual or group permit
application process..
One commenter thought plans should
not be required where facilities do not
have a previous history of spills or any
materials on site to create a spill. In
response. EPA wants to clarify that
spills are only one potential source of
pollutants in storm water discharges.
Other major potential sources of
pollutants in storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
. include the following: loading and
unloading of materials; outdoor storage
of raw materials or products; outdoor
process activities; dust or paniculate
generating processes; illicit connections
or management practices; waste
disposal; and vehicle maintenance.'3
The requirements for storm water
pollution prevention plans in today's
permits have been designed to address
these sources of pollutants as well as
spills. The potential for spills at a
facility is only one factor that pollution
prevention plans should address.
One commenter suggested that
facilities should be allowed to have a
Registered Professional Engineer (PE)
conduct a site review to identify
pollutant sources and establish a
schedule for .elimination of those
sources as an alternative to
implementing a pollution prevention
plan. EPA has not adopted this
approach in today's permit Perhaps
most importantly, EPA needs well
documented plans to conduct its own
review of the adequacy of pollution
prevention measures and is concerned
that a PE certification without an
accompanying plan may be inadequate
for this purpose. While PE certifications
can play an important role in pollution
prevention strategies, the Agency also
has concerns that a PE evaluation, by
" A more complete discussion of Ihtte potential
poUutuil MUTCM can be found in the tection 3 of
the Aug^tlft, 1991 draft fact sheets (SB FR409SS).
itself; may not ensure successful
elimination of all potential sources of
pollutants to storm water. The Agency
believes that PE certifications are best
suited for evaluations of structural
controls, spill prevention and response
measures, and the effectiveness of
comprehensive pollution prevention
plans. For many facilities, however.
complying with today's permits means
relying on nonstructural controls as part
of a comprehensive plan. In addition.
the Agency believes that this approach
would create unnecessary confusion
regarding the requirements of the permit.
Several commenters urged EPA to
ensure that requirements for developing
and implementing storm water, pollution
prevention plans were feasible.
particularly for small businesses. Some
commenters suggested that a less
resource-intensive approach should be
developed for smaller facilities. Other
commenters indicated that they thought
the requirements for plans were too
complex or burdensome, particularly for
small businesses and small
municipalities with industrial
facilities.*4 A few commenters
facilities.** A lew commeniem
suggested that EPA delete some of the
components of the plan or phase in
some plan requirements to ease the
burden of development and
implementation of plans. Others
suggested that facility size should be
considered when developing the plan.
EPA agrees that the varying sizes and
complexities of facilities should be
reflected in the storm water pollution
prevention plans. This is one reason that
EPA favors having each permittee
develop and implement site-specific
storm water pollution prevention plans
under today's general permits. EPA
believes that today's permits generally
provide flexibility for those smaller
facilities which have smaller potential
for contributing pollutants to storm
water to develop and implement less
complex, and less ccMtlylp]aiu.than_
larger, more complex faculties.
EPA does not agree, however, that
some of the components of the plan
should be deleted for smaller facilities.
EPA believes that all of the components
for the plans required by today's permits
are essential for reducing pollutants in
storm water discharges and cannot be
selectively deleted or phased in without
hindering the effectiveness of the overall
pollution prevention efforts. Therefore,
•• Subsequent to the August 16.1991 proposal.
EPA bet reserved the regulatory deadlines for storm
water Merges assorted with industrial
.cUvitiei from facilities that ere owned or operated
by a municipality with a population of 100.000 or
less, other than discharges from airports,
pow.rpl.nt, or uncontrolled sanitary landfills (see
April 2.1982. (57 PR 11409)).
EPA has determined that all components
of the storm water pollution prevention
plan required under today's permits are
necessary to reflect BAT/BCT. The
pollution prevention plan requirements
of today's permits can be described in
terms of four components. In addition.
some facilities are required to conduct
discharge monitoring.
The first component, formation of a
pollution prevention team is critical to
identifying individual responsibilities
and ensuring accountability for
implementing plans. The formation of
the Team formalizes the identification of
responsibilities and is not expected to
incur significant costs in and of itself.
The role of the Team will depend on the
engineering aspects of the application of
various types of control techniques
identified in the plan and the processes
employed at the facility.
Successful plan implementation must
be based on adequate identification of
pollutant sources. The second
component of the plan, description, of
pollutant sources, is achievable because
it is based on the information that
should generally either be readily
available from-the normal business.
practices of the facility (e.g. materials
inventories) or from standard
evaluations or observations. The costs
of these descriptions depend on such
factors as the nature of the process
employed, the age of the equipment and
facilities, and the engineering aspects of
the application of various types of
control techniques.
The third component of the plan is
identifying and implementing measures
and controls. The costs of complying
with other measures and controls of the
plan depend on the nature of the process
employed, the age of the equipment and
facilities, and the engineering aspects of
the application of various types of
control techniques. Good housekeeping.
preventive maintenance, spill
prevention and response, inspections.
employee training, and recordkeeping
and internal reporting have been
identified as measures thai are broadly
applicable to all industry types and
adtivities ** and are achievable through
good engineering practices. The Agency
has identified a number of methods for
testing or evaluating the presence of
non-storm water discharges, such as
inspecting outfalls daring dry weather
conditions, conducting dye testing, and
evaluating accurate schematics
"See "NTOES Best Management Practices
Guidance Document" EPA, 1B79 and "Staff
Analysis of Implementing Permitting Activities for
Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial
Activity." EPA. 1991.
-------
41266
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. ITS / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
available for meeting this requirement
Where a certification that the discharge
has been tested or evaluated for the
presence of non-storm water discharges
is not feasible, today's permits do not
require a certification, provided that the
storm water pollution prevention plan
indicates why the certification is not
feasible and identifies potentially
significant sources of. non-storm water
at the site, and the discharger notifies
EPA. Today's permits require permittees
to identify structural, vegetative, and/or
stabilization measures to limit erosion
and in a narrative consideration
evaluating the appropriateness of
traditional storm water management
practicesjised to divert, infiltrate, reuse. _
~ or otherwise manage storm water runoff
in a manner that reduces pollutants in
storm water discharges from the site.
The flexibility of these provisions will
ensure that attainable practices are
implemented based on an consideration
of the costs of the measures and the
application of the control techniques to
a given facility.
The fourth component of the plan are
comprehensive site compliance
evaluations. The requirements for-these
evaluations include annual inspections
of the facility, which are consistent with
practices at well run facilities. In
addition, the permit establishes targeted
monitoring requirements for selected
industrial activities. These monitoring
requirements, which are authorized by
section 308 of the CWA, are necessary
to ensure compliance with the
requirements of today's permits and to
protect water quality. Monitoring
requirements have been kept at a low
frequency and apply only to-targeted
activities to limit cost of these
requirements.
The Agency has developed specific
guidance to assist facilities in
developing plans that comply with the • .
requirements of today's permits (see
.. "Storm Water Management for
Industrial Activities: Developing
Pollution Prevention Plans and Best
Management Practices," EPA, 1992).
This guidance contains worksheets,
checklists, and model forms that should
significantly reduce the burdens of.
smaller facilities and help assist in the
development of plans under today's
permits in an achievable manner.
Several cominenters indicated that the
pollution prevention requirements in the
August 16,1991 draft permits were
directed too heavily towards
"traditional" industry and may not be
the most cost-effective requirements for
their facilities. Some of these
commenters indicated that some
facilities would be better off pursuing
group applications or-submitting
individual-applications.
In response, as discussed above, EPA
believes that all of the components for
the plans required by today's permits
are essential and cannot be selectively
deleted or phased in"without hindering
the effectiveness of the overall storm
water pollution prevention efforts at a
facility. However, the Agency notes that
it has built considerable flexibility into
today's pollution prevention plan
requirements. Under today's permits,
. while permittees must comply with all
applicable components of the plan,
facilities can focus most heavily on
'those pollution prevention measures
that will most effectively reduce
pollutants to storm water discharges
from their industrial activities. The
Agency believes that the requirements
in today's permits can be tailored for the
different types of industrial facilities
that generate storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity. The
Agency also wants to clarify that
today's permits do not preclude
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
continuing participation in an approved
group application where they are
already an approved member or
submitting an individual application
where they believe that the
requirements of today's permits are not
appropriate for their discharges.
One commenter noted that the
requirements in the August 16,1991 draft
permits appeared reasonable, but that.
permit writers should have additional
discretionary authority to waive some of
the components of the general permit In
response, the Agency notes that today's
permits do provide considerable -
flexibility in developing site-specific
pollution prevention plans. Again, the
Agency wants to clarify its view that all
components of a storm water pollution
prevention plan outlined in today's
permits are needed to comply with the -
BAT/BCT standards of the CWA.
Industry comments regarding the level
of specificity of requirements were
mixed. A number of commenters •
commended the Agency on its efforts to
promote flexibility hi storm water
management Some industrial
commenters urged EPA to provide
greater detail in plan requirements or
additional technical guidance to assist
them in developing site specific plans
and to allow facilities to better
determine whether they are in
compliance with the permit. One
commenter noted that additional
technical guidance could greatly reduce
the burdens on small industries because
facilities could then prepare their plans
without the significant expense of an
outside consultant.
In response to these concerns, the
Agency has rearranged and reordered' .
the requirements of the pollution
prevention plans in today's permits and
clarified several points found confusing
by commenters. These changes have
been made to simplify preparation and
implementation of plans and to
minimize confusion. As mentioned
above, the Agency has also developed
specific guidance to assist facilities in
developing plans that comply with the
requirements of today's permits (see
"Storm Water Management for
Industrial Activities: Developing
Pollution-Prevention Plans and Best
Management Practices". EPA 1992). This
guidance contains worksheets,
checklists and model forms which
should assist facilities which are not
using outside consultants to develop
plans under today's permits in an
achievable manner.
Other commenters urged EPA to
specify the objectives of the plans
without prescribing the means by which
the objectives must be achieved (e.g., to
establish guidelines for pollution
prevention measures, but to not specify
how they will be achieved).. In response.
the Agency has considered the issue of
the appropriate balance between
flexibility and specifying requirements.
and believes that the approach taken in
today's permits is appropriate, (e.g. to
identify specific classes of measures'
that must be addressed in a pollution
prevention plan, but to provide
sufficient flexibility in meeting such
requirements as good housekeeping,
preventive maintenance, spill
prevention and response procedures.
and employee training, so that specific
procedures or actions are not
prescribed). Today's permits require the
development of plans that identify
potential sources of pollution which may
r*a#tfftt«4? brexperiwd-h) affect the
quality of storm water discharges from
the facility and describe and ensure the
implementation of practices which are
to be used to reduce the pollutants in
storm water discharges. Today's permits
identify.specific components that the
plan must address, including
requirements for a pollution prevention
team, description of potential pollutant
sources, measures and controls
appropriate for the facility, and
comprehensive site compliance
evaluations.
Other commenters indicated that
several provisions of the August 16,1991
general permits (such as certain
recordkeeping provisions) appeared to
be redundant In response, today's
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. ITS / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
41267
permits have been modified to eliminate
any such redundancy.
One environmental group, while
noting that the concepts identified in the
plan were sound and important and
supporting the idea of having industrial
facilities create well-targeted plans that
contain the identified elements.
indicated its belief that the approach
was far too open-ended to ensure that
any given facility will go beyond
"business as usual" in preventing
pollutants to its storm water discharges.
The commenter urged the Agency to
require specific practices or preventive
actions or specific menus of practices.
The commenter suggested that the
_nwuirement*JorJtodilional storm water
controls and sediment and erosion
practices should at a minimum contain
both a Best Management Practices
(BMP) menu and a minimum number of
practices that each facility must select
from the menu.
In response, the Agency disagrees
with this commenter. and believes* that
today's permits establish requirements
with a reasonable amount of specificity
that will result in substantial reduction
in the discharge of pollutants in storm
water. As discussed above, the permit
establishes a prohibition on the
discharge of most non-storm water
discharges, specific requirements for
releases of hazardous substances, and
requirements for the development and
implementation of storm water pollution
prevention plans. The provisions for
pollution prevention plans require that
permittees specifically address eight
different types of measures and controls.
as well as meet requirements fora -
pollution prevention team, identify
potential pollutant sources, conduct
comprehensive site compliance
evaluations, and meet special
requirements for specific industry
categories.
The Agency has not established a
menu of traditional storm water controls
' and sediment "and erdsion practices
because the significant variability in
facilities covered by today's permits
precludes the identification of universal
standards or practices that are
appropriate or can be implemented by
all permittees. For examples, small
facilities where the entire facility is
covered by impervious structures may
not have areas where significant erosion
occurs, and may have limited space for
traditional storm water measures. Other
facilities may have extensive areas with
significant erosion.potential and/or
more opportunities for traditional storm
water management measures.
However, the permit has been
modified to provide that plans must
contain a .narrative consideration of the
appropriateness of traditional storm
water management practices used to
divert, infiltrate, reuse, or otherwise
manage storm water runoff in a manner
that reduces pollutants in Storm water
discharges from the site. The plan must
provide that measures determined to be
reasonable and appropriate shall be
implemented and maintained. The
permit specifies that appropriate
measures may include vegetative swales
and practices, reuse of collected storm -
water (such as for a process or as an
irrigation source), inlet controls (such as
oil/water separators), snow
management activities, infiltration
devices, and wet detention/retention
devices. With respect to sediment and
erosion controls, the permit has been
modified to provide that the plan must
identify structural, vegetative, and/or
stabilization measures to be used to
limit erosion in areas with a high •
potential for significant soil erosion. The
Agency believes that the additional
clarity added to these provisions
ensures that the permit is not too open-
ended and that permittees will
implement reasonable and appropriate
storm water management measures and
measures to limit erosion in areas that
have a high potential for significant soil
erosion.
In addition, the guidance manual
"Storm Water Management for
Industrial Activities: Developing
Pollution Prevention Plans and Best
Management Practices." US. EPA. 1992
identifies a number of specific storm
water management measures and
sediment and erosion controls that can
be used to satisfy these requirements
and discusses their general applicability
to industrial sites. Storm water
management measures addressed in the
document include flow diversion .
practices; water reuse; vegetative
practices, such as flow attention by use
of open vegetated swales and natural
depressions; infiltration of runoff on site
via filter strips, swales, level spreaders.
infiltration trenches, concrete grids, and
modular pavement and sequential
systems (which combine several
practices). Sediment and erosion
practices discussed in the manual
include the use of mulching, matting.
temporary seeding, permanent seeding.
permanent planting, sodding, chemical
stabilization, interceptor dikes and
swales, pipe slope drains, subsurface
drains, filter fences, gravel or stone filter
berms. storm drain inlet protection,
sediment traps, sediment basins, outlet
protection, check dams, and gradient
terraces. ,
One commenter indicated that the
permits should clarify the specific
factors, including processes employed,
engineering aspects, functions, costs of
controls, location, and age of facility,
that permittees should take into account
when developing pollution prevention
measures.
In response, today's permits require
that permittees consider the relevant
BAT and BCT factors when developing
and implementing storm water pollution
prevention plans. The following factors
are to be considered when evaluating
BAT requirements: the age of equipment
and facilities involved; the process
employed; the engineering aspects of the
application of various types of control
techniques; process changes; the-cost of
achieving such effluent reduction; and
non-water quality environmental .. .
impacts (including energy requirements).
The following factors are to be
considered when evaluating BCT
requirements; the reasonableness of the
relationship between the costs of
attaining a reduction in effluent and the
effluent reduction benefits derived; the
comparison of the cost and level of
reduction of such pollutants from the
discharge from publicly Owned
treatment works to the cost and level of
reduction of such pollutants from a class
or category of industrial sources; the age
of equipment and facilities involved; the
process employed; the engineering
aspects of the application of various
types of control techniques; process
changes; and non-water quality
environmental impacts (including energy
requirements).
Other commenters suggested that
similar plans, such as Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) or
BMP plans, could substitute as storm
water pollution prevention plans. There
were numerous comments .on
consistency with other plans.
specifically expressing a concern about
duplication of permitting. Many
commenters argued that it was not
effective to have three different plans
covering safety, storm water pollution
prevention, and/or SPCC. They felt that
these plans should be consolidated.
Other program plans and
requirements such as those listed by .
commenters contain provisions that
meet some elements of the storm water
pollution plan, but none, either alone or
in conjunction with others, specifically
addresses storm water concerns or the
requirements for plans in today's
general permits. EPA does, however.
encourage facilities to use applicable
practices and provisions from existing
plans when developing their storm
water pollution prevention plans. During
the development of the storm water
pollution prevention plan. EPA believes
the use and incorporation of other
-------
41268
Federal Register / VoL 57. No. 175 /Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
'existing plans will help reduce the
burdens associated with their
development and implementation.
Pollution Prevention Team
The August 16.1991 draft general .
permits contained a provision requiring
that plans identify a pollution
prevention committee of individuals
within the plant organization who are
responsible for developing the pollution
prevention plan and assisting the plant
manager in its implementation,
maintenance, and revision.
In today's permits, the Agency has
changed the name of the committee to
"Pollution Prevention Team." The
Agency believes that the term 'Team"
will better convey the purposes of the"5 -
provision.
A number of commenters requested
that the Agency simplify requirements
for small businesses to implement
pollution prevention committees. Some
commenters indicated that many small
businesses may only have one person
dedicated to all aspects of
environmental and safety and health
regulatory compliance, or that facility
owners or operators address regulatory
compliance matters. >
In response, the Agency believes that
it is critical for plans to identify those
employees who will be responsible for
implementing the various provisions
identified in the plan. EPA agrees that
the storm water pollution prevention
committee size will vary based on the
facility size and complexity. The Agency
agrees that in some situations it will be
appropriate for the "Team" to be
comprised of one employee. Today's
permits have been clarified to reflect
that the team or committee may be
comprised of one employee where
appropriate.
Several commenters indicated that
because many facilities already have
individuals who are responsible for
environmental compliance, the creation
of a.pnllution eorirol «onu?ittee etty- - -
adds another layer to a compliance
strategy. Several commenters indicated
that the committee may interfere with
the facility manager and that the facility
manager should have ultimate
responsibility and accountability for the
content and implementatibn of the storm
water pollution prevention plan.
The Agency agrees that many
facilities have already identified
individuals responsible for
environmental compliance and that
often the facility manager should have
ultimate responsibility and
accountability for the content and
implementation of the plan. The Agency
.believes that it is important that the plan
specifically identify those individuals
responsible for developing the pollution
prevention plan and having specific
roles in its implementation, maintenance .
and revision. The Agency believes that
the commenters1 situation is a fairly
common practice among industrial
facilities and that today's permits are
designed along compatible principles
intended to identify such individuals
and their relationships to others who
have critical roles hi implementing
•measures identified hi pollution
prevention plans. The Agency believes
that identifying a pollution prevention
team will ensure the structure and
organization necessary for successful
plan implementation. The Agency
strongly recommends that individuals
who have already been identified as
being responsible for environmental
compliance at industrial facilities be
given central roles hi Pollution
Prevention Teams. The Agency does not
intend the Pollution Prevention Team in
any way to interfere with the facility
manager, but rather to assist the facility
manager in developing and
implementing the plan. In addition, the
Agency anticipates that hi many
instances the plant manager or his/her
equivalent will be a prominent member
of the Pollution Prevention Team. EPA
disagrees that the requirement to
identify the Team hi the plan will create
undue: burdens on facilities where
responsible individuals have already
been identified, since such individuals
should generally play a major role on
the Team.
One commenter indicated that the
pollution prevention committee/team
should not be required.to "address all
aspects of the facility storm water
pollution prevention plan." The Agency
disagrees with mis comment: it is
critical that responsibility be assigned
iting each activity identified
Description of Potential Pollutant
Sources
The August W. 1991 draft general
permits contained provisions requiring
that plans contain certain information to
assist in identifying and characterizing
potential sources that may contribute
pollutants to storm water discharges.
The pollutant source identification
requirements in the August 16,1991 draft
permits addressed requirements for a
site map. a topographic map, a narrative
description of significant materials used
at the site, a losf of spills and leaks, an
estimate of the types of pollutants likely
to be present in the storm water, and a
summary of sampling data.
Several industry commenters agreed
that successful pollution prevention
strategies-must be based on an accurate
understanding of the pollution potential
of the site being considered. •
Some commenters felt that the
requirement for the plan to include a
topographic map was too burdensome.
They indicated that a topographic map
would not be useful and suggested that
a site map, would be adequate. In
response to these comments, the Agency
is concerned about the confusion with
respect to how facilities intend to use
the topographic map. As a result, to
simplify these requirements, today's
>ermits do not specifically require the
in the plan.
One commenter indicated that the
pollution prevention committee is
unnecessary and noted that most
individual NPDES permits do not require
such committees. In response, the
Agency believes that a pollution
prevention team is necessary for the
successful implementation of a source
control-oriented pollution prevention-
based approach. The Agency agrees that
most individual permits for process
wastewaters do not require the
identification of pollution prevention
measures. However, most individual
permits for process wastewaters take a
different approach to regulating
pollutant discharges, that of numeric
effluent limitations, and do not focus on
• comprehensive source controls.
nclusion of a topographic map. The
Agency believes that a site map
indicating an outline of the drainage
area of each storm water outfall, and
other appropriate information." will
generally serve the purposes that a
topographic map would be used for in
the context of pollution prevention plan.
The agency also notes that under the
August 16,1991 draft general permits
facilities could utilize a site map as an
alternative to a topographic map. thus
today's permits do-not constitute a
significant change..
One commenter indicated that it _ ^
would be difficult to delineate'bff-site
portions of the drainage areas of some
outfalls. The commenter suggested that
they only be required to show the parts
of the drainage that are on site. In
response, the Agency has clarified in
today's permits that only the portions of
"In today's permit!, drainage elte nupt must •
Indicate en outline of the portion* of the drainage
•m of Meh item water outUlL each txiiting
itructural control meaaure to reduce pollutant! In
•torn water runoff, aurfece water bodlM. location*
when algnificant material! are expoeed to
precipitation, locations whan major ipilli or Uaki
> ha»«occur»4andlocatioiuofth«hi«Un|»tatioiu,
vehicle and equipment maintenance and/or
cleaning ana. loadlas/unlaadiiif area, location!
mad for treatment, atorafe or diapoaal of waitea.
liquid itorase taaka. preceialng areai and atorafe
-------
the drainage area within the facility's
boundaries need to be identified.
A number of commenten indicated
that certain industrial activities, such as
loading and unloading operations, may
occur under covered areas such as in
buildings or loading docks with
sufficient cover to prevent exposure to
precipitation and that spills are not
normally exposed to storm water. One
commenter requested that EPA clarify
that the list of significant spills and
leaks should be confined to those
materials that cannot be fully cleaned
and removed and could potentially come
in contact with storm water. Another
commenter suggested that EPA only
require spill information for areas to be
covered by the general permit One
commenter suggested that the listing of
spills and leaks should not include
releases to impervious surfaces that are
automatically drained to waste
treatment sumps and that do not go to
storm drains, or to impervious surfaces
that are cleaned up without any
chemicals entering a storm drain.
Another commenter suggested that spills
and leaks into secondary containment
structures should not be listed, as the
presence of a secondary containment
system gives adequate notice that care
is exercised, and that this requirement
was unnecessary and unduly
burdensome.
