FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)
PRO GRAM
FOR TILE YEARS 1989-1995
VOLUME 1-OF 2

-------
S7 4 ).
PRO
—, —. - __d, •*•j S
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, 0 C 20460
APR 26 1996
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Compilation of Federal Register Notices for National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program
for Years 1989—1995
James F. Pendergast, Acting Director , —)
Permits Division (4203)
State Directors
EPA Regional Counsels
EPA Region Permit Branch Chiefs
Attached for your information and use is a compilation of
federal register notices for national rules, public notices, and
policies concerning the NPDES, Pretreatment, and Sludge programs.
These notices extend from 1989 through 1995 and are listed in
reverse chronological order by year.
We hope this compilation proves to be helpful. Please call
Tom Charlton of my staff at (202) 260-6960 if you have any
questions concerning these materials.
Attachments
cc: Robert Perciasepe
Michael Cook
Susan Lepow
RocycledlRecyclable . Pnntod with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Postconsumer)

-------
Note to Reader
This compilation contains Federal Register notices for national
rules, public notices, and policies concerning the NPDES,
Pretreatment, and Sludge Programs. While some notices relating
to general permits are found in the compilation, it does not
contain notices for all general permits proposed or issued by
EPA.

-------
NPDES Program
Regulations and Preambles
1993—1995
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wastewater Management
Washington, D.C. 20460

-------
NPDES Program
Regulations and Preambles
1989—1992
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wastewater Managen ent
Washington, D.C. 20460

-------
NPDES Program
Regulations and Preambles
1989-199 1
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wastewater Management
Washington, D.C. 20460

-------
119911

-------
Tuesday
November 5, 1991
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 122
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permit Application Regulations
for Storm Water Discharges; Application
Deadlines; Final Rule and Proposed Rule

-------
348 Federal Register / Vol 56. No 4 / Tuesd.iv, ‘.ovrnber 3. 1991 I RUes .ir.d Re2 1:lations
ENV RONNEp1TAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 122
I FRL-3994-. I
RIN 2040-A889
National Pollutant Discharge
E’imlnation System Pcrmlt Application
Regulations for Storm Water
Dlscharges ApplicatIon DeadlInes
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AC! ’ION Final rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is ex andzng the
deadline for submission of National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) individual permit applications
for storm water discnarges associated
with industrial activity from No ember
18. 1991. to Octcber 1. 1992. EPA is also
establisaing a fixed deadline of no Liter
than October 1. 1992. for submission of
individual permit applications from
dischargers rejected from group
applications. These changes will reduce
cor.fusion in the regulated community
o’. er ipphcation requirements and
deadlines The changes made by this
final rule sill also serve to treat all
regulated facilities as equitably as
possible. and help to avoid serious
delays in the issuance of storm water
permits and the implementation of
necessary controls leading to the
desired water quality benefits.
!FflCTIV! DATE November 18. 1991.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATiON CONTACT
For ;nformation on this rule contact the
NPDES Storm Water Hotline at (703)
821—4823. or Thomas J. Seaton. Office of
Wastewater Enforcement and
Compliance (EN—336). United States
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW.. Washington. DC 20490.
(202) 280—9518.
SUP %1MENTARY INFORMATIOSC
L Background
The 1972 amendments to the Federal
Water Pollution Conwol Act (FWPCA.
also referred to as the Clean Water Act
or CWA). prohibited the discharge of
any pollutant to navigable waters from a
point source unless the discharge is
authorized by a NPDES permit. The
appropriate means of regulating storm
water discharges under the NPDES
prog ’am has been a matter of serious
concern and controv. rs since that time
EPA promulgated NPDES storm water
regulations :n 1973. 1 176. 1979, 1980. and
1984. These regulations have resulted in
much litigation arid none were
successfully implemented despite EPA’s
efforts.
a 4 Ea t ’Ironn,enga/ lznpact.
Several National assessments have
been conducted to e%dluate impacts on
recer.ing water quality Fur the purpose
of these assessments, urban runoff was
considered to be a di Iu e source or
nonpoini source poUution. ,al :’ough
legally. most urban runoff .s discharged
through con c’ance such u separate
storm sewers or other convevi.nces
%shich are point sources under the CWA
and subject to the NPDES program.
The “Nationol Water Quality
Inventory, 1988 Report to Congress”
provides a general asses8ment of water
quality based on bieiuual reports
subm’tted by the States under section
305(b) of tie CWA. lii preparing section
305(b) Reports. the States were asked to
indicate the fraction of the States’
waters that were assessed, as well as
the fraction of the States’ waters that
were fully supporting, partly supporting,
or cot sapporting designated uses. The
Report indicates that of the rivers, lakes.
and estuaries that were assessed by
States (approximately one-fifth of
stream miles. one-third of lake acres and
one-half of esturme waters), roughly 70
percent to 75 percent are supporting the
uses for which they are designated. For
waters with use impairments. States
were asked to determine impacts due to
diffuse sources (agricultural and urban
runoff and other categortes of diffuse
sources), municipal sewage. industrial
(process) wastewaters. combined sewer
overflows, and natural sources. then
combine Impacts to arrive at estimates
of the relative percentage of State
waters affected by each source lit this
manner, the relative importance of the
various sources of pollution causing use
impairments was assessed and weighted
national averages were calculated
Based on 37 States that provided
information on sources of pollution, the
Assessment also curicludad that
pollution from diffuse sources such as
runoff from agricultural, urban areas,
construction sites, land disposal
activities, and resource extraction
activities is cited by the States as the
leading cause of water quality
Impairment.’ Diffuse sources appear to
be increasingly important contributors
of use Impairment as discharges of
industrial process wastewaters and
municipal sewage plants come under
control and intensified data collection
efforts provide additional ii:formation.
Some e 
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 214 / Tuesday. November 5. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
56549
provides that EPA or authorized NPDES
States cannot require a permit for
certain storm water discharges until
after October 1. 1992. except for storm
water discharges listed under section
4O p)(2 ). Section 402 p)(2) lists five
types of storm water discharges which
are required to obtain a permit before
October 1. 1992.
(A) A dischar2e with respect to which
a permit has been issued prior to
February 4. 1987.
(B) A discharge associated with
industnal activity;
(C) A discharge from a municipal
separate storm sewer system serving a
popult tion of 250.000 or more:
(D) A di chorge from a municipal
separate storm sewer system serving a
population of 100.000 or more, but less
than 250,000: or
(E) A discharge for which the
Administrator or the State. as the case
may be, determines that the storm water
discharge contributes to a violation of a
water quality standard or is a significant
contributor of pollutants to the waters of
the United States.
With respect to storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity. section 402(p)(4)(A) of the
CWA requires EPA to promulgate
regulations governing permit
applications requirements by “no later
than two years” after the date of
enactment (i.e. no later than February 4.
1989). Section 4021p)(4)(A) also provides
that permit applications for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity “shRIl be filed no later than
three years” after the date of enactment
(i e. no later than February 4, 1990).
Permits for these discharges are to be
issued by n later than four years after
the date of enactment (i e no later than
February 4. 1991). Permits must provide
for cocipliance as expeditiously as
practicable. but in no event later than
three years after the date of permit
issuance.
C. November 16, 19 J Permit
Applica Lion Requirements
EPA promulgated pernut application
regulations for the storm water
discharges identified under section
4C2(p)(2)(B). (C), and (D) of the CWA.
including storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity, on
November 18. 1990 (55 FR 47990). The
November 18. 1990 regulations address
requirements. including deadlines, for
two sets of application procedures for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity’ Individual permit
applications and group applications In
addition, the notice recognizes a third
set of application procedures for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity: Those associated
with general permits. With these
requirements. EPA is attempting to
implement a flexible, cost-effective
approach for storm water permit
applications
The requirements for individual
applications for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity are
eet forth at 40 CFR 122.26(c)(1)
Generally, the applicant must provide
comprehensive facility specific narrative
information including: (1) A site map: (2)
an estimate of impervious areas. (3) the
identification of significant materials
treated or stored on site together with
associated materials management and
disposal practices; (4) the location and
description of existing structural and
non-structural controls to reduce
pollutants in storm water runoff. (5) a
certification that all storm water outfalls
have been evaluated for any
unpermitted non-storm water
d!scharges: and (8) any existing
information regarding significant leaks
or spills of toxic or hazardous pollutants
within three years prior to application
submittal. In addition, an individual
application must include quantitative
analytical data based on samples
collected on site during storm events.
Under * 122.26(e)(1) of the November 16.
1990 rule, individual applications must
be submitted by November 18. 1991.
The group application process allows
for facilities with similar storm water
discharges to file a single two part
permit application. Part 1 of a group
application includes a list of the
facuities applying, a narrative
description sununarizing the industrial
activities of participants of the group, a
list of significant materials exposed to
precipitation that are stored by
partici;onts and material management
practices employed to diminish contact
of these materials by precipitation (see
40 CFR 122.26(cff2)(i)). Under the
November 18, 1990 regulations. part 1 of
the group application was to be
submitted to EPA no later than March
18. 1991. The regulation provides that
EPA has a 60 day period after receipt to
review the part 1 applications and notify
the groups as to whether they have been
approved or denied as a properly
constituted “group” for purposes of this
alternative application process. Part 2 of
the group application contains detailed
information. including sampling data, on
roughly 10 percent of the facilities in the
group (see 40 CFR 122.28(c)(2)(ii) for a
complete description of the
requirements of part 2 group
applications) Under the November 16.
1990 regulations. part 2 applications
were to be submitted rio later than 12
months after the date of approval of the
part I application. Also under the
November 16, 1990 regulation. facilities
that are rejected as members of a group
were to have 12 months from the date
they receive notification of their
re)ection to file an individual permit
application (or obtain coverage under an
appropriate general permit)
The group application process has
been designed by EPA as a one-time
administrative procedure to ease the
burden on the regulated community and
permitting authonties in the initial stage
of the storm water program.
The third application procedure
entails seeking coverage under a general
permit for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity.
Discharger’s covered by a general permit
are excluded under 40 CFR 122.21)a)
from requirements to 8ubmit individual
or group permit applications. Conditior.s
for filing an application to be covered by
a general permit (typically called a
Notice of Intent (NOl)) are established
on a case-by-case basis In almost all
cases, general permits require the
submittal of NOls containing basic
information such as the name and
address of the facility and a brief
description of the discharge and
receiving water.
The November 16. 1090 regulations
also establish a two part application
process for discharges from municipal
separate storm sewer systems serving a
population of 100.000 or more. The
regulations lists 220 cities and counties
that are defined as having municipal
separate storm sewer systems serving a
population of 100.000 or more and
allows for case-by-case designations of
other municipal separate storm sewers
to be part of these systems (55 FR 48073
48074) The regulations provide that part
1 applications for discharges from large
municipal separate storm sewer systems
(systems serving a population of 250.000
or more) are due November 18. 1991.
Part 2 applications for discharges from
large systems are due on November 16.
1992. Part 1 applications for discharges
from medium municipal separate storm
sewer systems (systems serving a
population of 100.000 or more, but less
than 250.000) are due May 18. 1992. Part
2 applicaticns for discharges from
medium systems are due on May 18
1993.
D March 21. 1991 Final Rule
Despite extensive public outreach
efforts. EPA received a significant
number of requests to extend the March
18. 1991, deadline for filing part I of the
group application. Numerous parties
expressed concern that although they
were currently forming groups. they
-------
56550 Federal Register I Vol. 56. No 214 / Tuesday. November 5. 1991 / Rules dnd RegUidtiofls
would not be able to rile the part i
application by the March 18. 1991
deadline In particular, concerns were
raised by rnumcipal governments EPA
learned that a number of small
municipalities were largely unawore of
the impact of the new storm water
regulations Many of these
municipalities apparently mistakenly
belie ed that since their municipal
separate storm sewer systems were not
covered by the November 16. 1990 rule,
they were also not required to submit
applications (or storm water discharges
associated with induatnal activity that
they owned or operated.
EPA also became aware that many
industrial facilities were having
difficulty determining whether the new
regulations apply to them. EPA defined
the scope of coverage in the November
16, 1990 rule on the basis of SIC codes.
However, many facilities engage in
operations that can be classified tinder
more than one SIC code: some of these
operations are covered, while others are
not The Agency estimates that over half
of the twenty-three thousand phone
inquiries received by the storm water
hoiline asked questions about the scope
of the final nile as it applies to industrial
activity Since many facilities could not
quickly determine whether they were
covered by the regulation. many got a
late start in developing applications to
meet the requirements and deadlines of
the November 16. 1990 storm water rule.
To address these concerns. EPA
extended the part l group application
deadline from March 18. 1991 to
September 30. 1991. 158 FR 12098 (March
21. 199lfl EPA indicated that it believed
that a six month extension to the part 1
group application deadline was an
appropriate amount of time for members
of the regulated community to determine
their status under the November 16. 1990
rule. to organize groups, and to submit
part 1 applications. In making this
determination, the Agency noted that
the part 1 application requires a list of
facilities applying. a narrative
description summarizing the industrial
activities of participants of the group. a
list of significant materials exposed to
precipitation that are stored by
participants and material management
practices employed to diminish contact
of these matenals by precipitation
The Io,erber i S. 1900 cult ettablishe, permli
tippiicaltone to, aiorm water d.ach.rqei auoci ted
wiih in0uitnal activity inciudin ucti di.ctiar es
owned or nperaird by rcderat Slate or municipal
.niiiet laCe 40 CTR iZetbi ll4it
Several commenten on ihe Mirth Zi 991
naitce evprrii ed coniuuion ove, ih cequt emeriti
of 1¼r* I of he group application The Aerricy
wimp 0 clarity Ih.ii the NPOF$ Eorm I appli ..aiion
As part of the March 21. 1991 final
rule. EPA also established May 18. 1992
as the fixed deadline for submission of
part 2 of the group applications The
November 16. 1990 regulation had not
established a fixed deadline for
submitting part 2 of the group
application but rather provided that
part 2 applications were not due until
one year alter the part I was appro ed
by EPA Under the March 21. 1991 final
rule, part 2 applications were to be
submitted by no later than May 16. 1992
even if EPA’s approval of the part 1
occurred after May 18. 1991 In other
words, groups that take advantage of
the part I group application deadline
extension would have less than the full
year to complete their part 2.
E March 27. 7997. Proposal
EPA also published a proposed rule
on March 21, 1991. addressing two other
deadlines for submitting permit
applications for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity The
proposal requested comment on
extending the deadline for submitting
individual applications from November
18. 1991 to May 18. 1992. In addition. the
notice proposed to provide that
members of group applications that are
rejected from the group application must
file an individual application or obtain
coverage under an appropriate general
permit by no later than May 18. 1992. (56
FR 12101, (March 21. 19911).
The objective of this proposal was to
address and solicit comment on the
relationship between extending part I
group application deadlines and revising
other application deadlines for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity
EPA noted several goals associated
with the proposed changes: to reduce
confusion in the regulated community
over what application requirements
affect which facilities on which date5. to
treat all regulated facilities as equitably
as possible. and to avoid serious delays
in the issuance of permits for storm
water discharges and the
implementation of necessary controls
leading to the desired water quality
benefits.
F Progress to Date
As discussed above. EPA has
wrestled with storm water issues for 20
years. Since the adoption of the 1987
amendments to the CWA. EPA has been
committed to prompt and effective
implementation of section 4021p) The
November 16 1990 reguldlions reflect
EPA s goal of addressing high risk
ii not required from cacti facility that ii
psriicipJiin in a aroup ,jpplicaiion
sources of storm water quickly and
without excessive burdens to the
regulated community To that end the
November 18 regulations established a
flexible regulatory framework by
prcviding dischargers with the option uf
p,irticipating in a group app!ication anc
by encouraging the issuance of general
permits through the development of a
risk-based four tiered strategy for
permitting storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
EPA believes Congress. in adopting
section 402(p). wished to striLe a
balance between the risks associated
with industrial storm water discharges
and the burdens of controlling the large
number of industrial sources in a short
time frame. and that the November 16.
1990 regulations represent a good faith
effort to achieve Congress intent
Nonetheless. EPA is aware that the
regulated community has already
encountered significant dtfficulties in
attempting to comply with the
regulations, as further discussed below
Despite what EPA believes to be a
general acceptance in the regulated
community of the need to address r:sks
associated with storm water. the
implementation problems discussed
below have caused confusion and
frustration.
EPA has taken a number of steps to
improve the implementation of the storm
water program since the adoption of the
November 16, 1990 regulations.
Processing permit applications for the
large number of storm water discharges
associated with industrial act:vity is
expected to place significant burdens on
EPA and authorized NPDES States In
response to concerns about these
burdens. the Agency has developed a
preliminary four-tiered permit issuance
strategy for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity (see
55 FR 48002. (November 16. 1990))
General permits are expected to play an
important role in the strategy
On August 16. 1991 (58 FR 40948). EPA
published draft general permits for the
ma pority of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity in
those States where the Agency is the
permitting authority. A major emphasis
of the draft general permits is to
establish requirements for storm waler
pollution prevention measures and best
management practices. The comment
period for these permits closed on
Ociober 15. 1991 The Agency intends to
issue final general permits (or siorm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity as soon as possible
after the comment penod closes EPA is
also developing a form for NOIs for the
draft general permits that can be read
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 56. No. 214 I Tuesday, November 5. 1991 I Rules and RegulatIons 56551
by automatic data processing
equipment. This will assist the Regional
r)ffices and authorized NPDES States
hich use the NO1 form in handling and
.iling the Nob.
EPA cannot issue a general permit in
an authorized NPDES State. In addition.
rneral permits can only be issued for
discharges in States with authorized
NPDES programs where the State is
authorized to issue general permits. EPA
h3s worked closely with authorized
NPDES States to assist them in
obtaining the necessary authority to
issue general permits. During 1991. 11
authorized NPDES States obtained
general permit authority. Currently an
additional 11 authorized NPDES States
do not have authority to issue general
permits. EPA is working closely with the
11 authorized NPDES States without
general permit authority to assist them
in obtaining the necessary authority to
issue general permits. Appendix A of
this notice provides a list of authorized
NPDES State8. and the status of general
permit approval. Those 28 States that
presently have authority to issue general
permits for storm water discharges may
do so without waiting for EPA to issue
EPAs general permits. Initial
information from authorized NPDES
States indicates that at least 23 of the
authorized NPDES States are in the
-ocess of developing or have already
sued general permits for storm water
discharges.
EPA also received over 1.200 group
applications by the September 30. 1991
deadline for part I of the application.
The Agency estimates that these group
appl cations represent over 45.000
industrial facilities. Currently, the
Agency has completed an initial review
of over 900 part 1 applications. The
Agency anticipates that the part I
rev ew process for all applications will
be co r.ple:ed by December, 1991.
As part of the process of
implementing the national storm water
initiative called for by section 402(p) of
the Clean Water Act, the Agency has
undertaken substantial efforts to
provide the public with notice of the
new storm water program requirements
and explain the different applicatinn
alternatives. As part of this outreach
effort. EPA’s Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance (OWEC)
established a hotline which has fielded
cver twenty-three thousand telephone
inquiries on the scope of the program.
application requirements. and related
issues. Over ten thousand copies of the
November 16, 1990 rule were printed
md distributed to States. EPA regions.
iterest groups and members of the
,ublic. In ‘iddition. OWEC has held lull
day workshops in ten cities across the
country during the first six weeks of
1901 and has addressed storm water
requirements at over 30 other
conferences and speaking engagements.
State and EPA regional representatives
hdve also contributed to this effort by
participating in numerous local
workshops and conferences on storm
water discharge permit application
requirements.
G. Future Direct wns
EPA will increase its outreach efforts
to work with and listen to the States.
regulated community, environmental
groups and other customers to more
fully identify issues and problems with
storm water regulatory requirements.
EPA has already outlined above a
number of activities to be taken in the
next year to assist program
implementation. These activities include
issuances of general permits.
development of automatic data
processing equipment for handling
NOIs. assisting authorized NFDES
States to obtain general permit authority
and to issue general permits. and review
of group applications. In addition, the
Agency will continue its outreach efforts
by developing guidance and conducting
and attending additional workshops.
The Agency is actively working on
improving the efficiency and scope of
the storm water hotilne. In addition, the
Agency is developing a question and
answer document and information
brochures for public dissemination. The
Agency is also developing two permit
writer’s guidance documents for
preparing industrial and municipal
storm water permits.
These and other broader efforts will
assist the Agency in identifying major
Issues of concern with implementation
of the storm water permitting program.
such as. whether the program is
appropriately targeting high risk
discharges, the potential for pollution
prevention alternatives, the potential for
cross-media impacts. and whether
further adjustments to the program are
needed. EPA will use the feedback from
its outreach efforts to enhance the
ability of all the key players to succeed
in accomplishing the important goal of
reducing risk from contaminated storm
water.
II. Todays Final Ride and Response to
Comment
EPA received over 120 comrcen s liii
the March 21. 1991 proposaL After
careful consideration of these
comments, the Agency is extending the
deadline for submitting iridividudl
applications for storm water discharges
associated with industrial acti% ity from
November 18. 1991 to October 1. 1992
Today’s rule also establishes a fixed
date of no later than October 1. 1992 by
which facilities rejected from group
applications must either file an
individual application or be covered by
an appropriate general permit for their
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity.
EPA is granting these extensions to
allow rejected members of groups
additional time to obtain sampling data.
and to ensure that all individual
applications for storm water discharges
that are currently not authorized by a
permit are due at the same time to avoid
further confusion in the regulated
cornmun.aty. The extension for individual
applications will also provide facilities
that are currently unaware of their
responsibilities under the storm water
program additional opportunities to
comply with appropriate regulatory
requirements. Also. operators of storm
water discharges in many areas of the
country will have additional
opportunities to collect data during
summer months. EPA also notes that
establishing a deadline of October 1.
1992 for these applications will provide
additional time for permit issuing
agencies to issue general permits for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity.
This notice also provides a techn lcdl
amendment to 40 CFR 122.28 1eH6) This
technical amendment is necessary to
avoid ambiguity. The technical
amendment provides that facilities with
existing NPDES permits for storm water
aischa ges associated with industrial
activity which expire on or after May 18.
1992 shall submit a new application in
accurdance with the requirements of 40
CTR 22.21 and 40 CFR 121.28(c) (Form
1. Furm .F, and other applicable Forms)
thu days before the expiration of such
perniits. This technical amendment does
nor epresent a substantive change from
the n’jember 18, 1990 rulemaking.
Under the November tO. 1990
rulemuking. facilities with existing
NPDES Permits for storm water
discnarges that have to reapply for
peimit renewal during the first year
follow .rig promulgation of the rule have
the option of either applying in
ar .ordarice with existing Form I and
Form ZC req, irements or applying in
accordance with Form I and the new
Form 2F’ requirements. However, the
existing regulatory language addressing
this rr’quirement (at 40 CFR 122 28(e)(e’)
refers both to May 18. 1992 s and 40 Cr’R
Note hit 40 CFR 122.2itdj r*qu.tes facititi..i
w.th e s.tin NPDE prinut. to euh,ui , new
( .JJIT,n, 1
-------
56552 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 214 / Tuesday. November 5. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
122.26(e)(1) (the deadline for submitting
individual applications changed by
todays rule).
The deadline for facilities with an
existing permit was primarily intended
to provide facilities with existing NPDES
permits for storm water discharges with
a period of one year during which they
could submit either Form 2C or Form ZF
(see 55 FR 48059). Thus it is necessary to
provide a technical amendment at 40
CFR 122.26{e((6 ) to maintain the original
intent of the provision (i.e.. to require all
facilities with existing permits to start
using Form 2F one year after the
November 18, 1990 rule). EPA does not
believe that it is necessary to exiend the
deadline for these facilities to use the
Form 2F requirements because facilities
with existing NPDES permits for storm
water discharges are generally familiar
with the NPDES program. In addition,
even if EPA extended this deadline.
these facilities would still be required to
submit Form ZC for their storm water
discharge.
Elsewhere in today’s Federal Register,
EPA is publishing a notice of proposed
rulemaking requesting comment on
extending the regulatory deadline for
submitting part 2 of a group application
from May lB. 1992 to October 1. 1992.
EPA wishes to emphasize that today’s
final rule does not affect the application
deadlines for discharges from municipal
separate storm sewer systems that are
specified in the November 18. 1990 rule.
Part I applications for discharges from
large municipal separate storm sewer
systems are still due by November 18,
1991. Part i applications for discharges
from medium municipal separate storm
sewer systems are due by May 18. 1992.
EPA has no information to suggest that
operators of these systems. which are
specifIcally enumerated in the final
regulation (see.55 FR 48073—74
(Appendices F—I to part 122)) or were
specifically designated on a case.by-
case basis, are unaware of the
November 18, 1990 regulations.
A. Deadline for In di viduolApplicotions
The vast majority of comments
received on the March 21. 1891 proposal
supported extending the deadline for
submitting individual permit
applications. A variety of reasons were
given to support the proposed extension.
A significant number of cominenter,
identified the complexity of the permit
application requirements published on
November 18. 1990. as the reason for
their support of the proposed deadline
extension. Other commenters focused
applicition ci teesi leo diys before th. espirotton
dai, of the exiiIln9 persiuL November 16. 1991 Ii 1
days pnor a May 1 5. 1992
on the need for additional tune to obtain
representative storm water samples to
complete the individual application.
Some coramenters urged EPA to
extend the deadline for submitting
individual permit applications for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity beyond May 18. 1992.
to a suitable date after general permits
are issued for storm water discharges.
These commenters indicated that such
an approach had the advantage of
ensuring that dischargers would have
three options for submitting applications
(e.g.. individual applications, group
applications, or obtaining coverage
under an appropriate general permit).
This would allow diachargers to select
the most cost-effective approach
allowable under the 4PDES regulatory
framework.
Based on a consideration of these
comments. the Agency is extending the
regulatory deadline for submitting
individual permit applications for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from November 18.
1991 to October 1. 1992. As discussed in
more detail below arid in the proposed
rule appearing eise here in today’s
Federal Register. the Agency also
believes that it is appropriate to extend
certain deadluies associated with the
group application process to October 1.
1992 to provide a full year for affected
facilities to conduct the necessary
discharge sampling. Establishing the
same deadline for individual
applications and applications associated
with the group application process will
provide equitable treatment of
dischargers while minimizing confusion
over the deadlines. Based on comments
received c ii the March 21. 1991 proposal.
as well as those received on EPA ’s
storm water proposals in 1985 and 1988.
erie year is generally an appropriate
minimum amount of time to assure that
the required sampling can be completed,
in light of arid conditions in some areas
in the summer, and cold conditions in
other areas in the winter.
The extension of the deadline far
individual applications will provide
facilities that are currently unaware of
their responsibilities under the storm
water program additional opportunities
to comply with appropriate regulatory
requirements. This extension will alao
provide operators of storm water
discharges in areas of the country with
extended winter conditions a better
opportunity to collect representative
sampling data of their storm water
discharge. A number of commenters
have expressed concerns that
difficulties may arise in collecting storm
woler discharge sampling data during
the winter months due to the potential
(or limited numbers of discharge events
and adverse weather conditions coupled
with lack of sampling experience of
many Facilities that are submitting
applications for the first time
EPA notes that this extension will
also provide authorized NPDES States
with additional time to issue general
permits for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
consistent with EPA s long.term
permitting strategy for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity.’ On August 18. 1991. (56 FR
409481, EPA published a proposal
requesting public comment on draft
general permits for storm water
discharges associa ted with industrial
activity in States and temtones without
authorized NPDES programs. 7 The
Agency intends to make every effort to
issue these general permits in the spnrig
of 1992.
However. EPA has decided against
basing the deadline for submitting
individual permit applications on the
date that general permits are issued
because of the potential confusion and
uncertainty that would arise. The
Agency is also concerned that
unacceptable delays may result under
this approach in States where the
issuance of a general permit is delayed.
Although the Agency is proposing
draft general permits for ston’n water
discharges in States without authorized
State NPDES programs in one notice, it
may not finalize all of these permits on
the same date. The Agency expects that
various region-specific. State-spec;fic. or
industrial caiegory.specific issues may
take different amounts of time to
address. It should also be noted that the
August 16. 1991 proposal does not
address general permits in authorized
NPDES States. Each authorized NPDES
Stale that will issue general permits for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity will have to go
through the procedures for issuing
‘ A Pies requested public couuoxnt on a foot
tiered tong.tefm pefnhiitin 5 .irate for storm water
diaciisr e, suocaatsd with industrial acm sty (see
Augusi iS. 1991.136 FR. 409S6) end November is.
i 55 FR CP9OH. Tie, I of iii. stritem ’ relies on
baseline ga ersI permits for mba suavity of auDits
wile? discharges auocsstcd with, induslrmi act viIy
‘The notice sddsr,ses drift gererul permit, in 1
State. IMA. ML NH. Vt.. LA. TX. OK. NM SD AZ.
AX. IfIt and aix Terrtlone, Duatnci of Columbia
the Commonu ’es th of Purito Rico Guam, American
Samoa ito Commonwealth of the Northern Miriana
laiand. and the Truss Territory of the Pacific
island,) without authonzed NPDES Slate programs
on indian tends in AL, CA. GA KY Mt. MI 1 MS.
MT NC. ND NY NV SC. TN liT WI and WY
ioceued within fedetal fs iliti ,. and Indian lands in
CO and WA. and iocaled wathiS (edaral tacilittea in
Oelsws ie
-------
Federal_Register I Vol. 53. No. 214 / Tuesday. November 5. 1991 I Rules and Regulations 56553
general permits of that State. Different
oermit issuance procedures, along with
,ther factors, will result in these permits
being issued at different times. All of
these factors indicate that a tremendous
amount of uncertainty and confusion
v.ould esult if EPA attempted to tie
regulatory deadlines for submitting
pcrmlt applications to the dates when
general permits are issued
Iii. addition, the Agency antiCipates
that there will be situations where the
permitting authority determines that
general permits are inappropriate for a
given class of storm water discharges.
Additional confusion would arise in
these situations if application deadlines
were tied to the dates of general permit
issuance
One comment stated that EPA’s
extension of permit application
deadlines for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity was
illegal in light of the deadline in section
402(p)(4)(A) of the CWA. In response,
EPA first notes that section 402(p)(4)(A)
of the CWA requires EPA to promulgate
regulations governing permit application
requirements for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity by no
later than February 4. 1989. Section
402(p (4)(A) also provides that permit
applications for storm water discharges
,qsociated with industrial activity shall
be filed within one year (i.e.. no later
than February 4. 1990).
EPA is fully aware of the deadlines in
section 402(p) of the CWA that address
when EPA is to establish permit
aopication requirements for storm
water &scharges. when applications are
to e submitted and when permits are to
be issued. The Agency notes that.
despite its best efforts, it was not able to
promulgate application requirements for
storm water discharges associated with
icdustrial activity by the February 4,
1989 deadline provided by the CWA.
F,PA recognizes that the deadlines
finalized in the November 16. 1990
notice, the March 21, 1991 final rule and
today’s rule do not synchronize with the
deadlines provided in the CWA. The
Agency believes that it is reasonable
and necessary to establish regulatory
deadlines for submitting applications,
which occur after the statutory
deadlines, to give applicants sufficient
time to comply with the regulatory
requirements for permit applications
The Agency is convinced that this
approach is necessary for the
development of enforceable and sound
permits f’,r storm water discharges. The
ublics interest in a sound storm aIer
,ermitting program is best served by
establishing application deadlines that
sill al!ow sufficient time to gather.
analyze, and prepare meaningful
applications. EPA believes this
extension of the application deadline is
necessary to accomplish this goal
because a significant number of
facilities have not had adequate time to
prepare applications because they were
unaware of the regulatory requirements
or because of uncertainty regarding the
scope and applicability of the regulatory
definition of storm water discharge
associated with industrial acti%ity. or.
for some facilities, that they would be
rejected from a group application.
By establish.ng later regulatory
application deadlines. EPA is not
attempting to waive or revoke the
statutory deadlines established in
section 402(p) of the CWA. and the
Agency does not assert the authority to
do so. Dischargers concerned with
complying with the statutory deadline
should submit a permit application as
expeditiously as possible.
B Deadline for Facilities Rejected from
Group Applications
Some cominenters supported an
extension of one year from the date that
facilities are rejected from a group
application. These commenters argued
that such an extension was appropriate
to ensure that all facilities rejected from
a group application had a sufficient
opportunity to collect sampling data.
A number of cominenters expressed
their belief that the deadline for
facilities that are rejected from a group
application to submit individual
applications should be extended beyond
the date proposed by EPA, May 18. 1992.
Several suggestions for a later deadline
were made, including providing one year
after the date EPA rejects the facility
from the group application, and basing
the deadline on when general permits
for storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity are issued.
EPA believes that establishing a fixed
deadline of October 1, 1992 for facilities
that are rejected from a group
application is warranted for the same
reasons that the Agency articulated
above and in the proposal. This
approach provides an equitable
deadline for these facilities, reduces
confusion and uncertainty in the
regulated community, and provides
sufficient time to complete the sampling
necessary to obtain quantitative data.
The extension will also have the side
benefit of giving permit issuance
authorities additional time to issue
baseline general permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity.
Commenters supporting the position
that the application deadline for
facilities that are rejected from a group
application be based on the date of
issuance of a general permit indicated
that such an approach would ensure
that dischargers would have three
options for applying for a permit EPA
declines to adopt this approach out of
the same concerns about potential
confusion and uncertainty indicated
above in the context of the indi’.idual
application deadline To reiterate. EPA
believes that such an approach ii
unmanageable because general permits
will be issued on different dates and
because the approach would not clearly
establish deadlines for discharges that
the permit authority did not intend to
co er with a general permit.
Again, one commenter contended that
this extension was illegal because the
deadline exceeded the statutory date of
February 4. 1990 for submitting
applications. EPA’s response on this
issue is noted above.
III. Regulatory Requirements
Today’s rule makes no change in the
substantive reqwrements of the storm
water program. places no additional
information collection or record.keeping
burden on respondents. The rule meets
none of the criteria for a major rule
under Section 1(b) of Executive Order
12291. The information collection
requirements in this rule have already
been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget and been
assigned 0MB control number 2040—
0086. An additional information
collection request has not been prepared
and submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (0MB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act Since this
rule does not change any existing
substantive requirements. I certify that it
will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Today’s rule is effective on November
18. 1991. EPA believes there is good
cause under the Administrative
Procedure Act to make this rule effective
in less than 30 days. Given the pre-
existing November 18. 1991 deadline, it
is necessary for this rule to be effective
on or before that date to avoid confusion
in the regulated communIty. (511 S.C.
553(d)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 122
Admirustrative practice and
procedure. Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Water pollution control
Dated. October 24. 1991.
William K. Reilly.
.4 dminis:rv tar.
For the reasons set out above. pact
122. chapter 1 of title 40 of the Code of
-------
36554 Federal Register / Vol 36. No . 14 / Tuesday . November 5. 1991 / Rules nd Regulations
Federal Regulations is amended as
followm
PART 122—EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS THE NATIONAL
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM
I The uthority Cttation for part 122
continues to read as follows’
Authoriiy The Clean Water Act 33 U S.C
1 I et seq
Subart B—PerTnlt ApplIcation and
Special NPOES Program Requirements
§ 122.26 [ Am.nøsdj
2. In § 1 .251e)(t). “November 18.
1991’ is revised to read “October 1.
1992 ”
3. In § 122.28. paragraphs (eJ(2flivj
and (e)(81 are revised to read as follows
§ 122.26 orm wat dta
(applicabis to Stat. NPDES progrann. ..s
§ 123.25).
(e)
(2)
(iv) Facilities that are rejected as
members of the group shall submit .in
individual application no later than 12
months after the date of receipt of the
notice of retection or October 1. 1992.
whichever comes first.
. . S I
(6) Facilities with existing NPDES
permits for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity shall
maint.jin existing permits. Facilities with
permits for storm water discharges
associated with industrial acnvlty which
expire on or after May 13. 1992 shall
submit a new application in accordance
with the requirements of 40 CFR 122.21
and 40 CFR 122..26(cl (Form 1. Form ZF.
and other applicable Forms) 180 days
before the expiration of such permits.
Note: The following appendices will not
appear in the Code of Federal Regulations
APPENDiX A—STATE NPDES PROGRAM
STATUS AS OF SEPTEMBER 20, 1991
NPOES general
p e r
______________ program
APPENDIX A—STATE NPDES PROGRAM
STATUS AS OF SEPTEMBER 20. 1991—
Conbnued
A
NPOES
06rThit

