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.

-------