In response. EPA recognizes that some
spills, such as those that occur inside
buildings that drain to a sanitary sewer,
are not potential sources of pollution to
storm water discharges, and thus do not
need to be identified in the storm water
pollution prevention plan. However, the
agency believes that spills to sumps or
secondary containment areas that
receive storm water discharges should
generally be identified in the storm
• water pollution prevention plan because
such devices can overflow during large .
or repeated storm events, or storm water
may be drained and discharged from
such devices. The Agency also believes
that it is important to identify spills that
occur on impervious surfaces that are
exposed to precipitation or that
otherwise drain to a storm drain even
when the spill is cleaned up before any
of it enters a storm drain. Listing such
events provides an indication of
potential pollutant sources that may
occur in the future, and helps direct
priorities for developing and
implementing spill response measures.
In response to the concerns raised in
these comments, the Agency has limited
this provision to significant spills and
leaks at areas that are exposed to
precipitation or that otherwise drain to a
storm water conveyance at the facility.
One commenter recommended that
spill prevention and response
procedures be deleted because EPCRA
and the Resources Conservation
Recovery Act (RCRA) already address
accidental releases. Another commenter
suggested that the list of spills be
deleted and that the need for such a list
is adequately addressed by reportable
quantities, as spills of such size must be
reported and are already on file with the
government
In response, the Agency wants to '
darify.that the central reason for
requiring this information in the
pollution prevention plan is to ensure
that dischargers adequately consider
potential sources of pollution when
identifying and implementing storm
water portion prevention measures. \
'The Agency believes that such site
evaluation is critical for appropriate
implementation of storm water pollution
prevention measures. Similarly, such
information provides EPA with a better
basis for reviewing and evaluating the
adequacy of specific plans. The Agency
also notes that the spill reporting
measures under the other statutes
identified above have limited scope and
objectives, and in general do not
specifically consider the potential of
pollutant discharges in storm water or
controls for such pollutant discharges in
a comprehensive manner.17 *' The
Agency also notes that spill reporting
requirements have been developed
under section 311-of the CWA and under
section 102 of CERCLA. However, the
Agency notes that these requirements
only apply to releases of hazardous
substances or oil in excess of reportable
quantities, and that this reporting
requirement focuses primarily on
emergency response to such incidents.
These reporting requirements dp not -
•». Sactton 31* of uw BmwfwqrPlanntal and
Commnnlty RtehMo*now Act (EPCRA) (aUo
• known at title m of th. Bnparfand A——*•••<
and RMuthortaanpn Act (SARA) ol
opmtenofcartr
chemical* to
«5S..of th. chamiea). ha*. • prlmaiy
oqw« .
SIC cod* of 20 through 99. ud ham 10 or morrfaU-
on th. control of auchnkMM*.
•• Subtitle Cof th. RMOurca* Contwvanon and
lUcovaiy Act (RCRA) aothoriia* EPA to atteWteh
nquirammte for facUltta* that tanmte. traMport
oMr.at. .tor. or ditpo*. of material, that m«t th.
Niulatory dtflnlUon of haiardou* wa*te*. Th.
RCRA Subtitl. C nfulatton. taclnd. »qulr.niai»tt
for cartain gnwraton and tnatmant. (toraga. and
dlapoaal fadlltU* to dwriop and Impltmtnt
conttagroey plant and aBMrfwcy pnx»di«* to
mmimlM haiard* to human haalth or th*
•nvtnmm*ntfromBm.«cploiioni.orany
unpUmxd raUaM of haxardont wa*te or hasardou*
wacte coiutltumU to air. toiL or rarfac. water. In
MnmL RCRA do** not addiM* material* that an
not coniidmd to be waate*. and don not addrat*
wattet that an not nguiated a* haurdou* waite*.
address releases of materials that are
not classified as hazardous substances
•or oil. or releases of hazardous
substances or oil that are less than
reporting quantities. The Agency
believes that many spills, leaks, and
releases that are not considered to be
reportable quantities of a hazardous
substance can still contribute significant
amounts of pollutants to storm water
discharges.
'One commenter indicated that
numerous local. State, and/or Federal
spill reporting requirements already in
place require spill reporting and
recommended that any spill reports
prepared in accordance with these
existing spill reporting regulations be
referenced or attached to the storm
water plan.
In response, the Agency agrees that
these spill reports can. in some cases,
provide useful information for
identifying potential pollutant sources,
and encourages permittees to review
such information when developing and
modifying plans. However, the Agency
is not specifically requiring that such .
information be included in the plan in
order to allow the permittee to best
determine the appropriate form of such
information.
One commenter requested
clarification of whether the term
"significant spills" included spills that
were not in excess of reporting
quantities established under section 311
of the CWA or section 102 of CERCLA.
In response. EPA notes that the
definition section of the permit contains
a definition of -significant spills" that
includes, but is not limited.to. releases
of oil or hazardous substances in excess
of reportable quantities under section
311 of the Clean Water Act (see 40 CFR
110.10 and CFR 117.21) or section 102 of
CERCLA (see 40 CFR 302.4). The Agency
believes that it is appropriate to include
certain releases that are not releases of
oil or hazardous substances in excess of
reportable quantities for several
reasons. The materials that are
considered hazardous substances do not
identify all materials that can cause
water quality impacts. In addition,
discharges of hazardous substances in
amounts less than reportable quantities
can cause water quality impacts. Other
significant spills include spills that could
potentially add significant amounts of
pollutants. Such listing should address
other materials in addition to materials
that are listed as hazardous substance
or as oil. In addition, instances of
chronically repeated smaller spills can
constitute significant spills if such spills.
taken together, add significant amounts
of pollutants to storm water discharges.
Another commenter requested that
EPA clarify whether the list of spills
-------
4127D
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9,1992 / Notices
needed to be updated to identify
significant spills and leaks that occur
after the effective date of the permit. In
response, the Agency wants to clarify
that plans are to be updated to address
significant spills and leaks that occur
during the term of the permit HUB
information is necessary to ensure that
major potential sources of pollution to
storm water discharges are identified.
One commenter indicated that
existing quantitative data describing the
concentration of pollutants in storm
water discharges may be
unrepresentative of typical events and
good sampling protocols may not have
been used. The commenter indicated
that the discharger may have conducted
the sampling in order to evaluate
potential problems without intending to
submit the data.
In response, the Agency believes that
existing quantitative data can in many
cases be a useful, readily available
source of information to identify
potential pollutant sources. The Agency
recognizes that often the discharger did
not intend to submit such data, but
believes that such data can still be
useful for evaluating potential pollutant
sources. The Agency also recommends
that, where possible, dischargers
provide a description of procedures and
protocols that were used when
collecting and analyzing samples. This
type of information can be useful in
evaluating the validity and accuracy of
the data. It should also be emphasized
again that EPA is not requiring this data
to be submitted with the NOL Rather,
today's permits provide only that such
data be identified hi the NOI and made
available only when the permitting
authority requests it
One commenter requested
clarification of whether sampling data
collected during the term of the permit
must be summarized in the plan. In
response. EPA is clarifying that
' sampling data collected during the term
of the permits must be summarized in °
the storm water pollution prevention
plan. •
One commenter urged the Agency to
examine requirements for the narrative
description of significant materials that
have been treated, stored, or disposed.
The commenter suggested that a
requirement for a materials storage and
handling report for all chemicals and
compounds listed for the facility's
effluent guidelines under the NPDES
program and for other chemicals used
and byproducts formed at the site be
added to the narrative description of
significant materials and to the risk
identification and assessment/material
inventory portion of the permit
In response, the Agency wants to
clarify that the inventory of exposed
materials is intended to address
materials that potentially may be
exposed to precipitation, including
chemicals used and byproducts formed
at the site that may be exposed to
precipitation. Among the items that
should be included on the inventory
area materials related to chemicals or
compounds listed in effluent limitations
guidelines to which the faculty is subject
or chemicals or compounds specifically
controlled or limited in any other
NPDES permit for the facility should be
addressed to the extent that such
materials may be exposed to
precipitation. -
One commenter suggested that a
current list and description of materials
. is adequate; a description of materials
that may have been exposed to storm
water and the management practices in
the past three years is excessive.
However, another commenter indicated
that a three year period for this •
requirement was too short and that
many sites have been used for purposes
other than those for which the sites are
currently operated. This commenter
suggested that any historical activities
at the site that now contribute to storm
water pollution should be identified.
In response, the Agency agrees that
past activities may result hi pollutant
sources for present storm water
discharges, and that it is appropriate to
address materials that may have been
exposed to storm water in the past three
yean. EPA believes that the three year
period is reasonable and does not
impose excessive burdens, for collecting
information on permittees. The Agency
notes that the three year period is
consistent with similar requirements for
individual applications for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity at 40 CFR 12226(c)(l)(i) (B) and
(D) and general NPDES records
retention requirements under 40 CFR
122Jn{p) and 40 CFR 112.7(d)(8).
The August 16,1901 draft permits
* -*- it the plan prpvide_a
iteofthe
prediction"oTflow anoTan <.„—
types of pollutants likely to be present
in the storm water for areas of the plant
that generate storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity with
a reasonable potential for containing
significant amounts of pollutants.
Several commenters requested
clarification of what constitutes a
"reasonable potential for containing •
significant amounts of pollutants." One
commenter recommended that the , ,
"reasonable potential" language be
removed.
In response. EPA believes that
permittees can evaluate whether areas
of the facility have a reasonable
potential for containing significant
amounts of pollutants based on a
consideration of structures and
activities in that area of the facility.
Activities such as loading and unloading
of materials, outdoor storage of raw
materials or products, outdoor process
activities, outdoor equipment or vehicle
maintenance activities, dust or
particulate generating processes, illicit
connections or management practices,
and waste disposal will generally have a
reasonable potential for containing
significant amounts of pollutants in
storm water discharges. Process or
storage equipment which is exposed to
precipitation or structures such as metal
roofs, can have a reasonable potential
for containing significant amounts of
pollutants. Significant amounts of -
pollutants would include pollutant
^concentrations or unit loadings above
those typically found in runoff from
areas where mere is no industrial
activity or other significant sources of
pollutants exposed to precipitation and
• minimal potential for deposition of
pollutants, or that had potential to
adversely affect water quality. EPA is
retaining the "reasonable potential"
language, but has modified the
requirement to limit it only to areas of
the facuity with a potential for
contributing pollutants to storm water
discharges.
One commenter indicated that the
requirement to predict the total quantity
of pollutants likely to be in storm water
discharges is unreasonable, and could
not accurately be based on one sample
per year. Several commenters also
recommended that a facility be required
to make data estimates only when there
has been a demonstration that a
facility's storm water will be
contaminated. \
In response, the Agency wants to
clarify mat an estimate of the total
quantity of pollutants likely to be in
storm water discharges is not required
by this provision. Rather, the intent of
the language used hi the August 16.1991
draft permits was to require dischargers
to identify the types of pollutants likely
to be present in storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity.
Today's permits have been modified to
clarify this point. Since today's permits
do not require all faculties to sample
their storm water discharge, the Agency
believes that this provision has
additional importance in ensuring that
information in the plan is evaluated and
potential pollutant sources and
pollutants are identified. EPA believes
that it is consistent with the objectives
of a preventive strategy that pollution
prevention measures be implemented in
situations where there is a potential for
a faculty's storm water to contain a
particular pollutant For example, spill
prevention measures and/or good
housekeeping measures, which prevent
pollutants from getting pollutants into
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. ITS / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
41271
storm water, can be appropriate where
spills have not occurred or where good
housekeeping is currently preventing
pollutants {ram entering the storm
water. Thus. EPA does not agree with
the comments that all dischargers
should be required to identify pollutants '
in storm water only when there has
been a demonstration that such
pollutants are present. Today's permits
establish monitoring requirements for
targeted industrial activities to provide
more detailed information regarding the
nature and extent of pollutants in storm
water discharges from these facilities.
One commenter indicated that the
requirements to provide drainage maps,
a narrative description of material
management practices and control
measures, and a history of significant
spills were too extensive, and that some
dischargers would find it preferable to
submit individual permit applications, to
response, the Agency has considered the
burdens associated with developing^
such information and believes that the
requirements are necessary to begin to
identify potential pollutant sources. The
Agency does not believe that the
pollutant source identification
requirements in today's permits are
excessive. Much of the information
required in the description of potential .
pollutant sources, such as the inventory
of exposed materials, can be obtained
from facility records, or site inspections.
A list of significant spills and leaks can
be obtained from facility maintenance
records, reporting records and
discussions with employees. EPA
expects that many facilities will have
existing site maps indicating the major
features of the facility or will be able to
develop such maps based on site
inspections. Plant managers or other
employees should be readily able to
develop descriptions of potential
pollutant sources and use best
professional judgement in evaluating the
pollution potential of the various
activities. A prediction of the direction
of flow can be based on site topography
and simple observations of drainage
patterns. The identification of the types
of'pollutants likely to be present in
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity can be based on
knowledge of the plant activities and
processes. EPA has issued technical
guidance that will provide permittees
with additional assistance in complying
with these requirements. EPA also notes
that the source identification
.requirements in today's permits are
comparable with the source
identification requirements in individual
permit applications. In addition, the
individual permit applications
requirements for storm water discharges
require the submittal of sampling data.
whereas today's general permits do not
require dischargers to sample their
storm water discharges as part of the
NOI application.
Measures and Controls
The August 16.1991 draft general
permits requested comments on eleven
baseline pollution prevention measures.
The measures addressed pollution
prevention committees: risk
identification and assessment/material
inventory, preventive maintenance; good
housekeeping; spill prevention and
response procedures; storm water
management; sediment and erosion
prevention; employee training; wtae?
inspections; recordkeeping and internal
reporting procedures; and non-storm
water discharges. As discussed earlier
in today's notice, these requirements
have been rearranged and reordered to
provide additional clarity.and minimize
confusion. .
One commenter suggested that toe
permit specifically require and pollutant
generating material to be completely
sheltered from precipitation and.wind.
In response, the Agency recognizes that
covering or sheltering pollutant
generating material can be an effective
means of reducing pollutants in storm
water discharges. However, the Agency
recognizes that hi some situations, this
may not be the most cost-effective
approach to controlling pollutants. For
example, the Agency has defined an
effluent limitation guideline for coal pile
runoff from steam electric facilities that
is typically met by collecting and
treating the runoff rather than covering
the piles. Thus, the Agency is not
prepared at this time to mandate that all
pollutant generating material be
completely sheltered from precipitation
and wind.
.
One commenter indicated that EPA
has not shown that existing nlant
maintenance practices and ~
recordkeeping are insufficient. In
response. NPDES permits for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity must establish
conditions in accordance with the CWA.
and the Agency does not have the
burden of showing that existing plant
maintenance practices and
recordkeeping are insufficient to
establish today's permit requirements.
In fact, the Agency has considered
typical industry practices at well
operated facilities when establishing the
requirements in today's permits. The
Agency believes that plant maintenance
practices and recordkeeping are an
important component to a storm water
pollution prevention strategy. The
Agency recognizes that some facilities
'will have adequate maintenance
practices and recordkeeping that have
been successful in preventing pollutant
discharges in storm water. Under
today's permits, these facilities are only
required to document such practices in a
pollution prevention plan and continue
them.
Several commenters indicated that
requirements such as good housekeeping
should be limited to areas with a .
tangible connection to the storm water
discharge. In other words, the pollution
prevention requirements should not
apply to indoor locations with no
potential to contribute pollutants to
storm water discharges. In response, the
Agency agrees with this commenter. The
Agency notes that under the August 16,
1991 draft permits, priorities for controls
in a plan were to reflect identified
potential sources of pollutants at the
facility. Where indoor activities are not
a potential source of pollutants, good
housekeeping measures do not have to
be addressed for such areas. The
Agency has clarified today's permits
with regard to this point.
One commenter suggested that the
inventory of types of material handled
should be limited to those materials that
could impact storm water. In response.
the Agency has clarified today's permits
to provide that the inventory of
materials handled at the site is limited
to materials that potentially may be
exposed to precipitation.
One commenter suggested that oil and
gas operations in arid areas should not
be required to develop certain plan
components, such as the certification for
non-storm water discharges, risk
identification, and assessment/material
inventory, because such operations do
not have conventional storm drains and
facilities have little potential to
discharge to navigable waters.
In response. EPA notes that a facility
that does not have a storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity is not required to obtain permit
coverage. However, storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity that occur as the result of
infrequent storms or as the result of
overflowing detention ponds mustbe
authorized by an NPDES permit. The
Agency believes that pollution
prevention measures identified in
today's permits are appropriate because
they will reduce the potential for
Bourcrs to contribute pollutants to storm
water under various climatic conditions,
including arid conditions. Pollution
prevention activities Such as risk
identification, and developing an
assessment/material inventory are
important in arid regions to identify
-------
41272
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. ITS / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
potential sources of pollutants to storm
water. Improper non-storm water .
discharges to storm water conveyances
can occur in arid conditions since most
sources of non-storm water are not
related to precipitation events but rather
are related to process waters from other
sources such as wash waters or
produced waters. The Agency also
wants to clarify that dischargers may
seek alternative permit requirements by
submitting an individual permit
application or participating in a group
application.
One commenter indicated that the
requirement to perform a "risk
assessment" was not realistic for small
businesses. In response, the Agency
noted that different commenters
appeared to be interpreting the
requirement for a risk assessment
differently, with some facilities
apparently assuming that extensive
monitoring and evaluation would be
. required. In an effort to minimize
confusion, the language in today's
permits has been modified by removing
the term "assessment" from the risk
identification section. This provision
does not require a formal risk
assessment, but rather requires a
narrative description of the potential
pollutant sources at specified material
handling areas (loading and unloading
operations, outdoor storage activities,
outdoor manufacturing or processing
activities, significant dust or paniculate
generating processing, and on-site water
disposal practices), an identification of
significant potential sources of •
pollutants at the site, and, for each
potential source, an identification of
pollutants of concern.
Severalindustry commenters
requested that the requirements for
storm water management be clarified. In
response, today's permits have been
modified to explain that storm water
management measures are used to
djj/Wt-contain. reuse, or otherwise
manage storm water runoff in manner
that reduces pollutants in storm water
discharges from the site. In addition, the
permit has been modified to list several
classes of typically used storm water
management measures: vegetative
swales and practices, reuse of collected
storm water (such as for a process or as
an irrigation source), inlet controls (such
as oil/water separators), snow
management activities, infiltration
devices, and wet detention/retention
devices.
One commenter suggested that EPA
define a criterion for determining
whether the use of traditional storm
water management measures are
reasonable and appropriate. When
evaluating whether the use of traditional
storm water management measures are
reasonable and appropriate, dischargers
should evaluate the costs of the
measure, the potential pollutants
removed, and the potential for ground
water impacts.
EPA requested comments on
providing facilities Out reuse
substantially all storm water with an
exemption from certain storm water
pollution prevention plan requirements.
Several commenters supported this
option, arguing that by reducing
discharge volumes facilities pose less
environmental risk.
EPA believes that the collection of .
storm water for later uses, such as
irrigation, dust control or process water.
can in some cases reduce the immediate
potential for pollutants to be discharged
to waters of the United States by
decreasing the amount of storm water
that is directly discharged. In addition,
the use of storm water at a facility can
reduce the demand on other water
supplies and/or reduce energy
consumption. However, the Agency
notes that some forms of storm water
reuse lead to the ultimate discharge of
the pollutants in the storm water to
waters of the United States. For
example, use of storm water for dust
control lawn irrigation, or washings in
outdoor areas may result in pollutants
migrating to waters of the United States
via wind deposition or subsequent storm
events. Use of storm water for cooling
water may allow pollutants to pass
through a process and be discharged to
waters of the United States. In such
cases, pollution prevention measures
prior to reuse an still appropriate.
Therefore. EPA has decided against
adopting an exemption based on water
reuse.
EPA encourages facilities to
incorporate storm water reuse as a site-
specific pollution prevention practice
where such practices will result in the
reduction of the discharge of pollutants
to waters of the United States. Today's
general permits have been modified to
specifically list storm water reuse as a
potential practice related to the
management of runoff. The Agency
believes that this approach will allow
facilities employing storm water reuse
management practices as part of their
pollution prevention plans to minimize
the costs associated with storm water
management measures where
appropriate water reuse is the most cost
effective storm water management
measure.
The August 16.1991 draft permits
provided that permittees are to certify
that the facility's storm water discharge
(or conveyance) has been tested for the
presence of non-storm water discharges.
.This provision is similar to a provision
in the requirements for individual permit
applications that requires a certification
that all outfalls have been tested or
evaluated for the presence of non-storm
water discharges (see 40 CFR
.
One commenter recommended that
the certification requirement for non-
storm water discharges be consistent
with the language used for individual
permit applications for storm water
discharges. Another commenter
suggested that permits should allow
certifications based on evaluations other-
than-testing (as-provided in the— —
individual permit application
requirements). One commenter
indicated that requiring permittees to '
check for and remedy possible entrance
of non-storm water discharges could be
more efficient and less costly than other
tests.
In response, the November 16. 1990
permit application regulations require
applicants to certify that storm water
discharges be tested or evaluated for the
presences of non-storm water
discharges. In die August 16, 1991 draft
permits, the Agency inadvertently
limited the certification to testing, and
did not specify evaluation as a method
for certification, although such
evaluations were discussed earlier in
the fact sheet The Agency has modified
today's permits to make them more
consistent with the November 16, 1990
permit application requirements by
providing that a facility may certify
based on an evaluation of illicit
connections.
Two commenters raised concerns that
the requirement for facilities to certify
that they have tested for the presence of
non-storm water discharges to storm
sewers could be onerous, particularly to
very small businesses. The commenters
- indicatetfthanionrefacilfryiiperators
may not be able to locate floor plans.
drainage maps, and other materials
required to identify and remedy illicit
connections.
In response, as discussed above, the
Agency has modified today's permits to
clarify that permittees may either test or
evaluate their facility for the presence of
non-storm water discharges. This
approach provides flexibility for
complying with the certification
requirement and does not require
permittees to locate floor plans, or
. drainage maps where they can inspect
storm water discharge points or conduct
evaluations on another basis. The
Agency believes that most facilities can
evaluate or test for the presence of non-
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
41273
storm water discharges in a manner that
. is not onerous or overly costly. For
example, at many facilities, the
discharger can observe for flow in
downstream portions of storm drains
during dry weather conditions when
sources that generate non-storm water
are operating or when water from a hose
or other source is added to potential
entry ways, such as floor drains, to the
also provides that where a certification
is not feasible, a certification is not
required, provided that the storm water .
pollution prevention plan indicates why
the certification is not feasible and
identifies potential significant sources of
non-stgrmjvater at. the site, and that the
discharger notifies EPA.
One commenter suggested that the
permits contain a limited waiver for
small businesses faced with the costs of
removing illicit connections/Another
commenter suggested that costs to
correct improper connections may be
prohibitive for small businesses. In
response, the CWA requires that point
source discharges of pollutants to
waters of the United States are illegal
except as authorized by an NPDES
permit EPA cannot waive this
requirement for small businesses. Non-
storm water discharges to waters of the
United States that are not authorized by
an NPDES permit that establishes
appropriate technology-based and water
quality-based requirements are in
violation of the CWA. Today's permit
only establishes requirements for a
specific set of non-storm water
discharges. Addressing requirements for
other classes of non-storm water
discharges in today's permits is beyond
the scope of today's permits. Although
today's permits authorize several
specific classes of non-storm water
discharges that are in compliance with
pollution prevention measures, today's
permits cannot authorize all non-storm
.water discharges from small businesses.