.c a roveo

U(TT1 I
pcqa
Kans .. — 06/28/74
Kentuc$cy - — 09/30/83
Mary land - 09/05/74
Md i I 10/17/73 I
09/30,83
09/30/9 1
—

.
Mon a.. . . ..
N.b,aal . . .... ._ . . , ._ . . . ._ . . . . .._.
06/30/74
05/0*/74
10/30/74 I
06/10/74
06/12/74
12/15/87
09/27/91
12/12/85
01/29/83
07/20/89
N.wje r sey
09/19/75
04/13/62
04/13/82
Yom .. - . ...... ........ 10/28/75
Nonn Carolina ._._ . 10 1i9 /75
06/13/75
Otso
09/06191
01/22/90
. .. 03/11/74
Oregon . . . . _ 09/28/73 I
Penn yP,ai ,. . ... 06/30/73
Rh ø. t td 09/17/84
Soudi Cerow 06/10/75
12/28/77
titan
‘
02/23/ 3.2
0 8/02/91
09/1 7/8.4
0.4/18/91
.. .. .. __. .
07/07/67
Vemiont_ .. — ._ 09/11/74 I
V ’a’g.n l ias — 06/30/76 I
Vargwss_ —————H 03/31/75
Wa i r lgnqt_Dn_. —— 11/14/73
05/10/82
07/07/87
05/20/91
09/26/89
._ . _
W ,,c*sss ,n . ....
Wyoi’ning
To.. ........_. ..
02/04/74
01/30/75
12/19/88
39j
28
Regi. iø y A,,i. s., D.aaimm Slomi water O.. ,.n.. , ,,. . As.
500usd li i —‘
in w j A canori . . . .. . . ... Novenater 18 1991 — _____________ OctOber 1 1992.
Irdvi iaI Appfcaaon tram taoiiny relected ft n gr i monut tram me date of nov - , ,u n of re ecnon’ _. .. _. October 1, 1992
Don _ __ I __
G(0i A L.U Pail I ______ .. .. ._4 M 18, 1991 4 . . . _________- SeOierrWer 30. 1991
Gtr o A90 1c*bOrl. Pwt 9 ___. . - . ) 12 montris after m. au. of aparoval Of P n • _...._ May 18. 1992.’
Ir a i A icaaon from Iacl4t, erUl easmg NPOE5 points . 180 days prior to dale mat peruse 010V0$ Same.
lndMdu_a l AXOC100fl for ismjcoOii aCDvnb.s d l5nJ,tltIq S or 90 daya 1Or 10 coirmencemem at corsrucson — —— . ... . Seine
aoree.
inoi u k..&,n for new stein ’ witsi daolsa,g.. (OSser 180 dlvi before Use dlCtwge is to comm.nce..... S T Ie.
v nes jceon ss
Requi .aiorp Apciicalion Oeao llnes for Cisang.i from Mtalogei
Sapirats Slim Se Sysliuai”
Mun,oo Svi i . Sior,n S Sy mi Suiwug • Poputi- Pait i_.. •_ • ._ . Novoirter lB. 1991
of 250.000 or
Do 2. ,
Mur Stern S Systerse Serwig s Pcpiia.
Don at 100.000 or more. ted e , 250.000.
- -
No Foil..... co uJ by gsr at osn em trom rssaim.,ne 10 e. lTlt . p 1mM icaaor 40 t R I .21 (i )i. li .d. apCICStIOfl
remor.m.nts sits cis. Vuss for a general 91mM. . et .d t O as a sio of utters (NOi). ire eatablihed ii the general p 5mM . Opusatora of storm setter isscnarges
asiocistad seSi sI amM cdsetp ef 1 i r s aane*sy rmt SiJffkIuaiJ by ais NPOES points n,.at 5%bIII WI W1 duU . pp b t di PWI 2 oi
re jwemen C i obtain c sg. iSidl r iii iiUw ’*lS PU bi v 16. 1992.
‘Permit atøcoeois reoi meiwi for storn’ seater rii.cti aasociat.d seth rliusvml ecemy mM fl9 reqwremei for sci% .es Owned or
operated by Feoerai, Slat., or ns racigul eflDb se. 40 CFR 122.26(b 14)J
‘Modified by t yu a .
by tooay I flSS.
• MOCdIeC on Mwcn 21 1991 (58 FR 12098)
• Efoeerer. vi today e F€On*i. Reorater EPA is pracosing to oviend the deadlin, for .Obmrmnq Pail 2 of the groun aDQbCIDOn frOm May lB 1992 to October
I 1992
• MaCused On Mirth 21. 1991 156 FR 1209bt
‘Unchanged tram Novemi 16, 1990 n as (55 FR 47990)
a’——
A sn3as - . -
CaWomse
-
Conr n J
Oeteweia__
Georgia.. — .
—
In se___
10/19/79
t l/0l/B6
05/14/73
03/V 175
09126/73
04/01/ 74
06/26/74
11/28/74
10/23/77
01/01/75
08/10/78
06/26/91
11/01/66
09 /22/89
09/04183
0 1/28/91
09/30/91
01/04/84
04/02/9 )
APPENDIX B
O... ,Ji.... Es*at,i .d ,sd vi nteer 16. 1990 RU.. .. . ... ,
Pen
Pail 1.
Pail 2......
N . ... nL 16, 1992
May 18. t992.
May 17, *993
IVR Doc 91—28322 Filed 11—4-91. 845 am
Bfl.LJI@ OU 15S0—IO U
-------
Federal Register I Vol 56 No 214 / Tuesday, “Jo ember 5. 1q91 I Proposed Rules
56535
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON
AGENCY
4OCFR Part 122
I FRL—4021-2 I
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit ApplicatIon
Regulations for Storm Water
Discharges; Application Deadlines
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
SUMMARY: As a result of issues and
concerns raised in comments on the
March 21. 1991 (56 FR 12098) proposal.
EPA requests public comments on
extending the regulatory deadline for
submitting Part 2 of group applications
for storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from May 18.
1992 to October 1, 1992. The Agency
believes that this extension will provide
an appropriate opportunity to conduct
sirnpling to support the Part 2
application and will allow for permit
issuing agencies to issue general
Permits
DATES: Comments on this notice must be
received on or before December 5. 1991
ADDRESSES: The public should send an
original and two copies of their
comments to Thomas J. Seaton, Office of
Wastewater Enforcement and
Compliance (EN—336), United States
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW, Washington. DC 20460 The
p.iblic record is located at EPA
Headquarters. EPA Public Information
Refurence Unit, room 2402. 401 M Street
S V. Washington. DC 20460
FOR FURTHER iNFORMATION CONTACT:
For information on this rule contact the
NPDES Storm Water Hotline at (703)
8fl—4823, or Thomas J. Seator.. OffIce of
Wastewater Enforcement and
Compliance (EN—336), United States
Environniental Protection Agency. 401 M
Street. SW.. Washington. DC 20460.
(202) 260—9518.
SUPPI.EMENTARY INFORMATION:
1 Background
On November 16, 1990 (55 FR 47940),
EPA published regulatory requirements.
it:cluding deadlines, for group
applications for storm water discharges
ai sociated with industrial activity. The
g-oup application process allows for
facilities with similar storm water
d schargcs to file a single two part
permit applicat:on
Part I of a group application includes
a list of the facilities applying, a
narrative description summarizing the
industrial aitivities of participants of the
group. a l 1 st of significant materials
exposed to precipitation that are stored
by participants and material
management practices employed to
diminish contact of these materials by
precipitation (see 40 CFR 122.26(c)(2)(i ))
Under the ovember 16. 1990
regulations. part I of the group
application was to be submitted to EPA
no later than March 18. 1991 The
regulation provided that EPA has a 60
day period after receipt to review the
Part 1 applicat’ons and notify the groups
as to whether they have been approved
or denied as a properly constituted
‘group’ for purposes of this alternative
application process.
Part 2 of the group application
contains detailed information, including
sampling data, on roughly ten percent of
the facilities in the group (see 40 CFR
122.26(c)(2)(ii) for a complete descnption
of the requirements of part 2 group
applications) Under the November 16.
1990 regulations. part 2 of the group
application was to be submitted no later
than 12 months after the date of
approval of the pail I application
On March 21. 1991 (36 FR 12098). EPA
published a final rulemaking extending
the part I group application deadline
from March 18. 1991 to September 30.
1991. EPA indicated that it believed that
a six month extension to the part I
group application deadline was an
appropriate amount of time for members
of the regulated community to determine
their status under the November 18. 1990
rule, to organize groups. and to submit
part 1 applications As part of the March
21. 1991 final rule. EPA also established
May 18. 1992 as the fixed deadline for
submission of Part 2 of the group
applications.
EPA also published a proposed rule
on March 21. 1991. addressing two other
deadlines for submitting permit
applications for storm water discharges
associated with industrial act:vity The
proposal requested comment on
extending the deadline for submitting
individual applications from November
18. 1991 to May 18. 1992. In addition, the
notice proposed to provide that
members of a group application that are
reiected from the group application must
file an individual application or obtain
coverage under an appropriate general
permit by no later than May 18. 1992 (56
FR 12101. (March 21. 1991))
II. Today’s Notice
AB a result of issueq ari ’J concerns
raised in comments on the March 21.
1991 proposed deadline extensions. EPA
is requesting comments on extending the
deadline for submitting part 2 of the
group application from 1ay 18. 1092 to
October 1. 1992 The Agency believes
that this extension will provide an
appropriate opportunity to conduct
sampling to support the part 2
application. It will also allow for permit
issuing agencies to issue general
permits
Part I of the group applications were
required to be submitted by September
30. 1991 The existing regulatory
deadline for submitting part 2 of the
group application is May 18. 1992. Under
the existing regulatory deadline for part
2 of the group application, groups that
submitted part 1 applications on or
shortly before the September 30. 1991
deadline would only have a limited
amount of time, approximately seven
and one-half months, to collect and
organize sampling data. To complicaie
matters, parts of the country will
experience winter conditions for
sign:ficarit parts of the time period
between September 30 and May 18.
making sample collection difficult.
Today s proposal would ensure that one
year would be available to complete the
required sampling This is consistent
with comments received on the March
21. 1991 propo’al suggestir.g that one
year for complet:ng permit applications
is appropriate to assure completion of
storm water sampling in various parts of
the country with lengthy arid or winter
seasons
It should also be noted that on
October 1, 1992 deadline for part 2 of
group applications would be consistent
with the October 1, 1992 deadline for
individual permit applications for storri
water discharges associated with
industrial activity (see the final
rulemaking published elsewhere in
today’s notice address ng the deadlire
for individual permit applications)
Identical deadlines for part ! of tl’e
group applicat:on and indi dual
applications will result in equal
treatment of facil 1 ties with storm water
discharges. This will also reduce
confusion in the regulatory communtt
over the proper application deadlines
The Agency believes that extending
the deadline for submitting part 2 group
applications beyond October 1. 1992 is
inappropriate. An additional extension
would create unnecessary and
unacceptable delays in implementing
the NPDES storm water program The
November 18. 1990 regulations provide
considerable latitude for selecting rain
events for sampling data (see 40 CFR
122 21(g)(7)) If data cannot be collected
prior to the application deadline
because of anomalous weather (e g.
drought conditions), then permittir.g
authorit es may grant additional time tiir
submitting that data on a case-by-case
basis (.ilso see 4OCFR 122 21(g)(7)) Tl’e
-------
556
Ftderal R gtster / V ,i 51,. “to 214 / Tuecday ‘4o emb r 5. 1991 / Prnprsed Rules
.\genrv believes th ,t with the
omb:nat:on of extending deadlines for
lridl% idudl c’erTnlt applications and part 2
of group applications for storm water
discharges associated with ndustnai
activity. here is no basis for further
corsiderat’ ,n of e tendin application
deadl:nes for tnrm wafer dtsrhar ei
•ISSO( I d With itidt.stflal LiL I . t V
Ill. Regulatnr Requirements
Tcd.iv s prnposi d n.ile rr. kes no
(.hange ri the subs;.ir ti e requirements
of the iorm water pro rar only the
date by which ccrta.n applicitions i-c
due. Thus, the rule meets nor.c of the
cr:teria for a niajor rule under section
1(bJ of Exec ’ ,nve Order 12291 The
information collectien requtremer s in
this rule have alrea 4 y been ipproved by
thc Office of Management and D dget
and been assigned 0MB control number
04G-41086 Since this proposed rule does
not change any existing substantive
req’iiremer.ts. ! cerify tbai it will not
a cignificant impact on a
Siit,,idnhidl nu;n’ucr of small nI:ties
ur.Jtr thu Reçula tory Flexibility Act
Lict of Subject, in 40 CFR Pert 12
Adrninist.rati e practice and
procedure l’ eporting and reccrckeeping
reqi . irements. Water pollution control
Ddwd Ouober 24. 1O i
wilr m K. Reilly.
Adrrun,strtor
For the reacong set out above, part
122. chapter 1 of title 40 of the Code of
Feoeral Reguliations is proposed to be
amended as follows
PART 122—EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: ThE NATiONAL
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELiMINATiON SYSTEM
I The authority citation for part 1z2
continues to reed as follows
Authonty The Cien, Water ,\ct 33 12 S C
15i c i seq
Subpart B—Permtt ApplicatIon and
Special NPOES Program RequIrements
122.26 (Amended)
2. In § 12228(e)(2fliit). “May 18. 1992’
is revised to read “October 1. 1992”
FR Doc 91—253 Fiied 11—4—91 R45 ami
nLLmG coce u
-------
33502
re. eral ketzister , i N.o Od , Ni JnuR Ui. ue & 1Y’Ji .utices
STATE NPDES PROGRAM STATUS—COntinUed
‘
A i med
siazo NPOES
pemwt
program
A ro .. ’ed to
reg jsi.
Federal
t b 5S
Ap d
stab
per smwn
A oeed
general
pem ra
propram
.,
Wyoning -. .—.. —— . _-_—— . -. —_________________ .,
Toisi — —
02/04/74
0 1/30/75
t112 5J79
05/18/01
12/24180
12/19/88
09/24191
39
34
.. .
v
Number of Fully Autho ued PTo wns (Federal Facdii .s. reUesbn.n*. Geniral P sis) - 20
IV. Review under Executive Order 1.2291
and the Regulatory Flexibility Ad
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the review
reqwrements of Executive Order 12291
pursuant to section 8(b) of that Order.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
EPA is required to prepare a Regulatory
FlexibiLiiy Analysis for all rules which
may have a sigrnflcant Impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Pursuant to section 605(d) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.). I certify that this State General
Permits Program will not have a
significant Impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Approval of the Maryland NPDES
State General Permits Program
establishes no new substantive
requirements. nor does it alter the
regulatory control over any i.ndustrial
category. Approval of the Maryland
NPDES State General Permits Program
merely provides a simplified
administrative process.
Dated: October 15. 1991
Edwin B. Erickson.
RegionolAdm ,rug*mtor
JFR Dec. 91-Z5774 Filed 10-25-91 845 am)
s a coon v
IFRL-4024—4 1
Revision of the Hawaii National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Program to Authorize
the Isauance of General Permits
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
acreose Notice of approval of the
National Pollutant Discharge
EliminatIon System General Permits
Program of the Slate of Hawaii .
SUMMARY: On September ). 1991., the
Regional Adnunietrator for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Region 9. approved the State of Hawaii’s
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General
Permits PrutcLdm . On September 5,1991.,
the Hawaii State Department of Health
(DOH) submitiqd a formal request for
approval to revise its NPDES Permit
Program to authorize the issuance of
general NPDES permits. This action
authorizes the State of Hawaii to issue
general permits In lieu of individual
NPDES permits. EPA has determuied
this program modification to be non-
substantial because the State is relying
upon an interpretation of its existing
NPDES authorIty, supplemented by its
general rulernekirig authority.
FOR FURThER NFORUATlON CONTACT:
Eugene Broznley, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 9 (W—5-.1), 75
Hawthorne Street. San Francisco, CA
94105. 415-744—1905.
WWPtLM tTARY INFORMATIOIC
1. Background
EPA regulations at 40 CFR 1.2228
provide for the issuance of general
permits to regulate the discharge of
wastewater which results from
substantially similar operations, are of
the lame type wastes, require the same
effluent limitations or operating
conditions, require similar monitoring
and are more appropriately controlled
under a general permit rather than by
individual permits.
Hawaii was authorized to admimster
the NPDES program in November, 1974.
As previously approved, the State’s
program did not include provisions for
the issuance of general permits. There
are several categories of discharges
which could be appropriately regulated
by general permits. Far these reasons.
the Hawaii State Department of Health
requested a revision of the State’s
NPDES program to provide for the
Issuance of general permits. The
categories which have been proposed
for coverage under the general permits
program thdude storm water discharges
from municipal and industrial sites.
hydrostatic test water, filter backwash
water from potable water treatment
units, non-contact cooling water
discharges of one (1) million gallons per
day or less, underground storage tank
remediation sites. erosion control at
landfills and erosion control and
dewateiing from construction sites.
Each general permit will be subject to
EPA reváew and approval as provided
by 40 CFR 123.44. Public notice and
opportunity to request a hearing is also
provided for each general permit.
II. Discussion
The State of Hawaii submitted in
support of its request, copies of the
relevant statutes. The State has al o
submitted a statement dated September
5. 1991. by the Attorney General
certifying, with appropriate citations to
the statutes and regulations that the
State will have adequate legal authority
to administer the general perliiits
program as required by 40 CFR 123 23(cl
In addition, the State submitted a
program description supplementing the
original application for the NPDES
program authority to administer the
general permits program, including the
authority to perform each of the
activities set forth in 40 CFR 123.44 The
State has also submitted an Amendment
to the Memorandum of Agreement
between the State of Hawaii DOH and
EPA. Region 9 specifying the procedures
through which general permits will be
issued and administered by the State.
Based upon Hawsus program
description and upon its experience in
administering an approved NPDES
program. EPA has concluded that the
State will have the necessary
procedures and resources to administer
the general permits program.
Existing regulations adopted by the
State of Hawaii to adnunister the
NPDES program do not address the
issuance of general permits However.
the State does have statutory authority
to issue rules for the abatement of water
pollution. General permits are defined
as rules under State Law and the State
proposes to issue general permits as
rules, following State rulemaking
provisions and including provisions
necessary to comply with NPDES
regulations applicable to general permits
at 40 ‘R 12228. In Its submittal, the
State cited the relevant statutory
authority for the DOH to issue general
permits as roles and to include
provisions necessary to comply with 40
C.FR 122.28. -
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 208 / Monday, October 28. 1991 I Notices
55503
In addition, the State ha, indicated an ilL Federal Reglat Notice of Approval program. The following table provides
interest to develop and adopt of State NPDES Programa or the public with an up-to-date list of the
regulations which will specifically Modifications status of NPDES permitting authority
address the issuance of general permits. . throughout the country. Today’s Federal
However. EPA’s approval EPA must provide Federal Register Register notice is to announce the
contingent upon adoption of generic notice of any action by the Agency approval of Hawaii’s authority to issue
general permit program regulations, approving or modifying a State NPDES general permits.
STATE NPDES PROGRAM STATUS
A$ ,M .ed
stats NPOES
perilit
pro am
A gm .ed to
regulats
Federal
es
Approved
stat.
pelollent
pro am
Approved
general
peITMS
propram
Alabama ....._________________
Av iia.sas. — —
California. —
Colorado
Coiectio. it
Delaware . ,
Georgia ...___________________
ilaw a.... —_______________________________________
iU ir xs. . ...
(dana
iowa________________________________________________________________
Kansas ._ .... ... —____________________
Kentuc ky .
Maryland . .. .__ -—- .—. —______
Micfligan —______ — —._______ ..... -______________________
Mmneeota ...__ — . . —. — ...__._
—. — - -. - ... — ._. ..__ . ....
Montana... ......_..._........_.__.._..-. —.—.—---..-.——-.——.—• .
Ne8raaka —— — — — — — — . ..________
Neveds._.__ . ,. _._ __________________
New Jersey ...... —_________________
New York
North Caroilia_________________________________________________________________
North Dakota______________________________________________________________
Ch o.____________________________________________________________________
egor
Penrw tvarse
Rhode Island._____________________________________________________________
South Carcelta
T enn w &
Utan .. . . . .._________________________________________
Vermont .... —. ....
Virgin Islande..
Virgin..
W a i i. ,.g lun
West Virgirsa. ————
WocOnali. , .•.
Wyonwlg . _ .. .. . .. .._.. ,_ ._....... .._____
Totals..
10/19/79
11/01/86
05/14/73
03/27/75
09/26/73
04(01/74
06/28/74
11/28/74
10/23/fl
01/01/75
08/10/78
06/28/74
09/30/63
09/05/74
10/17/73
06/30/74
05/01/74
10/30/74
06/10/74
oe/1v74
09/19/75
04/13/82
10/29/75
10119/75
06/13/76
03/11/74
09/26/73
06/30/78
09/17/84
06/10/75
12/26/77
07/07/87
03/11/14
06/30/76
03/31/75
11/14/13
06/10/62
02/04/74
10130175
10/19/19
11/01/86
05/05/78
10/19/19
11/01/88
09/22/69
06/28/91
11/01/66
09/22/89
03/04/83
.....____..
01/28/91
09/30/91
01/04/84
04/02/91
— -
09/30/83
09/30/91
12/15/87
09/27/91
12/12185
04/29/83
07/20/89
— —. -. -
04/13/82
-
01109/69
12/08/80
08/01179
09/20/79
12109/78
08110/78
08/28/85
09/30/63
11/10/97
12/09/78
12/09/78
01128(83
06/26/79
06/23/81
11/02119
08/31/78
04/13/82
05/13/80
09/28/84
01/22/90
01/29/83
03/02/79
06/30/78
09/17/84
09/28/80
09/30/88
07107/97
-
. ._ . -.
82/09 /82
.._.
06/10/82
11/29/79
06/18/81
08/03/81
._....
03/12/81
08/12183
. .____
06/03/6I
....____
09/30/83
09/30/65
08/07/83
07/18/79
05/13/82
06103181
..__.
09/01/84
—
04/13/82
06/14/82
,.._.
07/27 / 53
03/12/81
09/I7/84
04/09/82
08/10/83
07/07/81
03/16/82
.._ — - - -—
04/14/89
09/30/86
05/10/82
12/24/60
—
09/06/91
ov io’
—
02/23/62
06/02191
09/17/84
..
04/18/91
07/07/87
— — - - -
05/20/91
09/26/89
05/10/82
12/19/86
09/24/91
39
34
271 28
Nunther el Corrçlst. NPOES Pro ijita (Federal F aC iUbaI, PreveaUneilt, General Pemiito)—20
IV. Review Under Executive Order
12291 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the review
requirements of Executive Order 12291
pursuant to section 8(b) of that Order.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
EPA is required to prepare a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis for all rules which
may have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Pursuant to section 605(d) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.), I certify that this State General
Permits Program will not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Approval of
the Hawaii NPDES State General
Permits Program establishes no new
substantive requirements. nor does it
alter the regulatory control over any
industrial category. Approval of the
Hawaii NPDES State General Permits
Program merely provides a simplified
administrative process.
Dated. September 30, 1991.
John W1 e,
Acting Regional Administrator. Region 9
(FR Doc 91—23754 Filed 10—25—01: 845 aml
OLUNO 00t
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Public Information Collection
Requirement Submftted to Office of
ManaQement and Uudget for Review
The Federal Communications
Commission has submitted the following
information collection requirement to
0MB for review and clearance under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44
u.s.c. 3507).
Copies of this submission may be
purchased from the Commission’s copy
contractor. Downtown Copy Center.
1114 21st Street. NW.. Washington. DC
-------
55 3D
Federal Register I Vol 56. No 208 / Mcnd iv. Oc obcr 28. 1991 / Noticcs
These documents should be viewed
only as a source of information, and
should not substitute for local and
regional evaluation of TQi 4s. They
should not limit consideration of other
TCMs by local and State planners, nor
should they be the sole basis for
decisions on whether to advance or
reject such measures. The Agency may
from time to time revise, add to. or
replace these guidance documents as
new information becomes available.
Comments should be made in writing
and directed to Mr. Mark E. Simons at
the address specified above.
Dated. October 21, 1991.
Mitbaci Shapiro.
Acting AssistantAdministrotorfotAtrand
Radiation.
IFR Doc 91—25752 Filed 10—25—91, 8.45 am
eiwi.a cooc auo-so.e
(FRL-4024—3 1
Underground Injection Control
Program Hazardous Waste Disposal
Injection Restrictions; Modification of
Approved Petttlon for Exemptlon—BP
Chemicals, Port Lavaca, TX
AGENCY Environingrital Protection
Agency.
acno,c Notice of final decision on
petition modification.
1UMMAPY: Notice is hereby given that a
nodification of an approved exemption
to the land disposal restrictions under
the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste
Aniendinents to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act has
been granted to BP Chemicals, for the
Class I Injection wells located at Port
Lavaca. Texas. As required by 40 CFR
part 148. the company has adequately
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
Environmental Protection Agency by the
modification request arid supporting
documentation that, to a reasonable
degree of certainty, there will be no
migration of hazardous constituents
from the injection zone for as long as the
waste remains hazardous. ‘This final
decision ailows the underground
in3ection by BP Chemicals, of the
specifIc restricted hazardous waste
identified in the modified petition. into
the Class I hazardous waste injection
wells at the Port Lavaca. Texas facility
specifically identified in the petition, for
as long as the basis for granting an
approval of the petition remains valid.
under provisions of 40 CFR 146.24 As
required by 40 CFR 124 10. a public
notice was issued on August 20. 1991.
The public comment period ended on
“)ctober 3. 1991 and no comments were
ceived. This decision constitutes final
Agency action and there is no
Administrative appeal.
DATES: This action is effective as of
October 16. 2991.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition and
all pertinent information relating thereto
are on file at the following location:
Environmental Protection Agency.
Region 6. Water Management Division.
Water Supply Branch (6W—SI)). 1445
Ross Avenue, Dallas. Texas 75202—2733.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACri
Oscar Cabra. Jr.. Chief Municipal
Facilities. EPA—Region 6. telephone
(214) 655—7110, (FTS) 255—7110.
Oscar Cabra. Jr.,
Acting Director. Water Management Division
( OW)
(FR Dot. 91-25753 Filed 10-25-91.845 aml
uJ coot u
IOP7S-59302 FRI. 4001-51
Certain Chemical; Test Market
Exemption Application
*oENc ’r Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTiON: Notice.
SUMMARY: EPA may upon application
exempt any person from the
premanufactunng notification
requii menta of section 5(a) or (b) of the
Toxic Substance Conti ol Act (TSCA) to
permit the person to manufacture or
process a chemical for test marketing
purposes under section 5(hfll) of TSCA.
Requirements for test marketing
exemption (TME) applications, which
must either be approved or denied
within 45 days of receipt are discussed
in EPA ’s final rule published in the
Federal Register of May 13, 1983 (46 FR
.21722). This notice, issued under section
5(h)(6J of TSCA, announces receipt of
one application for exemption, provides
a summary, and requests comments on
the appropriateness of granting these
exemptions.
DATES
Written comments by:
T 92-1 November 16. 1991.
ADDRESSES: Written comments,
identified by the document control
number “(OPTS—5g302)” and the specific
TME number should be sent to:
Document Processing Center (TS—790j.
Office of Toxic Substances.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M
St.. SW, Rn. L-iOo. Washington, DC
20400. (202) 260—3532.
FOR FURTi4 R INFORMArION CONTAC ’t”.
David Kling. Acting Director.
Environmental Assistance Division (TS—
799). Office of Toxic Substances.
Environmental Protcction Agenc}. Rm
EB-545. 401 M Si. SW, Washington. DC
20480, (202) 554-1404. TDD (202) 554-
0551.
SUPPI.EMENTARY INFORMATIQIC The
following notice contains information
extracted from the nionconfidential
version of the submission provided by
the manufacturer of the TME received
by EPA. The complete nonconfidential
document is available in the TSCA
Public Docket Office NE—C004 at the
above address between 8 n.m. and noon
and 1 p.m. and 4 p.m.. Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays.
T 92-1
Close of Review Period November 30,
1991.
importer. Confidential.
Chemical. (S) Benzenamine, 4,4-
methyleniebis (2-methyl-6-(1-
methylethyl))-.
Use/Import. (C) Open. riondispersive
use. Import range’ Confidential.
Toxicity Data. Eye imtation: none
species (rabbit). Mutagenicity negative
Dated. October 22. 1991
Douglas W. Sellcra,
Acting Director in format son Mana emeni
Division. Office of Toxic Substances
(FR Dot. 91—25877 Filed 10-25-01 845 amj
coot t s-pr
IFRL’-4024—21
Revision of the Maryland National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Program To issue
General Pem ’iIte
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTIOPC Notice of Approval of the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System General Permits
Program of the State of Maryland .
SUMMARY: On September 30. 1991. the
Regional Administrator for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Region III approved the SLate of
Maryland’s National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System General Permits
Program. This action authorizes the
State of Maryland to issue general
permits in lieu of individual NPDES
permits. EPA has determined Ibis
program modification to be non.
substantial for the following reasons (1)
The State regulations have already been
subject to public notice by the State and
(2) this modification involves the
adoption of an administrative
mechanism to facilitate coverage of
numerous discharges by a general
permit rather than new program
authority.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 208 / Monday. October 28. 1991 / Notices
55501
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTAC1
Kenneth J. Cox. Chief. Program
Development Section. U.S. EPA. Region
II I. 841 Chestnut Street. Philadelphia.
Pennsylvania. 19107. phone 215/597—
8211.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIO t
I. Background
EPA regulations at 40 CFR 122.28
provide for the issuance of general
permits to regulate the discharge of
wastewater which results from
substantially similar operations, are of
the same type wastes, require the same
effluent limitations or operating
conditions. require similar monitoring.
and are more approximately controlled
under a general permit rather than by
individual permits.
Maryland was authorized to
administer the NPDES program in
September 1974. Their program. as
previously approved, did not include
provisions for the issuance of general
permits. There are several categories
which.could appropriately be regulated
by general permits. For those reasons
the Maryland Department of the
Environment requested a revision of
their NPDES program to provide for
issuance of general permits. The
categories which have been proposed
for coverage under the general permits
program include: Swimming pool
backwash and drainage, non-contact
cooling water, hydrostatic pipe and tank
testing, small seafood operations.
surface coal mines, sand and gravel
operations. separate storm sewers,
stormwater runoff, and any other class
of discharge or discharger that meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 122.28(aj(2).
Each general permit will be subiect to
EPA review and approval as provided
by 40 CFR 123.44. Public notice and
opportunity to request a hearing is also
provided under Maryland law for each
general permit.
II. Discussion
The State of Maryland submitted in
support of its request copies of the
relevant statutes and regulations and an
amendment to the Memorandum of
Agreement dated May 18. 1989. The
State has also submitted statements by
the Attorney General dated September
30. 1985 and September 25. 1991
certifying. with appropriate citation of
the statutes and regulations. that the
State will have adequate legal authority
to administer the general permits
program as required by 40 CFR 123.23(c
upon adoption of it’s proposed
regulations. In addition, the State
submitted a program description
supplementing the original application
permits program. including the authority
to perform each of the activities set forth
In 40 CFR 123.44. Based upon
Maryland’s program description and
upon its experience in administering an
approved NPDES program. EPA has
concluded that the State will have the
necessary procedures and resources to
administer the general permits program
III. Federal Register Notice of Approval
of State NPDES Program or
Modifications
EPA must provide Federal Register
notice of any action by the Agency
approving or modifying a State NPDES
program. The following table provides
the public with an up-to-date list of the
status of NPDES permitting authority
throughout the country. Today’s Federal
Register notice is to announce the
approval of Maryland’s authority to
issue general permits.
STATE NPDES PROGRAM STA ’t’J3
A rov.d
a NPOES