Thus, facilities with non-storm water
discharges to their storm water
conveyance system that are not
authorized by today's permit are
required to either obtain an NPDES
permit for such discharge or eliminate
the discharge.
One commenter noted that EPA does
not require discharge permits for "total
retention" systems and requested that
"" A more complete discussion of methods to
identify illicit connection! on be found in the dnft
"Manual of Practice: Identification of Illicit
Connections," US. EPA. September 1880.
EPA define a design storm to determine
whether a retention system could
qualify. The commenter noted that the
limitations in several effluent guidelines
for storm water do not apply to
discharges resulting from a storm event
greater than the 25-year, 24-hour event
EPA would like to clarify that any point
Source discharge of storm water
associated with industrial activity to
waters of the United States (including
those through a municipal separate
storm sewer system to waters of the
United States) legally requires a
discharge permit This includes any
potential discharge from a retention or
detention device, regardless of the size
of the storm. Discharges as a result of a
catastrophic event could be subject to
enforcement discretion by the permitting
authority, in consultation with the State
water quality agency. The Agency
recognizes that several effluent
limitation* guidelines for classes of
storm water do not apply to discharges
resulting from events of greater
magnitude than a specified design
storm. This is primarily because these
guidelines are based on a consideration
of treatment techniques which typically
involve collection and storage of the
storm water prior to treatment The
design storm threshold in the guidelines
allows dischargers to design the storage
units necessary in the treatment system.
The requirements in today's permits for
storm water pollution prevention plans
do not require the discharger to provide
storage for storm water. Rather, the
pollution prevention measures that are
identified in today's permits can be
implemented regardless of storm size.
and therefore, an exemption for
discharges that exceed a specific design
storm is not necessary.
One commenter requested
clarification of who certifies that storm
water discharges have been tested for
the presence of non-storm water
discharge and how the certification is
made. In response, part V.G of today's
permits specify signatory requirements
for certifications, including the
certification regarding non-storm water
discharges.
One commenter suggested that EPA
should specify a frequency for testing
storm sewers for illicit connections and
recommended a frequency of more than
once per year. In response, the Agency
believes that conducting the testing or
evaluation required by today's permits
once per permit term may be
appropriate for some facilities where
new sources of non-water are not added
at the facility. Thus, today's permits do
not establish a frequency of testing of
once per year.
One commenter suggested that smoke
tests should be listed as a method for
identifying non-storm water discharges
to separate storm sewers. In response.
the Agency has specifically not listed
smoke tests because of the potential to
misapply such tests in evaluating the
presence of non-storm water discharges
to storm sewers. Smoke testing (blowing
smoke from a downstream point in a
pipe up through the' pipe) can be a useful
technique for detecting storm drains to
sanitary sewers. However.- smoke tests
are often ineffective at finding non-
storm water discharges to separate
storm sewers. This is because toe traps
which are intended to block sewer gas
(and will prevent the passage of smoke)
are commonly used on non-storm water
drain systems. (Line traps are less
frequently used on storm drains).
Several commenters requested
clarification on which employees require
training. One commenter indicated that
some industrial facilities would have
large numbers of clerical and
administrative personnel who would
have no opportunity to create or abate
storm water pollution. The Agency
agrees with this commenter. Today's
permit has been modified to provide that
employee training programs are to
inform personnel responsible for
implementing activities identified in the
storm water pollution prevention plan or
otherwise responsible for storm water
management at all levels of
responsibility of the components and
goals of the storm water pollution
•prevention plan.
Several commenters recommended
that the pollution prevention measures
used for the construction industry be
used for the mining industry. In
response, while many of the land
disturbing operations and subsequent.
stabization measures at mining sites are
similar to practices and activities at
construction sites, the Agency notes
possible differences between the two
Classes of activities, such js the greater
use of toxic chemicals at some classes
of mining sites. The Agency also notes
that there is an overlap between the
types of controls the August 16.1991
draft permits required for construction
sites and those required for other
industrial activities, particularly with
respect to erosion and sediment
measures and storm water management
(or maanagement of runoff) measures.
The Agency notes that the greater
-------
41274
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
overlap between measures used at
mining sites and those used at
construction sites generally involves
erosion and sediment measures and
storm water management measures. The
Agency believes that the requirements
in today's permits are appropriate for
storm water discharges from mining
operations that are covered by today's
permits, and recommends that where
such operations are similar to
construction activities plans emphasize
sediment and erosion controls and storm
water management measures. Again, the.
Agency wants to clarify that dischargers
may seek alternative permit
requirements by submitting an
individual permit application or _
participating in a group application.
A number of State and local .agencies
indicated that they generally opposed
diverting storm water to sewage
treatment plants as an option for
preventing pollutants in storm water.
These commenters indicated that efforts
should be focussed on controlling
pollutants in storm water at the source.
and that the option should be limited to
discharges containing significant
amounts of pollutants. Treatment plants
serving a separate sanitary sewer
system were no.t designed to handle the
large amounts of storm water volume
that can be produced in an urban area.
These commenters requested that EPA
clarify that wastewater treatment
agencies have authority to approve or
reject any application to introduce storm
water into the sanitary sewer system. In
response, the Agency notes that .
diversion of storm water discharges to
sewage treatment plants was only
raised as an option for consideration in
the fact sheet to the August 16,1991
draft permits. Today's permits do not
specifically require permittees to
discharge their storm water to sewage
- plants. As noted in the August 16,1991
notice, such diversion must be
coordinatedswith the operators of the
sewage treatment plant and th?*~ - •
collection system to avoid worsening
any existing problems with either
combined sewer overflows (CSOs),
basement flooding, or wet weather
operation of the treatment plant. The
Agency agrees the operators of
treatment plants (or operators of
collection systems) typically have
authority to approve or reject the
introduction of storm water into the
sanitary sewer system.
Comprehensive Site Compliance
Evaluation/Monitoring
The August 16,1991 draft permits
provided that storm water pollution
prevention plans are to include
provisions for qualified plant personnel
to inspect designated equipment and
plant areas. In addition, the August 16,
1991 draft permits required an annual
site inspection to verify that the
description of potential pollutant
sources in the plan is up to date and
accurate and that the pollution
prevention measures identified in the
plan are being implemented and are
adequate.
On April 2,1992. (57 FR11394) EPA
published final regulatory modifications
at 40 CFR 122.44(i){4) that require
NPDES permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity to require, .at a minimum, the
discharger to conduct an annual
inspection-of the facility site to identify
area's 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. In addition, the
April 2.1992 regulations provide that
NPDES permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity must require the discharger to
maintain for a period of three years a
record summarizing the results of the
inspection and a certification stating
that the facility is in compliance with
the plan and the permit and identifying
any incidents of noncompliance. Such
reports and certification must be signed
in accordance with 40 CFR 122£2. The
April 2,1992 regulatory modifications
were made in response to comments
generally indicating that site inspections
are an appropriate tool for assisting in
evaluating compliance with pollution
prevention measures for storm water
discharges.
A number of commenters on the
August 16.1991 notice supported the use
of inspections to ensure compliance
witiMftWB water pollution prevention
plan requirements. Some commenters
indicated that routine inspections and
maintenance by qualified persons, along
with adequate records of such
inspections, were critical to ensuring
adequate and properly implemented
pollution prevention measures.
Several commenters encouraged EPA
to require annual, in-depth inspections
of facilities to identify the potential for
pollutants to enter drainage systems.
Some of these commenters suggested
that more frequent but less
comprehensive inspections could
supplement the detailed annual
inspection and would ensure that
potential pollution sources of significant
concern are detected. However, several
commenters requested that EPA clarify
the differences between the two
inspection provisions of the August 16,
1991 draft permits. Several of these
commenters indicated that the
requirements appeared to be duplicative
and suggested mat EPA eliminate one of
the inspection requirements.
In response, the Agency has renamed
the term "site inspection" as used in the
context of annual inspections to be
"Comprehensive Site Compliance
Evaluation" to clarify the difference
between comprehensive, in-depth
evaluations of all areas of the facility
that generate storm water associated
with industrial activity and more
frequent, less comprehensive
inspections that may focus specifically
on one or two potential pollutant
sources, such as inspecting drip pans for
accumulation of materials.
The requirements in today's permits
for comprehensive site compliance
evaluations are consistent with the
minimum requirements at 40 CFR.
122.44(i)(4) for inspections in NPDES
permits for storm water discharges.
Evaluations conducted under this
provision are to be based on in-depth
inspections and are to evaluate the
discharger's compliance with its storm
water pollution prevention plan and
with today's permits. As part of these
evaluations, the portions of the site that
generate storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity must
be inspected for potential pollutant
sources and for the effectiveness of
controls developed as part of the storm
water pollution prevention plan. The
pollution prevention plan for the facility
must be revised where necessary to
address the findings and reflect the
recommendations of the inspection.
Additionally, an annual certification
must be prepared indicating that the
storm water pollution prevention plan
was evaluated as part of an inspection.
that the plan is adequate for control of- •
facility storm water discharges, and that
the facility .is in compliance with the
plan.
In addition to the requirements for
comprehensive site compliance
evaluations, today's permits also require
inspections of designated equipment
and areas of the facility. This
requirement recognizes that periodic
routine inspections of certain equipment
or areas of the facility are appropriate
pollution'prevention measures. The
Agency has included This provision of
the permit separately to ensure that
facilities conduct more frequent
inspections of certain activities (e.g.,
leak detection measures for specified
equipment or daily or weekly
-------
41275
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
walkthroughs to ensure good '
housekeeping) without the burdens of a
more intensive comprehensive site
compliance evaluation. •
Several commenters requested
clarification of what constituted
qualified personnel for the purpose of
conducting comprehensive site
compliance evaluations and inspections.
In response, the Agency is hesitant to
define specific plant officials mat must
conduct either comprehensive site
compliance evaluations or more
frequent inspections. The Agency
believes that qualified personnel must
have sufficient technical abilities to
conduct the inspection or evaluation.
With respect to inspections, the
personnel conducting the inspection
must be aware of the goals of the
inspection. (For example, personnel
inspecting a site to ensure that good
housekeeping practices are being
implemented must be able to identify
potential sources of pollutants
associated with poor housekeeping
efforts. Personnel inspecting spill
• response procedures must be able to
evaluate the readiness, accessibility,
and adequacy of equipment necessary
to respond to potential spills.)
In addition, the personnel conducting
the inspection must be familiar enough
with the portion of the industrial process
being inspected to appropriately
accomplish the goals of the inspection.
With respect to comprehensive site
compliance evaluations, the personnel
conducting the evaluation must be
knowledgeable of the contents and
objectives of the facility's storm water
pollution prevention plan and the
permit. In addition, the personnel must
have sufficient knowledge of the
operations at the facility to evaluate the
effectiveness of pollution prevention
measures and to identify potential
sources of pollutants to storm water
discharges.. In addition, the personnel
should generally be key members of the
storm water pollution prevention team
identified in the plan.
Some commenters expressed concerns
about monitoring or inspection
requirements for inactive mining sites.
The April 2.1992 rule provides that
NPDES 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 (PE) that the
facility is in compliance with the permit.
or alternative requirements. Today's
permits provide that where annual site
inspections are shown in the plan to be
impracticable for inactive mining sites
due to remote location and
inaccessibility of the site,
comprehensive site compliance
evaluations are to be conducted at least
once every three years. EPA has
selected this lesser frequency in
response to comments that inactive
mining operations are often in remote
areas that are not necessarily supported
by infrastructure that allows easy
access.
A number of commenters urged EPA
to require that a PE be required to
certify that plans "be prepared in
• accordance with good engineering
practices". Some of these commenters
urged the Agency to model PE
cestificatioji requirenients after similar
requirements under Spill Prevention
Countermeasure and Containment
(SPCC) requirements at 40 CTR 112.3. In
response, the Agency recognizes that a
PE certification can be a useful tool,
particularly when evaluating the
pollutant removal abilities of structural
controls or of spill control/resPon»e
procedures. However. EPA is concerned
about requiring PE certifications at this
time for all facilities with storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity. The Agency recognizes that
today's permits cover a-significant range
of industrial facilities that will
emphasize different components of
pollution prevention strategies. PE
certifications may not be useful for some
types of facilities because they manage
minimum amounts of toxic chemicals or
other potential pollution generating
materials, and have limited
opportunities for structural controls.
storm water management or erosion
control. The Agency does recognize, as
discussed below in the context of
special requirements of EPCRA section
313 facilities, that such PE certification
requirements can be useful tools in
ensuring that targeted facilities have
adequate and appropriate storm water
pollution prevention measures in place.
One commenter recommended a
minimum frequency of inspection of
once per three years, as this frequency is
consistent with SPCC requirements. In
response, the Agency disagrees with this
comment for a number of reasons. First,
the NPDES regulations at 40 CFR
122.44(i)(2).require, at a minimum.
annual inspections of facilities with
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity. Second, it should be
noted that SPCC requirements primarily
focus on preventing and containing
major spills. These requirements rely on
structural controls such as secondary
containment, which are generally less
likely to change with time than typical
storm water pollution controls, such as
material handling practices. Third, there
is a wide variety of potential pollutant
sources to storm water discharges, such
as material handling activities and
loading/unloading activities, that can
significantly change with time at an
industrial facility.
Additional Requirements for EPCRA
Section 313 Facilities
EPA identified storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
facilities that are subject to reporting
requirements under EPCRA section 313
for water priority chemicals as priority
discharges for targeted special
requirements in the August 16.1991 draft
general permits. The Agency requested
comments on two major approaches for
developing special requirements for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from these facilities.
Under the first approach. Option A. the
general permit would establish special
semi-annual monitoring requirements,
special pollution prevention
requirements, including secondary.
containment for targeted areas, and a
whole effluent toxicity (WET) effluent
limitation. Under the second approach.
Option B. the general permits would
establish a WET limitation, and special
monitoring requirements at a frequency
of greater than twice per year. Under
Option B. the general permit would not
contain'special pollution prevention
plan requirements.
Targeting EPCRA Section 313 Facilities
A number of commenters addressed
the issue of whether storm water
discharges from facilities subject to
reporting requirements under EPCRA
section 313 for water priority chemicals
should be subject to special conditions.
A number of commenters generally
supported the Agency's efforts to target
priority industries for more specific
permit requirements. Some of these
commenters indicated that special
requirements for EPCRA section 313
facilities were appropriate because of
the toxic nature of chemicals handled by
the facilities and the significant amounts
of chemicals handled by these facilities.
Several commenters suggested that the
special requirements should apply to all
facilities which manage toxic chemicals,
regardless of whether they are subject to
EPCRA section 313.
However, some commenters
questioned the appropriateness of
targeting storm water discharges from
EPCRA section 313 facilities for special
requirements. A major concern of these
facilities was that facilities subject to
FPCRA section 313 requirements do not
necessarily have significant amounts of
-------
41276
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
toxic chemicals in their storm water
discharges. Some of these commenters
suggested that EPA be required to
demonstrate that these facilities have
more pollutants in their storm water .
discharges than other classes of
industries or that special requirements
should be triggered where sampling of
storm water indicates that releases are
occurring..
In response, the Agency believes that
the additional pollution prevention plan
requirements in today's permits are
appropriate for facilities with large
amounts of EPCRA section 313 water
priority chemicals for several reasons.
First, the Agency has identified leaks
and spills of toxic chemicals associated
with material management practices as
a major potential source of pollutants in
storm water discharges (see August 16,.
1991. (56 FR 40980)). Based on a number
of studies, the Agency believes .that
storage systems, truck and rail transfer
facilities, and other process areas where
significant amounts of toxic chemicals
are used and exposed to precipitation
may release pollutants if basic accepted
engineering practices are not employed.
For example. FPA's "Hazardous Waste .
Tank Risk Analysis". EPA. 1986.
indicates that the principal causes of
reported tank failures are external
corrosion, installation problems.
structural failure, spills, and overfills
due to operator errors, and ancillary
equipment failure, and that inadequate
practices, including those observed at
the time of the study, lead to a
substantial probability of releases to the
environment from such tank failures.
The analysis indicated that the major
causes of releases from tank systems
are usually unrelated to the
characteristics of the material stored in
the tanks. The analysis also indicated
that inadequate management practices
allow significant releases to continue
undetected until the release becomes
obvious. Information from the Spill
Prevention Control and Countermeasure
(SPCC) data base and the Pollution
Incident Reporting System (PIRS) data
base indicates that operator error,
structural failures, and corrosion were
both significant causes of releases for
aboveground tanks and failures of
ancillary equipment is a significant
cause of releases from above ground
systems. These data bases indicate that
85 percent to 90 percent of more than
2.000 reported incidents of the spills of .
oil or hazardous substances from
ancillary equipment resulted from
failures of piping systems (including
failures of pumps, flanges, couplings,
interconnecting hoses, and valves).
Some of the most significant sources of
pollutants at these facilities can be
attributed to intermittent events, such as
significant spills or leaks. The Agency
believes that a preventive approach that
does not wait for large spills or leaks to
occur is the most sensible approach and
is consistent with the goals of the CWA
as well as the pollution prevention
emphasis of the storm water program.
Second, the Agency believes that the
management practices identified in the
additional requirements for EPCRA 313
facilities are typically employed at well
operated facilities that use large
amounts of toxic chemicals. The Agency
notes that industry practices have been
developed in response to concerns about
spills and other health and safety issues.
Based on the Agency's evaluation of
material management practices, the
Agency believes that it is appropriate to
identify specific types of management
practices that reflect the best available
technology for facilities which use large
amounts of toxic materials. Today's
permits are intended to reflect the Best
Available Technology Economically
Achievable. The Agency believes that
the additional requirements in today's
permits for EPCRA section 313 facilities
are consistent with the purposes.
objectives, and content of a significant
number of industry standards.10 In
addition, these requirements are
consistent with practices identified
under other regulatory programs for the
management of other materials, such as
the SPCC program for oil and tank
requirements under subtitle C of RCRA
for hazardous wastes.*1 Many industry
••Examples ofmdastqr standards evaluated In
Una ruiemaking mcnde A8ME/ANSI BSU
(Chemical Plant and Petroleum Refinery Piping):
ASME/ANSI B98.1 (Welded Ammtaam-ABoy
Storage Tanks): ASMS/ANSI B9U (Welded
Almnmnm-AUoy Storage Tanks): NFPA SO
(Flammable and Combustible Liquid Codas): riACE.
Recommended Practice (Standard Recommended
Practice Control of External Corrosion on Metallic
Buried. Partially Burled or Submerged tt&X
Storage Systems): API Standard SB (Recomr
Rules for Design and Construction of Urge.
Welded. Low-pressure Storage Tanks); API
Standard S80 (Welded Steel Tanks far Oil Storage);
API Recommended Practice SSI (Cathodtc
Protection of Above-Cround Petroleum Storage
Tanks): API Recommended Practice SS2 (lining of
Above-Ground Petroleum Storage Tank Bottom**
API Standard 853 (Tank Inspection. Repair.
Alteration, and Reconstruction): and API BOB (Safe
Operation of Inland Bulk Plants).
11 Examples of requirements under other Federal
programs evaluated In this ruiemaking include:
underground storage tank requirements (40 CFR
280): Occupational Safety and Health
Administration general safety and health
regulations for flammable end combustible
surrounding tanks (49 CFR 1910) Department of
Transportation requirements for oil pipelines (49
CFR 196); the Department of Interior requirements
for the containment and collection of oil discharges
from off shore drilling (SO CFR 280).
commenters indicated that typically.
well run industrial facilities with large
amounts of toxic materials already
conduct the practices identified in the
August 16,1991 draft permits. Although
many of these commenters argued that
permit conditions addressing these
controls were not necessary because
facilities are already conducting these
practices, the Agency believes that
faculties with large amounts of toxic
chemicals generally do take extra
precautions in handling their chemicals,
and that the special requirements for
EPCRA section 313 represents the best
available technology currently being
used at these facilities.
Thff Agency has velected the universe .
of facilities subject to the EPCRA
section 313 program reporting
requirements to represent a "front end"
of the toxics program to which EPA is
already committed. This class of
facilities is appropriate for targeting for
better controls for routine toxics
releases and unproved industrial
practices to prevent and respond to
releases involving toxics. The Agency
already has substantial data base which
identifies facilities subject to these
requirements and the type and amount
of toxic chemicals which are
manufactured, processed or otherwise
used at these facilities. EPA will
continue to evaluate the appropriateness
of applying these special types of
requirements to other facilities as more
information becomes available.
A number of commenters noted that
special measures for managing toxic
chemicals were already being conducted
by many industrial facilities. For
example, one commenter speculated
that heightened public scrutiny of
EPCRA section 313 facilities has lead to
enhanced reporting and training which
has already been implemented to
decrease contamination. Another trade
aaaodjution thought EPCRA section 313
facilities pose a lower risk because
storage of large amounts of the section
313 substances is typically subject to
careful controls, including secondary
containment that would prevent the
possibility of storm water
contamination. This commenter
indicated that such facilities generally
maintain control programs that include
release prevention procedures, training
in pollution prevention, spill prevention
and cleanup, and other appropriate
management practices. Several of these
commenters assumed that EPA was
targeting EPCRA section 313 facilities
because the Agency believed that they
were not careful withlhe materials they
handle.
-------
' • '• • . * - " - ^
Federal Register / Vol. 87. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 8.1992 / Notices
41277
In response, as discussed in more
detail above, the Agency agrees with the
eommenters to the extent that it believes
that the management practices
identified in the additional requirements
for EPCRA section 313 facilities are
typically employed at well operated
facilities that manufacture, ptooess or
otherwise use large amounts of toxic
chemicals. However, the Agency
disagrees with the eommenters to the
extent that they are contending that the
additional requirements in today's
permits for EPCRA section 313 facilities
(facilities that manufacture, process or
otherwise use large amounts of toxic
chemicals) an not appropriate. Rather,
as discussed above, the Agency believes
that, the additional requirements for
EPCRA section 313 facilities represents
the Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable for these
faculties, and therefore are appropriate
for technology-based permits for these
facilities.
Some eommenters suggest that special
requirements be limited to storm water
discharges from facilities that are
subject to EPCRA section 312. EPCRA
section 312 applies to any facility that is
required to prepare or have available a.
material safety data sheet (MSDS) for a
hazardous chemical under the.
Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 and regulations promulgated under
that Act EPCRA section 312 establishes
reporting requirements for facilities with
hazardous chemicals present at the
facility in amounts equal to or greater
than 10.000 pounds, or that are
extremely hazardous substances present
at the facility in an amount greater than
or equal to 500 pounds (or 55 gallons) or
the threshold planning quantity (TPQ)
for an extremely hazardous substance
as defiped in 40 CFR part 355 (see 40
CFR 370JO). In addition. EPCRA
reporting requirements apply to facilities
- where a local emergency planning
committee has requested the submittal
of a MSDS. EPCRA section 313
establishes threshold amounts for the
purposes of reporting of 25.000 pounds
of toxic chemical manufactured
(including imported) or processed at a
facility during a calendar year or 10,000
pounds of a toxic chemical otherwise
used at a facility during a calendar year.