fr,.p.ovsd
m
Feds
tacdiUes
A09VOYOd
a


Ap o ad

e
.v j1 5Ifl
iiuvWfl
Ca o a
Colorado .... _. . .
Comecitoit ____. —
Georgia -_. . - ——. —______
Hawal _____. _____ - —
IU o -
ans - -
_______ _____________—
Keotu y
Marytand ._ —-
M fl
Minnàota
10/19/79
11/01/86
05/05/78
01/09/89
10/19 1 79
11/01/66
09/22189
08/03/81
Momana
03/12/81
08/12/83
08/03/81
Nevada. - —
New Yo,t...,....
.s_
08128/91
11101/66
09 122/89
03/04/83
01/28/91
09/30/91
01/04/84
04102191
09/30/63
09/30/91
12/15/87
09/27/91
12/1 Z/85
04/29/83
01/20/89
10/19/79
11/01/88
05/14/73
03/27/75
09/26/73
04/01/74
06/28/74
11/28/74
10/23/fl
01/01175
08/10/78
86/28/74
09/30/83
09/05/74
10/17/73
06/30/74
05/01/74
10 /30/74
06/10/74
06/12/74
09/19/75
04/13/82
10/28/15
10/19/75
06/13/75
03/11/74
09/26/73
06/30/78
09/11/04
08/10/15
12/28/77
07/07/87
03/11174
06/30/76
03/31/75
11/14/73
05/10/82
09/30/83
09/30/85
06/07/83
07/16/79
05/13/82
06/03/81
09/07/84
12/08/80
06/01/79
09/20/79
12/09/78
08/10/78
08/28/8
09/30/83
11/10/87
12/09/78
12/09/78
01/28/83
06/28/79
08/23/81
11102/79
08/31/78
04/13/82
06/13/80
09/28/84
01/22/90
0 1/28/83
03/02/79
06/30/78
09/17/84
09/28/80
09/30/66
07/07/87
02/09/82
05/10/82
No Oako
O o .. . _ ——- -.--- ------- -
Oregon . .
Pennsytvaza a.. - . - - . .. - - . .... . - - . —
Rhodelsiasid . ...._ - —. _. .. -
South Ca,o8ria . ...._... .
Tenne es . .. — . .. - - - . . . —
uuh -. —. - — - - - .. -
VennOrut _,. . - - . ___ - ... _. - .. . - . .. ._
Vir lsiisld$ ..._ ... .._. .. . .. ..._,. _...__... ... - . .. - . .._ -
l(iTg lflIa _. .—--.-.-. -- .. --..-. --.-
Waatw qt0n ,. .. — -____ .. —. . . . ... . — .. - - -
W ea*Ywçiru. - . . ... .... .. ....... .. .. . .. .. ..
04/13/82
06/14/82
07/27/83
03/12/81
09/17/84
04/09/82
06/10/83
07/01/87
03/16/82
04/14/89
09/30/68
05/10/82
04/13/82
09/06/91
01/22/90
02/23/82
08/02/91
09/17/84
- 04/15/91
07/07/87
05/20.
09/26/b.
05110/82
-------
3i3 02
Federal Register i ul 56 No Zou I Mond.iy , Octolier 28 1991 / Notices
STATE NPDES PRoGF w STATUS—COnbnIJed
A g o
elsie NPOES
psmw
A5pl vØ o AO Io d
siato
Fedm!SI pre e 5,T It
Aacro ed
genxai
—
__ _.
T i —
p O ffi
02/04/74
11 /2€J79 12/24/80
Pr
12/19/88
01130/75
05/18,81
09/24/91
Nw er of FuSy Authorned P ogr jne (Feder j FnciIi Puveasnen , G ner.i PUnTIIS) — 20
IV Review under Executive Order 12291
and the Regulatory Flexibility A
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the review
requirements of Executive Order 12291
pursuant to section 8(b) of that Order.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
EPA IS required to prepare a Regulatory
flexibility Analysis for all rules which
may have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities,
Pursuant to Section 605(d) of the
Regulatory flexibility Act (50 SC. 601
et seq). I certify that this State General
Permits Program will not have a
significant Impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Approval of the Maryland NPDES
State General Permits Program
establishes no new substantive
req ulrenlents. nor does it alter the
regulatory control over any industrial
category. Approval of the Maryland
NPDES State General Permits Program
merely provides a simplified
administrative process.
Dated October 15. 1991
Edwin B Eilckeoii,
RegIono/Adm,njg mto,.
WR Doc. 9i-zzirs Filed 1O-25— 845 ami
LLa N
FR 1 . -4 024_4 1
Revtiløn of Use Hawaii NatkonaJ
PoUut nt Discharge Elimination
System (IIPOES) Pi -ograrn to Authorize
ths Issuance of General Permit
AGEMCY Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AcYloic Notice of approval of the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System General Permits
Program of the State of Hawaii .
$UMMARY - On September 30. 1991. the
Regional Administrator for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Region 9. approved the State of i-La wail’s
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General
Permits Program On September 5. 1991.,
the Hawaii Slate Department of Health
(DOH) subinutqd a formal req usisi for
approval to revise its NPDES Permit
Program to authorize the issuance of
general NPDES permits. This action
authorizes the Slate of Hawaii to issue
general permits in lieu of individual
NPD permits. EPA has determined
this program modification to be non-
substantial because the State is relying
upon an interpretation of its existing
PD authority, supplemented by its
general rulemaking authority.
FOR RJRThE INFORMATION CONTACT
Eugene Bromley, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 9 (W—5 -ij. 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105, 415—744—1906,
SIW LEN9q A5y WdFORMA,1
L Background
EPA regulations at 40 CFR 122.28
provide for the issuance of general
permits to regulate the discharge of
wastewater which results from
substantially similar operations, are of
the same type wastes, require the same
ealuent limitations or operating
conditions, require similar monitoring
and are more appropriately controlled
under a general permit rather than by
individual permits.
Hawaii was authorized to administer
the NPD program in November. 1974.
As previously approved, the State’s
program did not include provisions for
the issuance of general permits. There
are several categories of discharges
which could be appropriately regulated
by general permits. Far these reasons.
the Hawaii State Department of Health
requested a revision of the State’s
NPDES program to provide for the
issuance of general permits. The
categories which have been proposed
for coverage under the general permits
program thc1ude storm water discharges
from municipal and industrial sites,
hydrostatic test water, filter backwash
water from potable water treatment
units, non-contact cooling water
discharges of one (1) million gallons per
day or less, underground storage tank
remediation sites, erosion control at
landfills and erosion control and
dewatenng from construction sites.
Each general permit will be subject to
EPA review and approval as provided
by 40 CFR 123.44 Public notice and
opportunity to request a hearing is also
provided for each general permit.
II. Discussion
The State of Hawaii submitted in
support of its request, copies of The
relevant statutes, The State has also
submitted a statement dated September
5. 1991. by the Attorney Generai
certifying, with appropriate citations to
the statutes and regulations that the
State will have adequate legal authority
to administer the general permits
program as required by 40 CFR 123 23(c-
In addition, the State submitted a
program description supplementing the
original application for the NPDES
program authority to administer the
general permits program, including the
authority to perform each of the
activities set forth in 40 CFR 123.44. The
State has also submitted an Amendment
to the Memorandum of Agreement
between the State of Hawaii DOH and
EPA, Region 9 specifying the procedures
through which general permits will be
issued and administered by the State,
Based upon Hawaii’s program
description and upon its experience in
administering an approved NPDES
program. EPA has concluded that the
State will have the necessary
procedures and resources to administer
the general permits program.
Existing regulations adopted by the
State of Hawaii to administer the
NPDES program do not address the
issuance of general permits. However,
the State does have statutory authority
to issue rules for the abatement of water
pollution. General permits are defined
as rules under State law and the State
propose, to issue general permits as
rules, following State rulemaking
provisions and including provisions
necessary to comply with NPDES
regulations applicable to general permits
at 40 CFR 122.28. In its submittal, the
State cited the relevant statutory
authority for the DOH to issue general
permits as rules and to include
provisions necessary to comply with 40
CFR 122.2&
-------
Federal Register I VoL 56. No. 1ll3 / Thursday. August 22, 1991 / Notices
41687
Docket No. VIL-91—F-oo1a, and should
be addressed to Ms. Cobba at the above
address. -
FO FUPTHER INcO Afloss CO?4TAC7
Jonathan Kahn, Assistant Regional
Counsel. EPA Region Vii. O1fi e of
Regional Counsel. 725 Minnesota
Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 08101.
telephone number (91.3) 551-7251
Dated. iuIy 20. 1 9l.
Alan I .. Wehmayer,
Acr ng O rector. Waste Management
D,v,s;on. EPA Region V II.
(FR Doc. 91-20117 Filed 8-21-91. &45 acij
coos e-ss -a
(FRL—39e7—4J
Permsylvar.la’s General Permits
Program Approval
AOENCY Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACflOW Notice of u .,pwval of the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System General Permits
Program of the Ccrmmoowealth of
Pennsylvania.
SUMMARY On June 28. 1991. a recised
Memorandum of Agreement between
the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania was approved to include
provisions for the Commonwealth’s
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NFDES) General
Permit, Program. This action authonTed
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to
issue general permits ui lieu of
individual NPDES permits. The approval
was made under 40 CFR 123.82 which
sets forth procedure, for revision of a
State’s NPDES program.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION NTACT:
Racine Leonard at (215) 597-7329,
WPPLLM8NTARY 1NFORMA1’IOI
1. 8a ed
EPA regulations at 40 CFP. 12128
provide for the issuance of general
permits to regulate discharges of
wastewater which result from
s.uu antially similar operations. are of
the same type wastes, require similar
monitoring, and are more appropriately
controlled under a general permit rather
than by individual permits.
Pennsylvania was authorized to
administer the NPDES program in June,
1973. Their program, as previously
approved, did not include provisions for
the issuance of general permits. 1’here
are several categories which could
appropriately be regulated by general
permits. For this reason. Pennsylvania
has requested a revision of their NPDES
program to provide far issuance of
general permits. The categories which
have been proposed for coverage under
the general permits progrem unclude
Non-contact cooling water, heat pump
discharges, and small fish hatchery
operation.
Each general permit will be subject to
EPA review as provided by 40 CFR
123 44. Public notice and opportunity to
request a bearing is also provided for
each general permit
IL Discussion
Pennsylvania’s general permits
submission consists of an Attomey
General’s statement, a copy of the State
statutes providing authority to carry out
the program, a copy of the revised
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). and
a program description. Based upon this
information and Pennsylvania’s
experience in admini termg an
approved NPDES program, EPA has
concluded that the State will have the
necessary procedures and resources to
administer the general permits program.
Under 40 CFR 123.82, NPDES program
revisions are either substantial
(requiring publication of proposed
program approval in the Federal
Register for public rnmment ) or non-
substantial (where approval may be
granted by letter from EPA to the State).
EPA has determined that assumption by
Pennsylvania of general permit authority
is a non-substantial renrion of its
NPDES program. EPA has generally
viewed approval of such authority as
non-substantial because it does not alter
the substantive obligations of any
discharger under the State program. but
merely simplifies the procedures by
which permits are issued to a number of
point sources. Moreover, under the
approved state program, the state
retains authority to issue individual
permits where appropriate, arid any
person may request the state to issue an
individual permit to a discharger el.;ible
for general permit coverage. While riot
required under 123 62, EPA is
publishing notice of this approval acton
to keep the public unformed of the status
of its general permit program approvals.
IlL Federal Register Notice of Approval
of Stat. NPD Programs or
Modifications
EPA will provide Federal Regsiter
notice of any action by the Agency
approving or modifying a State NPDES
program. The following table will
provide the public with an up-to-date
list of the status of NPDES permitting
authority throughout the country.
Today’s Federal Rv ait notice is to
announce the approval of
Pennsylvania’s authority to issue
general permits.
State NPDES Program Status
J
AIaJ ian
— .ta
NPOES atTot
‘ lu—u
rovsd ta
Mc Mss
— w
— ns
—
10/19/79
11/01188
05/05/75
10/19/79
Il /o ils.
09/22/88
0
— — —.—..— —— — —
Ind .an. -- --.-.--.--- --
-
-
KentucMy - — ______
M ylw d - . . .- -—. ——-.. - -. . —. . - - - — —-— - - —
— —-— —
—— -
Ml a -
Mont n*. - - -
01/09/89
06/03/81
10119179
iiioi
05/14173
03/27/75
oveena
04/01/74
06/28/74
11/28/14
10/23/77
01/01/75
08/10/71
0512 5/74
09/05/74
10/17/79
08/30/74
05/01/74
10130/74
06/10/74
12/08/80
06/01/75
09/20179
12/09/78
08/10/79
08/28/05
09/30/83
11/10/87
12/09/75
12/09/78
01/28/83
06/28/79
06/23/81
06/26/91
11/01/86
09/22/89
03/04/83
01/28/81
01/04/84
04/03/91
09 (30183
12/15 /87
12/12/85
04/20/83
0 3/12/ SI
08/12/63
06/03/81
09/30/83
08/30/85
06/07/83
07/16179
05/13/82
06/03/81
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 163 / Thursddv, August 22. 1991 / Notices
41688
State NPDES Program Status—Continued
.
Appraved state
NPOES permit
program
Approved to
regt4aie lederel
taciiztjes
Approved state
pvivnent
program
Approved state
general permits
program
•
08/12/74
lt 102 179
09107184
07120/89
NevaCa ... .. —. — —____________ . . -
New Je rsey . .._ . . . . . .._______ . .
New Vo k •.. ..• . .. ..._ .
Northcar ol ina_. .. ...... . — -
North Dakota ....... .. . ...._......... ... .
09/19/75
04113/82
l O/2 5/75
10/19/75
06/13/75
08/31178
04/13/82
08/13/80
09/28/84
01/22/90
....,.
04/13/82
— . . . ... .,
06/14182
......_ ... .
04/13/82
.
01/22/90
Ohio.. - — — .
Orogoii *
Pennayivires
03/11/14
09/26/73
0 6i3 o/7 9
09/17/84
06/10 /75
12/28/71
07/01/87
03/11/14
06/30/78
03/31/75
11/14/73
05/10/82
02/04/74
01/30/75
01/28/83
03/02/79
06/30/19
09/17/84
09/28/80
09/30/88
07/07/87
..._
_.. . ... . ..
02/09/82