These eommenters noted that the
applicability of EPCRA section 313 is
based on the amount of toxic chemical
manufactured, processed or otherwise
' used per year, and that it was possible
for some facilities to meet this
requirement with a relatively low
average inventory level of perhaps less
than 500 pounds.
In response, the Agency believes that
the threshold established by EPCRA
section 313 represents a group of
facilities that is better for targeting the
special requirements of today's permit
than EPCRA section 312. Although
facilities that are subject to EPCRA
section 313 may have less than 10.000
pounds on site at any one time, these
facilities receive and handle significant
amounts of toxic chemicals during the
course of a year. In addition, EPCRA
section 312 applies to any facility hi any
SIC code required to prepare MSDSs.
whereas EPCRA section 313
applicability is limited to facilities with
a primary SIC code of 20 through 30.
EPCRA section 312 applies to a much
broader class Of facilities, including
many not subject to storm water permit
requirements. The Agency believes that
establishing special requirements for
EPCRA section 312 facilities would
create additional confusion among
facilities which are subject to EPCRA
section 312 requirements, but do not
have storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity. Furthermore, the
amount of hazardous chemicals present
at a facility which triggers section 312
requirements may be quite low. as noted
above. Thus, section 313 facilities may
not be appreciably different from
section 312 facilities in terms of the level
of chemicals present at any one time.
A number of eommenters that
objected to certain special requirements
for all EPCRA section 313 facilities
suggested that any facility (regardless if
they are subject to EPCRA section 313)
that has had a release of a hazardous
substance or oil in excess of reportable
quantities under 40 CFR parts 110,117 or
302 should be subject to special
requirements because of their proven •
history of releases. Other eommenters
indicated that only those facilities that .
have reported releases of EPCRA
section 313 chemicals in their stonn_
water should be subject to special.
conditions and that the Agency should
shield or exempt from special
requirements those facilities that report
zero or de minimis releases. However,
other eommenters indicated that many
of the facilities that are currently
reporting zero or small releases of toxic
chemicals via their storm water
discharges have not monitored
pollutants in their storm water
discharge.
EPA disagrees with these
eommenters. First, the Agency believes
that large spills or releases that are
generally associated with releases of a
hazardous substance or oil in excess of
reportable quantities under 40 CFR parts
110.117 or 302 are only one potential .
source of pollutants at EPCRA section
313 facilities. Other potential sources of
pollutants at these facilities include
chronic leaks, smaller spills.
management of containers and storage
and/or use of chemicals in solid form.
These potential sources can contribute
significant amounts of pollutants that
are nonetheless below reportable
quantities under 40 CFR parts 110.117 or
302. Second, as discussed above, some
of the most significant sources of
pollutants at facilities identified in the
SPCC and PIRS data bases can be
attributed to intermittent events, and
wfll not necessarily be identified by
periodic monitoring. Without monitoring
osta, releases of toxic chemicals could
go unreported. and therefore a report of
zero release may not reflect the true
pollutant potential of the storm water
discharge. Today's permits establish
semi-annual monitoring requirements for
certain facilities subject to EPCRA
section 313. However, this low
monitoring frequency, while appropriate
for the limited purposes articulated in
today's notice, are not intended to
sufficiently identify relatively infrequent
intermittent releases in a manner that
would ensure that other controls are not
necessary to minimize the discharge of
toxic chemicals in storm water
discharges. Rather, such low-frequency
monitoring requirements are only a part
of a more comprehensive approach to
controlling toxic pollutants in storm
water discharges from EPCRA section
313 facilities. Similarly, regulations
developed under EPCRA section 313
allow facility operators to estimate the
amount 9! toxic chemicals in storm
water without the use of monitoring
data. Such estimates, while appropriate
for developing the TRI data, do not
provide adequate safeguards that toxic
chemicals are not being released in
storm water discharges. Third.
.conditions at EPCRA section 313
facilities can change with time, and
operator errors, structural failures, and
corrosion can lead to failures of process.
handling and storage equipment used for
EPCRA water priority chemicals which
result in the release of toxic chemicals
to storm water discharges. Such releases
can continue undetected until the
release becomes obvious " and are not
necessarily linked to past releases. The .
Agency believes that a preventive
approach that does not wait for spills or
other releases to occur is the most
sensible approach and is consistent with
the goals of the CWA as well as the
pollution prevention emphasis of the
" See "Huvdou* Waste Tank Ritk Anilyiis".
EPA.19S8. . .
-------
41278
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
storm water program. Fourth, the
Agency believes that management
practices identified in the additional
requirements for EPCRA section 313
facilities are representative of well'
operated facilities that use large
amounts of toxic chemicals even though
a facility may not have had a release of'
a hazardous substance or oil in excess
of reportable quantities.
One commenter indicated that the
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
database for 1989 indicated that only 6
percent (68 of 1,470 facilities reporting
storm water discharges) of the EPCRA
section 313 facilities reported releases of
more than 1.000 pounds per year of toxic
^qhjemicals in their storm water during
the previous reporting year. This
commenter speculated that facilities that
reported these releases already had an
NPDES permit because they otherwise
would not have conducted the
monitoring required to support the
release estimates.
In response. EPA recognizes that 6
percent per year of the EPCRA section
313 facilities that reported toxic
chemicals in storm water reported
releases of over 1.000 pounds per year of
toxic materials in their storm water.
However, the Agency strongly disagrees
with the commenter that this is an
indication that EPCRA section 313
facilities represent a low risk as a class.
First, the Agency believes that the
release of less than 1.000 pounds of toxic
chemicals via storm water can be very
significant, and that the 1,000 pound of
toxic chemical threshold limit does not
represent acceptable levels of pollutants
in releases. Many of the EPCRA section
313 water priority chemicals can have
significant toxic effects at low
concentrations, even though the total
amount of toxic chemical released
. annually is less than 1,000 pounds. In
addition, facilities can have intermittent
releases of toxic chemicals of less than
.. l.QPlpouads j»tch as-TCiUs or
concentrated leaks that can have
significant water quality impacts.
Facilities that have released low levels
of toxic chemicals one year can have
significantly larger releases in
subsequent years due to spills, leaks
which have developed from older
equipment, or changes in management
practices. Thus, over a longer time
period, such as five or ten years, more
than six percent of the facilities may
have releases of greater than 1.000
pounds per year of toxic chemicals
reported in their storm water discharges.
The Agency does not believe that 6
percent of the-facilities is a trivial
number when considering such large
releases of toxic chemicals. The Agency
also recognizes that many, if not most,
EPCRA section 313 facilities did not
have actual monitoring data to establish
their 1989 estimates of releases of toxic
chemicals to storm water. The Agency
believes that this could have caused
significant under reporting of toxic
chemical releases. The Agency does not
agree with the commenter's argument
that only those facilities which
monitored their storm water discharges
' prior to 1989 pursuant to an NPDES
permit an of concern. The Agency
remains concerned about the potential
for releases from facilities that have not
been required to monitor their storm
water discharges in the past.
Some commenters indicated that
Congress or EPA may expand the
criteria for coverage under EPCRA
section 313 after the permits were
issued These commenters requested
that EPA clarify what storm water
general permit requirements would
apply to facilities that would not be
subject to EPORA section 313
requirement at the time of permit
issuance, but, due to the change in
defining the EPCRA section 313
universe, would be subject to EPCRA
section 313 requirements in the future.
Applicability to EPCRA section 313
'could change in 3 ways: (1#) The
threshold amount oHoxic chemicals
required to trigger reporting could
change: (2) requirements could be
' expanded to facilities other than those
classified as SIC 20-39; and (3) specific
chemicals or classes of chemicals could
be added or deleted from the list of toxic
chemicals. .
EPA intends to base applicability of
the special requirements for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from EPCRA section 313"
facilities on the date of permit issuance.
Thus, if the applicability of EPCRA
section 313 requirements is expanded to
include facilities that use less than
current threshold amounts, additional
chemicals, or facilities other than those
classified as SIC code 20-39. the special
requirements in today's general permits
would not apply to those additional
faculties.
. If. on the other hand, the applicability
of EPCRA section 313 reporting
requirements are restricted (e.g. a
chemical is deleted from the list of toxic
chemicals, the threshold amount of
chemicals is raised, or facilities within
SIC 20-39 are exempted), the Agency
wants to clarify that it will not require
facilities which are not subject to
reporting requirements under the newly .
restricted requirements under EPCRA
section 313 to comply with the special
requirements for storm water discharges
in today's permits. While the Agency
recognizes that discharges from these
facilities were considered in developing
today's permits, it believes that this
approach will minimize confusion and
address concerns that special
requirements would no longer be
required at such facilities. The agency
also notes that it may consider the
factors that lead to the decision to
restrict reporting requirements under
EPCRA section 313 in the same manner
as it would with respect to the special.
requirements of today's permits.
Other commenters requested that EPA
clarify the applicability of the special
requirements in the storm water general
permits for facilities-that met the-
threshold requirements of EPCRA
section 313 during some years, but did
not meet the requirements in other years
(even though the EPCRA section 313
thresholds did not change). One
commenter indicated that continuing
special NPDES requirements for
facilities that have reduced their use of
EPCRA section 313 chemicals removed
the incentive for the facility to reduce
their toxic chemicals.
In response. EPA wants to clarify that
permittees that had to report releases •
under EPCRA section 313. but during the
term of the permit have modified their
industrial practices such that they no
longer manufacture, process or
otherwise use EPCRA section 313 water
priority chemicals onsite in amounts
that exceed the applicable thresholds
under EPCRA section 313, are not
subject to the special requirements of
today's permit after reductions in use
have been made. The Agency also
wants to clarify that facilities that meet
the EPCRA section 313 thresholds for
the first time during the term of the
permit will be required to comply with
the additional requirements in today's
permits for EPCRA section 313 facilities
three years after the date they are first
required to reperHinder EP6RA section
313.
Some commenters expressed a
considerable amount of confusion
regarding whether the additional
requirements applied to materials other
than section 313 water priority
chemicals. For example, a number of
commenters indicated that containment
and other special requirements were
inappropriate for products which were
not made of section 313 chemicals, such
as products made of polystyrene
materials. Some of these commenters
correctly indicated that many
polystyrene products are intended to be
exposed to water and water resources.
The Agency wants to clarify that the
special requirements in today's permits
-------
Federal Register / VoL 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1Q92 / Notices
41279
for facilities that are subject to EPCRA
section 313 reporting requirements only
apply to areas of the facilities where
EPCRA section 313 chemicals are
managed. With respect to products
made of polystyrene, the Agency wants
to clarify that the feedstock for
polystyrene, styrene. is a EPCRA section
313 chemical. However, polystyrene.
which results from the polymerization of
the monomer styrene. is not a EPCRA
section 313 water priority chemical. The
Agency notes there are significant
chemical and physical differences
between polystyrene and its monomer.
styrene. The Agency agrees that
polystyrene has much less potential to
contribute pollutants ioVaters bfthe
United States (other than in the form of
floatables such as litter or improperly
disposed pellets) then styrene. and
believes that styrene should be managed
in a way to eliminate contamination to
storm water.
One commenter indicated that many
facilities are required to report under
section 313 because they have ammonia
refrigeration systems or chlorine used
for disinfection, and the nature of the
use of these chemicals poses a very
limited potential for discharge of
pollutants through storm water. In
response, the Agency notes that
significant spills or releases of such
materials can result in significant water
quality impacts. As discussed in more.
detail below, the Agency believes the
Agency has added sufficient flexibility
to the requirements of today's permits to
allow facilities to develop and
implement pollution prevention
strategies that are appropriate and are
not overly burdensome for such
situations.
One commenter noted that some
facilities may use one or more section
313 water priority chemicals in excess of
the 10.000 pound threshold, but use other
section 313. water.priority chemicals jn
amounts of less than the threshold. The
commenter requested that EPA clarify if
the special requirements for managing
EPCRA section 313 apply to all parts of
the facility where any toxic chemical is
managed, or only those parts of the
facility where section 313 water priority
chemicals that the facility must report
for (e.g. those toxic chemicals managed
in amounts in excess of 10.000 pounds)
• are used. In response, the Agency want
to clarify that the special requirements
for EPCRA section 313 facilities in
today's permits only apply to those
portions of a facility where toxic
chemicals that a facility must report
releases for under EPCRA section 313
are managed. The Agency notes
however, that IheutherbaBelirie
requirements of today's permits apply to
other parts of the facility that generate
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity.
Some commenters expressed concern
that the special requirements placed
unnecessary burdens on facilities that
manage their toxic materials indoors.
Other commenters suggested that EPA
provide incentives for industries to
eliminate exposure of raw materials and
EPCRA section.313 toxic chemicals to
precipitation. .
In response, the special requirements
for storm water pollution prevention
plans at facilities that are subject to
EPCRA section 313 for section 313 water
priority chemicals primarily focus on
areas of the facility where equipment
used for the management storage and
processing of section 313 water priority
chemicals is exposed to precipitation or
can otherwise contribute pollutants to a
storm drainage system.The Agency
believes that the burdens associated
with the requirements of today's permit
are significantly reduced for facilities
that manage (including loading and .
unloading activities) their toxic
chemicals in buildings or under cover
such that there is no exposure to
precipitation and where the floor
drainage in the building is known to be
segregated from the storm water
collection system. The Agency believes
that this approach provides incentives
for facilities to manage toxic chemicals
in a way that ensures there is no
exposure to precipitation.
EPCRA Section 313 Facilities: Types of
Controls
With respect to the two approaches
for establishing permit conditions.
Options A and B." commenters expressed
a wide diversity of opinions. Some
commenters favored the design
standards approach of Option A. These
commenters provided a number of
reasons for this support Some
commenters indicated that secondary
containment and other measures are an
essential part of storm water
management at facilities that use large
amounts of toxic materials. Some
commenters stated that this approach
would encourage faculties to develop
additional measures to control potential
releases of materials into storm water.
Other commenters indicated that this
approach would reward companies that
have already installed such controls by
reducing monitoring and reporting
requirements. Other commenters
indicated that this approach promoted
pollution prevention measures and
provided a check on runoff before it is
discharged. Another commenter
indicated that requirements for
containing storm water and monitoring
each discharge event were necessary to-
ensure water quality standards were
met. One commenter indicated that
design standards were necessary
because the acute WET limitation, by
itself, underestimated the true
environmental risks of storm water
discharges.
A number of commenters favored the
performance standards approach of
Option B. These commenters indicated
that performance standards provide
flexibility to industry, and allowed
industry to pursue the most cost-
effective control approach. Some of .
these commenters felt that this approach
would better allow for consideration Si '
local or facility specific factors hi
developing controls. One commenter
thought performance standards were the
best way to encourage innovative
approaches. Some of the commenters
indicated that the compliance
obligations under either of the two
proposed options could be substantial.
Some commenters indicated that this
approach would allow some industrial
facilities to avoid the costs of secondary
containment Several commenters
indicated that they viewed design
standards as inefficient, ineffective
methods for reducing pollutants.
In addition, some commenters urged
the Agency to adopt an alternative
approach. A number of commenters
expressed their belief that both
approaches were excessive or otherwise
inappropriate. Some commenters
indicated that they thought that
pollution prevention measures (without
a WET limitation) were adequate, and
that an effluent limitation defeated the
purpose of a plan to eliminate or reduce
sources of pollutants. Several
commenters suggested that dischargers
be given the opportunity to select either
a performance standard or design
standards, and that this approach --
provided flexibility while at the same
time recognizing the advantages of both
approaches. One commenter favored
voluntary measures as providing the
utmost flexibility and representing the
lowest cost approach.
After consideration of these
comments, the Agency has decided to
adopt an approach that is a hybrid of
Options A and B. Today's permits
provide targeted pollution prevention
plan requirements that have been
designed to address storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activities that are subject to EPCRA
section 313 reporting requirements for .
water priority chemicals. These
additional plan requirements have been
designed to provide a reasonable"
-------
41280
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
amount of flexibility to address
concerns tljat specific design criteria,
such as containment for specified design
storms, were inappropriate.
In addition, as discussed in more '
detail elsewhere in today's notice.
today's permits establish targeted
monitoring requirements for EPCRA
section 313 facilities where storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity come into contact with any
equipment, tank, container or.other
vessel or area used for storage of a
section 313 water priority chemical, or
located at a track or rail car loading or
unloading area where a section 313
water priority chemical is handled. In
this manner, additional data will be
used to identify the need for more
stringent controls and further pollution
prevention efforts will be targeted to
facilities where sampling data
demonstrates the need for further
scrutiny and controls.
The Agency feels that this approach
has several advantages and can lead to
the achievement of the goals articulated
in the August 16.1991 draft permits.
First, this approach establishes a
framework for facilities to develop and
implement site-specific pollution
prevention measures in a manner that
ensures appropriate flexibility. Second,
the approach ensures that the facilities
develop methods and protocols.
including discharge sampling, that allow
for continued evaluation of the
discharge and potential pollutant
sources at the facility. Third, this
approach is similar to a performance
standard in that it establishes a
benchmark that triggers additional
evaluation of pollutant sources at the
facility and of pollution prevention
measures.
WET Limitation
•- Comments received on the proposed
WET limitation in the August 16.1991
draft general permits were mixed.
Several commenters recommended the ••
use of chronic WET limitations instead
of acute limitations. These commenters
indicated that acute WET tests
underestimated the toxic impacts of
intermittent discharges such as storm
water. One commenter indicated that
recent research indicates that organisms
subject to periodic exposure of toxics
typically found in storm water suffer
greatly at concentrations much lower
than acute toxicity levels based on
continuous exposure. One commenter
indicated that it was meaningless to
require secondary containment without
requirements for testing water
discharged from the structure or effluent
limitations. This commenter implied that
even with a requirement to provide..
containment facilities could still
discharge contaminated storm water.
The commenter indicated that if a
facility properly implements an
appropriate storm water pollution
prevention plan, it will be virtually
impossible for pollutants from the
facility to contaminate storm water from
the facility.
Several commenters thought it was
premature and inappropriate that
technology-based effluent limits be
established for storm water discharges.
These commenters raised a number of
concerns about the WET limitation.
Several of these commenters contended
that EPA. did not have adequate data at*
this-time to demonstrate the proposed
WET limitation could bemet in a cost
effective manner after application of the
model technologies. Several commenters
suggested that EPA had only considered
several technologies for reducing
toxicity, but had made an inadequate
showing that all dischargers 'could
comply with the limitation without
resorting to expensive treatment
schemes or alternative forms of
disposal. Some of these commenters
thought that reducing toxicity would be
a complex undertaking at some
facilities, and that some dischargers
would have to develop extensive
treatment strategies rather than solely
rely on pollution prevention measures. .
These commenters contended that the
cost of compliance with the WET
limitation could be significantly higher
than was estimated by EPA.
Other commenters suggested that
whole effluent toxicity should be
addressed through best management
practices and pollution prevention
measures rather than through numeric
toxicity limitations. s
Based on additional consideration. .
' today's permit does not contain an acute
WET effluent limitation. The Agency
believes that acute toxicity is an
appropriate parameter for evaluating
"pHWnjritBrni water Discharges
associated with industrial activity. '
However, based on a consideration of
comments indicating that source
controls by themselves may not always
be adequate to control toxicity in storm
water discharges, and that reducing the
toxicity of storm water discharges from
some facilities may be a more difficult
task than was originally anticipated, the
Agency is not including the WET
limitation in today's permits.
Toxicity Reduction Evaluations
The August 16.1991 draft general
permits provided that facilities that are
subject to the Wet effluent limitation
that detected acute WET in their storm
water discharge and that where notified
by the Director were required to conduct
a toxicity reduction evaluation (TRE).
Several commenters objected to the
requirement to conduct an expensive
toxicity reduction evaluations (TRE)
without more research into the methods
to identify sources of toxicity to storm
water, methods to reduce toxicity in
storm water and applicability of current •
TRE procedures to storm water
discharges. Consistent with these
concerns, another commenter indicated
that industry has little experience with
conducting TREs for storm water
discharges. One commenter indicated
that if a discharge is found to fail the
WET test, it should be allowed the
opportunity to implement a storm water
pollution plan and/or conduct additional
WET tests before undergoing a formal
toxicity reduction evaluation.. •
In response to concerns raised about
conducting formal TREs, the Agency has
modified today's .permits to provide that
a formal TRE is not required at this time
where acute WET is detected. Rather.
the Agency recommends that if acute
whole effluent toxicity (statistically
significant difference between the 100%
dilution and the control) is detected in
storm water discharges after October 1,
1995, the permittee should review the
storm water pollution prevention plan
and make appropriate modifications to
assist in identifying the souroe(s) of
toxicity and to reduce the toxicity of
their storm water discharges. While
today's permit does not specifically
require dischargers that detect acute
WET to conduct a formal TRE, the
Agency may request a formal toxicity
identification evaluation (TIE) or a TRE
pursuant to the authority of section 308
oftheCWA.
The Agency believes that this
approach provides additional flexibility
for facilities to evaluate their storm
water discharges for toxicity and to take
appropriate steps to reduce toxicity. The
Agency believes that this additional
flexibility is appropriate in light of
concerns raised in the comments that
the source(s) of toxicity may be difficult
to initially determine and that facilities
need an opportunity to evaluate whether
specific pollutant prevention measures
will successfully reduce toxicity, or
whether the facility will need to pursue
a treatment strategy. In addition, the
approach taken in today's permits
provides facilities with an opportunity
to develop and implement pollution
prevention strategies prior to the
October 1.1995. This provides
discharges with an opportunity to
implement site-specific and innovative
measures to reduce toxicity. In addition,
tills approach recognizes the difficulties
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9.1902 / Notices
41281
in ascertaining whether a specific
measure or approach will successfully
reduce toxicity at a given facility. The
Agency believes that this approach will ,
provide additional opportunities to
evaluate pollution prevention measures .
suitable for reducing toxicity and for
evaluating the role of treatment
technologies in such toxicity reduction
strategies.
The Agency also recognizes that
sources or activities other than handling
toxic chemicals to be used hi the
industrial process may cause toxicity in
some cases. However, the Agency
believes that it is important to ensure
that these sources of toxicity have been
identified, and that the plan be reviewed
to identify any appropriate steps be
taken to reduce the toxicity of the storm
water discharges. Appropriate steps
may include diverting storm water flows
which originate from offsite, or
providing other appropriate storm water
management measures. However,
today's permits do not require that such
offiste sources of pollutants be
• eliminated. The Agency-believes that
the approach taken in today's permits
provide sufficient flexibility to address
these toxicity sources.
Containment Requirements
The August 16.1991 draft general
permits requested comments on
requiring secondary containment for two
types of areas where liquid section 313
water priority chemicals are managed.
The first type of areas was where liquid
section 313 water priority chemicals are
stored and storm water comes into
contact with equipment, tanks.
containers or other vessels used for such
storage. The second type of areas was -
truck and rail care loading and
unloading areas for liquid section 313
water priority chemicals. The provisions
of the August 16.1991 draft general
permits required secondary containment
structures to be sufficiently impervious _
to contain spilled section 313 water
priority chemicals until they can be
removed or treated. The August 16,1991
. draft general permits requested
comment on specifying that secondary
containment structures for such areas
provide sufficient excess holding
capacity for the contents of the largest
container in the drainage area plus an
allowance for drainage from a 25 year,
24 hour storm.