05/10/82
11/26/79
05/18/81
07/27/83
- 03/12/81
... ..... . —
09/17/84
04/09/82
08/10/83
07/07/87
03/16/62
._ ... .
04/14/89
09/30/88
05/10/82
tV24l80
......
02/23/82
08/02/91
09/17/84
..
04/18/91
07/07/87
.
... .
05(20i91
09/26/89
05/10/82
12/19/86
-
.. _.. . —.
RhOde Island . .. ......... ..________
South Caruflise ... * . .. ... ,. . .._
Tennessee .__. ,.____________
Utah . .... . . ._ ... ._ .....
Vermont ..______
Virgin Islande. . _ ____ - .. _...__.........
Virginia. .. . ..__. ._ ......
Washington . ......... ._._.
Weit Virginia ._.. . - ——
Wi conggi,..... ,. .._...__. _ ._. . - — -
Wyoming -_.—___________ .... —. _.. . — — ..
Total____________________________ - - ..
39
34
27
23
Number ot Complete NPOES Prograsiw (Federal Facitthes. PreS ’eatment General Permits).. 15
IV. Review under Executive Orifer 12291
and the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Executive Order 12291
pursuant to section 8(b) of that Order.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
EPA is required to prepare a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis for all rules which
may have a significant impact on a
number of small entities.
Pursuant to section 605(d) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.). I certify that this State General
Permits Program will not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Approval of
the Pennsylvania NPDES State General
Permits Program merely provides a
simplified administrative process.
Dated August 9. 1991.
Alvin R. Morris.
Acting Regional Administrator.
[ FR Doe. 91-20118 Filed 8-21-61: 8:45 am
S1WNO CCCI uio-.o-e
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
Jacksonville Port Authority et aL;
Agreement(s) Filed
The Federal Maritime Commission
hereby gives liotice that the following
agreement(s) has been filed with the
Commission for approval pursuant to
section 15 of the Shipping Act. 1916. as
amended (39 Stat. 733. 75 Stat. 763. 40
U S C. 814).
Interested parties may inspect and
may request a copy of each agreement
and the supporting statement at the
Washington. DC Office of the Federal
Maritime Commission. 1100 L Street.
NW.. Room 10220. Interested parties
may submit protests or comments on
each agreement to the Secretary.
Federal Maritime Commission.
Washington. DC 20573. within 10 days
after the date of the Federal Register in
which this notice appears. The
requirements for comments and protests
are found in 560.602 of title 46 of the
Code of Federal Regulations. Interested
persons should consult this section
before communicating with the
Commission regarding a pending
agreement
Any person filing a comment or
protest with the Commission shall, at
the same time, deliver a copy of that
document to the person filing the
agreement at the address shown below.
Agreement No.. 224—200555.
Title: Jacksonville Port Authority/
Trailer Bridge Company, Inc. Terminal
Agreement
Parties: racksonville Port Authority
(“JPA”J, Trailer Bridge Company. Inc.
( ‘l ’BC ”)
Filing Party Carl L. Tiinmer, General
Traffic Manager. Jacksonville Port
Authority. 2831 Talleyrand Avenue.
Jacksonville, Florida 32206.
Synopsis: The Agreement. filed August
9. 1991. provides that TBC will lease
ten acres of terminal space from (PA
for a period of five years. TBC will
have a right of first refusal to lease an
additional seven acres, more or less,
of contiguou. space south of the
Leased Premises should such space
become available. The Agreement
also stipulates throughput and
dockage fees to be paid by TBC.
Dated. August 16. 1991
By Order of the Federal Maritime
Commission.
Ronald D. Murphy.
Assistant Secretary
(FR Doe. 91-20083 Filed 8-21-91. 845 aml
5LU110 COOS S7 .8I-M
Maryland Port Administration et aL
Agreement(s) Filed
The Federal Maritime Commission
hereby gives notice of the filing of the
following agreement(s) pursuant to
section 5 of the Shipping Act of 1984.
Interested parties may inspect and
obtain a copy of each agreement at the
Washington, DC Office of the Federal
Maritime Commission. 1100 L Street.
NW.. room 10325. Interested parties may
submit comments on each agreement to
the Sem’etary, Federal Maritime
Commission. Washington. DC 20573.
wIthin 10 days after the date of the
Federal Register in which this notice
appears. The requirements for
comments are found in * 572.603 of title
48 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Interested persons should consult this
section before communicating with the
Commission regarding a pending
agreement.
Agreement No.. 224—200408-001.
Title: Agreement and Lease Between the
Maryland Port Administration and
Mediterranean Shipping Company.
S.A.
-------
Friday
August 16, 1991
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 122
NPDES General Permfts and Reporting
Requirements for Storm Water
Discharges Associated With Industrial
Actlvity Proposed Rule
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 56. No . 159 / Friday. August 16. 1991 / Proposed i u1es
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 122
[ FRi. 3750-11
RIN 2040-AA7e
National Pollutant Dlacftargo
Elhntnation System General Permits
and Reporting Requirement, for Storm
Water Discharges Associated With
Industrial Activity
AGENCY Environmental Protectica
Agency (EPA). -
ACflOF Proposed rule end Notice of
draft general NPDES pernhits for Storm
Water Discharges Associated with
Industrial Activity.
SUUMAWr Section 405 of the Waler
Quality Act of 1987 (WQA) added
section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) which requires the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to develop a phased approach to
regulating storm water discharges under
the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program.
EPA published a final regulation an
November 16. 1990, (55 FR 47990)
establishing permit application
requirements for storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity and
for discharges from municipal separate
storm sewer systems serving a
population of 100.000 or more. In the
permit application regulations. EPA
defined the term ‘storm water discharge
associated with indnstrial activity” in a
comprehensive manner to cover a wide
variety of facilities. This definition
greatly expanded the number of
industrial facilities subject to the NPDES
program.
This notice requests comments on a
National NPDES permitting strategy to
address the large number of storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity. To assist In implementing the
a ategy, this notice requests comments
on proposed regulatory changes to
existing minimum requirements fcr
NPDES permits with regard to annual
monitoring reports and minimum
requirements for filing notices of intent
to be authorized to dbcharge under
NPDES general permits.
This notice also requests comments
on separate general permits for the
majority of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity in 12
States (MA. ME N}& FL LA. TX. OK,
NM. SD, AZ. AK ID), and 6 Territories
(District of CoLumbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Guam.
American Samoa. the Commonwealth of
the Northern Marlana Islands, and the
Trust Territesy of the Pacific Islands)
without authorized NPDES State
prOgrainsenbidlanland in AL CA.
GA. KY. ML MN, MS. MT. NC, ND.NY.
NV. SC. TN. UT. WI. and WY; located
within Federal facilities and Indfan
lands in CO and WA. and located
within Federal facilities in Delaware.
Separate general permits are being
noticed for each State.
cares Comments on this proposed rule
and permits must be received on or
before October 15. 1991. See
Supplementary Information for
Information on hearings.
AODRESSE The public should also send
an original and two copies of thetr
comments addrrssing any aspect of this
notice to Kevin Weiss, Perntt3 Division
(EN-336), Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington.
DC 20460. Comments addressing factors
or issues which are specific o one or
several general permits (e.g.. specific
requirements for the general permit
authorizing storm water discharges
associa ted with industrial activity in
MA). should clearly indicate the
applicability of the comment to a
particular State. The public record is
‘ocated at EPA Headquarters. EPA
Public Information Reference Unit, room
2402. 401 M Street SW., Washington. DC
20460. A reasonable fee may be charged
for copying.
FO FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For further information on the proposed
r u le and draft general permits contact
the NPDES Storm Water Hottine at (703)
821-4823 or. Kevin Weiss, Office of
Wastewater Enforcement and
Compliance (EN -.336). United States
Environmental Protection Agency. 401 hi
Street SW.. Washington. DC 20400.
(202)—475.-9518. The Fact Sheet
accompanying this rule provides
additional contacts for information
regarding the issuance of general
permits ui specific States.
SUPPUMSNTARY INFORMATIOPC
Hearing,
Public hearings to discuss gcnerel
permits for the State in which the
hearing Is held are scheduled as fol]owm
(1) September 23, 1991. question and
answer session from 3 p.m. to 3 p.m. and
hearing from 7p.m. to to p.m.. Reunion
Ballroom. Hyatt Regency Hotel. 300
Reunion BlvcL, Dallas, TX 75207.
(2) September 20. 1991. question and
answer session from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. and
hearing from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.. Lincoln
Plaza Hotel, Gold Crown Room. 4445
North Lincoln Boulevard. Oklahoma
City. OK 73105.
(3) September 24. 1991. question and
answer session from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. and
h nng from 7 p.m. to 10p.m.. Ramada
Howl, 1480 Nicholson Drive. Baton
eege. LA.
(4) September 25. 1991. question and
answer session from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. and
bearing from 7 p.m. to 10p.m.. Hyatt
Regency, Grand Pavilion Ballroom. 330
T}jeraa NW., Albuquerque. NM 87102.
(5) September 26, 1991. 1 p.m. to 4
p.m.. P kplace Building. 1200 Sixth
Avenue, 12A (12th Floor), Seattle. WA
98 101.
(6) September 16, 1991. 1 p.m. to 4
p.m.. Holiday Inn Convention Center.
3300 Vista Avenue, Boise. ID 83705.
(7) September 19. 1991. 1 p.m. to 4
p.m., Centennial Hall (Sheffield
Ballroom 2J. 101 Egan Drive. Juneau.
AK 99801.
(8) September 30. 1991. 1 p.m. to 6
p.m.. Best Western. Kings Inn. 220 South
Pierre Street. Pierre. SD 54501. (Note:
This hearing w ll address the general
permit for SD as well as the general
permit for Indian lands in MT. ND. UT
and WY. and the general permit for
Indian lands and Federal facililies in
CD).
(9) September 18. 1991. two heariri s
will be held at the following times it]
a.m. to 12 noon, 1.30 p.m. to 5 p.m.. a
third hearing will start at 7 p.m. and
continue as necessary. Phoenix Civic
Plaza. Flagstaff Room. 225 East Adams
Street. Phoenix, AZ 85004.
(10) September 10, 1991. public
meeting from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.. publ:c
hearing from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.. Civic
Convention Center, 9800 International
Drive, Orlando, FL 32819.
(n) September 12. 1991. public
meeting from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.. public
hearing from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m..
Tallahassee Leon County Civic Center.
)5 West Pensacola. Tallahassee. FL
(12) September 25, 1991. 1 p.m. to 4
p.m.. University of Maine at Augusta.
ewift Hail Auditorium. University
Heights. Augusta. ME 04330.
(13) September 24. 1991. 1 p.m. to 4
p.m., Federal Reserve Bank. Ground
Floor Auditcrium. 600 Atlantic Avenue.
Boston, MA 02100.
(141 September 20. 1991. 7p.m. to 10
p.m.. Holiday Inn. Ballroom Area, 700
Elm Street. Manchester, NH 03101.
Persona wishing to make an oral
presentation must restrict thiim to 15
minutes Rnd are encouraged to have
written copies of theu’ complete
comments for inclusion in the official
LBackground
A. NRDC v. Coetle
B. Wat’ Quality Act of 1987
I L Freanworit of NPDES System
A. S 1 Programs
B. Requirement. in NPDES Permits
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 58. No. 159 / Friday. August 18. 1991 I Proposed Rules
40949
III Prior Storm Water Permitting Efforts
IV November18. 1990 Permit Application
Regulations
V Burdens on Permitting Agencies
VL Todays Notice
A. Long-Term Permitting Strategy
B. Proposed Changes to Annual Monitoring
Reporting Requirements
C. Application Requirements for General
Permits
0. Fact Sheet for Draft General Permit
V I I. Economic Impact
VIII Executive Order 12291
IX. Paperwork Reduction Act
X. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I. Background
The 1972 amendments to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA,
also referred to as the Clean Water Act
or CWA). prohibited the discharge of
any pollutant to navigable waters from a
point source unless the discharge is
authorized by a NPDES permit. Efforts
to improve water quality under the
NPDES program have focused
traditionally on reducing pollutants in
discharges of industrial process waste
water and from muiucipal sewage
treatment plants. This program
emphasis has developed for a number of
reasons. At the onset of the program in
1972. many sources of industrial process
waste water and municipal sewage were
not controlled adequately, and
represented pressing environmental
problems. In addition, sewage outfalls
and industrial process discharges were
easily identified as responsible for poor.
often drastically degraded water quality
conditions. However, as pollution
control measures were developed
initially for these discharges. it became
evident that more diffuse sources
(occurring over a wide area) of water
pollution. such as agricultural and urban
runoff, were also major causes of water
quality problems. Some diffuse sources
of water pollution, such as agricultural
storm water discharges and irrigation
return flows, are exempted statutorily
from the I’WDES program. Controls for
other diffuse sources have been slow to
develop under the NPDES program.
Several National assessments have
been conducted to evaluate impacts on
receiving water quality. For the purpose
of these assessments, urban runoff was
considered to be a diffuse source or
nonpoint source pollution, although
legally, most urban runoff is discharged
through conveyances such as separate
storm sewers or other conveyances
which are point sources under the CWA
and subject to the NPDES program. The
“National Water Quality Inventory, 1988
Report to Congress” provides a general
assessment of water quality based on
biennial reports submitted by the States
under section 305(b) of the CWA. In
preparing section 305(b) reports, the
States were asked to indicate the
fraction of the States’ waters that were
assessed, as well as the fraction of the
States’ waters that were fully
supporting, partly supporting, or not
supporting designated uses. The report
indicates that of the rivers, lakes, and
estuaries that were assessed by States
(approximately one-fifth of stream miles,
one-third of lake acres and one-half of
eatunne waters), roughly 70 percent to
75 percent are supporting the uses for
which they are designated. For waters
with use impairments. States were
asked to determine Impacts due to
diffuse sources (agricultural and urban
runoff and other categories of diffuse
sources), municipal sewage. industrial
(process) wastewaters, combined sewer
overflows, and natural sources, then
combine impacts to arrive at estimates
of the relative percentage of State
waters affected by each source. In this
manner, the relative importance of the
various sources of pollution causing use
impairments was assessed and weighted
national averages were calculated.
Based on 37 States that provided
information on sources of pollution,
industrial process wastewaters were
cited as the cause of use impairment for
7 percent of rivers and streams, 10
percent of lakes. 8 percent of estuaries,
41 percent of the Great Lakes shoreline
and 0 percent of coastal waters.
Municipal sewage was the cause of use
impairment for 13 percent of rivers and
streams, 5 percent of lakes, 48 percent of
estuaries, 41 percent of the Great Lakes
shoreline and 11 percent of coastal
waters.
The Assessment also concluded that
pollution from diffuse sources such as
runoff from agricultural, urban areas.
construction sites, land disposal
activities, and resource extraction
activities is cited by the States as the
leading cause of water quality
impau.ment.i Diffuse sources appear to
be increasingly important contributors
of use impairment as discharges of
industrial process wastewaters and
municipal sewage plants come under
control and intensified data collection
efforts provide additional information.
Some examples where use impairments
are cited as being caused by diffuse
sources include: rivers and streams,
where 9 percent are caused by separate
storm sewers, 4 percent are caused by
construction and 11 percent are caused
by resource extraction, lakes where 8
i Major claue. of diffuse source, that include In
part storm water point source discharge, are’ urban
runoff conveyances. constniction sites. agriculture
(feed,iotaj. resource extraction sues. and land
disposal facilities.
percent are caused by separate storm
sewers and 7 percent are caused by land
disposal; the Great Lakes shoreline,
where 35 percent are caused by separate
storm sewers. 48 percent are caused by
resource extraction, and 19 percent are
caused by land disposaL for estuaries
where, 41 percent are caused by
separate storm sewers; and for coastal
areas, where 20 percent are caused by
separate storm sewers and 29 percen’
are caused by land disposal.
The States conducted a more
comprehensive study of diffuse pollutior
sources under the sponsorship of the
Association of State and Interstate
Water Pollution Control Administrators
(ASIWPCA) and EPA. The study
resulted in the report “America’s Clean
Water—The States’ Nonpomt Source
Assessment. 1985” which indicated that
38 States reported urban runoff as a
major cause of beneficial use
impairment. In additio 21 States
reported construction site runoff as a
major cause of use Impairment.
Studies conducted by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA)’ indicate that
urban runoff is a major pollutant source
which adversely affects shellfish
growing waters. The NOAA studies
identified urban runoff as affecting over
578,000 acres of shellfish growing waters
on the East Coast (39 percent of harvest-
limited area); 2,000.000 acres of shellfish
growing waters in the Cull of Mexico
(59% of the harvest-limited area); and
130.000 acres of shellfish growing waters
on the West Coast (52% of harvest-
limited areas).
A. NRDC v COSTLE 3
The appropriate means of regulating
storm water point sources within the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program
has been a matter of serious concern
since implementing the NPDES program
in 1972. In 1973, EPA promulgated its
first storm water regulations exempting
from permit requirements those point
source conveyances carrying storm
water runoff uncontaminated by
industrial or commercial activity unless
the particular storm water discharger
had been identified by the NPDES
Director as a significant contributor of
pollution (38 FR 13530 (May 22. 1973))
The ’Agency maintained that, while
these sources fell within the definition of
‘See “The Quality of Shellfish Crowing Water,
on the East Coast of the United S’ate. NOAA.
1989: “The Quality of Shellfish Crowing Waters in
the Gulf of Mexico’ NOAA 1988. and ‘l’he Quality
of Shellfish Growing Waters on the West Coast of
the United States . NOAA. 1990
‘560 F. d 1369 (DC. Clr 1977)
-------
Federal Re ster / Vo’. 56. o. 159 / Friday. . \ugust to. i i I Proposed Ruths
a potet source, they were rionethe!ean
iII.wtui to the traditionaL end-of-pipe
controls that are the bas.s of t NPDES
program to, p ass discharges and
discharges froze Publicly Owned
Treatment WOXIC& (POTWa). The
Agency also usttfied its decision by
noting that issuing individual NPDES
permits for the hundreds of thousands of
storm water point sources in the United
States would create an ovexwhelmin
admn ietrative burd.en and would divert
resources away irozn control of
industrial process waste water and
municipal sewage, which at the time..
were more presaing and identifiable
environmental problems.
rn a series of challenges to the storm
water regulations, the Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDCj brought suit in
the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia. challenging the Agency’s
authority to exempt selectively
categories of point sources from permit
requirements, NROC v. T1aai. 39 F.
Supp. 1393 (D.D.C 1975) aff’o )WWCv.
Costie. 568 F.2d 1369 (D.C Cit. 1977).
The District Court held that EPA could
not exempt discharges identified as
point sotrces from regulation under the
NPDES permit program. The District
Court was convinced that the permit
program would be manageable even
without the exemptions sought by EPA.
The court recognized two alternatives
for reducing the permit workloacfr
Ii) Discretion to define what
constitutes a point source; and
(2J Discretion to use certain
administrative devices, such as general
permits, to help manage the workload.
With respect to the appropriate
administrative mechanisms, the Court
recognized that EPA has wide latitude to
rank categories and subcategories of
paint sources of different importance
and treat them differently within a
permit program. On review, the Court of’
Appeals stated that tech io1ogical or
administrative infeasibility was a
reason for adjusting Court mandates to
ro li’e the general objectives of the Act
and may result in adjustments in the
penmtprogrnzn(5ogF2d 1369.1679
(1977fl. The Court of AppenLi recognized
that section 402 of the CWA ves EP
considerable flavibility in framing the
permit to achieve a desued reduction in
pollutant discharges. One area of
flexth ilfty is that permits may regulate
industry practices to lessen point source
pollntion problems. The Court of
‘Not, that 19r5 the a ps of NPCES
ut1ng anon,. pa t1o iarty ts ’ rWs. baa
m.p. ..d..d ei nalIcanUy eddies, po w -o eet.â
p t oacaim app,oacbe. B uzptesof
on t,d. wquovnena pes LL. fi POTW.ui
lmtfaUve, far
r overflows.
Appeals noted that in certain cases, it
may be appropriate for EPA to requiiv a
permittee simply to monitor and report
effluent lerols.
The Court of Appeals encouraged EPA
to use its Interpretation author ty te
mitigate burden, in establishing a
practical regulatory scheme. SectIon 402
provides the Agency with flexibility in
determining the appropriate sccpe and
form clan NPDES permlt.Maresult.
the Court suggested ua r.g area or
general permits.
B. Water Quality-Act of i 87
The Water Quality Act (WQA) of 19137
added section 40 (p to the CWA to-
provide a comprehensive Cra ework for
EPA to address storm water uischarges.
Section 402 (p)(1J provides that EPA or
NPDES Slates cannot req iire a permit
for certain storm water discharges until
October 1, 1992. except far storm water
discharges listed under section 4021p)(2).
Section 402(pJ(2) lists five types of storm,
water discharges which are required to
obtain a permit before October 1. 1992i
(A) A aiscbar3e with respect to which
a permit has been issued pnor to.
February 4. 1987;
(B) A discharge associated with
industrial activity
(C) A discharge from a mtmz’Jcipal
separate storm sewer system serving a
population of 250,000 or more:
(DJ A discharge from a municipal
separate storm sewer system serving a
population of 100 COO or more, but less
than 250.000t or
(El A discharge for which the
Administrator or the State, as the case
may be, determines that the storm water
discharge contributes to a violation of a
water quality standard or is a sigrnficant
contributor of pollutants to the waters uf
the Umted States.
Section 4 O 2 (p)(4) establishes
deadlines to implement the permit
program for Storm water discharges
associated with industhal activityr
discharges from large- municipal
separate storm sewer systems (systems.
serving a population of 250.OCO or more);
and discharges from medium rr.unlcipat
separate- storm sewer systems (systems
serving a population of 100.000 or morn
but lees than 250.000). This section of the
Act specifies deadlines for EPA to
promulgate permit application
requirtrm nts. applicants to si.ibrnit
permit applicanoris, EPA and authorized
NPDES States to issue NPDES permits,
and forpermircouipliartce for the
identified storm water discharges.
NPDES permits for all cther storm
water discharges cannot be required
until Octobert, 1992, unless a permit for
the discharge was issued prior to. the
date of enactment of the WQA (Le..
February 4. 198?). or the discharge is
determined to be a smgrnu!car.r
contributor of pollutants to waters a! the
United States or Is contribuling to a.
violation of water qualiiy standards.
The W( A darified and amended the
requirements for permits for storm we ‘ai-
discharges in the new CWA sections
402(p)(3). The Act clarified that permits
for discharges associated with industrial
activity must meet all of’ the applicable
provisicris of section 402. and sec icn Ci
including BAT/ECT teciuiology-basec
requirements and that permits fur
discharges from municipal sepurate
stcrm sewer must meet a new statutory
standard requiting con trots to reduce ±a
discharge of pollutants to the maximum -i
extent practicable ( IZP). As with afl
point scarce discharges under the CWA
storm water discharges are subject to
applicable water quality.based
standards.
EPA, in consultation with the States.
is requir2d to conduct two studies on
storm water discharges that are !fl the
class of discharges for which EPA and
NFDES States cannot require permits
prior to October I, 1292. The f t stud’,’
will identify those storm water
discharges or classes of storm water
discharges for which permits are not
required prior to October 1, 1992 and
determine, to the rna. imuni extent
practicable, the nature and extent cf
pollutants in such discharges. The
second study is for the i rpose at
establishing procedures c.ad methods to
control storm water discharges to the
extent necessary to mitigate impacts ca
water quality. Based cri the two studies.
EPAIn consultation wmJ, State and Lical
officials, ma required tu iaa.ie tog lat:cns
by no later than Ocxob : 1. :292, wb:ch
designate additional st.irm v atar
discharges to be regiLr ad to protect
water quality and estahlith a
comprehensive program to regulate such
designated sources. This program must
establish, at a minimum. (A) priorities.
(B) requirements for ’Statu storm water
management programs. and (C)
expeditious deadlines. The e rqra .’n may
include performance stucJarda.
guidelines. guzdanoe. and management
practices and treatment requIrements.
as appropriate.
IL Framework of NPDES System
Congress established the N?DES
pregrnnr with the 1972 Amendments to
the FWPCA. Section 402 u the Act
requwes EPA to- administer a. national
permit program to regulate pcint source
discharges of pefiniants to waters of the
United States and. sets cut the basic
elements of the program.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 159 / Friday, August 16. 1991 / Proposed Rules
40951
A Stale Programs
The Act allows States to request EPA
authorization to administer the NPDES
program instead of EPA. Under section
402(b). EPA must approve a State’s
request to Operate the permit program
o-ce it determines that the State has
aiequate Legal authorities, procedures.
and the ability to adn,inieter the
pro am.
EPA is also directed by section 304(i)
of the FWPCA to adopt procedural and
programmatic requirements for State
NPDES programs, including guidelines
on monitoring. reporting, enforcement,
pe’sonnel and funding. and to develop
uniform national forms for use by both
EPA and approved States. At all times
following authorization. State NPDES
programs must be consistent with
n- rnmum Federal requirements.
although they may always be more
Stringent.
Uoon authorization of a State
program, the State is primarily
responsible for is su ing permits and
adr-urustraung the NPDES program in
that State. At the same time. EPA
suspends the issuance of Federal
permits for those activities subject to the
approved State program.
State NPDES authority is divided into
four parts: the core program (POTW and
industrial penmtting). Federal facilities,
pretreatment, and general permitting. At
this point In time, 39 States or
Temtones are authorized to. at a
mtntmum. issue NPD permits for
mun:cipal and industrial sources. Of
these 39 States. 23 are currently
a thonzed by EPA to issue NPDES
ge-ieral permits. In the 12 States (MA.
ME. NI-I. FL LA. TX. OK NM. SD. AZ.
AK. and ED) and 6 territories (District of
Columbia. the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico. Guam. American Samoa. the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands) without NPDES
aut cri .zed programs, EPA issues all
N?DES permits. In 5 of the 39 States that
are authorized to issue NPDES permits
for mc1pal and industrial sources,
E?A retains authority to Issue permits
icr discharges from Federal facilities.
B . ‘.ecuirements in NPDES Permits
The CWA establishes two types of
standards for conditions in NPDES
permits, technology-based standards
and water quality-based standards.
These standards are used to develop
effluent limitations, special conditions.
and monitoring requirements in NPDES
periruts. Numeric effluent limitations
that establish pollutant concentration or
mass limits for effluents at the point of
discharge (end-of.pipe conditions) are
generally at the heart of permits for
discharges from POTWs and industrial
process discharges. More recent
permitting efforts have also addressed
limiting the toxicity of effluents through
specific toxicity limitations included in
permits. Section 402(a)(l) authonzes the
inclusion of other types of conditions
that are determined to be necessary.
known as special conditions, in NPDES
permits. Special conditions include
requirements for best management
practices (BMPs).
I Technology-Based Standards
Technology.based requirements under
section 301(b) of the Act represent the
minimum level of control that must be
imposed in a permit issued under
section 402 of the Act. Two technology-
based requirements are appropriate for
existing storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity:
(1) Best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT): and
(2) Best available technology
economically achievable [ BAT). The
BCT standard applies to the control of
conventional pollutants, while the BAT
standard applies to the control of all
toxic pollutants and for all pollutants
which are neither toxic nor conventional
pollutants. Section 308 of the CWA
provides for EPA to establish new
source performance standards for new
sources.
Technology-based requirements may
be established through one of two
methods:
(1) Application of national EAT/BCT
effluent limitations guidelines
promulgated by EPA under section 304
of the CWA and new source
performance standards promulgated
under section 306 of the CWA
applicable to dischargers by category or
subcategory’ and
(2) On a case-by-case basis under
section 402(a)(1) of the Act, using best
professional judgement [ SPI), for
pollutants or classes of discharges for
which EPA has not promulgated
national effluent mutations guidelines.
(Note EPA only eaiabkshee new source
performance standards under section 306 of
the CWA when developing national effluent
luiutstions guidelines, and not when
establishing permit c3ndluons on a case.by’
case basis).
2 Water Qualzty.Based Standards for
Controls
In addition to technology-based
controls. section 301(b) of the CWA also
requires that NPDES permits must
include any conditions more stringent
than technology-based ccntrols
necessary to meet State water quality
standards. Water quality-based
requirements are established under this
provision on a case-by-case basis.
flI. Prior Storm Water Permitting Efforts
Between 1978 and 1984. EPA
regulations required that permit
applications be submitted for a wide
range of storm water discharges. Many
facilities that were required to submit
applications for storm water discharges
did not apply In addition, many of the
permit applications received by EPA
and authonzed NPDES States were
never acted upon for a number of
reasons. incladingi Lack of resources for
permitting. lack of technical
understanding of the causes and
controls for pollutants in storm water.
reluctance of Industrial dischargers to
accept requirements for best
management practices (BMPs) in NPDES
permits, and a general perteption that
storm water discharges, when
considered one at a time, were of low
priority. In 1984, EPA again promulgated
permit application requirements and
deadlines for storm watet discharges.
However, these regulations were never
implemented. The regulations were in
litigation when Congress enacted the
Water Quality Act (WQA) on February
4. 1987, which directly specified a new
national strategy for storm water
controL
Despite the lack of a comprehensive
permitting program for all storm water
discharges prior to the passage of the
WQA of 1987, permitting efforts
nonetheless proceeded in some areas.
Between 1974 and 1982, EPA
promulgated effluent limitations
guidelines for storm water discharges
from ten categories of indu.stiial
discharges:
• Cement Macufacriruig
• Feedlots.
• Fertilizer Manufacturing
• Petroleum Refining
• Phosphate Manufacturing
• Steam Electric.
• Coal Mining.
• Ore Mining and Dressing
• Mineral Mining and Processing
• Asphalt Vmailqion.
Permitting efforts for storm water
discharges have focussed on industrial
facilities subject to these effluent
limitations guidelines. In addition, some
EPA Regions and States with authorized
State NPDES programs have, to ‘.arying
degrees, written permits for storm water
discharges from other industrial
fac!lities. For example. in some States
and Regions. storm water discharges
from industrial facilities are often
addressed when NPDES permits for
process wastewaters of a facility are
reissued
-------
40952
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No . 159 / Friday, August 16. 1991 / Pronosed Rules
IV. November 18,1990 Permit
Application Regulations
On November 10, 1990, (53 FR 47990),
EPA published NPDES permit
application requirements for: Storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity; and discharges from
municipal separate storm sewer systems
serving a population of 100,000 or more
The rulemaking accomplished three
major tasks:
(1) The rule defined the initial scope
of the NPOES storm water pro gram
(2) The rule established a permitting
scheme with respect to storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity through municipal separate
storm sewer systems; and
(3) The rule established permit
application requirements for those storm
water discharges which are initially
subject to the program,
A. Scope of NPDES Storm Water
Program
The initial scope of the NPDES storm
water program is defined by two key
regulatory definitions. “storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity” and “large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer
systeins ’. The term “storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity ” Is defined at 40 CFR
122.28(b)(14) and addresses point source
discharges of storm water from eleven
major categories of facilities. (This
definition is reprinted In the definition
section of the draft general permits
p ibI1shed in the appendix to today’s
notice).
The terms “large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer
systems” (systems serving a population
of 100,000 or more) are defined at 40
R 122.28(b) (4) and (7) to include
municipal separate storm sewers
located in: 173 incorporated places
(cities) with a population of 100,000 or
niore unincorporated portions of 47
counties identified as having large
populations in unincorporated,
ubaninad portions of the county and
other municipal storm sewers which are
dasignated by the DIrector on a case-by.
cas basis.
The definitions of “storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity” and “large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer system”
only address point source discharges.
Section 502(14) of the CWA defines the
term “point source” broadly to indude
“any discernible, confined and discrete
conveyance, including but not limited to
any pipe, ditch, channel. tunnel. conduit.
well, discrete fissure, container,’
from which pollutants are or may be
discharged.”
In most court cases, the term “point
source” has been Interpreted broadly.
For example, the holding In Sierra Club
v. Abston Construction Co., Inc.. 620
FZd 41(5th Cli’ ., 1980) Indicates that
changing the surface of (and or
establishing grading patterns on land
will result in a point source where the
runoff from the site ultimately Is
discharged to waters of the United
S!ates:
Simple erosion over the material surface.
resulting in the discharge of water and other
materials into navigable waters, does not
constitute a point source discharge, absent
some eff rt to change the surface, to direct
the water flow or otherwise impede its
progress’ $ ‘Gravity flow, resultIng ii a
discharge Into a navigable body of water,
may be part of a point source discharge if the
(discharge) at least Initially collected or
channeled the water and other material,. A
point source of pollution may also be present
where (discharger,) design spoil piles from
discarded overburden such that, during
periods of precipitation, erosion of spoil pile
walls results in discharges into a navigable
body of water by means of ditches, gullies
and similar conveyances, even If the
(dischargersj have done nothing beyond the
mere collection of rock and other materials
Nothing In the Act relieves (discharges)
from liability simply because the operators
did not actually con.etruct those conveyances.
so long as they are reasonably likely to be
the means by which pollutants are ultimately
deposited into a navigable body of water.
Conveyances of pollution formed either as a
result of natural erosion or by material
means. and which constitute a component of
a ‘ ‘ ‘drainage system. may fit the statutory
definition and thereby subject the operators
to liability under the Act. (emphasis added)
6 l’2d 41,45 (1980).
Under this approach, point source
discharges of storm water result from
smictures that Increase the
Imperviousness of the ground that acts
to collect runoff with runoff being
conveyed along the resulting drainage or
grading patterns.
The Agency will embrace the
broadest possible definition of point
source consistent with the legislative
Intent of the CWA and court
Interpretations to Indude any
Identifiable conveyance from which
pollutants might enter the waters of the
United States.
B. Industrial Storm Water Discharges
Through Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer Systems
The November 16, 1990 notice clarifies
that storm water discharges associated
with Industrial activity to waters of the
United States, including those through
municipal separate storm sewers to
waters of the United States, must obtain
NPDES permit coverage. However,
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity to municipal sanitary
sewer systems (i.e. those systems which
are part of a POTW collection system),
including combined sewer systems,
generally do not need to obtain NPDES
permit coverage, although they may be
subject to pretreatment requirements.
(Note that municipalities which operate
combined sewer overflows (CSOs) need
NPDES permit coverage for the CSO
discharge).
C. Permit Application Requirements
The November 16, 1990 rule
established indIvidual (40 CFR
122 .25(c)(1)) and group (40 CFR
122.28(c)(2)) application requirements
for storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity. The
requirements associated with individu ’ l
application requirements for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity are incorporated intc
Forms 1 and 2F, which are generally to
be submitted to the Director by
November 18, 1991. In addition,
operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
through large and medium municipa
separate storm sewer systems are
required to submit a notification of .heir
discharge to the operator of the
municipal separate storm sewer system
receiving the discharge by no later than
May15. 1991 or 180 days prior to
commencing such dIscharge (40 CFR
122.28(a)(4)).
The nile also established permit
application requirements for discharges
from large and medium municipal
separate storm sewer systcms at 40 CFR
122.28(d).
V. Burdens on Permitting Agencies
The focal Issue In developing
appropriate requirements for the NPDES
storm water program continues to be
addressing the resource burdens of
Implementing an effective regulatory
program for the extremely large number
of storm water discharges.
Understanding the burdens of the
program on permitting Agencies is a first
stop towards developing a workable
regulatory program.
Implementing the NPDES permitting
program is a complex process. Major
steps to Issue a permit Include:
Training of Permit Writers. Permit
writers must acquire the appropriate
expertise necessary for writing permits.
• Permit Application Review. Permit
applications (or notices of intent to be
covered under a general permit) that are
received Initially must be screened and
reviewed for completeness. When this
-------
Federal Register / VoL 56. No. 159 / Friday. August 16. i 3 fl I Proposed Rules
40953
review indicates that necessary
information is not provided, the
applicant must be notified and an
explanation of the deficiency provided.
\pplications that are complete must be
issigried to a permit writer and filed.
Preparing a Draft Permit. Preparing
a draft permit and fact sheet involves a
technical evaluation of the discharge
based on a review of the permit
application or other appropriate
information. The appropriate factors
associated with technology-based or
water quality-based standards must be
evaluated. Appropriate effluent
limitations. monitoring requirements.
and any special conditions need to be
developed.
• Public Notice of the Draft PermiL
Draft permits must undergo appropriate
public notice. In some cases public
hearings must be held.
• Permit issuance.. Public comments
must be received, evaluated, and
responded to in developing a final
permit Any request for an evirlentiary
hearing must be addressed.
• Complthnce Mwi,tormg/
Enforvement. A number of compliance
monitoring activities can be conducted
including reviewing discharge
monitoring reports, conducting site
inspections, and evaluating other
information. Enforcement actions
include assessing penalties and issuing
administrative orders. In some cases,
‘niorcement actions lead to litigation.
In addition to these steps, a number of
administrative functions, such as
responding to public inquiries, can
create burdens for permit issuing
agencies. The number of such inquiries
can be particularly high when a new
regulation is involved.
As discussed earlier in this notice.
efforts to permit point source discharges
under the CWA have focussed primarily
on industrial process discharges and
discharges from POTWe. EPA and
authorized NPDES States have issued
more than 48,600 NPDES permits for
industrial process discharges, 15.600
NPDES permits for POTWs. and
approxnnately 59 general permits have
been issued covering at least 7.200
facilities. The Agency estimates that
over 100.000 Facilities (not including oil
and gas exploration and production
operations) discharge storm water
associated with industrial activity. Most
of the facilities that discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
have not been addressed under the
NPDES program in the past. Today’s
notice incorporates several elements of
EPA’s initial attempts to establish a
workable NPDES program that reflects
the realities of these administrative
urdens.
VI. Today’s Notice
Today’s notice requests public
comment on four major areas;
(1) EPA’s long-term permitting
strategy for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity;
(2) Proposed changes to 40 CFR
122.44(i) ( 2) addressing annual
monitoring and reporting requirements.
(3) Proposed changes to 40 CFR
12L28(b)(2) addressing notice of intent
requirements for general permits; and
,i (4) Proposed baseline general permits
for storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity in 12 States (MA.
ME. NH. FL LA. TX. OX, NM. SD. Al
AK, ID), and 6 Territories (District of
Columbia. the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands. and the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands) without authorized
NPDES Sta’e programs: on Indian lands
in AL CA. GA, KY. Ml, MN, MS. MT.
NC, ND, NY, NV. SC, TN, UT, WI. and
WY; located within Federal facilities
and Indian lands in CO and WA: and
located within Federal facilities in
Delaware.
A. Long- Term Permitting Strategy
Many of the comments received
during the storm water NPDES permit
application rulemaking focussed on the
difficulties that EPA Regions and
authorized NPDES States, with their
finite resources, will have in
implementing an effective permitting
program for the large number of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity. Many coinmenters
noted that problems with implementing
a permit program are caused not only by
the large number of industrial facilities
subject to the program. but by the
difficulties associated with identifying
and assessing appropriate technologies
and other measures for controlling storm
water at various sites and the
differences in the nature and extent of
storm waler discharges from different
types of industrial facilities. The Agency
recognizes these concerns, and is
developing an approach to serve as a
foundation for future program
development.
Based on a consideration of comments
from authorized NPDES States,
municIpalIties, industrial facilities and
environmental groups on the permitting
framework and permit application
requirements for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity. EPA
is developing a strategy for permitting
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity. In developing this
strategy. the Agency recognizes that the
CWA provides flexibility in the manner
in which NPDE permits are issued.’
The Agency intends to use this
fle ubility in designing a workable and
reasonable permitting system. In
accordance with these considerations.
in today’s notice the Agency Is
publishing and requesting comments on
a discussion of its draft strategy for
implementing the NPDES storm water
program. The Strategy establishes two
major components, a framework for
developing permitting priorities and a
framework for the development of State
Storm Water Permitting Plans.
1. Permitting Priorities
The Agency believes that most
permitting activities can be described in
terms of the following four classes of
activities:
• Tier f—Baseline Permitting. One or
more general permits will be developed
to initially cover the majority of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activlty
• Tier l1—Wateruhed Permiuzng.
Facilities within watersheds shown to
be adversely impacted by storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity will be targeted for individual or
watershed.speciflc general permits.
• Tier!IJ—lndustr,r-Specific
Permitzthg: Specific industry categories
will be targeted for individual or
industry-epecthc general permits; and
• Tier IV —Facihty -Speciflc
Permitting? A variety of factors will be
used to target specific facilities for
individual permits.
These four classes of activities will be
implemented over time and will reflect
priorities within given States. In most
States. Tier I activities, issuance of
baseline permits. will be the initial
starting point. As priorities and risks
within the State are evaluated, classes
of storm water discharges or individual
storm water discharges will be
identified for Tier IL III or IV permitting
actIvities. Usually a storm water
discharge or a class of discharges will
not go through a sequence that involves
all four of the Tiers associated with the
strategy, but may for example, go from
initial coverage under a Tier I baseline
‘As discussed either in this notice. the Court In
NRDC v Train. 390 F.Supp lim ID.D C. 19751 ofl’ i
NIWC v Castle. 560 F.Zd 1360(0 CCIr iV77 . has
acknowledged the edministrative borden pieced on
the Agency by reqinring i dMdual pei ats lore
large number of awn water disinargea. Thea.
courts hive recogiuzed VA’. discietion to us.
certain administratIve devi a. audi sa area peeniti
on general ps in4th to help manage Its workload. In
addition. the onunts have recognumd 8 bl1Ity in
the type of pemut cocuiltiona that are established.
including reqinremants Sot best managesient
practices.
-------
reoeraI Register / Vol. 56, No. 159 / Friday, August 16. 1991 / Proposed Rules
permit to coverage under a Tier Ill
industry specific general permit.
a. Tier1— seJ1nepenniwng. The
Agency Intends to issue general permits
that initially cover the majority of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity In States without
authorized NPDES programs. These
permits also will serve as models for
States with authorized NPDES
programs.
Consolidating many sources under
one permit will greatly reduce the
administrative burden of permitting
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity. This approach will
allow:
Pollution prevention and control
requirements to be established for
discharges covered by the perinit
• Facilities whose discharges are
covered by the permit to be certain of
their legal responsibilities and have an
opportunity to comply with the CWA
• EPA and authorized NPDES States
will begin to collect and review data on
storm water discharges from priority
industries, thereby supporting
subsequent permitting activities;
• The public, including municipal
operators of municipal separate storm
s. . wers which may receive storm water
discharges associated with Industrial
activity, to have access under section
308(b) of the CWA to monitoring data
and certain other information developed
by the permittee
• Applicable requirements of
municipal storm water management
programs established In permits for
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewer systems to be enforceable
directly against noncomplying industrial
facilities that generate the discharges
where the permit for the storm water
discharge includes a cor.dlLlon requiring
compliance with the municipal storm
water management program;
• The public to have the opportunity
to review data and reports developed by
industrial perimitees and to be given an
opportunity to comment on permitting
activities:
• The baseline permits will provide a
basis for bringing selected enforcement
actions by eliminating many Issues
which might otherwise arise In an
enforcement proceeding; and
• The baseline permit, along with the
State storm water permitting plans
(discussed below), will provide a focus
for public comment on subsequent
phases of the permitting strategy for
storm water discharges.
Initially, the coverage of the baseline
permits will be broad. However, the
coverage will shrink as other permits
are issued for storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity
pursuant to Tier I I through Tier IV
activities. The Agency believes that Tier
I permits can establish the appropriate
balance between monitoring
requirements and Implemeatable
controls that will initiate facllfty.speciflc
controls and provide sufficient data I r
compliance monitoring and future
program development Baseline general
permits are flexible enough to allow the
introduction of Tier IL UI or 1V types of
activities, such as industry specific
monitoring or control conditions, (See
the draft general permits in this notice
for examples of how this balance may
be achieved). The Agency requests
comments on the appropriate role of
sampling requirements and on facility-
specific controls in Tier I permits.
b. Tier 11—Watershed permitting.
Facilities within watersheds shown to
be adversely Impacted by storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity will be targeted for individual
and general perirutting activities. This
process can be initiated by identifying
receiving waters (or segments of
receiving waters) where storm water
discharges asscc:a ted with industrial
activity have been identified as a source
of use impairment or are suspected to be
contributing to use impairment.
Information developed under sections
304(l), 305(b), and 319(a) of the CWA,
along with information from other
sources (including information
developed under the baseline general
permits for storm water discharges). can
be used In evaluating Impacts on
receiving waters. This information may
Identify classes of storm water
discharges that are of particular concern
and portions of watersheds where the
sources of concern are located.
Appropriate classes of storm water
discharges in these locations can be
targeted for additional permit conditions
which may provide additional
Information to characterize the
discharge (e.g.. additional monitoring
and reporting requirements) or where
appropriate for more stringent controls.
Information gathered under initial
permits for storm water discharges as
well as Information from other sources
can be used to upgrade lists of impacted
receiving waters and reassess water
quality-based controls. As discussed in
more detail below, State storm water
permitting strategies are expected to
have a major role in this process.
c. Tier !iJ-’ .-industry-Specific
Pernnttzng. Specific industry categories
will be targeted for individual or
Industry-specific general permits. These
permits will allow permitting authontlea
to focus attention and resources on
Industry categories of particular concern
andf or industry categories where
tailored requirements are appropriate.
The Agency will work with the States to
develop model permits for selected
classes of Industrial storm water
discharges. EPA Is also working to
Identify priority Industrial categories in
the two Reports to Congress required
under section 402(p)(5) of the CWA. In
addition, the group application process
adopted In the final regulation published
on November 16, 1990. [ 55 FR 47990) will
provide an additional mechanism for
developing Industry-specific general
permits. Group applications that are
received can be used to develop model
permits for the appropriate industries.
d. Tier IV—Facility.specific
pemnttthg. Individual permits will be
appropriate for some sterns water
diechirges in addition to those
identified under Tier LI and Tier III
activities. Individual permits should be
Issued where warranted by The
pollution potential of the discharge. the
need for individual control mechanisms.
and where reduced administrative
burdens exisL For example. individual
NPDES permits for facilities with
process discharges should be expanded
during the normal process of permit
reissuance to cover storm water
discharges from the facility. This
provides an opportunity to develop
individual controls where the
incremental administrative burden is not
greatly increased.
2. RelatIonship of Strategy to Permit
Application Requirements
The tong.term permitting Strategy
described above identifies several
permit approaches that the Agency
anticipates will be used in addressing
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity. One issue that arises
with this Strategy Is determining the
appropriate information needed to
develop and Issue permits for these
discharges. The NPDES regulatory
scheme provides three potential routes
for applying for permit coverage for
storm water discharges associated with
Industrial activity
(1) Individual permit applications;
(2) Group applications: and
(3) Case-by-case requirements
developed for general permit coverage.
Individual Permit Application
Reqwrement3
Individual permit application
requirements are applicable to all storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity except where the
operator of the discharge is participating
In a group application, or a general
permit is issued to cover the discharge
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 159 f Friday. August 16. 1991 / Proposed Rules
and the general permit provides
alternative means to obtain permit
coverage.
The requirements for an individual
permit application are reflected In Form
1 and Form 2F. These forms require the
development and submission of
relatively detailed site-specific
information. including A drainage site
map, an estimate of the area of
Impervious surfaces and the total area
drained by each outfall, a narrative
description of specified features that
may impact the pollution potential of a
discharge, a list of significant spills and
leaks of toxic or hazardous pollutants
that occurred at the facility after the
effective date of the permit. a
certification that the discharge has been
tested for the presence of non-storm
water discharges. and sampling data
from a representative storm event. This
information is intended to be used to
develop the site-specific conditions
generally associated with individual
permits.
Individual permit applications will
play an important role in all tiers of the
Strategy. even where general permits
are used. Although general permits may
provide for notification requirements
that operate instead of the requirement
to submit individual permit applications,
the individual permit applications may
be needed under several circumstances.
Examples include: general permits
requiring the submission of a permit
application as the notice of intent to be
covered by the permit where the owner
or operator of a discharge authorized by
a general permit requesting to be
excluded from the coverage of the
general permit by applying for a permit
(see 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)(ju) for EPA-
issued general permits); and a Director
requiring an owner or operator of a
discharge authorized by. o general
permit to apply for an individual permit
(see 40 CFR 122.23(b)(2)(jj) for EPA-
issued general permits).
Group Applications
On November 16. 1990, (55 FR 47990).
EPA promulgated requirements for
group applications for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity. These applications provide
participants of groups with sufficiently
similar storm water discharges an
alternative mechanism for applying for
permit coverage.
The group application requirements
provide information for developing
industry-specific general permits.
(Group applications can also be used to
issue individual permits in authorized
NPDES State. without general permit
authority or where otherwise
appropriate). As such, group application
requirements correlate with the Tier III
permitting activities identified in the
long-term permitting Strategy.
Requirements in General Permits
40 CFR 122.21(a) excludes persons
covered by general permits from
requirements to submit individual
permit applications. In section Vl.C of
this preamble, the Agency is proposing
minimum requirements for fIling notices
of intent (NO!) to be authorized to
discharge under general permits. NO!
requirements established in general
permits operate instead of individual
permit application requirements for the
discharges covered by the general
permit. (NO! requirements are discussed
in more detail below).
3. State Storm Water Permitting Plans
The CWA provides a framework for
the long-term development of the
NPDES program to address storm water
discharges. Section 402(p)(2) of the
CWA Identifies those storm water
discharges. including storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity, which are the Initial priorities
for permitting. Section 4 O 2 (p)(5) of the
CWA requires the Agency to study other
storm water discharges. Section
4O2(p)(6) of the CWA requires EPA. In
consultation with State and local
officials, to issue regulations by no later
than October 1, 1992 which designates
additional storm water discharges to be
regulated to protect water quality and
establish a comprehensive program to
regulate such designated sources. The
Act provides that this regulatory
program include requirements for State
Storm Water Management Programs.
Although section 402(p)(6)
contemplates that State Storm Water
Management Programs address Phase U
storm water discharges Identified in
section 4O2(p)(5) studies (e.g., a subset of
storm water discharges other than storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity, and discharges from
large and medium municipal separate
storm sewer systems), the Agency
believes that permitting activities for
storm water discharges associated with
Industrial activity and for discharges
from large and medium municipal
separate storm sewer systems under
Phase I should also be considered and
evaluated when developing the scope of
comprehensive State Storm Water
Management Programs.
As EPA and NPDES authorized State.
implement efforts to permit storm water
discharges, It is necessary to ensure
adequate public Input, evaluate program
activities and provide for program
oversight. The Agency believes that
State Storm Water Management
Programs can provide an appropriate
basis for these activities, particularly
during the earlier stages of program
development. EPA has outlined below a
number of the components and elements
of a State Storm Water Permitting Plan
which it believes are essential to assure
successful implementation of the storm
water initiative called for in section
402(p) of the CWA. and which can serve
as a foundation for subsequent
development of State Storm Water
Management Programs. These plans will
provide an effective coordination and
tracking mechanism for evaluating the
initial permitting activities for storm
water discharges required under section
402(p) of the CWA. In addition, these
plans will facilitate the technology
transfer among the State..
State Storm Water Permitting Plans
should include a description of a
strategy to issue NPDES permits for
discharges from large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer
systems; storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity; and
case-by-case designations of storm
water discharges needing a permit.
Plans should be developed for each
State. EPA will request that the Director
of the NPDES program provide a copy of
the draft State Storm Water Permitting
Plan to the Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance within 12
months after the date of publication of
this final regulation. EPA anticipates
that States will update these plans on a
regular basis. EPA Intends to continue to
review these plans while evaluating the
manner in which Phase U storm water
discharges are addressed in State Storm
Water Management Programs developed
under section 4O2(p)(8) of the CWA.
These plans will assist EPA in
technology transfer activities, evaluating
the progress of States in implementing
storm water permitting activities, and
identifying problems with program
implementation.
EPA believes that at a minimum, the
Initial State Storm Water Permitting
Plans should address permitting of large
and medium municipal separate storm
sewer systems: storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity; and
case-by-case designations of storm
water discharges needing a permit
Much of the information In the first
phase of the plan will be generated from
storm water applications required by the
November16, 1990 application rule and
the Industry specific analysis required
by the rule. The basic framework for the
Plan should address on a State-wide
basis:
-------
40958
Federal Register I Vol. 56. No. 159 1 Friday, August 16. 1991 1 Proposed Rules
Municipal Separate Store, Sewer
Systems
A list of municipal separate storm
sewer systems serving a population of
100,000 or more within the State
• For systems Identified. a summary
of the estimated pollutant loadings as
provided In the permit application for
such discharges. or as otherwise
updated. and
• The status of permitting activities
for discharges from municipal separate
storm sewer systems serving a
population of IOO.OOO or more, including
any NPDES permit number for such
discharges.
Storm Water Discharges Associated
with Industrial Activity
• A description of the status and
objectives of activities to issue and
Implement a baseline general permit.
including a copy of any fInal general
permit for storm water discharges
associated wi i industrial activity ’
• A list of categories of industrial
facilities that have storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity that are being considered for
Lndustry.speciflc general permits for
their storm water discharges associated
with industrial actlvity
• A description of procedures,
including activities conducted under any
general permit (such as Inspections.
review of notices of Intent or review of
mocitoririg reports) to identify specilic
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity that are appropriate
for individual permits:
• A description of how permits fcr
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewer systems require the
development of municipal storm water
management programs addressing the
control of pollutants in storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity.
Inpacted Waters
• A description of procedures to
identify receiving waters where
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewers. storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity, or
any other class of storm water
discharges are. or have the potential to.
cause or contribute to a violation of a
water quality standard, including a list
of waters identified by these procedures.
• ‘A ii not rrqueuttng penoite Lou pat* o( thus
Plane ( the porpnes of commenttn co the
sdsquae of the p lt Rathe, the geocy is
reqes ng the a prn of the perm&I to coordinate
tec ao1o ’ trenaf it re udiug pemAtdng epprnches
end clause of stone w ile, Wscba es sddreued,
sod to prcrwlds • genersi iveluElon of the status c i
National permitting scilylUe’.
Case- by-Case Designations
A description of procedures to
Identify storm water discharges (other
than those currently subject to
requirements for obtaining a permit) that
contribute to a violation of a water
quality standard or significantly
contribute pollutants to the waters of
the United States.
• A list of storm water discharges
considered for designation or designated
under section 402tp](2)(E) as needing a
perTtuL
EPA strongly encourages public
participation and comment at the Slate
level during the development of these
plans.
These initial State storm water
permitting components will ensure that
permitting efforts are Implemented
adequately for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity and
other priority storm water discharges by
creating a framework for planning State
storm water permitting activitteg. and
providing EPA Information for
technology transfer purposes and
evaluating State permit issuance efforts.
The State Storm Water Permittrig Plans
will provide a framework for
Implementing the tiered long.term
strategy for permitting storm water
discharges associated with Industrial
activity. Provisions for State Storm
Water Management Programs will be
expanded in the future to address other
storm water discharges In accordance
with 8ection 402(p)(6) of the CWA. EPA
rc uesta comments on the appropriate
scope end content of State Storm Water
Permitting Plans. The Agency also
requests comments on whether the
guidelines for Plans shculd be made
requirements that are incorporated into
EPA regulations, or remain non-binding
recommendations for States. EPA notes
that it may require preparation of such
Plans pursuant to sections 304 (i)(j and
402(p)(8) of the CWA.
States without NPDES General Permit
Authority
As noted. the Issuance of general
permits Is a very important component
In the recommended permit Issuing
straegy. Presently 38 States (end I
territory) have been authorized to
Implement the NPDF.S permit program.
However, only 23 of these States have
been authorized to issue general
permits. If NPDES authority is not
obtained for any of the remaining 15
States, atorm water controls will have to
be implementation based on the
submission of individual or group permit
applications, and the development of
Individual permits. Under the CWA.
EPA cannot Issue general permits In
States that have been authorized to
administer the NPDES program.
EPA strongly recommends that States
with authorized State NPDES programs.
but without general permit authority.
consider obtaining general permit
authority as soon as possible. EPA is
currently working with States to
expedite the authorization process.
a Proposed Changes To Annual
Monitoring and Reporting ReqwremenLs
Section 308 of the CWA authorizes
EPA to require information, monitoring.
and recordkeeping to carry out the
objectives of the Act including but not
limited to: (1) Characterization of
discharges to assist in the development
of permit conditions and controls and
(2) compliance monitoring to detemnirne
whether a discharger is in violation of a
permit condition. The authority to
collect Information under section 308 is
broad and can include requirements for
record keeping, making reports, effluent
monitoring, and other information
reasonably required. EPA and
authorized NPDES States implement this
authority in a number of ways. including
permit application requirements. permit
monitoring and reporting requirements.
and specific information requests under
section 308 (section 308 letters). In
addition. section 402(a)(2) of the CWA
provides that NPDES permits shall
prescribe requirements to assure
compliance with permit conditions.
Including requirements on data and
Information collection. reporting. and
such other requirements deemed
appropriate.
Monitoring data serves a number of
functions under the NPDES program.
Discharge morutoruig data can be used
to assist in the evaluation of the risk of
the discharge by indicating the types
and the concentrations of pollutant
parameters in the discharge. Monitoring
of storm water from an industrial site
can assist In evaluating sources of
pollutants. Discharge monitoring data
can be used In evaluating the potential
of the discharge to cause or contribute
to water quality Impacts and water
quality standards violations.
Discharge monitoring data can also be
used to evaluate the effectiveness cf
controls on reducing pollutants In
discharges. This function of monitoring
can be important in evaluating the
effectiveness of source control or
pollution prevention measures as well
as evaluating the operation of end-of-
pipe treatment units. Where numeric or
toxicity effluent limits are incorporated
into permits. discharge monitoring data
plays a critical role by providing EPA
and authorized NPDES States with data
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 1 9 / Friday. August 16, 1991 I Proposed Rules
4O9 7
to evaluate compliance with effluent
limits. The use of discharge monitoring
data to determine permit compliance
greatly enhances the ability of EPA and
authorized NPDES States to enforce
permit conditions.
As part of efforts to obtain sufficient
information to run the program
effectively, the existing regulations at 40
CFR 122.44(i) specify factors to consider
in developing monitoring requirements
in permits. These regulations indicate
that permit monitoring requirements are
to be established on a case-by-case
basis to ensure. as noted above.
compliance with permit limitations. In
addition. 40 CFR 122.44(i)(2) provides
that requirements to report monitoring
results to the permitting authority shall
in no case be less than once a year.
To date, the minimum requirement
that perinittees submit an annual
discharge monitoring report (DMR) has
proved to be a valuable baseline for
NPDES permitting efforts for POTWs
and industrial psocess discharges.
Among the most important functions of
DMRs is to assess compliance with
numeric effluent limits contained in
permits. However, some important
administrative, technical, and policy
concerns regarding DMRs arise as the
Agency begins to fully implement permit
requirements for storm water
discharges. The Agency is considering
the following factors in addressing this
issue’
Administrative Burdens on PermitLrng
Agencies. Requiring annual DMRs from
each facility that discharges storm water
associated with industrial activity
would result in an enormous increase in
the number of DMRS received by EPA
Regions and authorized NPDES States.
The Agency estimates that nationwide.
o er 100,000 facilities (not including oil
and gas exploration and production
operations) discharge storm water
associated with industrial activity.
Receiving annual DMRs containing
complex technical ln.formotion from
each of these facilities would demand a
large amount of permitting resources
dedicated to reviewing and filing these
reports. The Agency believes that such
an increase in information would
overwhelm permitting agencies who
would have limited opportunities to
review or otherwise analyze the
information.
Difficulties in Sample Collection.
Where storm water is not collected in a
retention pond. the collection of storm
water samples may pose a number of
difficulties. These difficulties include
determining when a discharge will
occur, safety considerations, the
potential for a large number of discharge
points at a given facility, the limited
duration of the event, the limited
number of events that occur in some
parts of the country, and variability in
flow rates.
Variability of Data. The types and
concentrations of pollutants in storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity depend on a number
of factors, including the nature of
industrial activities occurring at the site.
the nature of the precipitation event
generating the discharge. and the time
period from the last storm. Variations In
these parameters at a site may result In
variation from event to event in the
concentrations and types of pollutants
in a given discharge.
Types of Permit Conditions. Permits
for industrial process discharges and
discharges from POTWs traditionally
have incorporated numeric and/or
toxicity effluent limitations as
conditions. Monitoring reports for these
discharges provide a direct indication
whether the discharge complies with
permit conditions. However, it is
anticipated that permits for storm water
discharges will contain a variety of
types of controls. While numeric or
toxicity limitations are expected to be
appropriate for some storm water
discharges, permits for other storm
water discharges are expected to
contain requirements to implement best
management or pollution prevention
practices. In these cases, monitoring
information may not provide as direct a
link to compliance with permit
conditions. However, monitoring data
can still play an important role in
identifying priority facilities, providing
information on sources and types of
pollutants which can be evaluated when
designing or modifying best
management or pollution prevention
practices, and evaluating the
effectiveness of best management
practices and pollutant prevention
measures.
Focussed Permitting Efforts
The long-term permitting strategy
discussed earlier in today’s notice
provides for a flexible system for
conducting permit issuance and
reissuance activities. Flexibility has
been incorporated into the strategy to
facilitate EPA and authorized NPDES
States permit issuance activities which
reflect Regional and State prioritization
of storm water impacts on particular
watersheds and specific receiving
waters, and on specific classes of
facilities. In most States, the issuance of
baseline permits (Tier I activities), will
be the initial starting point. As priorities
and risks within a State are evaluated.
classes of facilities will be identified for
more specific permit issuance activities
(Tiers II. III and IV of the strategy).
Storm water discharge monitoring data
will have an Important role, along with
other information, in identifying
facilities or classes of facilities where
Tier II. 111 and IV permit issuance
activities are appropriate. In addition.
monitoring data will play an important
role in developing appropriate permit
conditions.
1. Options for Regulatory Modifications
EPA requests comments on five
options (plus a no change option) for
modifying the existing regulatory
provision that NPDES permits at a
minimum require the submittal of DMRs
annually for permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity. It should be clarified that these
options only address minimum
requirements for discharge monitoring in
NPDES permits. All options for
modifying these regulations would
retain authority to require more
stringent monitoring requirements where
appropriate. The six options are as
follows:
No Change Option: Case-by-case
monitoring conditions in permits for
storm water discharges. with a minimum
requirement to report monitoring results
at least annually.
Under this approach, EPA would not
change Its existing regulations which
provide that monitoring conditions in
NPDES permits be established on a
case-by-case basis, but at a minimum.
must contain requirements to report
monitoring results at least annually.
,Q Lt : Case-by-case monitoring
conditions in permits for storm water
discharges with a minimum requirement
to report monitoring results at least
twice per permit term.
This option would change the
minimum requirement for reporting
monitoring results at least annually to
reporting monitoring at a different
frequency, such as twice during a five
year period (during the term of a permit).
This approach would provide pernut
writers with additional flexibility to
develop monitoring requirements in
‘A will consider developing a final regulation
which combines aspect, of severut of the options
articulated below For example. the Agency may
determine that It I. appropnate in uue a final
regulation which provides that. Si a mtrjmum.
NPD permits will require annual manhtOnng
(without reporting) for all storm water discharges
associated with tnduauial activity except for
permits for targeted storm water discharges
auociaied with industrial activity located in the
watershed of receiving water, that are sensitiv, to
or Impacted by storm water discharge, which at.
minimum would be required to sample quarterly
and be required to report Information to the
permitting authority.
-------
40958
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 159 / Friday. August 16. 1991 / Proposed Rules
permits that were less burdensome to
the permittee. Reducing monitoring and
reporting requirements would also be
less burdensome to the entity that
reviewed the monitoring report
The Agency also requests comments
on providing permit writers with
flexibility to establish requirements for
conducting bIolo ca1 surveys of
receiving waters as part of efforts to
comply with minimum monitoring
requirements. Under this approach,
pernuttees could be required to conduct
a survey of the biological health of the
receiving water, to provide information
on existing conditions. (See, “Biological
Criteria. National Program Ciudance for
Surface Waters,” Office of Water
Regulations and Standards (Wl-l-585),
EPA-440/5- .90-604 and “A Survey of the
Status of Biomonitoring in State NPDES
and Nonpouit Source Monitoring
Programs,” 1989. Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation. U.S EPA.
RTO/7839/02-03F).
Data from a biological survey can be
used by a permitting authority when
assessI.ng biological criteria to evaluate
surface water quality. La this manner,
the biological survey data can identify
locations where water quality impacts
are thought to be occurring. Where such
impacts occur, additional monitoring or
control requirements could be pursued.
Chemical specific monitoring, toxicity
monitoring and biosurveys have unique
as well as overlapping atthbutes,
sensitivitIes, and program applications.
No single approach for detecting impact
should be considered uniformly superior
to any other approach. EPA Is
encouraging States to implement and
integrate all three approaches into their
water quality programs, while applying
them in combination or Independently
as site-specific conditions and
assessment objectives dictate (See draft
Final “Policy on the Use of Eiological
Assessments and Criteria in the Water
Quality Program”. EPA. januaiy 1990).
.. . .Qptio i.2 ,Case-by-case monitoring
conditions In permits for storm water
discharges with a mmimum requirement
that facilities conduct annual sampling.
FacilitIes would not be required to
report monitoring information unless the
Information was requested In a permit
or by the Director, but would be
required to retain information.
Under this approach, permits for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity wilL at a minimum,
require the discharger to sample storm
water discharges at least annually.
However, permits would not have to
require dlachargers to submit monitoring
reports. Facilities could use this data to
review the effectiveness of BMPs or
storm water pollution prevention
practices conducted at the site.
Monitoring data would be available to
the Director or the public upon request
In addition, dlschargers could be
required to submit a summary of their
monitoring results they had collected
during the previous permit term every
fIve years when they resubmit permit
applications or notices of Latent to be
covered under a general permit
This approach could provide
additional flexibility to permit writers
for developing reasonable and workable
permit conditions which can limit the
administrative burdens associated with
receiving and reviewing momtoring
results from a large number of facilities.
Facilities would still be required to
conduct discharge monitoring at least
annually even where permits require the
development of pollution prevention or
best management practices instead of
numeric or toxicity effluent limits. The
permittee would evaluate discharge
monitoring data as part of efforts to
Identify pollutant sources, evaluate
risks, and evaluate the effectiveness of
its pollution prevention/best
management practices program. In
addition, requiring morutoring data
would ensure that the permitting
authority would be able to request
Information from the facility either
during the term of the permit or when
the discharger I.e reapplying for permit
coverage. This would allow the permit
writer to identify pollutant sources.
evaluate priorities based on the nature
of poUutants in the discharge and the
potential for the dIscharge to contribute
to a water quality standard violation.
and to evaluate the effect iver.ese of
controls at the facility.
The Agency remains concerned about
the ability of permitting authorities to
adequately review annual rnomlonng
reports from all facilities that discharge
storm water associated with industrial
activity. EPA requests comments on
whether providing permit writers with
the flexibility to require permittees to
retain monitoring information until the
Information Ia requested or until a
permit Is reissued is an adequate end
appropriate manner in which to address
this problem.
Option 2 could be modified to provide
minimum requirements to establish
reporting of monitoring results in
permits Lfl specified situations. One
approach would be to provide that
permits for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity to
receiving waters that are sensitive to or
Impacted by storm water discharges
must require dlschargers to report
monitoring results at least annually (or
at a higher minimum frequency). This
approach would assist permitting
agencies In evaluating causes of water
quality impairment. The discussion
accompanying Option 4 describes how
receiving waters that are sensitive to or
Impacted by storm water discharges
may be identified.
The second approach would be to
proviae that permits for storm water
discharges associated with Industrial
activity must require dischargers to
report monitoring results where
pollutants are detected above specified
threshold concentrations. Maximum
pollutant threshold concentrations
which would trigger reporting
requirements could be established by
regulation. These concentrations would
apply to all storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
nationally. (For example, values which
could be established at the high end of
the range of pollutant concentrations
typically found in urban runoff. The
NURP data base Indicates that high
values within the typical range for urban
runoff may include concentrations such
as 50 mg/I five-day biochemical oxygen
demand. 30 mg/I oil and grease, 4G0
mg/I total suspended solids.
Alternatively, for parameters with water
quality standards. EPA could require
that concentrations in excess of the
numeric water quality criteria be
reported). Alternatively, pollutant
threshold concentratIons could be
established on a Slate-by-State basis,
with different sets of pollutant threshold
concentrations for different classes of
receiving waters. The Agency requests
comments on appropriate pollutant
threshold concentrations under this
approach. As stated above. dischargers
could be required to submit summaries
of all of the monitoring information that
they collected during the previous -
permit term when they resubmit
applications or notices of intent for
permit coverage.
Option 3.’ Case-by-cue monitoring
cö 1tIoiir1npermitS for storm water
discharges with a minimum requirement
that facilities (other than those from oil
and gas exploration or production
operations and inactive mining
operations where a past or present mine
operator cannot be identified) conduct
annual sampling. Fccilities would not be
required to report information unless the
Information was requested in a permit
or by the Director, but would be
required to retain information. For
contaminated storm water discharges
from oil and gas exploration or
production operations or from inactive
mining operations where a pact or
present mine operator cannot be
identified, either case-by-case
monitoring conditions in permits for
-------
40959
storm water discharges with a minunum
requirement of annual sampling (without
reporting) or. instead of sampling, a
Professional Engineer’s certificatIon
attesting that good engineering practices
were being employed to meet
appropriate permit conditions.
Th.s option is identical to Option 2 for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial aCtivity from facilities other
than: oil and gas exploration or
production operations; and Inactive
mining operations where a past or
present mine operator cannot be
identified. However, for contaminated
storm water discharges associated
industrial activity from oil and gas
exploration or production operations
(e.g. drilling or well operations) or from
Inactive mining operations where a past
or present mine operator cannot be
identified, this option wotijd provide
permit writers with flexibility to require.
at a minimum, either annual monitoring
or, instead of monitoring, a certification
by a Professional Engineer (PE) attesting
that good engineering practices were
being employed to meet appropriate
permit conditions.
Under this approach, permit writer,
wouid be provided with two options for
developing minimum monitoring
requirenients for storm water discharges
from oil and gas exploration and
production operations. The first Option
satisfying the minimum requirement
would be to require owners or operators
of storm water discharges from oil and
gas exploration and production
operations to conduct annual monitoring
of representative storm water
discharges. Where dischargers are not
required to report monitoring results to
the Director, permits must require that
morutonng results be retained by the
discharger for at least the term of the
permit and be made available to the
Director upon request In such cases,
results of any monitoring conducted
during the term of the permit should be
submitted as pan of a permit application
or NO! requirement prior to permit
reissuance.
A second option for minimum
requirements for permits for storm water
discharges from oil and gas exploration
and pi oducuon operat ions or from
inactive mine sites where a past or
present mine operator cannot be
identified would be available where a
permit requires the facility owner or
operator to develop and implement a
storm water pollution prevention plan or
a storm water best management
practices plan. In such a case, the permit
writer could require the discharger to
obtain a Registered Professional
Zngmeer’s certification that the plan had
been prepared and is being Implemented
in accordance with good engineering
practices. Such certification would be
obtained at a minimum of once every
three sears. The Agency believes that a
min:mum requirement of once every
three year, is necessary to evaluate
changing site conditions and practices.
Of course permit writer, would retain
discretion to. where appropriate.
establish monitoring and certification
requirements in excass of these
minimum requirements.
EPA is proposing this option to
a.idress some of the specific concerns
associated with storm water from oil
and gas operations and from inactive
mining operations where a past or
present operator cannot be identified.
Information from sources such as
nonpomt source assessments developed
pursuant to section 319(a) of the CWA
indicate that significant water quality
impacts can be caused by wet-weather
failure of on-site waste disposal systems
at oil and gas exploration and
production operations (such as storm
induced overflows of reserve pits used
to hold spent drilling muds and
cuttings). Periodic sampling of
discharges may not be sufficient to
identify or predict these events. Rather,
a PE certification may provide a more
appropriate link for evaluating the
potential for and preventing these types
of events, Further, many oil and gas
exploration and production with
contaminated storm water discharges
are already required to obtain gimilnr PE
certifications for Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasure (SPCC)
Plans for discharges of oil under 40 CFR
part 112. The Agency believes that
developing an approach under the
NPDES program for storm water
discharges from oil and gas operations
that is consistent with existing
regulatory programs (e.g. the SPCC
program) will potentialiy reduce
industry burdens and provide for a
greater degree of industry compliance.
EPA is also considering other factors in
evaluating requirements for oil and gas
exploration and production operations,
including the potentially large number’
of facilities subject to the program and
that such facilities are typically found at
remote locations and may have a limited
operating stall,
Monitoring contaminated storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from inactive mining operations
where a past or present mine operator
cannot be identified can pose unique
problems, particularly on Federal lands
which have many thousands of inactive
mines without identifiable mir.e
operators. The Agency will be
developing draft general permits in
several States for inactive mining
operations on Federal lands where a
past or present mine operator cannot be
Identified and where EPA retains
NPDES permit issuance responsibilities
(these discharges are excluded from the
draft general permits noticed elsewhere
in today’s Federal Register). The Agency
believes that requiring the appropriate
Federal land manager to monitor
discharges from every one of the
thousands of inactive mine, on their
lands is not appropriate. Rather, the
Agency is evaluating the appropriate
combination of discharge monitoring
reqwrements for selected inactive
mining operations and requirements to
assess water quality Impacts, such as
biosurveys, instream sampling and
sediment sampling. Further, the Agency
recognizes that many of the methods
used to control pollutant discharges and
reclaim Inactive mining operations can
be evaluated from site Inspections, and
that unique resource problems may arise
where a past or present operator cannot
be identified. (Note that SMCRA
regulations applicable to coal mining
operations incorporate PE certifications
(see 30 R 816.133(d)(5) and 30 GR
817.133(d)(5).)
EPA requests comments on whether
providing that NPDES permits for
contaminated storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
oil and gas exploration and production
operations and from inactive mining
operations where a past or present mine
operator cannot be identified, a PE
certification instead of annual
monitoring is an effective mechanism to
ensure compliance with permit
conditions.
EPA requests comments on other
classes of industr:as where a PE
certification may be an appropriate
alternative to discharge sampling (e.g.
construction activities where conditions
change dramatically and frequently;
portions of active mining operations
which are not subject to effluent
limitations guidelines, inactive industrial
operations where an operator is not
identifiable end which are not expected
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 1991 I Proposed Rules
‘The Amertcan P troIeum In.tizute (API)
e.tlmitp. that there eye about 850.000 a tlve cii and
ga. welts. 219.000 tank bnttene, end 150.000
iniecton writ, In ‘he United State.. AP also
eatimetea that SPCC plan, have brett developed for
about liii 000 of the,e f ,aul t ie,. The Agency
.ntimp.tpo thot natty .:le. are composed of
multiple components (e.g activ, welts, a tank
battery, and ui$ectioo weliaJ. The Agency ala.
anticipate. that eat eli alto. discharge
contaminatsd ntnolL ci’A request. com .nta on
the ijumb,, of site. with .11 end p. exploe.tion and
production operation, that discharge conianutatod
atorOl water to weteti of the United State.. and
henc. would be sublect to NPDS storm water
requ irements,
-------
40960
Federal Register I Vol. 58. No. 159 I Friday . August 16. 1991 / Proposed Rules
to undergo extensive changes: and email
businesses which may not have the
expertise to monitor). In addition, the
Agency requests comment on portions of
Industr ial facilities. such as haul roads,
where a PE certification may be an
appropriate alternative to discharge
sampling
EPA also requests comments on the
coats of obtaining Professional
rigineers certification for two
scenarios: (1) Where the engineer is a
company employee and (2) where the
company does not have an appropriate
Professional Engineer on staff and must
hire a consultant In addition. EPA
requests comments on the appropriate
minimum frequency for obtaining such a
certification.
The proposed changes to the language
of 40 CFR 122.44(i) found in the back of
today’s notice reflects this option.
_ j’se-by.case monitoring
conditions in permits for storm water
discharges with a minimum requirement
that monitoring reports be submitted at
least annually for targeted classes of
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity located in the
watershed of receiving waters that are
sensitive to or impacted by storm water
discharges.
OptIon 4 differs from the other options
presented in this notice in that it
establishes a minimum requirement for
DMRs in NPDES permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity based on receiving water
concerns. This approach would focus
permitting resources and controls on
discharges to receiving waters that are
sensitive to or impacted by storm water
discharges. This option would establish
a minimum requirement that facilities
report monitoring results at least
annually for those stcrtn water
discharges associated with industrial
activity that are located within the
watershed of any receiving water (or
receiving water segment) that Is
determined by an NPDES State or EPA
to be impacted by or sensitive to storm
water discharges. Monitoring
requirements in permits for storm water
discharges associated with Industrial
activity which are not located within
such watershed_s would be established
on a case-by-case basis. These storm
For the purpose, of developing permit
qpticauon requirements. ‘A defines email
buzinease, at 40 R lfl.21(gJ(8) u coal mine. with
apiob.ble total annual production of lee. than
seo tons per year. and ( , .11 other applicants,
—es with gtoss total annual sales .veeagulg
than sioaaoo par year (In second quarter 1950
&illsisoi ’app e.gnz t .i , $150,090 In 1990 dollar,).
Thta provision exempts small businesas, from
permit application monsioting requirement . to?
certain organic chemical.,
water discharges would not be subject
to a minimum requirement to submit or
otherwise collect discharge monitoring
information, although monitoring and
reporting requirements could still be
established In permits on a case-by-case
basis,.
A key aspect of this approach would
be developing a list of waters that are
either Impacted by or sensitive to storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity. All States would be
required to submit lists for their State
for the review and approval or
disapproval by EPA. EPA would develop
the list of waters for States that fail to
develop approved lists.
The Agency anticipates that such lists
could be based on existing and readily
available data. The CWA provides a
number of mechanisms for identifying
Impacted surface waters which could be
useful in developing lists of waters
impacted by or sensitive to storm water
discharges, including the identification
of lists of receiving waters under
Sections 304(l).’° 305(b) ,ii 3 14(a ) , 12
“Section 304(1) of the CWA require. States to
develop thins list. of water. in the Stat.. Section
304(l)(1 )(Afll) requite. the development of a list of
all water, which after the .ppllcatlon of effluent
limitations required under the CWA cannot
reasonably be anticipated to attain or maintain
newly adopted numeric water quality standards due
to toxic pollutant., Section 304(l)(1J(A)(ll) require.
the development of a list of all water. which, after
the application of effluent limitations required under
the CWA. cannot reasonably be anticipated to
attain or maintain water quality that assures
protection of public health, public water supplies.
agricultural and industrial use., and the protection
and propagation of a balanced population of
ahelifish. flab and wildlife, and allow reaeaflonai
activities in and on the water. Section 3IM(l)(i)(BJ
reqwre. the development of a lilt of all wateil for
which the State doe, not expect the applicable
standard under section 305 of the CWA will be
achieved after the requirement. of section. 301(b).
306. and 307(b) are met, due entirely or aubstantlally
to discharges from point source. or any toxic
pollutants listed pursuant to section 307 (a) of the
CWA.
ii Section 305(b) of the CWA provide, that every
two year, State. shall submit to the EPA a report
describing the water quality of all navigable water,
In a State during the preceding year. The report
shall also include, among other things, an analysis
of th. extant to which those water. protect and
support shellfish, fish and wildlife and allow
reanational use, the basis for the es.saament
(evaluated or morutored), and causes of nonsupport
of deaignated uses.
“Section 314(a) requires States to submit
biennial reports that identify and classify publicly
owned kites according to their eutrophic condition.
In addition, SectIon 314(a) reports should desaibe
thos, publicly owned lakes for which uses are
known to be Impairedi procedure.. processes. end
method, to control sources of pollutant. on such
lakes and methods and procedures to restore the
quality of auth lakes.
319(a). 13 and 320.14 Additional sources
of Information which may be
appropriate for Identifying impacted or
sensitive surface waters include the
waters Identified by the International
Joint Commission.’ the Chesapeake
Bay program, and other EPA and State
programs.
Several of the lists of receiving waters
developed under the CINA also identify
sources of water quality impairment and
classes of pollutants associated with the
water quality impairment. For example.
the general classes of sources of water
quality impairment addressed in section
305(b) reports which would be of
particular interest when addressing
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity, include separate
storm sewers/urban runoff,
construction, waste disposal. and
resource extraction. 1 ’ Sources of
pollutants identified in section 305(b)
reports include nutrients, organic
enrichment. pathogens. siltation, and
metals. 17 Under this option, these
‘ 5 Section 3 1 9 (a) of the CWA provides for States
to submit to EPA a report that Identifies those
navigable water. which, without additional action
to control nonpoint source, of pollution, cannot
reasonably be expected to attain or maintain
applicable water quality standards or the goal. and
requirement. of the CWA. and to identify those
categories and subcategorie. of nonpoint sources
that add significant pollution to each portion of the
navigable water. identified.
“Section 3 of the CWA provides for EPA to
designate estuaries of national significance baaed
on a nomination of the Governor of any State in
which the estuary lies in whole or In part and
convene a management conference to develop a
comprehensive management plan for the estuary.
“International Joint Commission has
Identified areas of concern in the Great Lakes,
‘ EPA has issued a number of guidance matenali
to auist States in the section 305(b) process to
Identify source. of pollution that impact waler
quality. Water Body System Users Guide’
provides a detaileo list of subcategories of source.
to develop section 305(b) reports. The list include..
separate storm sewer, discharge. from separate
storm sewer, conaa’uctloiu resource extractiom
Runoff and process fluids from muting, petroleum
drilling, and mine tailing stte and land disposaL
Runoff and leachite from landfills. septic tanks, and
hazardous waate disposal sites.
‘ The “National Water Quality Inventory, 1588
Report to Congrees” provide, a general assessment
of water quality based on biennial reports
submitted by the States under section 305(b) of the
CWA, The National Water Quality Inventory
aumm,nxe. aources of water quality impairment
Identified under .ectlon 305(bp in terma of the
following classes: industrial. POTWs. combined
sewer overflow., separate storm sewers/urban
runoft agriculture. eiivlcuutwe. construction.
resource extraction, land dispoul. and bydrv
modification/habitat modification. The Agency
belIeve, the claeaea of separate storm sewers/urban
rwioft construction, resource extraction, and land
disposal correlate well with certain classes of storm
water discharges associated with industrial activity
-------
Federal Register J Vol. 58. No. 159 / Friday. August 16, 1991 / Proposed Rules
40901
additional parameters could be used to
develop minimum monitoring
requirements for those general classes
of storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that are
specifically identified as causa g water
quality impairment.
The Agency is concerned that Opt.on
4 would piace large burdens on
permitting Agencies and the regulated
community during the initial phases of
deveinping the storm water program.
The Agency is also concerned that
significant storm water discharges
would not be addressed by this option
because the discharge is to waters
which were not assessed or to waters
that were impacted by storm water but
not identified for the purpose of this
regulation. The Agency also recognizes
that as storm water permitting programs
develop, they must focus on controlling
pollutar.t discharge, located with
watersheds of impacted and sensitive
waters. The Agency is requesting
comments on addressing these concerns
by modifying the DMR regulation such
that minimum DMR requirements would
not be established for the initial set of
permits to be issued under the new
storm water permitting initiative (e.g..
the minimum DMR requirements for
storm water discharges in impacted or
sensitive watershed would not be
effective until three years after the date
of promulgation of this regulation).
Howe er, after a specified time, at a
mirumum. annual DMRa for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity in watersheds that are impaired
or sensithe to storm water
disrharges would be required.
This approach would provide permit
issuing ager.c les with an opportunity to
initiate itorm water permitting efforts
and to identify those watersheds
impacted by storm water discharges. In
addition, this approach would also
erirure that storm water discharges in
watersheds of sensitive or Impacted
wate-s were appropriately evahiøted
and addre3sed.
, p’ cn 5. Case-by-case monitoring
conditions inpermits for storm water
discharges with no minimum
req iu ement to report monitoring results.
Under this approach, the existing
regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(i)(2) would
be mothfied to allow permit writers to
require discharge monitoring and
reporting on a case-by-cane basis.
Howe’ er, under this option. there would
be r.o minimum req’urement to suc.nut or
otherwise collect discharge monitoring
information for most storm water
discharges. except for certain facilities,
such as those with effluent limitation
guidelines for storm water discharges.
The existing regulations would be
modified to provide mmimwn
requirements for annual monitoring only
for certain facilities, such as those with
storm water discharges that are subject
to national effluent limitation guidelines.
those within specified industrial
categories, or those that have a storm
v er discharge that Is subject to a
au iienc or toxicity limitation in a permit
that has been established on a case-by-
case basis.
Under this option, some facilities may
not be required to sample their storm
water discharges associated with
Industrial activity. However, the broad
authorities of sections 308 and 402(aJ(2J
provide other means, such as
information collection and reporting,
that can ensure compliance with permit
conditions. Even under this approach.
monitoring programs would play an
miportani rote for some facilities in
determining compliance with numeric
limitations and/or the effectiveness of
requirements in a storm water pollution
prevention plan that the facility is
required to develop under a NPDES
permit. However, in other cases, limited
storm waler sampling data may not
provide adequate Information regarding
the effectiveness of the controls in the
storm water pollution prevention plan.
(For example, the primary focus of a
storm water pollution prevention plan at
a facility may be directed towards
preventing a catastrophic event like a
spill. Where no spill has occurred at the
facility, sampling of the storm water
discharge would convey little
Inform4uon regarding the effectiveness
of the spill controls.)
Option 5 would provide permit writers
with the discretion to require the
aubmiss cn of DMRs while limiting
burdens on permittees and permit
issuing ogencies. This option would
provide permit writers with the
maximum fleLb 1 lily to adopt a wide
range of permit monitoring strategies
(inctuuing strategies consistent with
other options addressed lit this notice)
on a case-by-case basis. The flexibdity
in establishing monitoring requirements
In permits could si uficantiy reduce the
burden that mocitoning samples
annuaUy would place on pernuttees.
The Agency also re uesta commcr.ts
on whether a muumnurn regulatory
morutcrlng reporting requirement should
be established for storm water
discharges from industrial categor.es
that have a high polutant potential
(such us lanthi s, ood preserving
fa.idities. airports, facilities subiect to
SARA title III. primary metal
manufactures, etc.). Conversely, the
Agency requests comments on whether
minimum annual monitoring
requirements should be developed for
all but specified uidustry groups or for
small buslnes8es, and the appropriate
basis for excluding such groups from
miiunium monitoring requirements. For
e’cample. small businesses may lack the
expertise to conduct sampling or
sampling costs may be too high.
,_..Dptinn & Case-by-case monitoring
conditions in permits for storm water
discharges, with a minimum requirement
for the first permit for the discharge that
monitoring results be reported at least
once a year. After a facility has
submitted five years of data, monitoring
conditions for storm water would be
established on a case-by-case basis with
no minimum requirement to conduct
annual sampling.
Under this approach, the minimum
monitoring requirement for permits for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity would change with
time. This approach would allow permit
writers to evaluate a minimum of five
years of storm water morutoring data.
This data would assist permit writers in
determining appropriate monitoring
conditions when reissuing permits. in
addition, data collection activities
required under the first set of NPDES
permits for storm water discharges
associa ted with industrial activity can
be used to develop priorities for
implementing Tiers U through IV of the
long term permitting strate ’ for storm
water discharges.
C. Application Requdrvmciits for
Cener& Permits
As discussed above, EPA intends to
increase Its use of general permits to
address the expansion of the scope of
the NPDES ,rogram to address storm
water discharges aasocta’ed with
industrial activity as weU as other
classes of discharges other than storm
water, and er.courages States with
general permit authority to do so as
well. The Agency intends to increase the
use of general permits to address other
eo’.irces as well. General permits are en
important tool for assuring adequate
eni ronimental safeguards for large
rluml)ers of similar facilities witha it the
administrative and resource burdens
involved in individual permit Issuance.
In order to improve administration and
operation of the general permits
program. the ‘ gency is p oporing to
facilitate and clarify gene:al permit
requirements and procodures.
EPA wants to emphasize that, except
for the procedural differences set out at
122.28 In the NPDES regulations.
general permits are analogous to
individual permits in every respect
General permits are still subject to the
same reporting and morutonng
-------
40962
Federal Register I Vol. 56. No. 159 f Friday. August 16. 1991 / Proposed Rules
requirements, limitations, enforcement
provisions, penalties, and other
substantive requirements as individual
permits. General permits should be
viewed as an administrative tool
enabling the issuance of one permit to
authorize a group of dlachargers.
Although the general permit program
has been available to authorized NPDES
States since its inception in 1979. some
States have been reluctant to seek and
use general permit authority. This has
created an administrative dilemma.
Even in circumstances where a general
permit is appropriate, EPA is unable to
issue a general permit in an authorized
NPDES State. Of the 39 States with
NPDES authorization. 23 have been
authorized to issue general permits. In
the other 16 authorized NPDES States
neither EPA nor the State has the
authority to issue general permits.
As discussed above in the storm
water context full individual permit
applications (e.g.. Form 2C for process
discharges or Form ZF for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity) containing a significant amount
of site-specific information from each
discharger may not be necessary for
developing general permits. 40 CFR
122.21(a) excludes persons covered by
general permits from requirements to
submit individual permit applications.
Existing general permit regulations at 40
CFR 122.28. however, do not address the
issue of how a potential permittee is to
apply to be covered under a general
permit. Rather. conditions for filing an
application to be covered by a general
permit (typically called a Notice of
Intent (NOl)) are established on a case-
by-case basis.
Under existing practice, general
permit coverage is by two methods.
First, as applied under federal law and
where authorized under State law, the
Director may issue a general permit
covering a particular class of
dischargers (or treatment works treating
domestic sewage) informing potential
permittees of their coverage by public
notice. Second. the Director may issue a
general permit where eligible
dischargers (or treatment works treating
domestic sewage) are not authorized to
discharge under the permit until they
have submitted a NO! to be covered by
the general permit. The public notice for
a general permit specifies whether an
NO! is required prior to coverage. In
almost all cases, general permits require
the submittal of NOEs containing basic
information such as the name and
address of the facility and a brief
description of the discharge and
receiving water.
NOls serve a number of functions.
NO! requirements in general permits can
establish a clear accounting of the
number of permittees covered by the
general permit, the nature of operations
at the facility generating the discharge,
and their identity and location. NOls
can be used to develop a data base of
facility-specific information. NOIs can
be used as a screening tool to identify
discharges where Individual permits are
appropriate. For example, the
identification of discharges to impacted
receiving waters can be used in the
development of water quality-based
permit conditions. Also, the NO! can be
used to identify classes of discharges
appropriate for more specific general
permits covering a more limited set of
discharges. The NO! can provide
information needed by the Director to
notify dischargers that a more specific
general permit was issued. The NO! also
can identify the permittee to provide a
basis to develop and implement
enforcement and compliance monitoring
strategies and priorities. In addition. the
adnunistrative burdens on the
permitting issuing agency and the costs
to dischargers can be reduced by
replacing more complicated permit
application requirements with simplified
requirements.
To encourage the use of general
permits, to provide for more consistent
NO! requirements, and to ensure that
dischargers covered by general permits
provide appropriate information. the
Agency is proposing to modify the
regulatory framework for general
permits to provide minimum
requirements for NOIs. (These proposed
changes would apply to a number of
other classes of general permits for non-
storm water discharges as well as storm
water discharges.)
Proposed 12128(b)(2) would require
that, at a minimum, NOIs include the
legal name and address of the owner or
operator, the facility name and address,
the number and type of facilities or
discharges, the receiving stream(s), and
other information necessary to ascertain
whether the discharger should be
included under the terms of the general
permit as specified in the final general
permit. This provision would be a
minimum requirement Permits may
require additional information where
appropriate.
The proposal also provides guidelines
for deadlines to submit NOIs. The
guidelines recommend that general
permits be written to require di chargers
to submit NOIs 60 days before the date
of intended permit coverage. Under the
proposal, the Director may specify
different time periods in the general
permit for these submissions.
Under the proposal, unless otherwise
provided in the permit, dischargers
would automatically be authorized to
discharge under the general permit by
submitting an NO! in accordance with
the terms of the permit This provision
would still allow general permits to
specify that the permittee must receive
notification of coverage under the
general permit from the Director before
discharges would be authorized.
The proposal provides for two
situations where an NO! would not have
to be submitted to authorize discharges
under a general permit. The first
situation is where the Director notifies
the discharger that its discharge is
covered by the permit. The second
situation is where the Director decides
that an NOl is inappropriate for a
general permit. To make the latter
decision, the Director would consider
the type of discharge, the expected
nature of the discharge. the potential for
toxic and conventional pollutants in the
discharges. the expected volume of the
discharges, other means of identifying
discharges covered by the permit, and
the estimated number of discharges to
be covered by the permit. Also, if this
approach is pursued. the Director would
be required to describe the reasons for
not requiring an NO! in the fact sheet of
the general permit. This notice proposes
that such a finding could only be made
for discharges other than discharges
from POTWs. combined sewer
overflows (CSOs). primary industrial
facilities, contaminated runoff from
mining operations or oil and gas
operations and other storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity. The Agency believes that given
the potential environmental significance
and NPDES program priorities
associated with discharges from
POTWs. CSOs. primary industrial
facilities, contaminated runoff from
mining operations or oil and gas
operations and other storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity, it is appropriate to require NOEs
in all general permits for these
discharges. However, the Agency
requests comments on whether general
permits without NO! requirements are
appropriate for the large number of
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from oil and gas
exploration or production operations.
Oil and gas exploration or production
operations that discharge storm water
associated with industrial activity are
typically subject to Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasure (SPCC)
program requirements at 40 CFR part
112. which may provide an alternative
means for tracking these facilities.
Public accessibility to this information
would be enhanced by proposed
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 159 I Friday. August 16. 1991 / Proposed Rules
409C3
4 122 28(d), which provides that such
lists would be available to the public.
0 Fact Sheet for Dm11 GenemJ Permit
The following portion of this notice
provides notice for draft NPDES general
permits and accompanying fact sheets
for storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity in Al(, AZ. FL,
ID, LA. MA. ME, NH. NM. OK. SD. TX.
District of Columbia. the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam.
American Samoa, the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands. and the
Tust Territory of the Pacific Islands: on
Indian lands in AL. CA. GA, KY, Ml.
MN. MS. MT. NC. ND. NY, NV, SC. TN.
UT, WI and WY; located within Federal
facilities and Indian lands in CO and
WA; and located within Federal
facilities in Delaware. Separate general
permits are being noticed for each State.
These draft general permits are intended
to cover 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 storm sewer systems.
Publication of this draft general permit
and fact sheet is designed to comply
with the requlrement3 of 40 CFR 124.10
simultaneously for all 35 drah general
permits being noticed today. Public
hearings on selected permits will be
held as indicated at the beginning of this
notice.
The language of the draft general
permits is provided as an appendix to
the preamble of this notice In general,
most conditions of the draft general
permits are intended to apply to all of
the general permits indicated above.
Where co.,ditions in different permits
vary, these differences are indicated in
the draft general permit in the appendix.
1. Background
In 1972. the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (also referred to as the
Clean Water Act (CWA)) was amended
to provide that the discharge of any
pollutants to waters of the United States
from any point source is unlawful.
except if the discharge is in compliance
with an National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
For a number of reasons, EPA and
authorized NPIJES States have failed to
issue NPDES permits for the majority of
point source discharges of storm water.
Recognizing this, Congress added
section 402(p) to the CWA in 1987 to
establish a comprehensive framework
for addressing storm water discharges
under the NPDES program. Section
4 O 2 (p)(4) of the CWA clarifies the
requirements for EPA to issue NPDES
permits for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity. On
November 18. 1990 (55 FR 47990), EPA
published final regulations which define
the term “storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity”. The
final regulations also establish
requirements for submitting individual
permit applications and group
applications.
EPA estimates that about 100.000
facilities nationwide discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
(riot including oil and gas exploration
and production operations). The large
number of facilities addressed by the
regulatory definition of “storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity” will place correspondingly
large admirustrative burdens on EPA
and States with authorized NPDES
programs to issue and adznL’uster
permits for these discharges.
To provide a reasonable and rational
approach to addressing this permitting
task, the Agency is developing a
Strategy for issuing permits for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity. In developing this
Strategy, the Agency recogruzes that the
CIVA provides flexibility in the manner
in which NPDES permits are issued.ie
and will use this flexibility to design a
workable permitting system. In
accordance with these considerations,
the draft pernutting Strategy (described
in more detail earlier in today’s notice)
describes a four-tier set of priorities for
issuing permits for these discharges. The
four tier set of priorities for issuing
permits under the policy are:
• Tier i—Baseline Permitting One or
more general permits will be developed
tu initially cover the majority of storm
water discharges ansociated with
industrial activity;
• Tier!!— Watershed Permitting:
Facilities within watersheds shown to
be adversely impacted by storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity will be targeted for individual or
watershed-specific general permits.
• Tier ui—industry-Specific
Permitting: Specific industry categories
will be targeted for individual or
industry-specific general permits: and
• Tier IV—Facthty-Specific
Permitting: A variety of factors will be
Thr court inNRDCv Train 39OFSupp 1393
(DDC.1975)ofl’dNRDCv Coat/c iaaFZd 1389
(0 C.Cir 1977). bee acknowledged the
admini.tretiv. burden placed on the Agency by
requiring permit. for. large number of storm water
dlscha,ges. The coat. have recognized EPA a
dla etla to uae certain adnunutrsthe device,,
auch u are. permit, or general permit.. to help
manage it. workload. In addition, the court, have
recognized fleiubthiy in the type of permit
condition. that can be established, including the use
of requirement. far best management practice..
used to target specific facilities for
individual permits.
The draft general permits
accompanying this fact sheet will
initiate Tier I activities for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity in Alaska. Arizona. Idaho.
Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maine, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma.
South Dakota, Texas. the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico. Guam, American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands; for Federal facilities and
Indian lands in Colorado and
Washington. and for Indian lands in
Alabama, California, Georgia. Kentucky.
Michigan. Minnesota. Mississippi.
Montana, New York, Nevada. North
Carolina. North Dakota, New York.
Nevada, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Utah. Wisconsin. and Wyoming, and for
Federal facilities in Delaware iS by
proposing baseline general permits for
the majority of storm water discharges
in these States.
In addition to establishing baseline
requirements for the majority of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity in these States, the
draft general permits have some of the
features of Tier Ill permitting activities
In that they establish requirements for
specific industries.
Consolidation of many sources under
one permit will greatly reduce the
otherwise overwhelming administrative
burden associated with storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity. This approach has a number of
additional advantages:
• General requirements will be
established for discharges covered by
the permit
• Facilities whose discharges are
covered by the permit will have an
opportunity to comply with the CWA
• The Agency will have the
opportunity to collect and review data
on storm water discharges for priority
industries;
• The public will have the opportunity
to review data and reports and to
comment on permitting activities:
• Applicable requirements of
municipal storm water management
programs established In permits for
“inS of the 39 State. that are authorized to i .aue
NPDES pernuts for municipal and lndu,tnal
source.. EPA mu.. permit, for diacharge. tram
Feder.I facilities. State program, do not generelly
addreu permitting of diechaige. from Indian land ..
a. EPA retain. thu reiponaibility. However. thu
fact sheet only address., general permits • 5
Indicated above. Where EPA La the permit tuuung
authority for other atom, water dl.cha,gea. either
Individual permits or a different general permit will
be uuad.
-------
964
Federal Register / VoL 5& No. 159 / Friday. August 16. i9gi I Proposed Rules
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewer systems will be enforceable
directly against noncomplying industrial
facilities that generate the discharge:
“The baseline permits will provide a
basis for bringing selected enforcement
actions by eliminating many issues
which might otherwise arise in an
enfàrcement proceeding (e.g.. clarifying
req xirement to obtain NPDES permit
coverage): and
“Finally, the baseline permit will
provide a focus for public comment on
developing subsequent phases of the
pernnttlng strategy for storm water
discharges, including the priorities for
Slateitorm water management
programs developed under section
4 l] 2 (p)(&) of the CWA.
Initially, the coverage of the baseline
permits3will be broad, but will decrease
as othec permits are Issued for storm
water. discharges associated with
industrial activities pursuant to Tier U
thraugb lV activiti .
2 11 pes of Discharges Covered
Oh’November 10. 1990. (55 FR 47990).
EPA\promulgated the regulatory
delliutlon of “storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity”
wl’iicxhiaddresses point source
discharges of storm water from eleven
majorcategories of facilities. (This
dhfimticnis reprinted In the definition
sectlon of the draft general permits
found m i the Appendix of today’s
notice)
The-draft general permits do not cover
storm.water discharges associated with
mdustrfaliactivity from inactive mining
or inactJve oil and gas operations
occurring on Federal lands where an
operntor cannot be identified. Given the
lbnq l1iatory of mining activity on the
axdenswe tracts of Federal lands, and
the re1adonship of the Federal land
management Agencies to prior operators
ahthesmsites. the Agency believes that a
thstlnct’set of permits are generally
appropriate to control pollutants In
storm water discharges from these sites.
EPA is currently working with a number
of Federal land management Agencies,
including the Bureau of Land
Management and the Forest Service, to
develop permits to address the unique
circumstances associated with these
sites in an appropriate manner.
3, Description of Discharges Covered
The volume and quality of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity will depend on a
number of factors. including the
industrial activities occurring at the
facility, the nature of precipitation, and
the degree of surface imperviousness.
Rain water may pick up pollutants from
structures and other surfaces as it drains
from the land. In addition, sources of
pollutants other than storm water, such
as illicit connections, 20 spi 11 s, and other
improperly dumped materials may
increase the pollutant loads discharged
from separate storm sewers, The
sources which contribute pollutants to
storm water discharges differ with the
type of industry operation and facility-
specific features. For example, air
emissions may be a significant source of
pollutants at some facilities, material
storage operations may be important at
different operations, while other
facilities may discharge storm water
associated with industrial activity with
relatively low levels of pollutants.
The most extensively studied storm
water discharges have been those from
residential and commercial areas (urban
runoff). Evaluating these discharges will
provide a starting paint for
understanding the pollutants that can be
expected In storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity.
‘° Il1i t connecti ens are point burG. dIICIraFge.
of pollutants that are not oo npoeed entirely of
storm water, that are not coverutt by en existing
NPOE perTnlt end which are discharged through
separate .torm sewer. to water. of the United
Stats..
Many storm water discharges are
expected to contain the pollutants
typically associated with urban runoff.
along with additional pollutants that
result from the specific industrial
operations of the facility.
From 1978 through 1983, EPA provided
funding and guidance to the Nationwide
Urban Runoff Program (NURP) to study
the nature of runoff from commercial
and residential areas. The NIJRP
program included 28 pro lecta across th
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
which drain residentiaL commercial,
and light industrial (industrial parks)
sites. The majority of samples collected
In the NIJRP study were analyzed for
seven conventional pollutants and thr
metals. Table I summarizes the
pollutant concentrations from the NURP
data base Is presented in Table I for
these 10 constituents and fecal coliforn.
Data collected in NURP indicated that
on en annual loading basis, suspended
solids in discharges from separate storm
sewers draining runoff from residential,
commercial and light industrial areas
are around an order of mngnitude or
more greater than effluent from sewage
treatment plants receiving secondary
treatment The study also indicated 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 runofL it is important to
recognize that discharges of urban
runoff are highly intermittent, and that
the shcrt.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 .—Ou*ury CHARACTERISTICS OF RuNC FROM RESIDENTIAl. AND COMMERCIAl. AREAS
C0I V JSIIS
Average rus ca., ...... ,. ,aI srti
uaso i
Weiglitud mew reeiderttiV
commerotul eta concanumon
P4tJRP reenrr.nsn m t Ice S
esematas
TSS
233mg/ I
12 tug/I
mg /I
0.5 mg/I
180mg/I
12 mg/I
82 mg/I
042 mg/I
0.15 mg/I
t 9o mgiI
0.86 mg/I
13 Mg/I
I 8 2 Mg/I
202 pg 11
180-548mg/I
12-19 ing/l
82-178 mg/I
042-088 mg/I
0.15-0.28 mg/I
I 90-4 IS mg/I
0 88-2.21 mg/I
43 118 Mg/I
182-4 43 pg/I
202-833 p 9/i
BGQ
cam
TbeS’ km 4 Ofl .._._________
S eICe’pfloicnows.
ThtalJXteI N vs’ogen..
0.15 mg/I
2.3 mg/I
Ni&ateiuiatt.’_______________
1.31 mg/I
53 pg/I
T8tac u r
Tht i
238 Mg/I
Thi ________
353 pg/I
F W o mt
WeS ther_____________
50.240 noiarts /100 n
n.sta coonwioo 0W
21.605 cotnita) 100 0W
7.057 cownwloo oW
C IS I * 5W__________________
wcse Oeye4o ed from Rarrd ci m Nal/ont. , ,Jj ( ,h8an Rgs.ffPrv ’a ,,i Vcf ?—, n R ov EPA 1983.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 56. No. 159 / Friday, ugust 16. 1991 / Proposed Rules
4O G5
The NURP program also involved
monitoring 120 priority pollutants.
Seventy-seven priority pollutants were
detected in samples of storm water
discharges from residential, commercial.
and light industrial lands taken during
the NURP study. including 14 Inorganic
and 83 organic pollutants Table 2 shows
the priority pollutants that were
detected in at least t n percent of the
discharge samples that were sampled
for priority pollutants. The NURP data
also showed 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, with
hydrocarbon levels in urban runoff
typically being reported at a range of 2
mg/I to 10 mg/I. These hydrocarbons
tend to accumulate in bottom sediments
where they may persist for long periods
of tune, and exert adverse impacts on
benthic organisms.
TABLE 2.—PRIORIrY POU.U’TANTS DE-
TEC1’EO IN AT LEAST 10% OF NURP
SAMPLES
Other studies have shown that many
storm sewers contain illicit discharges
of non-storm water, and that large
amounts of wastes are disposed
improperly in storm sewers. Removal of
these discharges present opportunities
for dramatic improvements in the
quality of storm water discharges Storm
water discharges from industnal
facilities may contain, in addition to
illicit connections and improperly
dioposed wastes. toxics and
conventional pollutants when material
management practices allow exposure
to storm water
In some municipaltties, illicit
connections of sanitary, commercial,
and industrial discharges to storm sewer
systems have had a significant Impact
oii the water quality of receiving waters.
Although the NURP study did not
characterize 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
680 businesses, homes, and other
buildings located in Washtenaw County,
Michigan. The program identified that 14
Freguei ’ y percent of the buildings had improper
percertp storm drain connections. Illicit
discharges were detected at a higher
rate of 60 percent for automobile.related
13 businesses, including service stations,
52 automobile dealerships. car washes,
body shops. and light industrial
facilities. While some of the problems
91 discovered in this study were due to
23 improper plumbing or illegal
connections, a majority were approved
ti connections at the time they were built.
94 but have since become unlawful
discharges.
Intensive construction activities may
ii result in severe localized impacts on
15 water quality because of high unit loads
of pollutants, primarily sediments.
11 Construction sites can also generate
14 other pollutants such as phosphorus and
is nitrogen from fartilizer, o°sticides,
tO petroleum products. cor.sir’ic ion
22 chemicals, and solid wastes, These
matenals can be toxic to aquatic
to organisms and degrade water for
16 drinking and water-contact recreation
12 Sediment runoff rates from construction
sites are typically 10 to 20 times that of
agricultural lands. with runoff rates as
high as 100 times that of agricultural
lands, and typically 1.000 to 1000 times
that of forest lands, Even a small
amount of construction may have a
significant negative impact on water
quality in localized areas. Over a short
period of time, construction sites can
contribute more sediment to streams
than was deposited previously over
several decades
The NURP study and other studies of
urban runoff provide insight on what
can be considered background levels of
pollutants for urban runoff, as these
studies have focused primarily on
momloring runoff from residential.
commercial, and light industrial areas.
However, NIJRP concluded that the
quality of urban runoff can be impacted
adversely by several sources of
pollutants that were not evaluated
directly in the study and which are
generally not reflected in 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 will be simiiar
to the types and concentrat ions of
pollutants generally found in storm
water discharges from residential and
commercial areas. However, storm
water discharges from other industrial
facilities will 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
imperviousness.
Six activities can be identtfied as
major potential sources of pollutants in
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity’ (1) Loading or
unloading of dry bulk materials or
liquids: (2) outdoor storage of raw
materials or products: (3) outdoor
process activities: (4) dust or particulate
generating processes; (5) illicit
connections or management practices:
and (6) waste disposal practices. The
potential for pollution from many of
these activities may be influenced by
the use and presence of toxic chemicals.
These activities are discussed in more
detail below.
(1) Loading and unloading operations
typ cally are performed along facility
access roads, railways, and at loadir.g/
unloading docks and terminals. These
operations include pumping of liquids or
gases from truck or rail car to a storage
facility 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 handling equipment.
Material spills or losses in areas can
Metajs and inorganzcs
Aria
Ber 4hum . .. .,. - ,._,. -