A number of commentera supported
the concepts of secondary containment
for targeted areas of facilities which
manage toxic chemicals. One '
commenter urged EPA to require
secondary containment for water.
priority chemicals at all sites, indicated
that earthen dikes are easily made.
relatively inexpensive, easily
maintained and can usually be created,,
altered or removed within a day.
Another commenter indicated that
secondary containment for toxic
chemicals is dearly a simple, easily
verifiable method for preventing spills.
and that too much flexibility would
result in industrial facilities avoiding
implementing appropriate requirements.
Another commenter indicated that if the
containment of toxic materials is not
economically possible, the process
should not be in existence. One
commenter noted that an added benefit
of increased containment is the
reduction in fire hazards.
WhuVoraat industry oommenters
addressing the containment issue
recognized that secondary containment
was a commonly used practice, a
number of commenters noted that many
industrial facilities have already
installed secondary containment, but
that many existing secondary
containment units did not provide
sufficient volume to accommodate
runoff from a 25 year, 24-hour storm
event••. The concern raised by these
commenters was that they believed that
many existing containment systems
would not satisfy the 25-year, 24-hour
standard and would have to be replaced
or retrofitted. A number of these
commenters raised concerns about
faculties that, in good faith, had already
constructed containment requirements
would have to face the difficulties and
expense of expanding existing
secondary containment units. One
iter recommended that faculties
with existing containment be allowed to
grandfather in their existing facility.
Several other commenters indicated
that a requirement to provide secondary
containment could result hi significant
economic burdens for facilities without
• of
altamattvrdasign vohnnes far containment units.
One commenter indicated mat Industry often
develops its own design standard, for example, the
petroleum Industry has developed a number of
standards. Including a standard that banned areas
must contain liquid contents but not be greater than
6 feet high. A large chemical Industry trade , -
aseocUtton indicated that moat company guidelines
require containment systems that are capable of
holding the contents of the largest tank within the
containment ares. A number of other industrial .
commenters Indicated that they had similar
guidelines. Commenters indicated that containment
systems for flammable liquids were expressly
designed to conform to the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 30 code which states the! dike
walls should contain the potential liquid contents
and be lass than 6 feet tall Some eommenters
anticipated that expanding existing containment
structures would create conflicts with the 6 foot
maximum wall height specified by the NFPA 30
code. Several commenters indicated that many
existing containment systems do not comply with
any specific volumetric requirements.
containment systems but with
alternative control strategies. These
commenters suggested alternatives such
as requirements to develop and
implement spill response strategies to
reduce the size of the spill, provide
drainage systems to isolate spills or
other BMP requirements. Some
commenters raised specific concerns
regarding containment requirements for
truck and rail car loading and unloading
areas for liquid section 313 water
priority chemicals. Some commenters
indicated that drip and/or spill sump
systems with high level alarms are in
common use and provide ample
protection against all but rare
catastrophic releases. Another
commenter, while supporting secondary
containment requirements for liquid
storage tanks indicated that the risk of
spills at a truck or rail unloading area is
not great where chemical transfers are
not frequent and trucks are only at the
loading station for a short time..
hi response to a number of concerns
raised on the requirements in the draft
permits, today's permits contain a
considerable amount of additional
flexibility with respect to the use of
secondary containment or other
equivalent management practices for
areas of the facility where liquid Section
313 chemicals are stored or loading and/
or unloaded. Today's permit provides
that liquid storage areas and truck and
rail car loading and unloading areas for
liquid section 313 water priority
chemicals must be operated to minimize
discharges of section 313 chemicals. For
liquid storage areas, appropriate
measures to minimize discharges of
section 313 chemicals may include
secondary containment provided for at
least the entire contents of the largest
single tank plus sufficient freeboard to
allow for precipitation, a strong spill
contingency and integrity testing plan,
and/or other equivalent measures. For
buck and rail car loading and unloading
areas, appropriate measures to minimize
discharges of section 313 chemicals may
include: the placement and maintenance
of drip pans (including the*proper
disposal of materials collected in the
drip pans) where spillage may occur
(such as hose connections, hose reels
and filler nozzles) for use when making
and breaking hose connections; a strong
spill contingency and integrity testing
plan: and/or other equivalent measures.
This approach vail allow permittees to
select the most cost effective technology
for controlling releases of section 313
chemicals at their site consistent with -
the requirement that the discharge of
section 313 water priority chemicals is
minimized. As discussed earlier in
-------
41282
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
today's notice, today's permits also
require that a registered PE certify that
the storm water pollution prevention
plan, including controls to minimize the
discharge of section 313 water priority
chemicals from areas of the facility
where liquid section 313 chemicals are
stored or loading and/or unloaded, has
been prepared in accordance with good
engineering practices. The PE
certification will assist in ensuring that
good engineering practices are used in
selecting an approach to minimize the
discharge of section 313 water priority
chemicals.
In providing this additional flexibility
with respect to containment
requirements. EPA is particularly
concerned that many existing secondary
containment units would have to be
retrofitted in order to comply with the
requirement to provide sufficient storage
for the 25-year, 24-hour storm. The
additional flexibility provided by
. today's permits will ensure that this
provision is attainable for facilities with
existing controls, such as secondary
containment, to minimize the discharge
of section 313 water priority chemicals,
and that such facilities will not have to
provide for retrofitting of existing
systems which currently meet the
standard. At the same time, this
approach addresses concerns regarding
facilities where secondary containment
measures are not economically
.achievable. Under today's permits, these
facilities may implement alternative
approaches to controlling pollutants in
their storm water discharges in lieu of
secondary containment
EPCRA Section 313 Facilities: Other
Concerns
One commenter indicated that the
requirement in the August 16,1991 draft
•permits that permittees either take
immediate corrective action or shut
down a unit w process if a leak is
discovered which may result in a
significant release of a section 313 water
priority chemical to the drainage system
was-an unreasonable requirement
because a release to the drainage
system may not result in a release to
waters of the United States. f
In response, the Agency wants to
clarify that the requirements in today's
permits do not apply to facilities that do
not discharge storm water associated
with industrial activity to waters of the
United States. The Agency has modified
the language in today's permit to limit
this requirement to leaks or other
conditions which may result in
significant releases of section 313 water
priority chemicals to waters of the
United States. The Agency has also
replaced the term "corrective action"
with the phrase "action to stop the leak
or otherwise prevent the significant
release of section 313 water priority
chemicals to waters of the United States"'
to avoid confusion. The Agency also
wants to clarify that the temporary use
of drip pans, diversions to sumps, or
other measures that prevent toxic
chemicals from being discharged to
waters of the United States until
permanent repairs can be made may,
where appropriate, constitute
appropriate action within the meaning
of today's permits. The Agency believes
that such requirements are reasonable,
are common industrial practices, and
are necessary to prevent discharges of _
toxic chemicals to waters of the United
States.
One commenter indicated that
integrity testing of storage tanks is not
economically achievable and did not
reflect current industry practice, but
rather visual inspection of above ground
tanks and pipes is general industry
practice. One commenter indicated that
visual inspection was less expensive
than integrity testing. One commenter
indicated that integrity testing should
not be required for straight runs of pipe
without connections or joints or to
welded joints. However, other
commenters indicated that integrity
testing was a viable alternative to
containment One commenter indicated
that integrity testing should be required
at reasonable intervals, and indicated .
that such testing is not an alternative to
containment as most spills are the result
of human error, not mechanical failure.
One commenter indicated that many
local and State standards exist for
integrity testing for tanks and piping.
In response to comments, the Agency
recognizes mat integrity testing can be
an important part of a sound spill
prevention program. However, to
~ ' ~ confusion and address
concerns raised about specific integrity f
testing procedures, the •Agency has
added flexibility to today's permits by
listing spill contingency plans and
integrity testing as one type of
management measure that is
appropriate for liquid storage areas or
anas of the facility that are used for •
truck and rail car loading and unloading
of liquid section 313 water priority
chemicals.
A number of commenters supported
the requirement that plans for EPCRA
section 313 facilities be certified by a •
registered PE. Some of these
commenters indicated that this
approach would allow the Agency to
incorporate additional flexibility into
some provisions of the permit while still
ensuring that the objectives of the
permit are met. Several commenters
suggested that additional flexibility be
given to EPCRA section 313 facilities.
and that the Agency continue to require
PE certifications as a means to ensure
that adequate measures are being
implemented. One.commenter requested
clarification on whether the PE
certification applied to the entire plan
for the facility or for only those portions
of the plan that addressed areas where
section 313 water priority chemicals are
managed.
However, some commenters raised
concerns about PE certifications. One
commenter indicated that PEs hired by a
facility will not provide the appropriate '
level of assurance unless penalties for
misrepresentation are possible. Other
commenters stated their belief that
industries and Federal facilities have
historically been unable to monitor
themselves. One commenter indicated
that only a few registered PEs work for
tiie chemical industry or many
manufacturing industries, and suggested
that the permits provide that employees
other than registered PEs be allowed to
provide a certification in addition to
registered PEs. The commenter
indicated that given their knowledge
and experience, employees that were
not a registered PE could result in
equivalent or better certifications than
those provided by a registered PE who
was not an employee. One commenter
suggested that the plant manager should
be able to certify compliance based on
information provided by his or her staff
in lieu of a registered PE certification.
One commenter recognized that a PE
would be qualified to certify that
secondary containment is designed and
constructed in accordance with good
engineering practices. However, most
PEs have no special qualifications to
certify certain other major elements of
the plan, such as training, and the
pollution prevention committee. Another
' cominente'Tuia'icated that a PE
certification could be expensive for
small businesses.
In response, the Agency believes that
PE certifications are appropriate for
EPCRA section 313 facilities with storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity for two reasons. First,
the nature of the storm water concerns
at these facilities dictates that storm
water pollution prevention plans should
be as reliable as possible. EPCRA
section 313 facilities manage large
amounts of toxic chemicals, and the
material handling equipment and
practices are a potential source of
pollutants to storm water. EPA believes
that certification by a PE will add a
measure of independent reliability to
-------
federal Redder /Vol. 57. No: 175 / Wednesday. September 8.1992 / Notices
41283
ensure adequate implementation of the
plan requirements. •
Second, the Agency's experience with
the SPCC program indicates that PE
certifications can he a useful component
of a spill prevention program for
facilities that manage large amounts of
liquids and that PEs are particularly
well qualified to evaluate controls at
such facilities. Studies have indicated
that a prindpalleak prevention measure
for chemical handling systems and
ancillary equipment is proper design
and installation and that a quality audit
of storage and handling equipmentwill
prevent many leaks, particularly from
loose fittings, poor welding, and
maligned gaskets.34
The Agency believes that PE
certifications will assist in ensuring that
chemical handling systems are .properly
designed, installed and operated and
that permittees comply with the terms of
the permit and adequately implement
measures identified in their pollution
prevention plan. The Agency believes
that the costs of a PE certification are
achievable. For facilities that do not
have an appropriate PE on staff to
conduct the certification, the Agency
encourages permittees to have
employees with appropriate knowledge
and experience assist a PE that is not
regularly employed by the facility in
making the certification.
The Agency further believes that a PE
certification is appropriate for all plan
components at EPCRA section 313
facilities can involve various aspects of
the industrial process. For example, the
training requirements of today's permits
apply to all facility employees and
contractor personnel that work in areas
where SARA title ffl. section 313 water
priority chemicals are used or stored.
These training measures must ensure
that such personnel are trained in and
informed of preventive measures at.the
facility. The Agency believes that it is
cost effective to have a PE that has
begun to review parts of the plan to
review the entire plan.
One commenter objected to the
requirement to maintain records of the
frequency and estimated Volume of
discharges from secondary containment
areas. The commenter raised concerns
that this provision triggered testing
requirements. In response, the Agency
wants to clarify that this provision does
not trigger sampling requirements.
One commenter indicated that •
providing curbing and roofing for many
forms of metals storage is not practical
and provides no environmental benefit
and that roofs made of galvanized steel
or copper present a greater potential
source than industrial laydown areas for
insoluble metals. In response, the
Agency wants to clarify that today's
permit (and the August 16.1991 draft
permits) provide dischargers with the
" For exunple. Me "Huardoiii Wwto T«nk Rlik
Analytii". EPA. USB.
IJUUWM w« «••»••••• r ™ —
controls to prevent or minimi.... -~
potential for storm water runon to.come
into contact with Section 313 water
priority chemicals or to provide roofs.
covers or other forms of appropriate
protection to prevent storage piles from
exposure to wind and storm water. The
Agency recognizes that in some
situations where metal storage areas
pose little potential as a pollutant
source, roofs may not be necessary. In
such case, facilities should pursue
appropriate runon or drainage controls.
The Agency notes that such drainage is
typically provided for exposed portions
of industrial activities to prevent
ponding or flooding.
Special Requirements for Salt Storage
The August 18.1991 draft general
permits contained a provision requiring
storage piles of salt to be enclosed or
covered to prevent exposure to
precipitation.
Several commenters identified several
situations where storm water runoff
from salt piles did not lead to a
discharge of storm water to waters of
the United States. Examples cited by the
commenters included lined salt
impoundments (such as those used for
salt dome petroleum storage activities);
situations where runoff from salt piles is
used as a brine source in a
manufacturing process; and certain
storage piles associated with solar
ponds. These cdmmenters requested
clarification as to whether salt piles
where storm water runoff is not
discharged to water of the United States
needed to be covered or enclosed.
In response, the Agency did not intend
to address these situations. The Agency .
has clarified today's permit to provide
that salt piles do not need to be
enclosed or covered where storm water
from the pile is not discharged to waters
of the United States.
One commenter noted that economics
dictates that every effort is made to limit
the working face of salt piles to
exposure to precipitation, but that a
requirement that salt piles be covered at
all times was not feasible because
portions of the pile must be uncovered
during the time salt is being placed on or
removed from the pile, to response, the
Agency recognizes that it will not
always be feasible to ensure that
working faces of the pile are covered
when materials are being added or
removed from the pile. Accordingly.
today's permits provide that salt piles
.-shall be enclosed or covered to prevent
exposure to precipitation, except for
exposure resulting from adding or
removing materials from the pile.
One commenter indicated that salt
piles should not be singled out, and that
numerous other bulk commodities (e.g.
potash, trona. sodium sulfate) are stored
outside and are readily dissolved by
precipitation. In response, at the time
that the draft general permits were
published, the Agency had appropriate
information on the practices of the salt
industry and information on the nature
of pollutants in salt pile ninoff that was
used in the support of the proposed
requirement The Agency will continue
to evaluate industry practices for other
types of bulk commodities, and
pollutants associated with runoff from
storage practices.
One commenter argued that covers for
very large stockpiles, (such as piles of
400,000 tons) were not feasible. As
discussed below, the Agency has
expanded its cost model to evaluate
these discharges, and believes that such
controls are in fact reasonable for such
piles. The Agency also wants to clarify
the dischargers who want to seek
alternative permit conditions may
submit an individual permit application
with a description of why alternative
requirements would be appropriate.
Several commenters indicated that
additional time would be needed to
comply with this requirement.
particularly where a facility had a
significant number of piles. In response.
the Agency has extended the
compliance date for this requirement
until three years after issuance of the
permit consistent with section 402(p)(4)
of the CW A.
Effluent Limitation for Coal Pile Runoff
The August 18.1991 draft general
permits requested comment on an
effluent limitation for coal pile runoff of
SO mg/1 total suspended solids and pH
within a range of 6.0 to 9.0. The draft
permit provided that any untreated
overflow from facilities designed,
constructed and operated to treat the
volume of coal pile runoff which is
associated with a 25-year. 24-hour
rainfall event shall not be subject to the
limitation.
A number of commenters indicated
their belief that the 10-year. 24-hour
storm was adequately protective for
coal pile runoff, as is evidenced by the
Agency use of the standard in the Coal
Mining Effluent Umitation Guidelines.
One commenter complained that EPA
failed to consider the costs of
implementing a storm design system to
-------
41284
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 /Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
accommodate a 25-year. 24-hour «torm
event Hie commenter indicated that the.
cost differential to construct a system to
accommodate a 25-year. 24-hour storm
event versus a 10-year. 24-hour storm
event would be significant, and the
incremental pollutant reduction •
associated with the larger design system
would be small The commenter
indicated that the higher costs would be
associated with the number or capacity
of catch basins or inlet structures, the
capacity of the conveyance system (e.g.
the size of pipes.or ditches), and
pumping station capacity.
In response to comments. EPA has
modified the effluent limitation in
today's permits to be consistent with the
effluent limitation guideline for coal pile
runoff in the steam electric category (40
CFR 434). Therefore, the numeric •
limitation for coal pile runoff in today's
permits uses the 10-year, 24-hour storm
instead of the 25-year. 24-hour storm.
EPA recognizes that the initial analysis
used to develop the proposed limitations
in the August 16.1991 notice relied
heavily on coast data from the steam
electric guideline background document
The Agency believes that it is t
appropriate to tie the limitation in
today's permit mdre closely to the
limitation that was evaluated in the
study until it can better evaluate the .
incremental costs associated with
alternative approaches.
One commenter expressed concern
that the proposed limitations-may apply
to coal pile runoff from steam electric
facilities which is already subject to an
effluent limitation guideline. In
response, the Agency wants to clarify
that the effluent limitation in today's
permit for coal pile runoff is not
intended to apply to coal pile runoff
from steam electric facilities. As noted
.in the August 16.1991 draft permit, coal
pile runoff from steam electric facilities
are already subject to an effluent
limitation gvjdeline (see 40 CFR 423). In
addition, today's permits (and the
August 16.1991 draft permits).
specifically exclude from coverage
storm water discharges that are subject
to an effluent limitation guideline.
One commenter expressed their belief
that coal piles at mining sites and
preparation plants should not be subject
to the effluent limitation because such
piles are already subject to SMCRA
monitoring and performance standards
at 30 CFR 730.21U), 30 CFR 816.42 and
816.45). and the proposed limitations go
beyond these requirements. The
commenter indicated that they thought
that all activities presently permitted
under SMCRA at coal mining, ore
mining and dressing, and mineral mining
and processing facilities are not subject
to the conditions of the general permit
In response, the Agency wants to
clarify that today's permits do not cover
storm water discharges which are
subject to an effluent limitation
guideline. Most coal pile runoff from
active mining sites and preparation
plants are subject to the coal mining
effluent limitation guideline at 40 CFR
434. and therefore can not obtain
coverage under today's permit The
Agency notes that the imposition of
SMCRA requirements does not preclude
CWA requirements.** and that
generally such requirements are
intended to work together. For example,
30 CFR 816.42 requires that discharges of
waters from areas disturbed by surface
mining activities must be in compliance
with all application Federal and State
water laws and regulations. 30 CFR .
816.45 establishes sediment control
measures that do not specifically
address toxic discharges from coal pile
runoff.
One commenter requested
clarification as to whether pre-SMCRA
disturbed coal mining sites were subject
to this requirement. The commenter
argued that Congress intended that pre-
SMCRA coal mining sites are to be
handled under Title IV of SMCRA which
established the Abandoned Mine Lands
Program. In.response. the effluent
limitation for coal pile runoff in today's
permits is intended to apply to all coal
pile runoff covered by the permit
Today's permit can cover storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from pre-SMCRA disturbed
lands where die discharger has
submitted an NOI to be covered by the
permit While Congress intended that
Title IV of SMCRA addressed pre-
SMCRA coal mining sites, nothing in the
legislative history of the provision
suggests that it was intended as the
exclusive means qf addressing these
sites.** Discharges that do not believe
that this requirement is appropriate for a
given discharge may submit an
individual permit application or
participate in an applicable group
application. The Agency expects that
inactive mining sites will generally have
fewer coal piles than active coal mining
sites, as it is expected that materials
with a commercial value will often be
removed from the site. In addition, the
Agency recognizes that additional
options are available to inactive sites.
such as removing the coal piles, or
reclaiming/stabilizing the site to ensure
••Stt American Mining Congnuv. EPA. 9K .
FJd 758 (Oth Or. 1982).
•• SM American Mining Congmt v. EPA. Supra.
that storm water is not contaminated by
contact with a coal pile.
Several commenters indicated that
they believed that storm water permits
should not impose numeric effluent
limitations.. EPA disagrees with this
comment in connection with coal pile
runoff. The Agency remains concerned
about imposing broad national numeric
effluent limitations which would apply
to all storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity. However, the
Agency believes that numeric effluent
limitations may be appropriate when
applied to storm water discharges from
specific, priority unit operations or types
of industrial facilities. For example, as
discussed above, the Agency ha»—
developed a number of effluent
limitation guidelines for runoff from
various industrial categories. The
Agency intends to continue to evaluate
the use of numeric effluent limitations
for priority storm water discharges.
Several commenters thought the pH .
limitation of between 6.0 and 9.0 was
•unreasonable because the levels in
rainfall and receiving waters often
exceed the 64 to 9.0 range. Some of
these commenters suggested that the
Agency should consider allowing a
wider range of values when it can be
demonstrated that "natural" storm
water is outside this range. Another
commenter indicated that the pH limit
was impossible to reach without
treatment in areas of acid rain.
In response, the Agency recognizes
that rainfall may have a pH of lower
than 6.0 (or higher than 9.0). In such
cases, dischargers will typically have to .
provide treatment for coal pile runoff
prior to discharge, even-where they are
using low sulfur coal Such treatment is
anticipated and consistent with today's
effluent limitation. The Agency also
notes that the pH and TSS parameters in
the coal pile limitation are indicator
parameters for other toxic constituents,
including a number of heavy metals. The
pH of the storm water affects the
availability and solubility of these
parameters. Storm water with a low pH
will leach metals from coal. Thus it is
appropriate to control pollutants in coal
pile runoff events where a low pH is
caused by low pH rain instead of sulfur
in the coal In addition, metals in a low
pH solution will tend to be in a form that
is more available to organisms. Thus.
the pH typically needs to be controlled
to provide for appropriate control of
these constituents.
One commenter indicated that EPA
should only impose coal pile limitations
where site-specific impacts to receiving
streams are identified. The commenter
also noted that the pollutant
-------
Federal RegUter / V6L 57. No. ITS / Wedneiday. September 9.1992 / Notices
41285
characteristics of coal pile runoff can
depend on a number of factors, such as
the size of the pUe. the type of
foundation under the pile, and the pH of
the precipitation, and that the Agency
should consider such factors at each site
before imposing a limitation on that site.
In response, the Agency notes that the
effluent limitations for coal pile runoff in
today's permits are technology-based
requirements based on BAT
considerations, and do not consider site-
specific water quality impacts. EPA
does not agree with the commenter that
i* ^U...U U.*, •«M»l«i«lAtf1 fsw»m isMtiifio
• i fjuwtuu m !«»»•««•*••• •••—- —- _
technology-based requirements unless it
specifically identifies water quality
impacts associated with a discharge. -
This approach is not authorized by the
CWA. which requires that NPDES
permits for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
establish, at a "«<"»™tniT technology-
based BAT/BCT requirements. The
Agency notes that it has considered a
number of factors, including size of
' piles, type of coal, and other appropriate
factors in developing the limitation for
coal pile runoff in today's permits.
One commenter suggested that any
modifications to numeric discharge
limits on coal piles be done through
changes in the effluent limitation
guidelines, and that the establishment of
new effluent limitations for coal pile
runoff in a storm water permit was
confusing.