Chromium -
Cooper
Cyarwdes
Lead
Nic*eJ -— . . .. .
Selenium - . ... - .
Zinc -
°es uodes.
AiDna.hesacuomcofl ne
AIDh S.flØO SUif8J, -
Chtorøarie . .,..
Un ane ,,
falogerlaced ahphatic Methane
Phenols and cresots.
PP Io’o I ... . .,....... .. .. -
Phenc l, pP”ecslioro-
Pt* i 4, 4-n, c
PhtP3Iaie asians Pt’tflai te. ais(2-ee, -
yl he 1) .. -. ... -
Poiycyciic arofnaec rYyOrocastcns.
Ci’rysene ....
Fiuor artThøn t
PhenantJ irene . .. .
Pyrene
-------
Federal Register / Vol . 58. No. 159 I Friday. August 16, 1991 1 Proposed Rules
discharge directly to the storm drainage
systems, or may accumulate in 80118 or
cm surfaces, and be washed away
dkznng a storm event or facility
washdowns.
(L2) Outdoor storage activities include
the storage of fuels, raw materials,
byproducts, Intermediates, final
products, and process residuals. Storage
can be accomplished in various ways,
fir example, using storage containers
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 can 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 timber
processing, rock crushing. and concrete
mixing. typically occur outdoors.
Processing operations can result in
liquid spillage and losses of material
solidsto the drainage system or
surrounding surfaces, or creation of
dusts or aerosols. which can be
dsposited locally. Some outdoor
industrial activities cause substantial
physical disturbance of land surfaces
that result In soil erosion by storm
water.
Examples where disturbed land
occurs include construction and mining.
Disturbed land can 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, pesucides.
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 (Bearington
1977J. Other industrial sites, such as
mines, cement manufacturing, and
refractorfes. will generate sl lflcant
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
increase for older facilities as well as for
those facilities that use high volumes of
process water or that dispose of
significant amounts of Iiqwd wastes.
including process waste waters, cooling
waters, 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. spi 11 s, improper dumping.
and a belief that the absence of visible
solids in a discharge is equivalent to the
absence of pollution. Illicit connections
are often associated with floor drama
that are connected to separate storm
sewers. Rinse waters used to clean or
cool objects discharge to floor drains
that may be connected to separate storm
sewers. Large amounts of rinse waters
may originate from industries that use
regular wash down 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 in the metal finishing
and electroplating industry, typically
develop pin-hole leaks, which may
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 it may be
inadvertent, as the operator may be
unaware that a floor drain is connected
to the storm sewer.
(6) Waste management practices
include 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.
The type relates to 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 behavior of toxic
and heavy metals is of particular
concern. Many of the metals are
amphotenc with regard to their
solubihty behavior. The factors affecting
acidity. pH and the subsequent leaching
of trace metals are:
• Concentration and form of pyn tic
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 CaCO3 and other
neutralizing substances in the coal.
• Concentration and form of tracc
metals in the coal: and
• The residence time in the coal pile.
Table 3 shows data of selected
pollutants in coal pile runoff at two
steam electric plants. Both facilities
generated runoff with low pH values.
with the acid values being quite variable
in both cases. The suspended solids
levels observed went up to 2.500 mg/I.
The metals present in the greatest
concentrations were copper, iron.
aluminum, nickel and zinc. Others
present in trace amounts include
chromium, cadmium, mercury, arsen.c.
selenium. and beryWwn.
TABLE 3.—POLLUTANTS IN COAl. PILE RUNOFF
Aciuity (mg/I Sulfate (mg/I)
CCO)
300-7100
3400
1600-9600
5160
Is
Dissolved
301i43 (mg/I)
2500—16000
7900
is
Mn (mg/I)
Totaj
SJSDOflded
eobds (mg/I )
5-2300
410
Is
89-45
28 7
19
-------
Fedora! Register I Vol 56. No. 15’3 I Frid v. At u3t 16. 1901 I Proposed Ru!es
40967
TABLE 3 —POLLUTANTS IN COAL P:LE RUNOFF—Continued
Plant
pH
/l