In response, the Agency has authority
to establish effluent limitations in
NPDES permits on a case-byncase basis
outside of the effluent limitation
guidelines process. Section 402(a)(l) of
the CWA authorizes EPA to issue
permits imposing effluent limitations .,
based on best professional judgement
for activities for which EPA-
promulgated effluent limitation
guidelines have not been developed.
Again, the Agency wants to clarify that
today's permits do not modify
requirements for teal pile runoff which
are already subject to an effluent
limitation guideline.
Deadlines for Plan Preparation and
Compliance
The August 16,1991 draft general
permits provided that plans should be
completed within 180 days of the
effective date of the permit (and
updated as appropriate) and provide for
compliance within 365 days of the
effective date of the permit. The August
16,1991 draft general permits also -
required that NOIs be submitted within
180 days of the effective date of the
permit
One commenter indicated that with
general permits, the effective date of the
-general permit is not the date that the
discharger .is subject to the permit
Rather, with a general permit a
discharger will need time to review the
permit and understand the alternatives
prior to selecting this option and
submitting the Notice of Intent Other .
commenters expressed confusion over
plan deadlines and requested
clarification.
In response, the Agency has modified
the permit to provide specific dates for
plan preparation and compliance. While
the Agency does not agree that it cannot
establish compliance dates based on the
effective date of the-pennit. the Agency
believes that specifying specific dates
will minimize confusion regarding these
dates, particularly where EPA issues
permits for different States on different
dates.
A number of commenters indicated
that they thought that it was
inappropriate to require that plans be
developed at the same time that an NOI
was required. In response, as discussed
above, the Agency has modified the
deadline for submitting most NOIs to be
covered by today's permits to October 1.
1992 to provide consistency with the
deadlines for individual permit
applications and for part 2 of group
applications. In addition, to reflect this
date for submitting NOIs and to address
the concerns of the commenters,
pollution prevention plans for
dischargers with facilities in operation
on or before October 1,1992 shall be
prepared by April 1,1993, and provide
for implementation and compliance with
the terms of the plan on or before
October 1,1993.
However, the Agency believes that
operators of new industrial activity that
commence after October 1.1992 will
have opportunities to prepare storm
water pollution prevention plans prior to
commencement of the industrial activity.
Thus, today's permits require that such
new dischargers be prepared to comply
-with their pollution prevention plan
upon commencement of their discharge.
The Agency believes that this approach
will ensure that new facilities.
adequately incorporate pollution
prevention concepts into their plans for
new industrial activities.
Some commenters suggested different
times for complying with plans.^One
commenter recommended that faculties
be given 270 days after the effective
date of the permit to prepare the plan.
Some of these recommended that
facilities be given a full year to develop
the plan and an additional 180 days to
implement baseline requirements. Other
commenters suggested that permittees
be given one year from the effective
date of the permit to complete its plan
and one and one half years from the
effective date of the permit to comply
with the conditions of the permit'One
commenter thought permittees should be
given one year from the effective date of
the permit to prepare plans, and an
additional year to comply with the plan
to allow facilities to incorporate storm
water management planning into the
normal budgeting and operation of the
facility. Another commenter indicated
that the storm water control measures of
the draft permit may require significant
technical and management input for
testing and evaluation prior to final
implementation. One commenter urged
EPA to stretch out compliance deadlines
based on their belief that such action
would provide industries with
additional opportunities to plan and
implement more comprehensive
solutions to storm water management,
thereby increasing the effectiveness of
integrated pollution prevention methods.
In response, EPA notes that today's
permits provide that plans can be
modified after the initial compliance
date to address information that comes
from testing and the evaluation that
occurs during the term of the permit.
Given this flexibility, and based on a
consideration of the requirements of the
permit the Agency believes that the
time frames established in today's
permits are reasonable. To ensure
adequate flexibility and in response to
comments, today's permits allow the
Director to establish a later date for
preparing and complying with plans
based on a showing of good cause.
However, it should be noted that section
402(p)(4)(A) of the CWA requires that
any permit for a storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity shall"
provide for compliance as expeditiously
as practicable, but in no event later than
three years after the date of issuance of
such permit.
One commenter suggested that
permittees be given one year to comply
with the requirement to test for (or
evaluate) illicit connections. In
response, today's permit has been
modified to provide that permittees have
one year to certify that they have tested
for or otherwise evaluated their storm
water conveyance system for the
presence of non-storm water discharges.
This has been done to provide
consistency between the deadline for
certifying that storm water discharges
have been tested for the presence of
non-storm water and the deadline for
implementing the pollution prevention
plan. .
One commenter suggested that small
business be given 3 to 5 years to comply
with permit requirements. In response.
-------
41286
Federal Register / VoL 67. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
the Agency believes that the complexity
of the flexible, site-specific storm water
pollution prevention plans required by
today's permits will to some degree be
related to the size of the facility. Thus,
EPA believes that the time frames
established in today's permits are .
appropriate for small businesses.
However, in response to comments.
today's permits provide additional
flexibility for the Director to establish a
later date for preparing and complying
with plans based on a showing of good
cause. •
One commenter indicated that Federal
facilities would have unique problems
with the compliance dates in the August
16,1991 draft permits because of the'
complexities of the Federal budgetary
process. In response, the Agency notes
that the draft permits were first publicly
noticed on August 16,1991. Federal
facilities have had since that time to
make planning decisions necessary to
support plan preparation. In addition,
today's permits require that plans for
existing storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity be
developed by April 1.1993, six months
after the beginning of the 1993 fiscal
year for the Federal government. Again,
the Agency wants to clarify that today's
permits provide additional flexibility for
the Director to establish a later date for
preparing and complying with plans
based on a showing of good cause.
Some commenters indicated that it
generally would take additional time to
comply with the more complex
requirements of the permit Many of
these commenters focussed on the
special requirements for EPCRA section
313 facilities. For example, several
commenters indicated the proposed plan
requirements for EPCRA section 313
facilities can require substantial
planning and design efforts. One
commenter indicated that it would
generally not be possible for many
facilities to provide measures requiring
significant construction, such as
secondary containment, within one year
because of the demand on
environmental engineering firms, the
time needed .to prepare plans, the lead
time required for planning and designing
activities to construct secondary
containment structures, and the delays
that industrial facilities through the
North will experience due to winter
weather. Several commenters. including
a large water pollution trade
organization indicated that three years
from the effective date of the permit be
provided for any measure, such as
installing secondary containment, that
requires construction. Other .
commenters indicated that they thought
four years would be needed by most
facilities to complete installation of any
required containment structures.
In response, the Agency believes that
it is appropriate to provide permittees .
with more complex requirements which
may require significant construction
activities, such as those for EPCRA
section 313 facilities, salt storage, and
coal pile runoff, additional time to •
comply with today's permit
requirements, and has established a
three year compliance date for
complying with these special
requirements. In addition, facilities
which trigger EPCRA section 313
thresholds for the first time during the
permit term wilThave thRfe^ears from
the time they first have to report to
comply with the additional requirements
for EPCRA section 313 facilities. This
deadline is consistent with section
402(p)(4)(A) of the CWA which requires
that any permit for a storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity shall provide for compliance as
expeditiously as practicable, but in no
event later than 13 years after the date
of issuance of such permit. However, the
Agency wants to clarify that such
faculties must prepare a storm water
pollution prevention plan address the
baseline requirements (e.g. requirements
other than the special requirements) by
April 1.1993. and provide for
compliance with this portion of the plan
by October 1.1993.
One commenter requested that EPA
clarify, requirements for oil and gas
operations that prior to October 1,1992,
did not require an NPDES permit for
their storm water discharge, but that
have a discharge of storm water
resulting ih the discharge of a importable
quantity of oil or a hazardous substance
after October 1.1992. In response.
today's permits establish special
deadlines for certain oil and gas
operations. Oil and gas operations
havmgYdischa"rge of a repbrtable
quantity of oil or a hazardous substance
after October 1.1992 are required to
submit an NOI within 14 days after
knowledge of the reportable quantity
release and prepare and comply with
the terms of a storm water pollution
prevention plan within 60 days of the
reportable quantity release. EPA
believes this shorter time frame is
appropriate because the potential for
spills associated with such facilities and
the additional expertise expected in the
oil industry that has developed to
comply with SPCC requirements.
Subsequent to the publication of the
August 16.1991 draft general permits.
Congress established special permit
application deadlines in the
Transportation Act of 1991 for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from facilities that are
owned or operated by'a municipality
that has participated in a timely part 1
group application and where either the
group application is rejected or the
facility is denied participation in the
group application by EPA. As discussed
above, the deadline for such facilities to
submit NOIs to be covered by today's
permits is consistent with the
Transportation Act. Today's permits
provide that the plan for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from a facility that is owned or
operated by a municipality that has
participated in a timely group
application and where either the group
application is rejected or the facility is
denied participation in the group
application by EPA must be prepared on
or before the 365th day following the
date on which the group is rejected or
the denial is made, (and updated as
appropriate). In addition, such
permittees must provide for compliance '
with the terms of the plan on or before
the 545th day following the date on
which the group is rejected or the denial
is made. These deadlines will give
facilities that are part of a rejected
group application sufficient time to
comply with the pollution prevention
plan requirements of today's permits.
Procedures for Reviewing Plans
The August 16,1991 draft general
permits provided that permittees were
not required to submit a storm water
pollution prevention plan to EPA unless
EPA requested the plan on a case-by-
case basis. The permit also provided
that EPA may notify the permittee that
the plan does not meet one or more of
the requirements of the permit Unless -
otherwise provided by EPA. permittees
would have 30 days after such
notification to make necessary changes
and submit to the Director a written
certification that the requested changes
had been made.
Several commenters indicated that
they thought depending on the extent to
which the Director required changes. 30
days could be an insufficient period of
time to make the required changes.
Some of these commenters suggested 90
days as a time period to make required
revisions.
In response, the Agency notes that the
permit provides flexibility for EPA to
establish a longer or shorter time period
for permittees to make and implement
modifications to their plans. In general,
EPA will consider factors such as
whether the change is procedural in
nature or will require structural
-------
41288
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1902 / Notice*
with industrial activity except those
from certain oil and gas operation*.
Most facilities were subject to a
baseline monitoring requirement of eight
parameters plus any pollutant limited by
an effluent guideline to which the
facility was subject. Six classes of
industries were selected for more ''
extensive semi-annual monitoring with
additional industry-specific parameters.
Oil and gas exploration or production
operations were given the option of
obtaining a PE certification that a
pollution prevention plan was being
' implemented in accordance with the
permit hi lieu of monitoring.
On April 2.1992, (57 FR11394), EPA
published final revisions to the Agency's
--3*a*eiine NPDES monitoring
requirements for storm water
discharges. Under the modified
regulatory framework, .monitoring
- requirements for NPDES permits for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity are to be established
on a case-by-case basis, with minimum
requirements relating to site inspections
rather than discharge monitoring.
H. G
its on Proposed General
Permit Monitoring Requirements
Several commenters thought that the
monitoring requirements in the August
16,1991 draft permits should be retained
or expanded. These commenters
indicated that monitoring was necessary
to adequately identify pollutant sources,
determine the effectiveness of pollution
prevention measures, and build a data
base to support future permit issuing
activities. However, the majority of
commenters addressing this issue raised
concerns regarding proposed
requirements for all permittees to
sample their discharges. A number of • •
these commenters suggested that it was
important to sample storm water
discharges from priority classes of
activities or facilities, but that across-
the-board monitoring requirements for
all facilities covered by the permit may
not be an appropriate or cost-effective
use of resources. While most
commenters in the regulated community
supported the necessity for controlling
pollutants discharged via storm water
runoff, the expense and difficulties of
storm water monitoring were of major
concern. Some of these commenters
indicated that overly broad discharge
monitoring requirements at this point in
time could be counterproductive toward
the goals of the program, as significant
resources would have to be expended
collecting and analyzing discharge
samples, thereby limiting available
resources at some facilities to develop
and implement measures that would
result in the removal of pollutants in
their storm water discharges. Other
concerns raised by the conunenters
included the difficulties in
characterizing storm water discharges
with sampling data, the belief that in
some situations, site inspections would
be more appropriate than monitoring for
determining permit compliance, and.
EPA'* limited ability to effectively
review data. An underlying theme that
emerged from the comments was that a
number of factors, such as the potential
for .discharges to contain significant
•mount* of pollutant*, the nature of
permit conditions, and the nature of the
operation of the facility should be
considered when establishing,
monitoring conditions in NPDES permitr
for storm water discharges.
In response, the Agency has modified
the monitoring requirements of the final
general permit to be consistent with the
flexibility afforded by the changes to
pitnimiim monitoring requirements at 40
CFR 122.44(i)(2) made on April 2,1992.
Monitoring requirements for discharges
from many classes of industrial facilities
have been reduced or eliminated.
Monitoring requirements have been
retained for selected industries' or
industrial activities which, due to the
nature of industrial activities or
materials stored or used onsite. have
significant potential for contributing
pollutants to storm water. These
requirements are discussed in more
detail below.
As discussed in more detail earlier in
today's notice, the Agency has also
added requirements to conduct
comprehensive annual site compliance
evaluations which have been designed
• to evaluate the effectiveness of permit
implementation and identify pollutant
sources consistent with the April 2,1992.
regulatory modifications, The Agency
believes that these compliance
evaluations can provide an efficient and
cost-effective approach, for evaluating
the effectiveness of permit program
implementation.
In adopting this approach, the Agency
recognizes that discharge monitoring
data can play several important
functions, including assisting in
identifying pollutant sources, evaluating
the effectiveness of pollution prevention
measures, evaluating the risk of
discharges by indicating the type and
concentration of pollutant parameters in
the discharge, and provide information
which can be used in efforts to identify
water quality impacts, and supporting
future permitting activities, such as Tier
n. ID and IV activities described in
EPA's long-term permitting strategy.'7
However, the Agency also recognize*
that other type* of Information can be
used to supplement or hi some cases
replace monitoring information. For
example, the requirements hi today's
permits for the narrative description of
potential pollutant sources, inspections,
testing for non-storm water discharges,
and comprehensive site compliance.
evaluations will assist in identifying
pollutant sources associated with
industrial activity. In addition, the
Agency notes that the effectiveness of
some types of pollution prevention
measures can be observed without
monitoring, such •** ranmtal or
elimination of pollutant sources,
ylimhinHng exposure of materials to
precipitation, and eliminating non-storm
water discharges to the storm sewer
system. Other measures, such as
maintaining vegetation to prevent
erosion, silt fences, and screens or other
' devices to collect floatable* can be
evaluated without campling discharges.
The approach taken in today's permits
represents an approach which uses both
comprehensive site compliance
evaluations and monitoring
requirements for targeted industrial
activities and facilities to pursue the
goal* of the program. In accordance with
40 CFR 122.44, today's permits require
permittees to conduct comprehensive
site compliance evaluations. In addition,
all permittees are required to develop
and implement pollution prevention
plans. These requirements establish a
baseline for ensuring facilities-evaluate
pollutant sources and evaluate the
effectiveness of pollution prevention
measures for storm water discharges.
Today's permits also establish
monitoring requirement* for facilities.
when EPA has identified targeted
activities that are potential source* of
significant amounts of pollutants. These
requirement* will provide additional
information that will assist and
supplement efforts to identify pollutant
sources and evaluate the effectiveness
of pollution prevention requirement*.
The Agency believes that this approach
represent* a balanced approach that
addresses the concerns raised in the
comments. Those facilities that are not
required to conduct monitoring will be
able to dedicate their efforts at this time
to developing and implementing
pollution prevention plans which
involve identifying pollutant sources
•' BPA'i loot Urn permit iMiunet itrmtegy for
•torn water dUdwrget utocUUd will) induttrUl
•cttvtty U dMCrilMd la Iht April 11892 Fwhnl
K*|M*r(57FR113M).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57J No. 175 / Wednesday. September9.1992/l*oggg^
41287
modifications, the extent of the
modifications, and the environmental
risk of the discharge when establishing
alternative time periods for modifying
plans.
One commenter indicated that they r
believed that plans should be dynamic
documents which are revised as
appropriate to reflect changes in the
facility's operations. The Agency agrees
with this comment The Agency has
modified today's permits to clarify and
highlight this principle. Today's permits
require that the permittee shall amend
the plan whenever there is a change in
design, construction, operation, or
maintenance which has a significant
effect on the potential for the discharge
of pollutants to waters of the United
States or if the storm water pollution
prevention plan proves to be ineffective
in eliminating or significantly
minimizing pollutants. In addition, the
requirements in today's permits for
comprehensive site compliance
evaluations have been developed based
on the concept that permittees need to
inspect their sites and evaluate the
accuracy and effectiveness of their
plans and make plan modifications as
necessary.
Some commenters indicated that
requiring permittees to submit plans to
EPA upon request for review and
approval would decrease plan
effectiveness by discouraging facilities
from revising their plans as necessary in
light of new information and to meet
changing circumstances. They indicated
that this approach would also impose a
heavy burden on EPA'a limited
reviewing resources.
The Agency does not agree that
submitting plans to EPA upon request
for review and approval would decrease
plan effectiveness by discouraging
facilities from revising their plans as
• necessary in light of new information
and to meet changing circumstances. As
discussed above, today's permit requires
permittees to evaluate the accuracy and
effectiveness of their plan, and to make
modifications as necessary. The Agency
believes that most discharges will
realize that modifying their plan to make
it more effective and will decrease the
chances that EPA will require
modifications. Nonetheless, as
discussed below; plans must be
submitted to EPA only on request.
Some commenters suggested
submitting the storm water pollution
prevention plans to EPA for their
' approval, thus avoiding compliance
problems later. One commenter
indicated that they thought some
businesses will want their plans
approved by EPA prior to implementing
them, to avoid wasting money on a plan
which is later deemed inadequate.
The Agency wants to clarify that it
does not intend to conduct detailed'
reviews of all storm water pollution
prevention plans prior to authorizing
storm water discharges under the
general permit because of limited
resources. However. EPA retains
authority to request and review storm
water pollution prevention plans and to
require changes to the plans and/or
submittal of an individual permit
application where appropriate. The
Agency wants to clarify that if plans are
voluntarily submitted to EPA for Agency
review, the Agency is not precluded
from requesting additional modifications
at a later date based on additional
information, changing conditions,
evaluation of the effectiveness of the
plan, or other relevant factors. Neither is
the Agency precluded from requiring
plan modifications where a plan had
been voluntarily submitted earlier, and
the Agency did not respond.
One commenter recommended that
the permit should provide that no
enforcement action could be brought
against a permittee for violation of
several provisions of the permit that
provided dischargers with flexibility in
selection of practices.
In response, the Agency will exercise
enforcement discretion where
appropriate when evaluating permit
compliance. The Agency recognizes that
several provisions of the permit provide
flexibility for selecting controls to be
implemented, and will consider good
faith attempts at compliance when
exercising its enforcement discretion.
However, the Agency is concerned that
specific language in the permit as
requested by the commenter would
create unnecessary confusion, and that
some permittees would inappropriately
argue that such language precluded EPA
from enforcing permit conditions hi all
cases. • •*• ~ ••• -——-
One commenter requested that EPA
clarify that when requesting
modifications to a storm water pollution
prevention plan, the Agency identify
with reasonable specificity which
provisions of the plan require change
and which of the minimum requirements
the existing plan violates. In response.
the Agency has made this clarification.
One commenter raised concerns that
EPA has not provided administrative
procedures for reviewing plans and
requiring modifications, and it is unclear
whether the permittee has the right to
meet with the Agency, submit comments
on the required changes, or file any sort
of appeal. The commenter indicated that
a discharger and EPA may legitimately
differ on whether a plan meets
appropriate requirements, and that
facilities should have the opportunity to
request review of the agency's initial
determination that a plan does not meet
requirements, and explain exactly why a
particular element of a plan is
appropriate for a specific facility.
In response, the ultimate resolution of
disagreements concerning the adequacy
of pollution prevention plans is a
compliance issue. However, permittees
always have the opportunity to make
their disagreements known to the
Agency-and to resolve compliance
concerns on an informal or formal basis.
It can also be noted that EPA's
regulations, and today's permits provide
dischargers with the opportunity to
submit an individual permit application.
In cases where the Agency decides to
issue an individual permit, dischargers
will have additional opportunities for
input.
Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
L Overall Approach to Monitoring
Requirements
On August 16.1991. EPA requested
comment on modifying the regulatory
provision at 40 CFR 122.44(0(2),
addressing the establishment of
discharge monitoring reporting
requirements in NPDES permits for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity. The regulation
existing at the time of the proposal
provided that NPDES permits, including
NPDES permits for storm water
discharges, require discharge monitoring
reports at a minimum of once a year. As
part of the August 16,1991 notice. EPA
specifically identified six options for
modifying requirements to report
monitoring results for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity.
In addition, the draft general permits
in the same August 16.1991 notice
requested comment on annual discharge
sampling of storm water discharges from
most classes of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity as
this approach was consistent with the
option EPA favored in the August 16.
1991 notice for the regulatory change.
However, in the August 16.1991 notice,
the Agency also indicated that the
monitoring requirements in the final
permits could be less stringent if the
regulatory change provided additional
flexibility with respect to minimum
monitoring requirements.
The draft baseline general permit
proposed on August 16.1991. required a
minimum of annual monitoring for all
discharges of storm water associated
-------
Federal Register / VoL SZ No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1982 / Notices
41289
mod evaluating the effectiveness of
pollution prevention measures.
Additional monitoring requirements
have been limited to facilities which
EPA believes, based on a general
evaluation of industry practices, may
have sources of significant amounts of
pollution that warrant further
evaluation.
Today's permits provide an exemption
from monitoring requirements for
outfalls at targeted facilities that do not
have any materials, material handling
equipment, industrial machinery or
industrial operations exposed to storm
water located within the drainage area
of the outfall. In such cases, a discharger
must provide an annual certification
that material handling equipment or
activities, raw materials, intermediate
products, final products, waste
materials, by-products, industrial
machinery or operations, or. in the case
of airports, deidng activities, within the
drainage area of the outfall will not be
exposed to storm water. Where the
certification is provided, the permittee
wUl not be required to monitor storm
water discharges from the outfall.
(However, the permittee must still
comply with other applicable permit
requirements which do not address
sampling pollutants in discharges). This
approach is consistent with the general
monitoring scheme of today's permits
which focuses monitoring requirements
on specific targeted sources of pollution.
The Agency believes that this approach
wUl provide an incentive for permittees
to eliminate exposure of potential
pollutant sources to storm water.
Eliminating exposure of these materials
to storm water is one of the most
effective pollution prevention measures
available for these sources and is
consistent with the objectives of the
permit and the CWA. The Agency also
believes, that this approach will lower
burdens on facilities that have taken
steps to eliminate exposure of materials
and equipment to storm water
discharges.
In developing the monitoring strategy
in today's permits. EPA recognizes that
it,has other sources of information
available to assist in achieving the
broader national objectives supported
by monitoring data, such as developing
additional targetted controls for storm
water discharges from priority
• industries. Examples of other sources of
monitoring data include, group
applications **, individual applications,
»• EPA h«i received over 1.200 Put 1 group
application* from • wide variety of industrial
group* Part 2 of the group applications, which
contain* representative monitoring data (ram the
industrial group, are due on October 1.1982.
information in State Storm Water
Permitting Plans**, and storm water
monitoring data required under other •
EPA or authorized NPDES State permits
that are entered into the permit
compliance system (PCS) data base. In
addition. EPA is authorized under
section 306 of the CWA to require
dischargers to. on a case-by-case basis.
submit sampling monitoring data
necessary to carry out the objectives of
the CWA. This authority can be used to
obtain storm water monitoring data that
is not otherwise required under the
permit For example. EPA could request
facUities from targetted industries mat
have certified that they do not have
materials or equipment exposed to
storm water to report storm water
monitoring data in order to characterize
other potential pollutant sources or to
identify background levels of pollutants
from facilities that have been able to
eliminate exposure of these activities to
storm water.
Other commenters raised issues
regarding the appropriateness of the
proposed monitoring parameters to
particular industries. In general, EPA
has modified some of the parameters
associated with the monitoring
requirements in today's permits in
response to comments and to provide a
better relationship between the
monitoring requirements and potential
poUutant sources associated with
classes of industrial activities. These
concerns and changes are addressed
below.
Several commenters also requested
clarification on. or objected to. potential
overlap between the industrial
categories. WhUe the comments were
directed at the EPCRA section 313
faculties, the Agency's response applies
to aU annual and semi-annual
monitoring categories in the final permit
Generally, the industry-specific
monitoring requirements are additive
and not intended to be mutually
exclusive. Monitoring requirements must
be evaluated on a outfall by outfaU
basis. If a particular discharge fits under
more than one set of monitoring
requirements, the facility must comply
with both sets of sampling requirements.
This will ensure adequate data to
evaluate all of the appropriate poUutant
sources. The Agency notes that this
approach often will not result in
requiring dischargers to coUect extra
samples, but rather to analyze samples
» State Storm Water Permitting Plans are to
contain a description of activities addressing
priority issuing permits for storm water^ijMMSM
from priority Industrial faculties (see April 2.1992
(57 Ffc 11394)).
that are collected for additional
parameters.
On the other hand, sampling
parameters often overlap between the
categories. For example, an outfall
subject to the semi-annual EPCRA and
annual "Other Facility" sampling
requirements could sample semi-
annuaUy for EPCRA parameters and
satisfy both sampling requirements by
analyzing for parameters in an
applicable effluent guideline to either of
the two semi-annual samples. However.
coal pile runoff should be addressed
somewhat differently because it is
subject to a numeric effluent limitation
under today's permit Coal pile runoff-
should be monitored before it is
commingled with flows from other
sources. Thus, coal pUe runoff from a
primary metal facility, for example.
should only be monitored for the
parameters specified for coal pile runoff.
The Agency believes that this approach
will adequately support the effluent
limitation of today's permit.
The monitoring requirements of
today's permits can be broken into two
general classes, semi-annual monitoring.
and annual monitoring. Facilities that
are required to conduct semi-annual
monitoring are required to report data
annually. Facilities that are required to
conduct annual monitoring are required
only to report data if the data is
requested by the permitting authority.
EPA believes that higher monitoring
frequency for facilities that are required
to report data wUl assist EPA in efforts
to establish program priorities and will
support future permitting efforts, as well
as gives these facilities more data to
consider. Not requiring facilities to
submit data unless it is specifically
requested will lower reporting burdens
on facilities where data is not
specifically requested, while still
providing facilities with a means to
evaluate pollution prevention plans.
-ffl. Certification of Testing For Non-
storm Water Discharges
The draft permit prohibited the
discharge of aU non-storm water and
required certification under the pollution
prevention plan that all storm water
outfalls had been tested for the presence
of illicit connections. If unable to
provide certification within the 180 day
pollution prevention plan development -.
period, the permittee was required to
notify the Director. One commenter felt
the certification date should be changed
to correspond to the deadline for
pollution prevention plan compliance.
The Agency concurs with this
comment and has modified the "Failure
to Certify" reporting requirement. Any
-------
41290
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9.1992 / Notices
'facility that is unable to provide the
certification regarding testing for non-
storm water discharges, must notify the
Director by October 1.1993 or. for
facilities which begin to discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
after October 1,1992, within 180 days
after submitting a NOI to be covered by
this permit. The October 1.1993 date is- •
appropriate for existing facilities
because it is consistent with the timing
provided for these facilities to prepare
(April 1,1993) and implement (October
1,1993) a plan. The 180 days provided to
facilities which begin to discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
after October 1,1992 is consistent with
the requirement that these facilities
must have their plan developed* before
beginning the industrial activity that will
generate the storm water discharge.
IV. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements for Classes of Targeted
Industrial Activities
Semi-Annual Monitoring Requirements
In today's permits. EPA has retained,
with some modifications, the semi-
annual (twice per year) monitoring
requirements proposed in the August 16,
1991 draft permits for certain storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from: EPCRA section
313 facilities with water priority
chemicals; primary metal facilities; land
disposal units/incinerators/boiler and
industrial furnaces (BIFs); wood
treatment facilities (wood preservers);
and coal pile runoff. As discussed
below, semi-annual monitoring
requirements have been added for
battery reclaimers. These facilities have
a significant potential to contribute toxic
pollutants to storm .water due to the
nature of activities occurring onsite and
the types of materials handled.
In response to comments, EPA has
clarified the requirements as they .
pertain to each industrial category. For
the most parUmonitoring Teqiassnssnts
are limited to discharges associated
with specific industrial activities, and do
not necessarily apply to all storm water
discharges from a site.
EPCRA Section 313 Facilities with
Water Priority Chemicals. Comments
were received both objecting to and
supporting additional monitoring
requirements for EPCRA section 313
facilities. In both cases, commentera
indicated that any EPCRA monitoring
conditions should be applied only to .
those areas where section 313 water
'priority chemicals were stored or
handled. Other commenters suggested
that sampling parameters be limited to
those section 313 water priority
chemicals actually stored within the
drainage area. Several individual
companies and trade organizations
argued that typical pollution prevention
measures at their facilities are already
stringent enough to prevent uncontrolled
releases into the environment and that
monitoring should either be eliminated
or reduced Comments regarding acute
whole effluent toxidty testing are
addressed separately below.
In response, as discussed above, EPA
believes that facilities that manufacture,
import or process, or other use of large
amounts of toxic chemicals can
potentially be a significant source of
toxic pollutants to storm water. Failures
of process, handling and storage
equipment used for EPCRA water
priurfiy-enemicals associated with
operator error, structural failures, and
corrosion can result in the release of
toxic chemicals. Such releases can
continue undetected until the release .
becomes obvious.40 In such cases.
monitoring data can provide valuable
insight with respect to these pollutant
sources. For example, monitoring data
can show that leaks from seals, values
or piping are a source of pollution to .
storm water. The Agency also believes
that EPCRA thresholds are appropriate
for identifying priorities for the purposes
of establishing storm water monitoring
requirements, as these thresholds
identify a well known set of facilities
which manage large amounts of toxic
chemicals. One of the major purposes of
monitoring storm water discharges from
EPCRA section 313 facilities is to
provide data that can assist in
identifying pollutant sources associated
with the storage, use or management of
EPCRA section 313 water priority
chemicals. Dischargers will also be able
~fo review monitoring data as a means of
evaluating the effectiveness of pollution
- prevention measures. Assessment of
data will also allow the Agency to
develop the controls and monitoring
requirements in the Tiers 0, m, and IV
ttionri water permits.
In response to comments, the Agency
has limited special EPCRA monitoring
requirements to the areas where section
313 water priority chemicals are stored
or handled. The final permit clarifies
that these monitoring requirements
apply only to those faculties subject to
EPCRA section 313 reporting
requirements for section 313 water •
priority chemicals, and then only for
those storm water discharges associated
with industrial activities that allow
storm water to come into contact with
any equipment, tank, container or other
vessel or area used for storage of a
«• Sm "Handout WMU Tuk Risk AiulyiU."
EPA.198S.
section 313 water priority chemical, or
storm water discharges from a truck or
rail car loading or unloading area where
a section 313 water priority chemical is
handled.
Primary Metal Facilities
Primary metal facilities (SIC 33) are
engaged in the manufacturing of ferrous
metals and metal products and the
primary and secondary smelting and
refining of nonferrous metals. In
addition, facilities engaged in the
molding, casting, or forming of ferrous or
nonferrous metals are included in this
group. Due to the nature of processes
and activities commonly occurring at
these facilities, a number of sources^an
potentially contribute significant
amounts of pollutants to storm water.
Sources of pollutants include outdoor
storage and material handling activities,
participate and dust generating
processes, and slag quench processes.
Open air storage and handling of raw
materials, products, and wastes is a
common practice at many of these
facilities. In addition, dust and
paniculate-generating processes.
particularly at smelting and refining
facilities, are considered potential
sources of pollutants in storm water
discharges. Many of these types of
facilities also use a high volume of
water for operations such as spray •
quenching, heat treating, and die
cooling, which when coupled with the
old age of many primary metals industry
facilities, can create the potential for
non-storm water to be discharged to the
storm water collection systems.
One commenter suggested that
monitoring requirements should be
limited to those in effluent guidelines
applicable to specific facilities. In
response, the Agency does not agree
with the commenter because the effluent
guidelines for process discharges may
not address all of the pollutants that
potentially can be found in storm-water -
discharges. In some cases, the effluent
guidelines use indicator parameters such
as TSS to characterize the removal of
other pollutants, such as metals. While
such an indicator can be appropriate for
evaluating the effectiveness of treatment
technologies. TSS will not differentiate
between inert solids and other
pollutants, such as heavy metals. EPA
has modified today's permits by not
including total Kjeldahl nitrogen, nitrate
plus nitrite nitrogen, and total
phosphorus as parameters required for
primary metal facilities. High levels of
these parameters are not typically
associated with the activities of primary
metal facilities, and not requiring these
parameters will reduce the costs of
-------
.41292
Federal Register / VoL 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
• The infiltration layer must be . -
comprised of a minimum of 18 inches of
earthen material that has'a permeability
less than or equal to the permeability of
any bottom liner system or natural
subsoils present, or a permeability no
greater than 1 X 10*"'cm/sec, .
whichever is less, and '
'• 'The erosion layer must consist of a
minimum of 6 inches of earthen material
that is capable of sustaining native plant
growth.
States.may approve alternative final
cover designs that include an infiltration
layer that achieves an equivalent
reduction in infiltration, and an erosion
layer that provides equivalent protection
from wind and water erosion.
The Agency believes that inactive
facilities meeting these requirements
will generally not be a significant source
of pollutants to storm water discharges.
Wood Treatment Facilities (Wood
Preservers), - '
Pollutants in storm water runoff from
treated material storage yards at wood-
preserving facilities were studied by
. EPA in 1981 in support of effluent
guidelines development, and in support
of a proposed hazardous waste listing in
1988 (December 30,1988 (53 FR 53287)).
Several organic pollutants were found at
significant concentrations, including
pentachlorophenol, fluoranthene,
benzo(a)anthracene. chrysene,
phenanthrene, and pyrene.
One commenter suggested combining
the two categories of wood treating
facilities identified in the August 16,
1991 draft permits into one category,
with monitoring requirements based on
the type of wood preservative used. In
response, the Agency has modified these
monitoring requirements so that there is •
only one wood preserving monitoring
category in today's permits. Under the
combined category, all wood treatment
facilities will be required to monitor for
oil and grease. pH, COD, and TSS.
Requirements for monitoring
phosphorus, nitrate plus nitrite. Kjeldahl
nitrogen, and BOD5 have been
eliminated. Nutrients are not expected
to be present in significant amounts at
these facilities. Metals or other toxic
materials in samples can limit the
accuracy of BODS analysis. Facilities
that use chlorophenolic formulations
must measure pentachlorophenol and
acute whole effluent toxicity; facilities
which use creosote formulations must
measure acute whole effluent toxicity;
and facilities that use chromium-arsenic
formulations must measure total arsenic,
total chromium, and total copper. In
addition, the final permit clarifies that
areas that are used for wood treatment
wood surface application or storage of
treated or surface protected wood at '
any wood preserving or wood surface
application facilities are subject to these.
monitoring requirements.
Another commenter suggested
reducing the monitoring frequency due
to material management regulations
established under other environmental
programs such as RCRA. In, response.
the Agency notes that no provision of
RCRA or the CWA limits EPA's
authority to regulate storm water
discharges from wood preserving
facilities under the CWA. EPA
published regulations addressing several.
wastes from wood preserving facilities.
including storage yard drippage. on
December 6,1990 (55 FR 50450). The
RCRA requirements do not require'
monitoring of storm water discharges to
assist in characterizing pollutants in
such discharges. Rather, the RCRA
requirements establish a set of controls, -
including certain management practices,
to control wastes addressed by the rule.
While several of these requirements,
where properly implemented, should
decrease pollutants in storm water
discharges, the Agency continues to
"believe that a minimum of twice per
year sampling is appropriate for these
facilities to adequately characterize
pollutant sources and to evaluate the
effectiveness of the pollution control
measures required under RCRA and
today's permits.
Comments regarding acute whole
effluent toxicity testing are addressed
separately below.
Coal Pile Runoff
Pollutants in storm water runoff from
coal piles are discussed in detail earlier
in today's notice. Monitoring
requirements are necessary to support
the numeric tfflwn* limitation in today's
permits. Commenters did not emphasize
concerns regarding monitoring
requirements for coal pile runoff.
However, the final permit does modify
the coal pile-muff limitation ar*^*-1--
correspond to those at 40 CFR part 423.
As a result grab sampling of the
parameters will be required to be
consistent with the instantaneous
maximum limitations.
Battery Reclaimers
Today's permit establishes special
semi-annual monitoring requirements for
storm water discharges from areas used
for storage of lead add batteries,
reclamation products, or waste
products, and areas used for lead add
battery reclamation (including material
handling activities) at facilities that
reclaim lead add batteries. Based on an
evaluation of the battery redamation
industry, .the Agency has identified
handling, storage and processing of lead '
add batteries, as well as byproduct and
•waste handling at redamation facilities
as having a significant potential for
pollutants in storm water discharges.
Only those areas used for storage of
lead add batteries, redamation
products, or waste products, and areas
used for lead add battery redamation
(induding material handling activities)
are subject to this monitoring
requirement .
Acute Whole Effluent Toxicity
Monitoring Requirements .
i ' "
The August 16,1991, draft permit
proposed acute whole effluent toxicity •
(WKTXgipnitoring for EPCRA section
313 faculties; primary metal (SIC 33)
facilities; land disposal facilities; and
wood treatment facilities using creosote
or chlorophenolic compounds. WET
testing was induded as both an efficient
method of assessing the toxidty
potential of complex mixtures of
pollutants in storm water and as a
measure .of the effectiveness of a
facilities pollution prevention plan.
A number of concerns regarding acute
WET testing were raised in the
comments. The usefulness of testing
storm water for toxidty without
allowing for instream dilution was
questioned. These commenters indicated
concerns that storm water discharges
that exhibited toxidty may not create
toxic conditions in receiving waters due
to the dilution provided by the receiving
stream.
In response,* the Agency wants to
clarify a primary purpose of the WET
monitoring requirements in today's
permits is to assist in the identification
of pollutant sources, particularly where
complex mixtures of pollutants in storm
water may result and assist in the
evaluation of the effectiveness of
pollution prevention practices, not to
consider the ability of receiving streams
to A'iate toxidty. The Agency believes
that testing 100 percent storm water
effluent (no dilution) is appropriate for
this purpose because testing 100 percent
storm water effluent is preferable to
testing diluted effluent where the object
of conducting the test is to detect the
presence of toxidty in the effluent The
Agency also notes that tests conducted
on 100 percent effluent can serve as an
initial screen for evaluating whether a
discharge potentially contributes to
water quality impairment
Several commenters questioned the
particular acute toxidty test proposed
(48-hr invertebrate and 96-hour
vertebrate) with regard to its use on
short intermittent and variable storm
water discharges. In response, today's
-------
41291
Federal Register / VoL 57. No. ITS / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
sampling for these facilities. In addition.
the Agency has added the requirement
that these facilities monitor any
pollutant limited in an effluent guideline
to which the facility is subject The
Agency believes that the addition of
these parameters is appropriate.
because they represent parameters
which have been identified as being
associated with the various
subcategories of primary metal
activities. In addition, the Agency notes
that it was an oversight in the August 16.
1991 draft permit to not require
monitoring of any pollutant limited in an
effluent guideline to which the facility is
subject and that most other sampling
requirements for other categories of
industries addressed (including the
category of additional facilities
described below), required monitoring of
these parameters.
One company requested silicon
manufacturing and semiconductor grade
silicon manufacturing be exempted due
to lower heavy metal content of ores. In
response, data indicates that raw silicon
' metal for manufacture of silicones
begins with the reduction of quartz rock
which typically contains relatively
minor amounts, of heavy metals relative
to other ores. In addition, the
manufacture of semiconductor grade
silicon begins with distilled
chlorosilanes which are free of heavy
metals and that heavy metals cannot be
in the starting material or they would
contaminate the product. Based on a
consideration of these factors, the
Agency has limited the monitoring
requirements for these facilities.
Two trade organizations questioned
EPA's legal authority to require
additional monitoring of the primary
metal industry and indicated that many
of their members already recover
participate that can contaminate storm
water and that facilities that did not
perform primary smelting operations did
not generate dusUOne of-thoee
commenters suggested that EPA wait
until it collects and reviews information
from other sources, such as group
applications, before requiring
monitoring.
The Agency has broad authority
under sections 308(a) and 402(a)(2) of
the Clean Water Act to establish any
monitoring conditions deemed
necessary to develop or insure
compliance with effluent standards or
- insure protection of water quality. The
monitoring conditions in today's permits
have a number of purposes, including
providing information to identify
pollutant sources, and evaluating the
effectiveness of pollution prevention
measures. In addition, as summarized _
above, the Agency notes that industrial
activities which typically occur at SIC 33
facilities can contribute pollutants other
than by dust generation.
Land Disposal Units/lncineraton/BlFs
. Land disposal units and incinerators
and boilers and industrial furnaces
(BIFs) that burn hazardous waste may
receive a diverse range of industrial
wastes. Waste receiving, handling.
storage and processing, in addition to
actual waste disposal can be a
significant source of pollutants at waste
disposal facilities. The surface water
impacts associated with land disposal
units an well characterized. EPA has
summarized case studies documenting
" lurfacl water impacts and ground water
contamination of land disposal units
(see August 30,1988). Evaluation of 163
case studies revealed surface water
impacts at 73 facilities. Elevated levels
of organic*, including pesticides, and
metals have been found in ground water
and/or surface water at many sites.
The August 16.1991 draft permits
proposed special sampling requirements
for land disposal units. Today's permits.
contains modified monitoring
requirements for land disposal units and
incinerators and boilers and industrial
furnaces (BIFs) that burn hazardous
waste and are at facilities with storm
water associated with industrial
activity. BIFs are those boilers and
industrial furnaces burning hazardous
waste for fuel that are subject to
regulations promulgated under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) and published February 21.
1991 (56 FR 7134), are similar to
hazardous waste incinerators in that
they burn hazardous materials such as
spent solvents, contaminated fuels, etc.,
but the primary purpose of the facility is
not waste disposal and the hazardous
material is typically burned to provide
heat steam or generate electricity for
use in'manufacturing processes.
- Incinerators and BIFs that bum
hazardous wastes have been added to
this category because these facilities
will typically manage the same types of
wastes as landfills, and therefore
present similar risks with respect to
waste transportation, handling, and
storage. In addition, a wide range of
toxic pollutants potentially present hi
fuel stocks, material accepted for
disposal, air emission particulate, and
ash at these facilities have the potential
to contaminate storm water runoff.
A number of commenters objected to
the number of parameters associated
with the monitoring requirements
proposed for land disposal units. In
response, monitoring parameters for this
class were selected due to the wide
range of potential pollutants at land
disposal facilities. The parameters listed
in the August 16,1991 draft permits are
similar to the parameters addressed by
proposed ground water monitoring
requirements for municipal solid waste
landfills established under subtitle D of
RCRA (see August 30.1988 (53 FR
33372)). In developing the list of
parameters for the Sampling
requirements for land disposal units and
incinerators in today's permits, the
Agency has deleted several parameters
which are monitored in a ground water
context primarily to detect plume
migration, and are not necessarily of
concern in and of themselves. These
parameters include carbonate, calcium,
chloride, htm, potassium, sodium, and
sulfate. Not requiring these parameters
to be analyzed will reduce monitoring
costs. Comments regarding acute whole
effluent toxicity testing are addressed
separately below.
Several commenters felt landfill runoff
was already adequately addressed by
State regulatory programs. In response,
the Agency notes that the criteria the
Agency has published for solid waste
disposal facilities under subtitle D of
RCRA does not include sampling or
treatment requirements for storm water
discharged from landfills (see October 9.
1991 (56 FR 51054)). In the October 9.
1991. notice establishing criteria for
solid waste disposal facilities, the
Agency noted that the NPDES permit
under the CWA would be the
appropriate mechanism for ensuring that
point source discharges of runoff from
landfills are protective of human health
and the environment
Several commenters requested
clarification on whether inactive or
closed land disposal sites were also
subject to these monitoring
requirements. In response, the Agency is
clarifying that today's permits establish
monitoring requirements for storm water
discharge from an active or inactive
landfill, open dump or land application
site without a stabilized final cover that
has received any industrial wastes
(other than wastes from a construction
In general, inactive land disposal sites
with a final cover that is consistent with
specifications for a final cover system
for municipal solid waste landfills
developed under subtitle D of RCRA
will satisfy the requirement of a
stabilized final cover for the purposes of
monitoring requirements under today's
permits. The subtitle D specifications for
a final cover system are provided at 40
CFR 258.60 and include an .erosion layer
underlain by an infiltration layer as
follows:
-------
s. -
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. ITS / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / NottcM
41293
permits have been modified to provide
for a 24-hour test period for the acute
WET parameter. EPA believes that in
certain situations, such as where several
storm events occur over a period of
several days, storm water discharges
can result in exposures to toxic
chemicals of longer than 24 hours, and
that in some situations, monitoring the
acute WET parameter using longer time
periods (such as 48-hr for invertebrate
species and 96-hour for vertebrate
species) will be appropriate. However.
the primary reasons for establishing
monitoring requirements for the acute
WET parameter in today's permit is to
assist in identifying pollutant sources
and to evaluate the effectiveness of
pollution measures. Since the WET
monitoring requirements in today's
permits are generally not intended to
directly evaluate toxic effects on
organisms in receiving waters, the
Agency believes that it is appropriate to
allow for 24 hour testing of the WET
parameter to reduce monitoring costs.41
This approach is consistent with the
EPA policy of allowing for shorter
toxidty testing time intervals when
conducting toxidty screening tests.4*
Several commenters suggested the use
of indigenous species. In response, the
WET monitoring requirements in many
of today's permits allow flexibility for
the selection of appropriate invertebrate
and fish species, consistent with EPA
recommendations in "Methods for
Measuring the Acute Toxidty of
Effluents and Receiving Waters to
Freshwater and Marine Organisms".
EPA, 1991. (EPA-«»/4-90/027).
However, the permits for Louisiana,
New Mexico, Oklahoma. Texas.