Sulfate (mg/I)
,
l mg/I)
Total
suSQended
Mn (nvi1)
2 liange
Mean
N .
2 Range
Mean
N
25-31
27
6
25-27
26
14
860—2100
1360
6
300-1100
710
14
1900-4000
2780
6
870—5500
2300
14
2900-5000
3600
6
1200-7500
2700
14
38—270
190
6
69—2500
650
14
24-tO
41
6
09-54
23
14
Cu
(mg/I)
Zn
(mg/i)
Al
(mg/I)
Ni
(mg/i)
Fe
(mg/I)
As
(mg/I)
I Range
Mean . - .. -
N.. ....
2 Range -. ... ..
Mean ...... . ._.... . . - .
N.. ..... .. . ... ............. .. ..... ... ..
0 43-I 4
088
19
001-046
013
6
23-16
668
19
11-37
218
6
66—440
6 0
19
22-60
433
6
074-045
259
19
024-048
033
8
240-1900
9 O
19
280-4.80
380
6
005-08
017
19
0006-0046
002
4
I Range
Mean . . . .. . . - -. . —. . ,. ..
N .. . . . ............ . . .
NO . . .. .... . -. ... ...._.... ..... . ..
2 Range .. -. .... . .... ... . ._.. . .._ ._..
Mean .. . . _ _ _ ,.. .. ._ . , . _ . ,_. -
N
ND . .. . .. . .... ._................... ._...
Cr
(mg/i)
<0 005- 011
007
17
11
Hg
(mg/I)
<0002-0025
0004
20
12
So
(mg/I)
<001-03
0006
18
4
Os
(mg/I)
<001-03
0 044
18
0
Cd
(mg/I)
<001
<001
19
19
<0005-011
0007
6
3
<001-001
0001
4
3
<01-03
0014
4
3
<001-003
0002
6
2
<0001-003
0002
6
2
N —Number of saniplee
ND Below detection levels
Sowc. Final Devefogmnent Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelinee
Category. (EPA-440/1-82’029). EPA. November 1982.
‘Discrete Storm
and Standards and Pretreatment Standards for the Steam Eiectiic Point Source
4 Summary of Options for Controlling
°ollutants
Options for controlling pollutants in
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activttieg (other than from
construction activities) will be discussed
in terms of two rna or pollutant sources:
(1) Materials discharged to separate
storm sewers via illicit connections,
improper dumping, and spills: and (2)
pollutants associated with runoff
collected by separate storm sewers.
Options for controlling pollutants in
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activities from construction
activities are addressed separately.
a Non-storm water discharges to
separate storm sei ers. As discussed
earlier, in some cases, a substantial
portion of the pollutant load from
separate storm sewers which discharge
storm water associated with industrial
activity is associated with non-storm
water discharges. Non-storm water
discharges to separate storm sewers
include a wide Variety of sources.
including illicit connections, improper
dumping, spills, or leakage from storage
tanks and transfer areas. Measures to
control epills and visible leakage can be
incorporated Into storm water pollution
,revention plans (see below).
In many cases, operators of industrial
facilities may be unaware of illicit
discharges or leakage from underground
storage tanks or other non-visible
systems. In some cases, illicit
connections to storm sewers were
installed before their legal prohibition.
and forgotten about. For example, illicit
connections are often associated with
floor drains that are connected to
separate storm sewers. Rtnse waters
used to clean or cool objects, and other
process wastewaters may be discharged
to the separate storm sewer by an
improperly connected floor drain. These
non-storm water discharges to a storm
sewer may be inadvertent with the
operator unaware that the floor drain is
connected to the storm sewer. In this
case, the key to controlling these
discharges is to identify them.
Methods to identify non’s form water
discharges to separate storm sewers.
Several methods for identifying the
presence of non-storm water discharges
are discussed below A
comprehensive evaluation of the storm
sewers at a facility may Incorporate
several methods.
“ ‘ A more complete discussion of neihodi to
identify illicit connection. cati be found in the draft
Manual of Practice Identification of Illicit
Connection.. U S. EPA. Sept i990
• Schematics. Where they exist,
accurate piping schematics can be
Inspected as a first step in evaluating
the integrity of the separate storm sewer
system. The use of schematics is limited
because schematics usually reflect the
design of the piping system and may not
reflect the actual configuration
constructed. Schematics should be
updated or corrected based on
additional information found during
inspections.
• Evaluation of drainage map and
inspections. Drainage maps should
identify the key features of the drainage
system: each of the inlet and discharge
structures, the drainage area of each
inlet structure, and units such as storage
or disoosal units or material loading
areas, which may be the source of an
illicit discharge or improper dumping In
addition, floor drains and other water
disposal inlets that are thought to be
connected to the sanitary sewer can be
identified A site inspection can be used
to augment and verify map
development. These inspections, along
with the use of the drainage map. car. be
coordinated with other best
management practices discussed below.
• End-of-pipe screening. Discharge
points or other access points such as
manhole covers can be inspected for the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 159 / Friday. August 16.
1991 1 Proposed Rules
presence of dry weather discharges and
other signs of non-storm water
discharge!. Dry weather flows can be
screened by a variety of methods.
Inexpensive onsite tests include
measuring pH observing for oil sheens,
scums and discoloration of pipes and
other structures: as well as colormetric
detection tests for chlorine, detergents.
metals and other parameters. In some
cases. it may be appropriate to collect
samples for more expensive analysis in
a laboratory for fecal coliform, fecal
streptococcus, conventional pollutants.
volatile organic carbon, or other
appropriate parameters.
• Water balance. Many sewage
treatment plants require that industrial
discharges measure the volume of
effluent discharged to the sanitary
sewer system. Similarly, the volume of
water supplied to a facility is generally
measured. A significantly higher volume
of water supplied to the facility relative
to that discharged to the salutary sewer
and other consumptive uses may be an
indication of illicit connections. This
method is limited by the accuracy of the
flow meters used.
• Dry weather testing. Where storm
sewers do not discharge during dry
weather conditions, water can be
introduced into floor drains, toilets and
other points where non-storm water
discharges are collected. Storm drain
outlets are then observed for possible
discharges.
• Dye testing. Dry weather discharges
from storm sewers can occur for a
number of legitimate reasons induding
ground water Infiltration or the presence
of a continuous discharge subject to an
NPDES permit. Where storm sewers do
have a discharge during dry weather
conditions, dye testing for illicit
connections can be used. Dye testing
involves introducing fluoromethc or
other types of dyes into floor drains,
toilets and other points where non-storm
water discharges are collected. Storm
drain outlets are then observed for
possible discharges.
• Manhole and h7ternaJ TV
Inspection. Physical Inspection of
manholes and internal inspection of
storm sewers either physically or by
television are used to Identify potential
entry points for illicit connections. Dry
weather flow,, material deposits, and
stains are often indicators of illicit
connections. TV inspections are
relatively expensive and generally
should be used only after a storm sewer
has been Identified as having illicit
connections.
b. Options for preventing pollutants in
storm water. The following five
categories describe options for reducing
pollutants in storm water discharges
from industrial plants:
(i) Providing end-of-pipe treatment
(ii) Implementing Best Management
Practices to prevent pollution;
(iii) Diverting storm water discharge
to municipal sewage treatment plants:
(iv) Using traditional storm water
management practices; and
(v) fltminnting pollution sources.
A comprehensive storm water
management program for a given plant
may include controls from each of these
categories. Development of
comprehensive control strategies should
be based on a consideration of plant
characteristics.
i. End-of-pwe treatment. End-of-pipe
treatment requirements are typically
imposed through numeric effluent
limitations. which provide the
discharger with flexibility to design the
most cost effective type of treatment for
the given facility.
At many types of industrial facilities,
it may be appropriate to collect and
treat the runoff from targeted areas of
the facility. This approach was taken
with 10 Industrial categories with
national effluent guideline limitations
for storm water discharges. There are
several basic similarities among the
national effluent guideline limitations
for storm water discharges:
• To meet the numeric effluent
limitation, most, if not all, facilities must
collect and temporarily store onsite
runoff from targeted areas of the plant
• The effluent gindeline limitations do
not apply to discharges whenever
rainfall events, either chronic or
catastrophic, cause an overflow of
storage devices designed. constructed.
and operated to contain a design storm.
The 10-year. 24-hour storm, or the 25-.
year, 24-hour storm commonly are used
as the design storm in the effluent
guideline limitations: and
• Moat technology-based treatment
standards are based on relatively simple
technologies such as settling of solids.
neutralization, and drum filtration.
Potential ground water Impacts should
also be considered by operators when
designing storage devices.
IL Best management practices. The
term best management practices (BMPs)
can describe a wide range of
management procedures, schedules of
activities, prohibitions on practices. and
other management practices to prevent
or reduce the pollution of waters of the
United States. BMPs also include
operating procedures, treatment
requirements and practices to control
plant site runoff drainage from raw
materials storage, spii 1 a or leaks. BMPs
can be established in two ways: BMP
plans and site or pollutant-specific
8MP g.
BMP plans. EPA has worked with
industry to identify the generic BMPs
which most well-operated facilities use
for pollution control, fire prevention,
occupational safety and health, or
product loss prevention. EPA often
establishes NPDES permit conditions
that require generic BMPs to be
identified and implemented through
B! fP plans. Many of the SMPs in a
typical BMP plan involve planning.
reporting, training, preventive
maintenance, and good housekeeping
Many industrial facilities currently
employ BMPs as part of normal plant
operation. For example. preventive
maintenance and good housekeeping are
routinely used in the chemical and
related industries to reduce equipment
downtime and to promote a safe work
environment for employees. Good
housekeeping BMPs generally are aimed
at preventing spills and similar
environmentai incidents by stressing the
importance of proper management and
employee awareness. Experience has
shown that many spills of hazardous
chemicals can be attributed, in one way
or another, to human error. Improper
procedures, lack of training. and poor
engineering are among the major causes
of spills. Experience has shown that
BMPs can be used appropriately and
BMP plans can effectively reduce
pollutant discharges in a cost-effective
mariner. BMP plans should reflect
requirements for Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasure (SPCC)
plans required under sectIon 311 of the
CWA, and many incorporate any part of
the SPCC plan into the BMP plan by
reference. BMP plans should also ensure
that solid and hazardous waste Is
managed in accordance with
requirements established under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). Management practices
required under RCRA should be
expressly incorporated into the BMP
plan.
In addition, each of the following nine
specific requirements should be
addressed in the BMP plan to reduce
pollutants in runoff from the planti
• Statement of policy
• Spill Control Committee:
• Material inventory;
• Material compatibility:
• Employee trainingi
• Visual Inspections;
• Preventive maintenance:
• Reporting and notification
procedures:
• Housekeeping:
• S cuxity.
-------
Federal Re ister I Vol. 56. No. 159 / Fnthiy, August 16. 1q91 I Proposed Rules
40969
Additional technical information on the requirements of BMP plans • Mitigation
BMPs and the elements of a BMP plan is discussed above, more advance site or • Ultimate Disposition.
contained in the publication entitied pollutant-specific BMP requirements can Table 4 lists BMPs associa ted with
“NPDES Best Management Practices be developed. The following four each category. Requirements for SPCC
guidance Document.” U.S. EPA. June categories described these site or plans for oil pollution prevention (see 40
1981. pollutant-specific BMPa: CFR part 112) illustrate how pollutant-
Site orpoliu!anl-specific best • Prevention: specific BMPs can be implemented.
mana emenf practices. In addition to • Containment;
TABI.E 4—ADVANCED BMP ALTERNATIVES
P er a on
Con wnem
Oev -iup
T ualm nt
Waste aJ
Monitonng —
Socu , ,ilaiy esnta ment
Flow eis.on to eecu..d&,r
x nment
Vep ccneol
Li iad ..o5ds aeg abon
Vo 1liIzs 5 en
C iMson/pruapiiaiion_... ,. ,.
Landfi S.
Laildesasnent
Reclamseon.
Dlsciwge to malice water
Deep well Wt ecuon.
DlIthSrijv to P01W
Oltate
Msc*te,ical
chemical
Mcr desauc sve
L.abe ig
Covenng..
Diai mnvol__________
Neuia aVon
Pneigna c and vsn n n
V o5ttorur .g._____
Sei
ten rcc wige
cheiTical O d8tefl
g.olo cii esaenunt..,..,.. ,........ ,.
Then al
Dry Cleanup ._._______
iii. Diversion of d.ischazge to sewage
treatment plant.. Where storm water
discharges contain significant amounts
of pollutants that can be removed by a
sewage treatment plant, the storm water
discharge can be discharged to the
sanitary sewage system. Such
diversions must be coordinated with the
operators of the sewage treatment plant
‘tad the collection system to avoid
worsening problems with either
combined sewer overflows (CSOs),
baserncnt flooding or wet weather
operation of the treatment plant. Where
CSO discharges. flooding or plant
operation problems can result. onsite
storage followed by a controlled release
during dry weather conditions may be
considered.
iv. TrothL,onol storm water
management pro ctjces. In some
situations, traditional storm water
management practices such as grass
swales, catch basin design and
maintenance. infiltration device.,
unlined retention or detention basins,
water reuse, and oil and grit separators
can be applied to an industrial setting.
However, care must be taken to
evaluate the potential of many of these
traditicnal devices for ground water
conta ina Lion. In some cases, It Is
appropriate to limit traditional storm
water management practices to those
areas of the drainage system that
generate storm water with relatively low
levels of pollutants (e.g., many rooftops.
parking lots. etc.). At facilities located In
northern areas of the country, snow
removal activities may play an
important role in a storm watet
management program. In addition, other
types of controls such as spill
prevention measures can be considered
to prevent catastrophic events that can
lead to surface or ground water
contamination.
v. Elimination of pollution sources. In
some cases, the elimination of pollution
source may be the most cost-effective
way to control pollutants in storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity. Options for eliminating
pollution sources indude reducing
onsite air emissions affecting runoff
quality, changing chemicals used at the
facility, and modification of material
management practices such as moving
storage areas Into buildings.
C. Options for Controlling Pollutants In
Storm Water Discharges Associated
With Industrial Activity From
Construction Activities.
Most controls for construction
activities can be broken into two groups:
(1) Sediment and erosion controls; and
(2) storm water controls. Sediment and
erosion controls are generally those
controls which address pollutants in
storm water generated from the site
during the time when construction
activities are occurring. Storm water
controls are generally those controls
which are installed during the
construction process, but pr.manly
result in reductions of pollutants in
storm water discharged from the site
after the construction has been
completed. Additional measures can be
classified as housekeeping best
management practices.
(iJ Sediment and erosion controls.
Erosion controls provide the first line of
defense In preventing off-site sediment
movement and are designed to prevent
erosion by protecting soils. Sediment
controls are designed to remove
sediment from runoff before the runoff La
discharged from the site. Sediment and
erosion controls can be further divided
into two major classes of controls:
vegetative practices and structural
practices. Major types of sediment and
erosion practices are summarized
below. A more complete description of
these practices is described in “Draft—
Sediment and Erosion Control, An
Inventory of Current Practices”, U.S.
EPA. OWEC, April 20. 1990.
(A) Sethment and erosion controls.
vegetative practices. Vegetation, as
discussed here, refers to covering or
maintaining an existing cover over soils.
The cover may be grass, frees, vines.
shrubs, bark, mulch or straw. The
establishment and maintenance of
vegetation are one of the moat important
factors In minimizing erosion while
construction activities are occurring. A
vegetation cover reduces the erosion
potential of a site by Absorbing the
kinetic energy of raindrops which would
otherwise impact soil; Intercepting
water so it can infllti’a e into the ground
instead of running off arrying surface
soils: and by slowing toe velocity of
runoff promoting deposition of sediment
In the runoff. Vegetative controls are
often the most important measures
taken to prevent off-site sediment
movement, and can provide a six-fold
-------
40970
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 159 / Friday. August 18.
1991 / Proposed Rules
reduction in discharge suspended
sediment levels. 23
Temporwy seeding. Temporary
seeding provides for temporary
stabilization by establishing vegetation
of areas of the site which will be
disturbed at some time dunn g the
construction operation, and where work
(other than the initial disturbance) Is not
conducted until some time later In the
project. Soils at these areas may be
exposed to precipitation for an extended
time period, even though work is riot
occurring on these areas. In most
climates, temporary seeding is typically
appropriate for areas exposed by
grading or clearing for more than seven
to fourteen days. Temporary seeding
practices have been found to be up to
95% effective in reducing erosion. 24
Permanent seeding. Permanent
seeding involves establishing a
sustainable ground cover at a site.
Permanent seeding stabilizes the soil to
reduce sediment in runoff from the site.
Permanent seeding is typically required
at most sites for aesthetic reason,.
Mulching. Mulching is typically
conducted as part of permanent and
temporary seeding practices. Where
temporary and permanent seeding is not
feasible, exposed soils can be stabilized
by applying plant residues or other
suitable materials to the soil surface.
Although generally not as effective as
seeding practices, mulching, by itself
does provide some erosion controL
Mulching in conjunction with seeding
practices provides erosion protection
prior to the onset of vegetation growth.
In addition, mulching protects seeding
practices, providing a higher likeithood
of their success. To maintain optimum
effectiveness, mulches must be
anchored to resist wind displacement.
Sod stab,! izotlon. Sod stabilization
involves establishing long-term stands
of grass with sod in sediment producing
areas, When installed and maintained
properly, sodding can be 99% effective in
reducing erosion. 2 ’ making it the most
effective vegetation practice available.
The higher cost of sod stabilization
relative to other vegetative controls
typically limits its use to exposed soils
where a quick vegetative cover Is
desired and on sites which can be
maintained with ground equipment In
addition, sod is sensitive to climate and
“Perforutanc. of C nent Sethznent Control
Measure. at Maryland CoiiatrucUon Site.”, January
1990, Metropobtan W.shing on Council of
Covarninents,
‘ “Guide. for Erosion and Sediment Control In
California”, USDA—SOIl Cociaervafto Service.
De.t. CA. Reviasd 1935.
““Guide. for Erosion and Sedinisni Control In
California; USDA—Sod Coniervailoa Service,
0. VIe. CA. Ravlied i935,
may require intensive watering and
fertilizing,
Vegetative buffer strips. Vegetative
buffer strips are preserved or planted
strips of vegetation at the top and
bottom of a slope, outlining property
boundaries, or adjacent to receiving
waters such as streams or wetlands.
Vegetative buffer strips can slow runoff
flows at critical areas, decreasing
erosion and allowing sediment
deposition.
Protection of trees. This practice
involves preserving and protecting
selected trees that were on the site prior
to development. Mature trees have
extensive canopy and root systems
which help to hold soil in place. Shade
frees also keep soil from drying rapidly
and becoming susceptible to erosion.
Measures taken to protect trees can
vary significantly, from simple measures
such as installing tree fencing around
the drip line and installing tree
armoring, to more complex measures
such as building retaining walls and free
wells.
(B) Sediment and erosion controls:
structural pro cilces. Structural practices
involve the installation of devices to
divert flow, store flow or limit runoff.
Structural practices can have several
objectives. First, structural practices can
be designed to prevent water from
crossing disturbed areas where
sediment may be removed, This
involves diverting runoff from
undisturbed upslopes areas by use of
earth dikes, temporary swales,
perimeter dike/swales. or diversions
that outlet in stable areas. A second
objective of structural practices can be
to remove sediment from site runoff
before the runoff leaves the site. Several
approaches to removing sediment from
site runoff include diverting flows to a
trapping or storage device, or filtering
diffuse flow through straw bale dikes,
silt fences, or brush barriers before it
leaves the site. All structural practices
require proper maintenance (removal of
sediment) to remain functional.
Earth dike, Earth dikes are temporary
berms or ridges of compacted soil which
channel water to a desired location.
Earth dikes should be stabilized with
vegetation.
Straw bale dikes. Straw bales are
temporary barriers of straw or similar
material used to Intercept sediment in
runoff from small drainage areas of
disturbed soiL When installed and
maintained properly, straw bale dikes
can remove approximately 67% of the
sediment In runoff.” This optimum
“Dr ,ft—6ed ent and Erosion ControL An
Inventory of Cwyent Practice.”, U.S EPA. OWEC.
April m, 1990,
efficiency can only be achieved through
careful maintenance with special
attention to replacing rotted or broken
bales,
Silt fence. Silt fences are a barrier c
geotextile fabric (filter cloth) used to
intercept sediment in diffuse runoff.
Care must be taken in maintaining silt
fences with an emphasis on maintaining
the structuraJ stability of the silt fence
and removal of excessive sedimentation,
Brush homers. Brush barriers are
sediment barriers composed of tree
limbs, weeds. vines, root mat, soil, rock
and other cleared materials placed at
the toe of a slope.
Drainage swales. A drainage swale is
a drainage way with a lining of grass,
riprap. asphalt, concrete, or other
materials. Drainage swales are installed
to convey runoff without causing
erosion.
Check dam& Check dams are small
temporary dams constructed across a
swale or drainage ditch to reduce the
velocity of runoff flows, thereby
reducing erosion of the swale or ditch.
Check dams 8hould not be used in a live
stream. Check dams reduce the need for
more stringent erosion control practices
in the swain due to the decreased
velocity and energy of runoff. MateTials
which can be used to install a check
dam include rock, logs and covered
straw bales.
Level spreader. Level spreaders are
outlets for dikes and diversions
consisting of an excavated depression
constructed at zero grade across a slope.
Level spreaders convert concentrated
runoff into diffuse runoff and release it
onto areas stabilized by existing
vegetation.
Subsurface drain. Subsurface drains
transport water to an area where it can
be managed effectively. Drains can be
made of tile, pipe or tubing.
Pipe slope drain. A pipe slope drain is
a temporary structure placed from the
top of a slope to the bottom of a slope to
convey surface runoff down slopes
without causing erosion.
Temporary storm drain diversion.
Temporary storm drain diversions are
used to re-direct flow In a storm drain to
discharge Into a sediment trapping
device.
Storm drain inlet protection. Storm
drain inlet protection can be provided
by a sediment filter or an excavated
impounding area around a storm drain
inlet. These devices prevent sediment
from entering storm drainage systems
prior to permanent stabilization of the
disturbed area.
Rock outlet protection. Rock
protection placed at the outlet end of
culverta or channels can reduce the
-------
4O 7l
depth, velocity and energy of water such
that the flow will not erode the receiving
downstream reach.
Sediment traps. Sed ment traps can be
installed in a drainageway, at a storm
drain inlet, or other points of discharge
from a disturbed area.
Other controls. Other controls include
temporary sediment basins, sump pits,
entrance stabilization measures,
waterway crossings, and wind breaks.
(ii) Storm water management controls,
Storm water controls are generally those
controls which are installed during the
construction process, but primarily
result in reductions of pollutants in
storm water discharged from the site
after the construction has been
completed. Construction activities often
result in a significant change In land use.
These changes in land use typically
involve an increase In the overall
imperviousness of the site, which can
result in dramatic changes to the runoff
patterns of a site. As the amount of
runoff from a site Increases, the amount
of pollutants carried by the runoff
increases. In addition, activities such as
automobile travel on roads can result in
higher pollutant concentrations in runoff
then precoristruction levels. Traditional
storm water management controfs do
not influence the change in land use
associated with construction. Rather.
traditional storm water management
controls attempt to limit the increases in
the amount of runoff and the amount of
pollutants discharged from a site
associated with the change in land tse.
Major classes of storm water
management controls include:
Infiltration of runoff onsite: flow
a tenuat!on by vegetation or natural
dcpressiona; outfall velocity dissipation
devices: storm water retention
Si lures and artificial wetlands; and
storm water detention structures. For
rraiiy sites, a cornbinat:on of these
co rols may be appropriate. A
su.mrnary of storm water managament
COfltrOiS is provided below. A more
complete description of storm water
management controls is found In
i)raft—Const ,—jction Site Storm Water
Discharge Control—An [ nventorj of
Prtjc: ices”, EPA. OWEC, 1991.
(A) Infiltration of rvnoff Onsite. A
var iety of infiltration technologies can
be used to reduce the volume and
pcllutant loadings of storm water
d:scharges from a site, including
infiitration trenches and infiltration
basins. Inifitration devises tend to
mitigate changes to pre-developrnent
hydrologic conditions. Properly designed
and installed infiltration devices can
reduce peak discharges, provide
groundwater recharge, augment low
flbw conditions of receiving streams,
reduce storm water discharge volumes
and pollutant loads, and protect
downstream channels from erosion.
Infiltration devices are a feasible option
where soils are permeable and the
water table and bedrock are well below
the surface. Infiltration basins can also
be used as sediment basins during
construction.” Infiltration trenches can
be more easily placed Into under utilized
areas of a development, and can be used
for small sites and influl developments.
However trenches may require regular
maintenance to prevent clogs,
particularly where grass inlets or other
pollutant removing inlets are not used.
In some situations, such as low density
areas of parking lots, porous pavement
can provide for lnfi!tration.
(B) Flow attenuation by vegetution or
natural depressions. Flow attenuation
provided by vegetation or natural
depressions can provide pollutant
removal, infiltration, and lower the
erosive potential of flows.al fri addition,
these practices can enhance habitat
values and the appearance of a site.
Vegetative flow attenuation devises
include grass swales and filter strips as
well as trees that are either preserved or
planted during construction.
Typically the costs of vegetative
controls are small relative to other storm
water practices. The use of check dams
incorporated into flow paths can
provide additional infiltration and flow
attenuation,” Given the limited
capacity to accept large volumes of
runoff, and potential erosion problems
associated with large concentrated
flows, vegetative cor.trols should
typically be used in combination with
other stcrm water devices.
Grass swales are typ’cally used in low
or medium residential development and
highway medIans as an alternative to
curb and gutter drainage sys te ms. ’°
(C) Outfall veloc,t,’ dis zpotioa
dev;ceg. Outfall velocity dissipation
deviacs include riprap and stone or
concrete flew spreaders. Outfall velocity
dissipation devices slow the flow of
water diacharged from a stte to lesson
the amount of erosion caused by the
discharge.
(D) Stonn wc:cr r te.itjon stru fures,
Properly designed and maintalr.ed storm
water retention Structures, also referred
to as wet ponds, can achieve a hgh
removal rate of sediment. BOD, organic
nutrients and metals. Retention basins
are most cost-effective in large;. more
intensively developed sites Retsr.tion
ponds can also create wildlife habitat,
recreation, and landscape amenities.
arid corresponding higher property
values.
(E) Retention struirtures/orfif,cia/
wetlands, Ratentlon structures include
ponds and artificial wetlands that are
designed to maintain a permanent pooi
of we tar. Property installed and
maintaineti retention structures (also
known as wet ponds) and artificial
wetlands ‘ “can achieve a high
removal rate of sediment, BOD. organic
nutrients and metals, and are most cost
effective when used to control runoff
from larger. intensively developed
sites. 33 These devises rely on settling and
biological processes to remove
pollutants.
(F) Water quality detention
structures. Storm water detention
structures include extended detention
ponds, which control the rate at which
the pond drains after a storm event.
Extended detention ponds are usually
designed to completely drain in about 24
to 40 hours, and will remain dry at other
times, They can provide pollutant
removal efficiencies that are similar to
those of retention ponda. ’ Extended
detention systems are typically designed
to provide both water quality and water
quantity (flood control) benefits.”
iii. Housekeeping BMPs. Pollutants
that may enter water from construction
sites due to poor housekeeping include
oils, grease, paints, gasoline, concrete
truck washdown, concrete raw
materials used In the manufacture of
concrete, including sand. aggregate. and
cement, solvents, litter, debris and
sanitary wastes. Construct:on site
management plans can address the
following to prevent the discharge cf
these pollutants:
• Designate areas for aqwpnient
maintenance and repau-
• Provide waste receptacles at
convenient location., and provide
regular collection of wastes:
Federal Register I Vol. 56, No. 159 / Friday. August 16. 1991 I Proposed Rules
“Controlling Urban Runoff A Pactic J Muflual
for Planning and Dee:gning Ijrtian BMP.” July. 1987.
Metropolitan Waehtn 8 ton Cowi l of Cot emma , ”,
““Urban Targeting and BMP S s ,Iectien’. United
Siate, EPA. V. Novei ber 1990.
“Standard, arid Sp cif’catloi i , for 1nIi1 ation
Pract1 ”, 1984. Maryland Water P.eaowce ,
Adminj ,te.tjo
‘ Con olI(ng Urban Rimef!’ A Practical Manuel
for Planning .nd Oe gning Urban OMP.”.
Metropolitan Wnshington Council of Coversinjent,,
July 1967.
• “Wetland b3Sifl3 for Steno Waler Treatment
Di,cuaarnn and BOCk 5 TOWId”. Maryland S, ,dLn3ent
and Stornuwatar Division, 1987
U “Tb Value of Wetland, for Nonpoint Source
Cor I to tar , ’uro Susnmary Strecker. E.. at dl.
““Controlling Urban Runoff. A Practical Manual
for Punning and Dealgninj Urban aMP.’.
Metropolitan Washmgtca Cuwicil of Cove.nnurnt,.
1967.
““Urb,,n Targeting and BMP Selecton’, United
State, EPA. Reçan V. November 1990,
““Utban Swface Water Maaagernrnr ‘s sleali ,
ac., w . toes.
-------
40972
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 159 / Friday, August 16. 1991 / Proposed Rules
• Locate equipment washdown areas
on site, and provide appropriate control
of washwaters;
• Provide protected storage areas for
chemicals, paints, solvents, fertilizers
and other potentially toxic materials
and
• Provide adequately maintained
sanitary facilities.
d. Coal pile runoff £reWment
technology. The primary technology
options for treating coal pile runoff
considered In the final “Development
Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards and
Pretreatment Standards for the Steam
ectric Point Source Category”, (EPA-
440/182/029). November 1982, EPA.
warm
(1) Equalization. pH adjustment.
setthng and
(2) Equalization, chemical
precipitation treatment. settling. pH
adjustment.
Metals may be removed from
wastewater by raising the pH of the
wastewater to precipitate them out as
hydroxides. Typically. wastewater p1-re
of 9 to 12 are required to achieve the
desired precipitation levels. Lime is
frequently used for pH adjustment.
Wastewaters which have a pH greater
than 9 after lime addition will require
acid addition to reduce the pH before
final discharge. Polymer addition may
be required to enhance the settling
characteristics of the metal hydroxide
precipitate. Typical polymer feed
concentrations in the wastewater are 1
to 4 ppm. The metal hydroxide
precipitate is separated from the
wastewater in a clarifier or a gravity
thickener. Unlike settling ponds, these
units continually collect and remove the
sludge formed. Filters are typically used
for effluent polishing and can reduce
suspended solids levels below 10 mg/I.
Sand or coal are the most common filter
media. Vacuum filtration is a common
technique for dewatering sludge to
produce a cake that has good handling
properties and minimum volume.
The major equipment requirements for
such a system include a lime feed
system, mix tank polymer feed system.
flocculator/ clarifier, deep bed filter.
and acid feed system. For wastewaters
which have a pH of less than 8, mixers
and mixing tanks are made of special
materials of construction (stainless steel
or lined-carbon steel). For wastewaters
with p1-re greater than 6. concrete tanks
are typically used. The underfiow from
the darifier may require additional
treatment with a gravity thickener and a
vacuum filter to provide sludge which
can be transported economically for
landfill disposal.
5. The Federal/Municipal Partnership:
The Role of Municipal Operators of
Large and Medium Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer Systems
A key Issue in developing a workable
regulatory program for controlling
pollutants in storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity is the
proper use and coordination of limited.
regulatory resources. This is especially
important when addressing the
appropriate role of municipal operators
of large and medium municipal separate
storm sewer systems in the control of
pollutants in storm water associated
with industrial activity which discharge
through municipal separate storm sewer
systems.
Several key policy factors arise when
considering the appropriate strategy for
regulating storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
through municipal separate storm sewer
systems. These factors include the
following:
• The role and responsibilities of
municipalities to control pollutants from
nonmunicipal facilities which are
discharged through a storm sewer
owned or operated by the murucipahty
• The large number of storm water
discharges through municipal systems
(the Agency anticipates that the
majority of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
many Industrial classes discharge
through municipal separate storm sewer
systems);
• The ability of municipalities to
recognize and represent local concerns
and considerations:
• The ability of municipal operators
to assist EPA and authorized NPDES
States in identifying local priorities for
controlling storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
through specific municipal systems:
• The ability of municipal operators
to assist EPA and authorized NPDES
States to oversee effectively the
development of appropriate site-specific
controls for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
through municipal systems and to
effectively require compliance with such
controls;
• The authorities provides by the
CWA (including those provided to the
public) to review information developed
under the NPDES program and to
enforce NPDES permits; and
• The requirements of the CWA to
develop and implement the NPDES
permit program.
On November 16, 1990 (55 FR 47990),
EPA promulgated a permitting scheme
where controls for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity through large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer systems
may be addressed by two permits issued
in a coordinated manner. This
complementary permit approach
envisions cooperative efforts by the
permit issuing agency and municipal
operators of large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer systems
to develop programs that will result in
controls on pollutants in storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity which discharge through
municipal systems.
Under the complementary permit
approach. storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity which
discharge through large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer systems
are required to obtain permit coverage.
Permits for these discharges will
establish requirements (such as controls
or monitoring) for industrial operators of
the discharge into the municipal system.
In addition. these permits provide a
basis for enforcement actions directly
against the owner or operator of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity.
A second permit. issued to the
operator of the large or medium
municipal separate storm sewer,
establishes the responsibilities of the
municipal operators in controlling
pollutants from storm water associated
with industrial activity which discharges
through their system. The framework for
permits for discharges from large and
medium municipal separate storm sewer
systems has been developed to establish
the responsibilities of the municipal
operator to control pollutants
discharged through these municipal
systems. At the heart of the permit
program for discharges from municipal
separate storm sewer systems serving a
population of 100.000 or more are
requirements that municipal applicants
develop and implement municipal storm
water management programs. The
municipal storm water management
programs that will be Incorporated into
NPDES permits for discharges from
municipal separate storm sewer systems
will generally address (in addition to
other possible requirements) the
following three major components:
Reducing pollutants in storm water
discharges from municipal landfills:
hazardous waste treatment, storage and
disposal facilities: facilities subject to
SARA Title [ U. Section 313: and other
priority industrial facilities through
municipal separate storm sewers:
Reducing pollutants in construction
site runoff through municipal separate
storm sewers: and
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 1991 / Proposed Rules
40973
• Identifying and controlling non.
storm water discharges to municipal
separate storm sewer systems.
These components of a municipal
program can initiate the role of the
municipality in assisting EPA and
authorized NPDES States in
implementing controls to reduce
pollutants in stcrm water discharges
associjted with industrial activity which
discharge into large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer
systems. Municipal programs to reduce
pollutants in industrial site runoff and
construction site runoff through
municipal separate storm sewer systems
specifically will address municipal
responsibilities in controlling pollutants
from industrial facilities. In addition.
programs to identify and control non-
storm water discharges to municipal
separate storm sewer systems will in
many cases focus on industrial areas
because these areas often have a high
potential for illicit connections, spills or
improper dumping.
Consistent with the final permit
applications regulations published on
November 16. 1990 (55 FR 47990), the
general permits accompanying this fact
sheet have been developed to assist in
establishing a cooperative approach
between EPA and municipal operatdrs
of large and medium municipal sepa’rate
storm sewer systems for controlling
pollutants from 8torm water discharges
associated with industrial activity which
discharge through large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer
systems These requirements will be
coordinated with requirements in
pirmits for discharges from large and
medium municipal separate storm sewer
s ctems. Major features of the draft
gcneral permits which establish the
framework for this cooperative
approach include:
Operators of storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity which discharge through a large
or medium municipal separate storm
sewer system may be required to submit
a copy of the notice of intent to the
municipal operators of large or medium
municipal system receiving the
discharge.
• Requirements to monitor and reduce
pollutants in discharges will be
established for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity which
discharge through large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer systems
(as well as other storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity), Any
records, reports, or information obtained
by the Director as part of the permit
implementation process, including site.
‘pecific storm water pollution
revention programs that are developed
pursuant to the draft general permit, are
available to municipalities under section
308(b) of the CWA. This will assist
municipalities in reviewing the
adequacy of such requirements and
developing priorities among industrial
storm water sources: dnd
Industrial permittecs with
discharges through large and medium
municipal systems may be required to
submit discharge monitoring reports to
municipal operators of these systems (as
well as to the permitting issuing agency)
or other monitoring results as required
by the operator of the municipal
separate storm sewer to assist the
municipal operator in identify ing
priorities.
These permit conditions, along with
appropriate conditions in permits for
discharges from large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer
systems, will allow municipal operators
of these systems to:
• Assist EPA in identifying priority
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity to their system;
• Assist EPA in reviewing and
evaluating storm water pollution
prevention plans that industrial facilities
are required to develop under the draft
general permit and
• Assist EPA in compliance efforts
regarding storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity to
their municipal systems.
8. Notification Requirements
EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 122.21(a)
exclude persons covered by general
permits from requirements to submit
individual permit applications Under
these existing regulations, conditions for
NOls to be covered by the general
permit are established in the permits on
a case-by-case basis. Elsewhere in
today’s notice, EPA is proposing to
amend the general permit regulations at
40 CFR 122.28 to establish minimum
requirements for NOls in generul
permits.
The draft general permits associated
with this fact sheet would establish
limited NO! requirements that would
operate instead of individual permit
application requirements and that are
consistent with the minimum regulatory
requirements for NOls proposed in this
notice.
These draft general permits have the
following NO! requirements for
discharges covered by each permit:
• Name, mailing address, and
location of the facility for which the
notification is submitted.
• Up to four 4-digit Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) codes that
best represent the principal products or
activities provided by the facility:
• The operator’s name, address.
telephone number, ownership status and
status as Federal. State, private, public,
or other entity;
• The latitude and longitude of the
approximate center of the facility to the
nearest 15 seconds, or the nearest
quarter section (if the sect:on, township.
or range is provided) that the facility is
bcateci in;
• The name of the receiving water(s),
or if the discharge is to a municipal
separate storm sewer, the name of the
municipal operator of the storm sewer
and the ultimate receiving water(s); and
• Existing quantitative data
describing the concentration of
pollutants in discharges.
The permits in AZ, Guam and
American Somoa will, in addition to the
information described above, require
that an estimate of the sm e of the
drainage area (in square feet) and an
estimate of the runoff coefficient of the
drainage are (e g. low under 40%),
medium (40% to 85%) or high (above
65%)) be provided. This information will
be used to estimate the volume of storm
water discharged from the facility,
which will assist in evaluating pollutant
loads.
The proposed NOl requirements for
storm water discharges associated with
industnal activity from a construction
site include, in addition to the
information required above, a brief
description of the project estimated
timetable for major activities, and