Colorado. Wyoming. Montana. North
Dakota. South Dakota, and Utah specify
specific species to be tested. EPA
believes that specifying the spedes in
standardized test methods will allow
direct comparison to similar discharges
at different facilities, and is consistent
with WET procedures generally used in
other NPDES permits issued for
discharges in these States. In addition.
the use of sensitive standardized test
species helps avoid problems that arise
when indigenous organisms may be
diseased or impaired. Many laboratories
across the country maintain healthy
«' Today's permit! for diichugM to CO. WY. MT.
ND. and UT require 48 hour testing for invertebrate
species, and 98 hour testing for fish species. These
procedures are consistent with .the procedures
generally used in NPDES permits for WET testing
other discharges within these States. Use of the
same procedures will assist EPA in evaluating this
data.
•• "Method* for Measuring the Acute Toxidty of
Effluents and Receiving Waters to "Freshwater and
Marine Organisms". EPA..1991. tEPA-eOO/4-«0/OZ7).
cultures of standardized toxidty test
organisms. A similar problem may arise
in using indigenous organisms when the
organisms may have built up a tolerance
to certain toxicants that they are
exposed to. Again, the Agency wants to
emphasize that the primary purposes of
requiring WET monitoring is to assist in
identifying pollutant sources and to
evaluate the effectiveness of pollution
prevention measures, and is generally
not intended to directly evaluate toxic
effects
-------
41294
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
activities, raw material*, products.
waste materials, and other site specific
considerations. EPA does not intend
that dischargers know with an exact
measurement or absolute certainty
whether a chemical is present in
amounts that exceed this threshold. For
example, where the chemical is a minor
constituent of various materials and
products used at the facility, where the
chemical is present in various products,
such as cleaning supplies, or other
incidental materials not used in an .
industrial process, or where it is held as
a small laboratory stock, there would be
no requirement for monitoring.
This change provides permittees with
two approaches for attempting to •
identify sources of pollution ib storm
water discharges. The first approach.
use of the WET parameter, focuses on
the use of a single parameter with the
ability to identify the potentially toxic
character of mixtures of chemicals in
water. This approach might be used, for
example, at industrial facilities where
the storm water may contain a wide
range of chemicals, or where the
chemicals' used at the facility are not
well characterized. The WET parameter
can be used to provide an initial
indication of whether the level of toxic
constituents in a discharge reaches toxic
levels.
The second approach focuses on
analyzing storm water samples for
specific chemicals that the discharger
knows or has reason to believe are
present at the facility site. This
approach might be used, for example.
where the discharger can characterize
the chemicals at the facility site. This
monitoring approach provides chemical
specific information that may provide a
more direct indication than the WET '
parameter of specific pollutant sources.
EPA suggests that permittees consider
the following factors when evaluating
which approach to monitoring to pursue:
the types of chemicals present at the
- si*«i£te-feasibility of «:Uecting sample
volumes necessary to conduct WET
monitoring; and analytical laboratory
costs.
Toxicity Reductions
A number of commentera requested
clarification as to whether facilities that
detected acute WET in their storm water
discharge would be required to conduct
a toxicity reduction evaluation (TRE).
Several commentera objected to the
requirement to conduct a toxicity
reduction evaluations (TRE) without
more research into the applicability of
current TRE procedures to storm water
discharges. One commenter indicated
that if a discharge is found to fail the
WET test, it should be allowed the
opportunity to conduct additional WET
tests before undergoing a formal toxicity
reduction evaluation.
In response, today's permits provide •
that if acute whole effluent toxicity
(statistically significant difference
between the 100 percent dilution and
control) is detected after October 1.1995
in storm water discharges required to
conduct toxidty testing under this
permit, the permittee must review the
storm water pollution prevention plan
and make appropriate modifications to
assist in identifying the source(s) of
toxicity and to reduce the toxicity of
their storm water discharges. The
Agency believes it is appropriate that
the permit require the permittee to
review the pollution prevention plan and
study ways to reduce demonstrated
toxicity. The Agency believes that the
approach taken in today's permits
provide considerably more flexibility
than requirements to conduct formal
TREs.
The Agency believes that this
approach addresses the need to reduce
demonstrated toxicity while providing
flexibility for facilities to evaluate their
storm water discharges for toxicity and
to take appropriate steps to reduce
toxicity prior to October 1.1995. This
provides dischargers with an
opportunity to implement site-specific
and innovative measures to reduce
toxidty. In addition, this approach
recognizes the difficulties in
ascertaining whether a specific measure
or approach will successfully reduce
toxidty at a given facility. The Agency
believes that this approach will provide
additional opportunities to evaluate
pollution prevention-measures suitable
for reducing toxidty and for evaluating
the role of treatment technologies in
such toxidty reduction strategies.
While today's permit does not
specifically require dischargers that
detect acute WET to conduct a formal
TRE. the Agency may request a TIE or a
TRE pursuant to the authority of Section
308 of the CWA where toxidty is
reported. Similarly, where facilities
detect significant levels of other
pollutant parameters, the Agency may.
where appropriate, request additional
information, such as an additional
pollutant source evaluation or a
pollution prevention evaluation.
Annual Monitoring Requirements
The August 16.1991 draft general
permits required, at a minimum, annual
monitoring of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
except for certain storm water
discharges from oil and gas operations.
As discussed above, the Agency is
limiting monitoring requirements to
selected industrial activities with
significant pollutant sources. Annual
monitoring requirements have been
retained for certain discharges of storm
water associated with industrial activity
at: Larger airports, coal fired steam
electric facilities; animal handling/meat
packing: facilities dassified as SIC 30
(Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastics
Products); facilities dassified as SIC 28
(Chemicals and Allied Products)
facilities; larger automobile junkyards;
lime manufacturing facilities; oil fired
steam electric power generating
facilities; cement manufacturing
facilities and kilns; ready-mixed
concrete facilities; and ship building and
repairing facilities, _ -.. '
Permittees subject to annual
monitoring requirements are not
required to submit the results of their
monitoring unless EPA specifically
requests the information. However.
monitoring results must be retained for a
minimum of six yean. Monitoring
results must be made available to-the
Director upon request or upon permit
•renewal. The specific monitoring
parameters were chosen to provide
information on the overall quality of the
discharge, concentrate on industry-
specific pollutants of concern, aid in
determining the effectiveness of
pollution prevention plan controls, and
assist in development of Tier II, III, and
IV permitting efforts.
Airports
Deicing activities at airports can be a
significant source of pollutants to storm
water discharges. The amount of deicing
fluids used depend on temperature and
the amount and type ef predpitation
(freezing rain may require more deicing
fluids than many snowfalls) as weU.
Ethylene glycol. urea and ammonium
nitrate are the primary ingredients of
' other deicing compounds used at
airports. These chemicals can have a
significant oxygen demand^ crater. •
When deicing operations are performed.
large volumes of ethylene glycol are
sprayed on aircraft and runways. Data
from Stepleton International Airport
. show that 62.986 gallons of concentrated
ethylene glycol were used during the
month of February 1968 (Denver Public
Works 1988). Data from Stepleton
International Airport indicate that storm
water discharges contained levels of up
to 5.050 mg/L ethylene glycol during a
monitoring period from December 1986
to January 1987. Deicing fluids have
been implicated in several fish kills
across the nation.
One State Agency specifically
identified airport deicing operations as
the area of most concern at airports. In
— "
-------
41296
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
•storm water. (B) over 500 auto/truck
units (bodies with or without drivelines
in whole or in parts) are stored exposed
to storm water or (C) over 100 units per
year are dismantled and drainage or
storage of automotive fluids occurs in
areas exposed to storm water will be •
required to monitor storm water
discharges from these areas.
Spills and leaks from fuel handling
sites, including loading/unloading areas
and storage tanks, at oil fired steam
electric power generating facilities are
potential significant sources of
pollutants to storm water runoff.4*
Monitoring data from these sites can be
used to identify pollutant sources and
allow the Agency to assess the
effectiveness of the facility's material
management and spill prevention/
response practices.
Loading and unloading activities, raw
material storage, processing operations.
at cement manufacturing facilities.
cement kilns, and ready-mix concrete
facilities, can be a significant potential
source of pollutant to storm water.47
Dust generating processes and air
•deposition of pollutants from
smokestacks at cement kilns could also
be significant sources of pollutants to
storm water. Discharges from cement
manufacturing facilities and cement
kilns and discharges from ready-mixed
concrete facilities could contain the
same constituents limited in the storm
water effluent limitations guidelines for
cement kilns material storage piles.
A number of industrial activities at
ship building and repairing facilities can
be significant sources of pollutants to
storm water discharges, including
improper controls on activities such as
ship bottom cleaning, bilge water
disposal, loading/unloading of fuels.
metal fabrication and cleaning
operations, and surface preparation and
painting.41
«• Given the Urge amount* of oil managed el
these facffltie*. many of the pollutant tourcm
euodated with oil handling and etorage aie
expected to be eimilar to thoee at petroleum
refmeriei. A more complete description of the
pollution potential of thete type* of operation* I*
provided in the "Development Document for
Effluent Limitation* Guideline* and Standard* for
Pratreatment Standard* for the Petroleum Reflnerle*
Point Source Category". EPA. 1978.440/l/-79/OMb.
«' See ••Development Document for Effluent
Limitation Guideline* and New Source Performance
Standard* for the Cement Manufacturing Point
Source Category". EPA. 1874, EPA/440/1-78-005-*.
The effluent limitation guideline* for the cement
.manufacturing category addree* runoff derived from
the (torage of material* u*ed In or derived from the
manufacture of cement (*ee 40 CFR 411 JO).
Diicharge* that are covered by the guideline cannot
be authorised under today'* permit*.
4i see "Development Document for Propoaed
Effluent Limitation* Guideline* and Standard* for
the Shipbuilding and Repair Point Source Category",
EPA. December 197*. EPA 440/l/-79/076-b*nd
m. Sample Collection
One State agency requested a
requirement for more'accurate flow
measurement to provide more accurate
flow proportioning for composite
sampling and pollutant loading
calculations. In response. EPA agrees
there are more accurate flow measuring
methods than the flow estimation
methods required by the permit Where
a State requires, or a particular facility
wishes, more accurate flow
measurement is certainly desirable.
However, the Agency also recognizes
that there is a variety of methods for
providing more accurate flow
proportioning for composite sampling.4*
with different methcdiMvjng very
different costs. Hie Agency is concerned
about possible confusion in the
regulated community leading to the use
of overly expensive techniques and
methods for measuring flow. In addition.
the Agency notes that the monitoring
data collected pursuant to today's.
permits will serve a number of purposes.
such as identification of pollutant
sources and possible contaminants.
which do not require flow estimates.
Therefore, today's permits do not
require more precise flow measurement
techniques, such as primary flow
measurement devices, for all discharges
required to sample at this time.
Several commenters questioned the
necessity for both first flush grab
sampling and composite event sampling.
Other commenters supported the
proposed sampling requirements. In
response. EPA believes that it is
necessary to require sampling, that will
provide information on the typically
more polluted "first flush" as well as a
measure of the average concentration of
pollutants discharged during an event
First flush sampling (a grab sample
during the first 30 minutes of the •
discharge) is also necessary to evaluate
the effectiveness of detention and
•etfBb£fts»de>irices «&ch may-only
provide controls for the first portion of
The discharge.
Commenters also questioned whether
the first flush must be collected during
the first 30 minutes of the storm event or
the first thirty minutes of discharge. The
Agency would like to clarify that first
flush sampling applies to the first thirty
minutes of discharge, rather than
rainfall In some instances, particularly
where detention or retention systems
are used, there will be a delay between
. .opoeed Guidance Specifying Management
Meaeure* for Source* of Nonpomt Pollution in
Coaital Water*". May 1901. EPA.
«• See -NPDES Storm Water Sampling
Document.- EPA m B 08 001. July 1902. EPA.
the start of a storm event and the first
measurable discharge. '
With regard to the provision allowing
a single grab sample from detention
devices with a 24 hour holding time, one
commenter suggested establishing a
design storm to calculate holding times.
In response, the Agency believes that
defining the residence time of the
detention device (e.g. 24 hours) is
adequate to achieve the objective of the
requirement Devices with a 24 hour
residence time for a given storm should
provide adequate mixing to allow a
single grab sample to provide a
reasonably accurate characterization of
the average concentration of the
discharge and will mitigate first flush
effects. The Agency believes that by not
establishing a design storm to calculate.
holding times, more flexibility will be
provided for applying this provision on a
storm-by-storm basis.
One commenter suggested that
composite sampling be eliminated and
only grab sampling of the first flush be
required in the baseline general permit
with the results used to target industries
for more extensive monitoring at a later
date. In response, the Agency believes
that composite sampling will provide
more information for estimating
pollutant loads, evaluating certain
concentration-based water quality
impacts, and generally characterizing
storm water discharges. The permit
authorizes either time-weighted or flow-
weighted composite samples which may
be manually or automatically collected.
The use of pH paper rather than a pH
meter was recommended by many
commenters based on the cost
differential In response, EPA approved
test methods at 40 CFR 13&3 require an
accuracy for pH measurements of plus
or minus 0.1 pH unit The test method
only describes the electrometric method
using a glass electrode. pH paper
generally ranges in accuracy from plus .
or minus 0.5 pH unit to 1.0 pH unit
Other potential problems with pH paper
are that it is fudged subjectively by
comparison to a color chart is affected
by humidity, age and method of storage.
and may be affected by turbidity or
suspended solids. The Agency notes that
some pH measuring devices which use
the electrometric method, such as pH.
can provide the required accuracy at a
reasonable price ($50.00 to $200.00).
Commenters from arid regions add
those with unattended remote sites
pointed out the difficulties in conducting
sampling of representative storm events
in areas characterized by infrequent
storm events and/or when no personnel.
wen stationed onsite. In response,
under the sampling requirements
-------
Federal Register / Vol. sr. No: 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices 41293
response, the Agency agrees that deicing
operations can be a .significant potential
source of pollutants in storm water
discharges. Given these concerns, the
Agency is retaining monitoring
requirements for deicing activities at
large airports. Facilities with storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from areas where
aircraft or airport deicing operations
occur (including runways, taxiways.
ramps, and dedicated aircraft deicing
stations) are required to monitor for
parameters indicative of the overall
quality of the discharge and to identify
deicing materials used at the site that
are entering the storm water discharge.
~ Several commenters requested
reduced or eliminated sampling for
smaller airports. In response, today's
monitoring requirements for airports are
limited to have been limited to airports
with over 50,000 flight operations per
year and apply only to those areas
where deicing activities occur. A flight
operation consists of a single takeoff or
landing by an aircraft The Agency
believes that the number of operations is
one of'the key factors for determining
the amount of deicing activity and other
industrial activities occurring at an
airport, and that in general, airports
with a higher number of operations are
expected to discharge more pollutants in
their storm water. In addition, some
smaller airports may not conduct
deicing activities, and a requirement
targeting monitoring of deicing activities
at such smaller airports may cause
confusion. .
According to information obtained
from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association (AOPA) and based on 1990
Federal Aviation Administration data,
there are approximately 5078 public use
airports in the United States. Of these,
approximately 376 airports (7.4%) have
50,000 or more flight operations per year.
Cool-fired Steam Electric Facilities
Coal-fired steam electric facilities use
large amounts of coal. Coal handling
activities at these facilities can be a
significant source of pollutants in storm
water discharges. Runoff from coal
handling areas can have pollutant
characteristics that are similar to coal
pile runoff, and can have high levels of
total suspended solids, aulfate, iron.
aluminum, mercury, copper, arsenic,
selenium and manganese, as well as an
acidic pH.4S The Agency believes that it
is appropriate to retain monitoring
requirements in these coal handling
areas to adequately quantify the effect
of these pollutant sources on storm
water discharges. Monitoring
parameters will be the same as those
required semi-annually under this
permit for coal piles, with the same
justification on their selection. Because
this monitoring requirement does not
support a numeric effluent limitation.
and due to the more diffuse nature of
coal in the coal handling areas, the
monitoring frequency of once per year
was deemed adequate. Compared to the
basic monitoring required under the
August 16,1991, draft permits, this
monitoring requirement focuses more on
the pollutants of particular concern and
should be less costly for the facility.
Animal Handling/Meat Packing
The nature of potential pollutant
sources to runoff from animal handling.
manure management areas, and
production waste management areas at
meat packing plants, poultry packing
plants, and facilities that manufacture
animal and marine fats with animal
waste and/or production wastes is
similar to runoff from confined animal
feeding operations (feedlots). Animal
waste products can be a significant
source of pollutants to storm water .
runoff which can contribute high levels
of oxygen demanding pollutants. •
. nutrients and fecal bacteria.44
Monitoring data can be used to detect if
these materials are entering the storm
water. The monitoring requirements for
animal handling facilities in today's
permit are more tailored than the August
16,1991 draft permits. Tailoring these
requirements is expected to reduce the
costs of these requirements relative to
the August 16,1991 draft permits.
Additional Facilities
Today's permits retain monitoring
requirements for storm water discharges
from seven additional classes of
industrial activities. These storm water
discharges will have to be monitored
annually for a basic set of parameters
(oil and grease, COD. TSS. pH. and any
pollutant limited in an effluent limitation
guideline for which the facility is
subject). The Agency has identified
these industrial classes based on a
consideration of specific activities at
these facilities that have a significant
potential for contributing pollutants to
«» See "Final Development Document for Effluent
Limitation* CuideUnei and Standard* and
Pretreatment Standardi for the Steam Electric Point
Source category". M62. (EPA-MO/1-S2/-2S).
«« See "Proposed Guidance Specifying
Management Meaiurei for Source* of Nonpoint
Pollution in Coa*tal Water*". May 1991. EPA and
"Development Document for Effluent Limitation*
Guideline* and New Source Performance
Standard*—Feedlot* Point Source Category". EPA.
1974. EPA-440/1/74-OM-a.
storm water. If the listed activity does
not occur at a particular site, or the
runoff from that area is treated as a
process wastewater, is discharged to a
municipal sanitary sewer (with the
municipality's permission), or is retained
onsite, no sampling will be required. The
sampling required for these facilities is
generally less restrictive than would
have been required under the draft
permit
Chemical storage piles can have a
significant potential for contributing
pollutants to storm water discharges.
Today's permits include monitoring
requirements for storm water that comes
into contact with solid chemicals used
as raw materials thattwe exposed to
precipitation at facilities classified as
SIC 30 (Rubber and Miscellaneous
Plastics Products) or SIC 28 (Chemicals
and Allied Products). In addition.
today's permits require monitoring of
storm water that comes into contact
with lime storage piles that are exposed
to storm water at lime manufacturing
facilities. Lime can significantly raise
the pH of such discharges.
Automotive fluids and greases from
automobile drivelines are a significant
potential source of pollutants to storm
water discharges from automobile
junkyards. Drivelines include the engine,
transmission, differential/transaxle,
fuel, brake, and coolant (radiator)
systems. Automotive fluids/greases
from these areas would typically include
engine oil fuel, transmission fluid or oil.
rear end oil, suspension joint and
bearing greases, antifreeze, brake fluid.
power steering fluid, and the oil and
grease leaking from and covering
various components (for example, oil
and grease on exterior of an engine).
The procedures used for fluids capture
during the dismantling process will.
affect the potential to contribute
pollutants to storm water.4*
The AgencyJias attempted to reduce _
the burden on thelulo salvage industry
by retaining monitoring requirements
only from priority facilities with
dismantling or storage practices that are
generally thought to have a "higher
potential for contributing significant
amounts of pollutants to storm water
discharges than other yards. Two
factors, the number of units stored, and
exposure of automotive fluid drainage
and storage areas, are used to determine
the applicability of monitoring
requirement. Facilities were (A) over 250
auto/truck bodies with drivelines, 250
drivelines, or any combination thereof
(in whole or in parts) are exposed to
«• Summary of cite inspection* by CA Stale
Department of Health Service*. March IS: 1992.
-------
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9.1992 / Notices
41297
developed for the final permit many
industries, including inactive remote
mining sites, will not be required to
collect monitoring data. In addition, .
monitoring from any event greater .than
0.1 inch is acceptable.
IV. Sampling Waiver
'All comments on the proposed waiver
for sampling based on adverse climatic
conditions supported this provision.
Several commenters did request
clarification on the applicability. In
response, EPA would like to darify that
the sampling waiver is only intended to
apply to unsurmountable weather
conditions such as drought or dangerous
conditions such as lightning, flash
flooding, or hurricanes. These events
tend to be isolated incidents, and should
not be used as an excuse for not
conducting sampling under more
favorable conditions associated with
other storm events. The sampling waiver
is not intended to apply to difficult
logistical conditions.
V. Use of Representative Outfalls for
Sampling
The permit allows the use of
substantially identical outfalls to reduce
the monitoring burden on a facility. All
comments received on this issue
supported this provision. EPA has
maintained this provision. However, the
permittee must develop justification on
why one outfall is representative of
others and keep this information onsite,
available to the Director upon request
VI. Submittal and Availability of
Reports and Monitoring Results
The issue of whether monitoring
results should be retained onsite or
submitted to EPA (and how often)
received comments supporting both
positions. Several commenters
. suggested that all monitoring data be
kept onsite. available to the Director
upon request Other commenters
suggested all monitoring results be
submitted, with frequencies ranging
from twice per year to once per permit
term. In the final-permit, EPA has
adopted a monitoring approach that
targets selected industrial activity.
Facilities required to monitor semi-
annually are required to report results
annually. Facilities required to monitor
annually are not required to report
information unless the information is
requested by the Director.
This approach maintains closer
oversight of targeted facilities, while
reducing the overall burden on the
regulated community and EPA.
Several commenters supported the
requirement to submit copies of
discharge monitoring reports to the
operator of municipal separate storm
sewer systems when at least one outfall
discharges to that system. Several State
agencies also requested copies of all
discharge monitoring results, The final
permit requires those dischargers
required to submit monitoring
information annually to provide copies
to receiving large or medium municipal
separate storm sewer systems and .
States that have requested this
information. _
The location for submittal of all
reports is contained in the permit
Facilities located on certain Indian
Lands in Arizona. Utah, New Mexico.
Idaho. Nebraska. Nevada and Oregon
and Colorado should note that
permitting authority has been .
consolidated in one EPA Region or
another where a reservation crosses the
boundaries of the Regions. For example.
all NPDES permitting for Navajo lands is
handled by EPA Region 9.
Vn. Retention of Records
The draft permit required retention of
all records for a mini"'""' of three years.
Several commenters suggested that
records be kept for the entire permit
term. In response, the final permit.
requires retention of monitoring records
for six years since not all facilities who
monitor will be required to submit the
results annually. In addition, pollution
prevention plans must be kept for the
life of the permit
Costs
The August 16.1991 draft notice
summarized EPA's estimates of the
costs for compliance with the draft
permits. The Agency has revised these
estimates to reflect changes made when
issuing the final permits, and additional
evaluation made in .response to
comment
One commenter indicated that they
thought that to meet the conditions of
the permit most small companies will
have to hire a roll-time engineer which
many small businesses cannot afford --
and that other companies will use staff
with general technical backgrounds. In
response, the Agency has reordered and
simplified the requirements in today's
permit and believes that small facilities
will generally not have to hire a full-time
engineer to implement storm water
pollution prevention plans. In addition.
the Agency has developed guidance
entitled "Storm Water Management for
Construction Activities: Developing
Pollution Prevention Plans and Best
Management Practices". U.S. EPA. 1992
to assist facilities with limited storm
water technical expertise in preparing
and implementing their storm water
pollution prevention plan.
------- |