estimates of the number of acres of the
site that will be disturbed.
The NO! requirements of the draft
general permits are intended to
establish a mechaiusmn that will provide
a clear accounting of the number of
permittees covered by the general
permit, the nature of operations at the
facility generating the discharge, their
identity and location. In addition, the
NO! can identify the pernuttee to
provide a basis for enforcement and
compliance monitoring strategies. The
NO! can be used as an initial screening
tool to determine discharges where
individual permits are appropriate. Also.
the NO! can be used to identify classes
of discharges appropriate for general
permits with more specific requirements,
as well as provide information needed
to notify such dischargers of the
issuance of a more specific general
permit.
The NO! requirements in the draft
general permit have been designated to
provide much of the Information needed
for these purposes, and will be
supplemented by other information
obtained through processes such as
section 308 information requests.
-------
40974
Federal Register /VoL 56, No. 159 f Friday. August 16. 1991 / Proposed Rules
is considering developing a
central addreu for receiving all NOIs
required und these general permits.
The would assist the Regional Offices
in handling and filing NOIs . EPA is also
considering developing a form for NOb
that can be read by automatic data
processing equipment. Operations of
atom water discharges associated with
industrial activity which dlstiharge
through a large or medium municipal
separate storm sewer system must. In
addition to submitting an NOl to the
Director, submit a copy of the NO! to the
municipal operator of the system
receiving the discharge. This additional
notice will assist municipal operators in
developing Inventories of industrial
facilities which discharge to their
municipal separate storm sewer
systems. This will be an initial step in
implementing municipal storm water
management programs to reduce
pollutants from runoff from industrial
facilities, This also will assist municipal
operators In overseeing the
implementation of permit conditions.
Individuals who intend to obtain
coverage under the general permit must
notify their intent within 180 days of the
effective date of this general permit or at
least 30 days prior to the
commencement of construction of a new
storm water discharge associated with
industrial activity.
The deadlines for submitting NOb
under the draft gener permit differ
from the deadlines for submitting
Individual permit applications under 40
CFR 122.28(e) in several respects. First.
the deadline for submitting NOIs for
eiustmg storm water discharges
associated with indusInal activity is 180
days from issuance of the general
permits rather than the November 18
1991. deadline for submitting individual
permit applications. 3 ’ The Agency
believes that it Is appropriate to base
the NOI submittal date on the issuance
date of the final general permit
establishing the NOl requirement. The
Agency also believes that 180 days
provides the discharger with adequate
opportunity to prepare and submit an
NOL particularly because dlschargers
are not required to conduct sampLing
activities to submit a complete NOL
Second. the draft permit. provide that
NO!. be submitted at least 30 day.
before construction of a new storm
water discharge associated with
industrial activity begins. This time is
Less than the 80 day. prior to
commencement of construction that 40
CFR 122.28(e) provides For submitting
“VA baa poposud aziend this deadline is
May II. i9 . (SI ER islet. Mazc 21. 19011.
permit applications for Individual
permits for new storm water discharges
associated with industrial aclivrty. The
Agency believes that under these
general permits, lea, time is necessaiy
to review NOIs than to review
Individual permit applications and to
issue permits for new storm water
discharges associated with industhal
activity. In addition, reducing the
ininIniuni thee to a 30 day period to
submit NOb before beginning
construction will assist discharges in
complying with the permit
7. Description of Draft Permit Conditions
The condition, of these draft permits
have been designed to comply with the
technology-based standards of the CWA
(BAT/BCT). Based an a consideration of
the appropriate factors for BAT and
BCT requirements, and a consideration
of the factors arid options discussed in
this fact sheet for controlling pollutants
in storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity, the draft general
permits proposes two prohibitions, a set
of tailored requirements for developing
and implementing storm water pollution
prevention plans. and for selected
discharges. two effluent limitations. 3 ’
Part 4 of this fact sheet summarizes
the options for controlling pollutants in
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity. The draft general
permit proposes numeric effluent
limitation., for two dasses of discharges.
coal pile runoff. and runoff that comes
Into contact with certain chemical
storage or handling facilities at SARA
title L I I, section 313 facilities.
For other discharges covered by the
permit. the draft permit conditions
reflect EPA’s decision to select a
number of best management practices
and traditional storm water
management practices which prevent
pollution in storm water discharges as
the BAT/BCT level of control for the
majority of storm water discharges
covered by these permits. The draft
permit conditions applicable to these
discharges are riot numeric effluent
limitations, but rather are flexible
requirements for developing and
“Psil LC.Z of the draft rte,al parsuis provide
that fadhifte. with tcrm welet thicherges
aundated with Industrial acdvtiy which. hued on
an evslaatias of pita spoc fic conditions. betrewu
that the appro rlsta conditions of ibm permits do
not adequately represeni BAT and ZCT
requirements fat the facility may reçue.I to be
excluded from the coverage of the ganr .a1 permit by
mther pubinlttln to the Director an individual
application (Form I and Form with a detailed
explen.tton of the re..ons supporting hi request,
Includ ing any supporting docummuation showing
that rmialn permit conditions are not eppropnata.
or paistcip.dng is. group application (see W 0R
implementing site specific plans to
minimize and control polintanta in storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity.
EPA is authorized under 40 CFR
122.44(k)(2J to Impose BMPs in lieu of
numeric effluent limitations in NPDES
permits when the Agency finds numeric
effluent limitations to be infeasible. EPA
may also impose BMP, which are
“reasonably necessary’ • ‘to carry
out the purposes of the Act” under 40
CFR 122.44(k)(3). Both of these
standards for imposing BMPs were
recogni7ed in ?YRDC v. Castle. 568 F 2d
1369, 1380 (D.C. Cir. 1977). The
c ndition in the draft general permits
are proposed under the authority of both
of these regulatory provisions. The
pollution prevention or BMP
requirements in these permits operate as
limitations on effluent discharges that
reflect the application of BAT/BCT. This
is because the OMPs identified require
the use of source control technologies
which, in the context of these general
permits. are the best available of the
technologies economically achievable
(or the equivalent BCT finding). See. e.g.
NTWC v. EPA. 822 F.2d 104.122-23 (D C.
Cu. 1987) (EPA has substantial
discretion to impose non-quantitative
permit requirements pursuant to section
402(a)(1)).
a. Prohibitions. The draft general
permits prohibit non•storm water
discharges as a component of discharges
authorized by this permiL This permit is
intended to authorize discharges
composed entirely of storm water
associated with industrial activity The
prohibition on non-storm water
discharges La these permits ensures thtit
non-storm water discharges are not
Inadvertently authorized by these
permits. Where a storm water discharge
is mixed with process wastewaters or
other sources of non-storm water prior
to discharge, and the discharge is
currently not authorized by an NPDES
permit. the discharger should submit the
appropriate application forms to obtain
permit coverage. The Agency believes
that these mixed discharges are
addressed more appropriately through
Individual NPDES permits or other
general permits as individual or other
general permit . will allow development
of more tailored and specific permit
conditions appropriate for such
discharges.
The draft general permits also prohibit
discharges that contain a hazardous
substance in excess of reporting
quantities established at 40 CFR 117.3 or
40 CFR 302.4. and clarifies that where
such a discharge occurs, the permit does
not relieve the permittee of the reporting
-------
requirements of 40 CFR part 117 and 40
CFR part 302. The Agency believes that
the vast majority of discharges that
contain a hazardous substance in excess
of reporting quantities will be
associated with non-storm water
sources (e g. chemical spill events)
Where a dncharge composed entirely of
storm wait associated with industrial
activity containing a hazardous
substance in excess of reporting
quantities occurs or is expected to
occur, the Agency believes that the
potential risks associated with the
discharge are such that it is more
appropriate to address the discharge
with an individual permit which
contains more specific permit conditions
based on industry specific or site
specific factors and a consideration of
receiving water characteristics. Since
discharges containing a hazardous
substance in excess cf reporting
quantities are not authorized by these
permits, such releases are not exempted
frcm reporting requirements by 40 CFR
117 12(a)(1). and hence the permits do
not relieve the permittee of the reporting
requirements of 40 CFR part 117 and 40
CFR part 302.
EPA anticipates that storm water
discharges that contain oil in excess of
reporting quantities established under 40
CFR 110.8 (e g. exhibit art oil sheen) will
be more common. For example, many
torm water discharges from parking
lots or roads, as well as from industrial
facilities, contain an oil sheen. Although
discharges composed entirely of storm
water associated with industrial activity
are authorized by these permits where
the discharge complies with the other
applicable requirements of the permit
and 40 CFR part 110, it should be noted
that where a discharge of oil in excess
of reporting quantities is caused by a
nonstorm water discharge (e g. a spill of
cil into a separate storm sewer), the spill
is not authorized by this permit, and the
discharger is not relieved of their
obligation to report the spill under 40
CFR part 110. In this regard, the
requirements of soction 311 of the CWA
and otherwise applicable provisions of
sections 301 and 402 of the CWA
continue to apply.
b. Toilor’ed pollution prevention p/on
requirements. All facilities covered by
the storm water general permits must
prepare, retai:i and implement a storm
water pollution prevention plan. The
storm water permits address tiered sets
of pollution prevention plan
requirements for a number of categories
of industries: Construction activities;
baseline reqwrements for all industries
‘cept construction activities; special
quirements for certain facilities
subject to SARA title III. section 313.
special requirements for storm water
d;scharges associated with industrial
activity to large and medium municipal
separate storm sewer systems: and
special requirements for facilities with
outdoor salt storage piles. These tailored
requirements have been developed to
allow the implementation of site-specific
measures that address features,
activities, or priorities for control
associated with the identified storm
water discharges.
The Agency is using the term
“pollution prevention’ in the context of
these plans because the term
emphasizes that requirements in the
plans provide a flexible basis for
developing site-specific measures to
minimize and control the amounts of
pollutants that would otherwise enter
storm water. The term ‘pollution
prevention’ distinguishes this source
reduction approach from traditional
pollution control measures that typically
rely on end-of-pipe treatment to remove
pollutants In the discharges. The plan
requirements are based primarily on
traditional storm water management,
pollution prevention and BMP concepts
which have been tailored to pollutants
Ui storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity.
The pollution prevention approach
adopted in the storm water pollution
prevention plans in the draft general
permits focuses on 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) Describe arid ensure that practices
are implemented to !n1nim1 ize and
control pollutants in storm water
discharges associated with mdustr:al
activity from the facility and to ensure
compliance with the terms and
conditions of this permit.
The Agency believes that it is not
appropriate, at this time, to require a
single set of effluent guidelines or a
single design or operational standard for
all facilities which dischaqe storm
water associated with industrial
activity. Rather, this permit establishes
a framework for the development and
implementation of site-specific storm
water pollution prevention plans. 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 that are addressed by
these permits, while ensuring
procedures to prevent storm water
pollution at a given facility are
appropriate given the processes
employed, engineering aspects,
40975
functions, costs of controls, location.
and age of facility (as contemplated by
40 CFR 125.3). The approach taken
allows flexibility to establish controls
which can appropriately address
different sources of pollutants at
d:fferent facilities.
i. P/an requirements for construction
activities The requirements for storm
water pollution prevention plans for
operations that discharge storm water
associated with industrial activity from
construction activities differ from the
requirements for other types of facilities.
In developing these draft permits, the
Agency has reviewed a significant
number of existing State and local
requirements for sediment and erosion
controls, and storm water management
controls for construction acUvities new
development addressing a wide range of
climates and types of construction
activities.
(A) Source Identification, Storm water
pollution prevention plans must be
based on an accurate understanding of
the pollution potential of the site. The
first part of the plan requires an
evaluation of the sources of pollution at
a specific construction site. The source
identification components for pollution
prevention plans for construction
activities proposed in these permits
include, at a minimum, a description of
the following:
• A description of the nature of the
construction activity;
• Estimates of total area of the site
and the area of the site that is expected
to undergo excavation or ading:
• An estimate of the runoff coefficient
of the site and existing data describing
the soil or the quahty of any discharge
from the site. Estimates of the runoff
coefficient can be based on estimates of
the site size, the increase in impervious
area after the construction is completed,
and the location of structures that will
be built on the site:
• A site map indicating, at a
minimum, drainage patterns and
approximate slopes anticipated after
major grad;ng activities, areas used for
the storage of soils or wastes, the
location of major control structures
identified in the plan, and surface
waters: and
• The name of the receiving water(s).
or if the discharge is to a municipal
separate storm sewer, and the ultimate
receiving water(s).
EPA requests corrunents on whether
the permits should require information
describing other major features which
may provide a better understanding of
s:te runoff or other major pollutant
sources, such as identification of areas
Federal Register / Vol. 56, NJo. 159 I Friday, August 16. 1g _ 91 / Proposed Rules
-------
Fed&ai Register / Vol. 58. No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 1991 / Proposed Rules
intended to be used for the storage of
soil, or wastes, be included in plans.
(B) Coinrols to reduce pollutants.
Many mtmicipalitfes and States have
developed iedlivi.nt and erosion con ol
requirements for constraction activities.
A significant number of municipalities
and States have also developed storm
water management controls. This permit
requires that facilities which discharge
storm water associated with industrial
activity from construction activities
must reflect in their storm water
pollutien prevention plan procedures
and requirements specified inapplicable
sediment and erosion site plans or storm
water management plans approved by
State or local officials. Applicable
requirements specified in sediment and
erosion plans or storm water
management plans approved by State or
local officials are, upon submittal of an
NO! to be authorized to discharge under
this permit, incorporated by reference
and are enforceable under this permit
even if they are not specifically included
in a storm water pollution prevention
plan required under this permiL 3
The sediment and erosion controls for
construction acthtities proposed in this
permit have three goals: 1) to divert
upsiope water around disturbed areas of
the site; 2) to limit the exposure of
disturbed areas to the shortest duration
possible; and 3) to remove sediment
from storm water before it leaves the
site.
Each construction operation covered
by the permit.ia required to develop a
description of three classes of controls
appropriate for inclusion in the facility’s
plan, and implement controls Identified
in the plan in accordance with the plan.
The description of controls muar address
erosion and sediment controLs, storm
water management and a specified set
of other controls.
Erosion and sediment controls include
both vegetative practices and structural
practices. Vegetative practices are the
first line of defense for preventing
erosion. These controls are to be based
on a consideration of temporary
seeding, permanent seeding. mulching.
sod stabilization, vegetative buffer
strips, and protection of trees.
Temporary seeding practices are often
cited as the single most important factor
SI Facthtle . with storm wetey discharge.
associeted with industrial activity misted to
con.trmtlon activities which, based an an
evaluetlon of site specific conditions, behave that
State .nd local plan, do not adequately represent
a r . f ti. r.C in 7
request to be excluded from the wsmige of the
geneed permsc by auboinlag to the Olescior an
individual application with. datalled explan .Uo
of the rea . supporting the r . . eit includ ing any
supporting showing that certain
permit c.oodltion. are not approptiats.
in reducing erosion at construction
sites, 3 ’
Since vegetative practices play such
an important role in preventing erosion.
It Is critical that they are rapidly
employed In appropriate areas. The
draft permits provide that the operator
shall initiate appropriate vegetative
practices on all disturbed areas within 7
calendar, days of the last activity at
that area. Appropriate vegetative
practices may lnclnde temporary
seeding. permanent seeding. mulching or
sod stabilization procedures, or
equivalent measures that protect
exposed soils. EPA requests comments
on the application of this criterion or
other appropriate criteria (such as
criterion that would only be applicable
during specified seasons) for initiating
appropriate vegetative practices in arid
areas (areas with less than 10 inches
average annual rainfall) and semi-arid
areas (areas with between 10 and 20
Inches average annual rainfall) with
well defined seasonal rainfall patterns.
For example, it may be appropriate to
only apply the requirement to initiate
appropriate vegetative practices within
7 days of the last activity in a given area
during seasons or months which have a
reasonable probability of a rain event
occurring. However, EPA has concerns
about its ability to define appropriate
dry weather periods, and requests
comments on this approach.
Structural controls provide a second
line of defense by capturing pollutants
before they leave the site. Structural
controls are necessary because
vegetative controls cannot be employed
at areas of the site which are continually
disturbed and because a finite time
period is required before vegetative
practices are fully effective. Structural
practices selected for incorporation into
a plan are to be based on a
consideration of the attainability at a
given site of iiriplernentlng particular
controls. Options for such controls
Include straw bale dikes, silt fences.
earth dikes, brush barriers, drainage
awales, check dams, subsurface drain.
pipe slope dram. level spreaders storm
drain inlet protection, rock outlet
protection, sediment traps, and
temporary sediment basins. For sites
with more than 10 disturbed aces at
one time which are served by a common
drainage location, a detention basin
providing storage for runoff from
disturbed areas from a 24 hour. 10 year
storm or equivalent controls (such as
suitably sized dry wells or infiltration
structures), shall be provided where
“New Yorli Guideline, for Urban Erosion and
Sediment Ccnu’or, USDA—SoIl Conservanon
Service, March, ISM.
sufficient apace and other factors allow
these controis to be attained. For
drainage locations with more than 10
disturbed acres at one time which ar
served by a common drainage location
where a detention basin providing
storage or equivalent controls for runoff
from disturbed areas from a 10 year. 24-
hour storm Is not attainable, silt fences.
straw bale dikes. or equivalent sediment
controls are required for all sideslope
and downslope boundaries of the
construction area.
For drainage locations serving 10 or
less acres, at a minimum, silt fences,
straw bale dikes, or equivalent sediment
controls are required for all sideslope
and downslope boundaries of the
construction area or a detention basin
providing storage for runoff from
disturbed areas.
EPA requests comment on the use of
the 10 acre limit and the 24 hour, 10 year
storm for this requirement Although
sediment basins are generally viewed as
being more effective than other
structural controls, flexibility has been
added to the proposed requirements for
drainage locations serving 10 or less
acres since these smaller sites may have
more difficulty finding an appropriate
location for a beam.
“Storm water management”
controls” are to include a description
of mEasures ot controls to minimize
pollutants in storm water discharges
that will be installed during
construction, but that will contimie to
control pollutants in storm water
discharges after the construction
operations have been completed.
Options for “storm water management”
controls that are to be evaluated in the
development of plans include:
infiltration of runoff onsite: flow
attenuation by use of open vegetated
awales and natural depressions; storm
water retention structures and storm
water detention structures. Often it is
appropriate to incorporate several of
these measures at a site,
Developing land often s gruficantly
Increases peak discharge volumes and
velocities. These increased discharge
velocities can greatly accelerate erosion
near the outlet of on-site structural
controls. To mitigate these effects, the
° Thu control us a BC? control. and hence the
desipo storm duffer. from dest i atorms used
elsewhere In thu. permit as BAT control,. ISan
“Staff Analyst, at Implementing Permitting
Acuvstlei for Storm Water Discharge. Associated
with Industrial Acnvfty” (EPA. iPsi).)
‘Foi’ the purpose of the tpecial requirements for
conetroction ectvities, d i . term ‘atom watcT
management controls” rS(er, to control, that will
primarily reduce the discharge of pollutants in storm
water from altel after construction activities have
been completed.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. Jo 159 / Friday. August 16. 1991 / Prcposed Rules
40977
draft permits require voloctty
diSSipation devices to be placed at the
outfall of detention or retenuon
structures and along the length of outfall
channels to provide a non-erosive
velocity flow from the structure to a
water course needed to ensure that
erosion is prevented or minimized.
These permits do not establish
specific standards for “storm water
management” (e g. controls to reduce
pollutants in storm water discharges
from a site after construction is
completed) (other than requirements in
approved State and local storm water
site plans and requirements for velocity
dissipation devices). However, the
permittee must evaluate the
appropriateness of arious options for
storm water measures at the site when
developing their plan and provide a
summary of the evaluation and
justification for not selecting a given
practice. The Agency requests comment
on the appropriateness of establishing
performance standards,at or design
standards. 3 While the Agency
recognizes that such requirements will
often be appropriate in individual
permits or in other permit issuing efforts.
the Agency has concerns about the
extensive use of such standards in this
Tier I general permit. The Agency will
continue to evaluate appropriate
standards for storm water management
applicable to new developments along
with the need to provide flexibility in
illowing for site-specific modifications
of the standard based on project
constraints, local conditions and the
location of the discharge within the
watershed.
Other controls to be addressed in
storm water pollution prevention plans
for construction activities require that
no non-storm water wastes, including
building matenal wastes shall be
discharged at the site, unless the facility
is licensad for such disposal.
The draft permit proposes that off-site
vehicle tracking of sed 1 ments shall be
minimized. This can be accomplished by
measures such as providing gravel or
paving at access entrance and exit
drives, parking areas, and unpaved
r tads on the site carrying sigrulicant
amounts of traffic (e g. more than 25
“One spproacii to perfonnarice standards
ccnim3nly adopted in State or local controls a to
equirc t.o increase in the rate and volume of runoff
frem pred veloprner.i condtti . ns AnotFercornnion
approad is to require on site control (or a specified
storm eveni leg. the first inch of runoff from a site)
Design standard.. are commonly used by State
and local governments as part of the p Lo approval
process Such requirements can addri,s a wide
range of requirements, such u providing infiltration
For runoff from roofs or paved areas exceeding a
specified are., or requu,ng that residential
nveway. slope toward ad acent landscaped areas
vehicles per day). These rieasures.
alonR with other appropriate measures.
can limit erosion and the transport of
sediment offsite from these areas.
In addition, the plan shall ensure and
demonstrate compliance with applicable
State or local sanitary sewer, septic
system and waste di. posal regulations.
Erosion and sediment controls can
become ineffective if they are
inappropriately disturbed or otherwise
damaged. Maintenance of controls has
been identified as a major part of
effective erosion and sediment
programs. Plans are required to provide
a description of procedures to maintain
in good and effective condition and
promptly repair or restore all grade
surfaces, walls, dams and structures.
vegetation, erosion and sediment control
measures and other protective measures
identified in the site plan At a minimum,
procedures in a plan must provide that
all erosion controls on the site are
inspected at a minimum of once every
seven calendar days and at other
suitable times (e.g. within 24 hours after
any storm event of greater than 0.5
inches of rain per 24 hour period).
Diligent inspections are necessary to
assure adequate implementation of
orisite sediment and erosion controls,
particularly in the later stages of
construction when the volume of runoff
is greatest and the storage capacity of
the sediment basins has been reduced. 45
ii. Plan requirements for facilities
other than consUvCuon activities. In
1979. EPA completed a technical survey
of industry best management practices
(BMP ) which was based on a review of
practices used by industry to control the
non-routine discharge of pollutants from
non-continuous sources including runoff,
drainage from raw material storage
area. spills, leaks, and sludge or waste
disposal. This review included analysis
and assessment of published articles
“in rural and suburban areas that are served by
septic systems, malfunctioning septic systems can
contribute pollutants to storm water discharges
Maifunctioning septic tanks may be a note
significant surface runoff pollution problem than a
ground water problem This ii because a
malfunctioning septic system is less likely to cause
ground water contamination where a bacterial mat
in the soil retards the downward movement of
wfls(ewater Surface malfunctions are caused by
clogged or impermeable soila. or when stopped up
or collapsed pipes forces untreated wastewater to
the surface Surface tnalfurctions can vary in degree
from occasional d;mp petc.hes on the surface to
constant pooling or runoff of wasiewater These
discharges have h.Rh bacteria, nitrate and nutrient
levels and can contain a variety of household
chemicals This permit does not esiabiish new
cr’teria for septic systems, but rather addresses
existing Stat, or local aitena
““Performance of Current Sediment Control
Measures at Maryland Cor.struction Sites’ January.
1” . Metropolitan Washington Council of
Govern ments
and reports, technical bulletins, and
disci . .ssions with industry
representatives through telephone
contacts, written questionnaires and site
Visits.
The review identtfied two classes of
pollution control measures The first
class of controls are those management
practices which are generally
c nsidered to be essential to a good
BMP program. low in cost, and
applicable to broad categories of
industry and types of substances. These
practices are independent of the type of
industry, ancillary sources, specific
chemicals, group of chemicals, or plant-
site locations. The survey concluded
that these controls were broadly
applicable to all industry types and
activities, and should be viewed as
minimum requirements in any effective
BMP program. The second class of
controls are management practices
controls which provide a second line of
defense against the release of pollutants
and included prevention measures,
containment measures, mitigation and
cleanup measures, and treatment
methods. ce
Since that time, EPA has, on a case-
by-case basis, imposed BMP
requirements in NPDES permits. The
Agency has also continued to review
and evaluate case studies involving the
use of BMPs and the use of pollution
prevention measures associated with
spill prevention and containment
measures for oil. ’ During the
development of NPDES permit
application requirements for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity, the Agency evaluated
appropriate means for identifying and
evaluating the potential risk of
pollutants in storm water from industrial
sites. Public comments received during
the rulemaking provided additional
insight regarding storm water risk
assessment, as well as appropriate
“For. complete description of the BMP survey
see NPOES Besi Management Practices Cuidartc
Document”, U S EPA. December 1079. EPA-800/9-
79—045 See also the 1981 document of the same
name. ‘NPDES Best Management Practices
Guidance Document which provides a more
complete discussion of baseline Bh s
“ For example. see ‘Best Management Practtces
Useful Tool. for Cleaning Up’. Thron. H
Rogoaheweki, p. 1982. Proceedings of the 1982
Hazardous Material Spills Conference ‘The
Chetnical Industries Approach to Spill Prevention
Trtompson C. Goocher. j. 1980. Proceedings of the
1980 ‘ iationaI Ccnference on Conrol of Hazardous
Material Spills and a series of EPA memorandum
entided Best Management Practices iii NPDES
Pvruutj—Information Memorandum’. 1983, 1985.
asaa 1987. 193&
‘•See 011 Pollution Prevention requlzem2nu,
including Spill Prevention. ControL and
Countermeasure Plan requirements, at 40 CFR part
112.
-------
Federal Register / VoL 56. No. 159 / Friday August 16. W91 I Proposed Rules
pollution prevention and control
measures and strategies. During this
tLme the Agency again reviewed storm
water confrol practices end measnres. 4
These experiences have shown the
Agency that pollution prevention
measures such a. BMP. can be
appiupriately used and that permits
containing BMP requirements can
effectively reduce pollutant discharges
lfllfiJCDHt .effective iniiurivr. EPA again
indicates that B vW requirements are
berngilmpcsed in this general permit In
Ijeerof numeric effluent limitations
pumuant to 40 CFR 122.44(k)(2).
(A);Sourca identification. Storm water
pollution prevention plans must be
based on’ an accurate understanding of
the:palltitthn potential of the site. The
firsirpart of the plan requires an
evaluation of the sources of pollution at
a specific industrial site. The permit
proposes. that the source Identification
components of the plan Identify all
activities and significant materials
which may potentially be significant
polllat nt sources. Plans shall include:
A dratnage site map and a
iopog apbic map;
A list of significant spills and leaks
of tbxi or hazardous pollutants that
occurred at the facility after the
efihative date of the permit
krrazratlve description of
significant niatariols that have been
treated. stored or disposed in a manner
to allow exposure to storm water
between the time of three years prior to
the’ date of the Issuance of this permit
andith present method of on-site
Btomgs oT disposal: materials
managurmnt practices employed to
mln mI contact of these materials with
precipitation and storm water runoff
betwenir the time of three years prior to
the’ dht ’ of the Issuance of this permit
andi the psesenti materials Loading and
access areas: the location and a
desi tien of eidstlng structural and
norwstmdural control measures to
reduee’pollutants In storm water nunoff
ands: descnptlon of any treatment the
storm water receives:
•‘ For each area of the plant that
;ex wiff*P4 storm water discharges
issoofated with Industrial activity with
s rene , ahLe potential for cnt l1 ing
iigrifTv nt amounts of pollutants, a
)redlction of the direction of flow, and
in estimate of the types of pollutants
hat me likely to be present in storm
Natssdlachargel associated with
nd ialacth ity and
‘ a3Ans1yi . of Imp e Wt Pe m1ttm
cU tdflf $lur WsI.t Ot.cb.r s, Aa,oaated
iiifl fn.s.i ylI AC Vft (EPA. l9s1J.
• A summary of existing sampling
data describing pollutants In storm
water discharges.
Activities associated with (1) loading
and unloading of dry bulk materials or
Liquids, (2) outdoor storage of raw
materials. tntermediaiy products or
products. (3) outdoor process activities,
(4) dust or particulate generating
processes. (5) illIcit coimectiuns or
management practices. and (8) waste
disposal practices should be evaluated
to see if they are likely to be significant
sources of pollutants to storm water
discharges.
The prediction of the direction of flow
and the rate of flow will typically be
based on an evaluation of the area of
impervious surfaces and total area
drained by each outfall, along with
estimates of appropriate representative
rainfall events, or actual measurements
of discharge volumes. Impervious
surfaces include paved areas and
buildings within the drainage area of
each discharge point.
Estimates of the total quantity of
pollutants that are likely to be present in
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity should be made from
assessments of sampl g data, and other
information describing nignifirant
materials that are used or otherwise
found at the site, and that. because of
potential exposure to storm water may
be significant pollutant sources.
Although the monitoring requirements of
this permit are limited to conventional
pollutants for moat discharges. the
estimates of the types of poilufants that
may be present in storm water required
as part of the source identification
Information should address all types of
pollutants (conventional and toxic) that
may be present. Examples of
Information that should be evaluated
when estimating pollutants in storm
water discharges include Information
describing of stgnifL ant materials that
have been treated, stored or disposed In
a manner to allow exposure to storm
water between the time of three years
prior to the date of the Issuance of this
permit and the present method o.f on-
site storage or disposal: material.
management practices employed to
tiit, n contact of these materials with
storm water runoff between the time of
three years prior to the date of the
Issuance of this permit and the present
materials loading and access areas. the
location and a description of existing
structural and non-structural control
measures to reduce pollutants in storm
water runoff and a description of any
treatment the atom water receives.
Other information to consider. If
applicable. Include the manner and
frequency in which pesticides.
herbiadas. fertilizers or soil enhancers
are applied at the site and an evaluation
of significant spi11a or leaks of
conventionaL toxic and hazardous
pollutants based on a description of the
materials released. an estimate of the
volume of the release, the location of the
release, and any reinedlatlon or cleanup
measures taken. information and data
used for these predictions and estimates
must be clearly identified In the storm
water pollution prevention plan.
The Agency requests comments on
what other types of information may be
appropriate for source identification
purposes.
(B) Pmct ces and program elements to
control poüutants. The second ma or
section of the storm water pollution
prevention plan addresses practices and
program elements to reduce pollutants
in areas identified as being potential
pollutant sources for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity. In developing these
requirements, the Agency has selected
those practices identified in studies of
BMPs which are widely used by
industrial facilities with storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity which it believes to be best
available technology for the purpose of
this permit.’ 0 En addition., the Agency
has also addressed widely-used
pollution preventian measures for storm
water discharges (traditional storm
water management and sediment and
erosion prevention) and a requirement
for facilities to certify that storm water
discharges have been tested for the
presence of non-storm water pollution
sources.”
(1) pollution prevention committee
(2) risk Identification and assessment!
material inveritory
(3) preventIve maintenance:
(4) good housekeeping:
(5) spill prevention and response
procedures;
(6) traditional storm water
management
(7) sediment and erosion prevention:
(8) employee training:
(9) visual Inspections; and
“See ‘Staff Analysis of Implementing PermlttLng
Activities torS e. Wet D, age, Auociatrd
wtth ln nsm.J Actl’ity’ EPA. i991
•‘ The certification requirement that storm water
discharge. aucctited with industrial activity hey.
been tested for the presence of rwn-i*orm waler
pollution .our s Ii similar to the certification
requrzernettt In the Form 2? applIcation far storm
water discharge. tucdated with tndceetal activity
(see Norsm 15. 1999 55 FR 4199O . A I.
including this eseefteitine pmviclon is these
genatsi parmais diachirgen nay obtain
coverage utrder the.. parmat. without the ,ubmittal
of Poem 2?.
-------
40971
(10) recordkeepuig and internal
reporting procedures: and
(11) certification that storm water
discharges have been tested for the
presence of non-storm water pollution
sources.
These permits establish the
framework and the basic elements for
storm water pollution prevention
measures. However, the plan
requirements provide flexibility to allow
the development of site-specific
measures. At a given site, specific
measures incorporated mto the pollution
prevention plan will reflect the sources
of pollutants that have been identified at
the site. For example, a facility that has
identified dust and particulate
generating processes as potential
sources of storm water pollution will
incorporate appropriate good
housekeeping and fradit.ional storm
water management practices to address
these sources. However, a facility
without dust and particulate generating
processes would not have to incorporate
measures to address dust and
particulate generating procesaee into
their plan.
Pollution Prevention Committee The
Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Committee identifies specific individuals
within the Plant organization who are
responsible for developing the storm
water pollution prevention plan and
assisting the plant manager in its
implementation, maintenani , and
revision. The activities and
responsibilities of the committee should
address all aspects of the facility’s
storm water pollution prevention plan.
However. A prefers that plant
management, not the committee, have
overall responsibility and accountability
for the quality of the storm water
pollution prevention plan, to ensure
adequate implementation of the plan.
Risk identification and assessment ,’
material inventory. The storm water
pollution prevention plan is to assess
the potential of various sources at the
plant to contribute pollutants to storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity. These activities
should assist In assessing the pollution
potential of runoff from specific areas of
the plant. The plan must contain an
Inventory the type, of materials
handled, the location of material
manzgement activities, and types of
material management activities.
Facilities subject to SARA title [ IL
section 313 must include in the plan a
desoription of releases to land or water
of SARA title HI water priority
chemicals that have occurred at any
time after the date of three years prior to
he issuance of this permit
The layout and activities at the plant
identified as high-priority areas with a
significant potential for contributing
pollutants to the drainage system must
be assessed. Factors to consider when
evaluating the reasonable pollution
potential of runoff from various portions
of an industrial plant include:
• Loading and unloading operations:
• Outdoor storage activities:
• Outdoor manufacturing or
processing activities:
• Significant dust or particulate
generating processes; and
• On-site waste management and
disposal practices.
Other faciors that are to be
considered include the toxicity of
chemicals: quantity of chemicals used,
produced, or discharged: the likelihood
of these materials coming into contact
with storm water, and the history of
significant leaks or spills of toxic or
hazardous pollutants.
Chemicals should be compatible with
the materials used In storage and
process equipment, including the piping,
valves and pumps. Incompatibility of
materials can cause equrpuient failure
resulting from corrosion, fire, or
explosion. Equipment failure can be
prevented by ensuring that the materials
of construction for containers handling
hazardous substance. or toxic
pollutants are compatible with the
container’s contents and surrounding
environment
Preventive maintenance, A preventive
maintenance program involves
inspection and maintenance of storm
water management devices (cleaning
oil/water separators, catch basins) as
well as inspecting and testing plant
equipment and systems to uncover
conditions that could cause breakdowns
or failures resulting in discharges of
pollutants to surface waters. A good
preventive maintenance program
includes identifying equipment or
systems used In the program:
periodically inspecting or testing
equipment and systems: adjusting,
repairing, or replacing Items; and
maintaining complete records on the
equipment and systems.
Good housekeeping Good
housekeeping requires the maintenance
of a clean, orderly facility. Cood
housekeeping includes establishing
housekeeping protocols to reduce the
possibility of mishandling chemicals or
equipment and training of employees In
housekeeping techniques. These
measures also ensure that discharges of
wash waters to separate storm sewers
are avoided,
Spill prevention and response
procedures, Areas where potential spills
can occur, and their accompanying
drainage points should be identified
clearly in the storm water pollution
prevention plan. Where appropriate.
specifying material handling proceduies
and storage requirements in the plan
should be considered, Procedures for
cleaning up spills should be identified in
the plan and made available to the
appropriate personnel. The necessary
equipment to implement a clean up
should be available to personnel Spill
response procedures should avoid
discharging to separate storm sewers
unless necessary because of immediate
safety considerations.
Appropriate storm water
management, Based on an assessment
of the potential of various sources at the
plant to contribute pollutants to storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity, the plan shall provide
that traditional storm water
management measures determined to be
reasonable and appropriate shall be
implemented and maintained.
For the purposes of these permits.
traditional storm water management
practices are measures which reduce
pollutant discharges by reducing the
volume of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity, such
as du’ecting storm water to vegetative
swales, or preventing storm water to run
onto areas of the site which conduct
industrial activity. Low-cost measures
that can be applied to an industrial
setting may include diverting rooftop or
other drainage across grass swaleg.
cleaning catch basins, and installing and
maintaining oil and grit separators.
Other measures that may be appropriate
include infiltration devices and unlined
retention and detention basins.
Traditional storm water management
practices can include water reuse
activities, such as the collection of storm
water for later uses such as irrigation or
dust control Appropriate snow removal
activities may be considered, such as
selecting a site for removed snow and
selecting and using deicing chemicals
The Agency requests comment on
whether a facility that muses
substantially all of Its storm water (for
example, a facility that provides for
storage and reuse of storm water from a
24 hour. 25 year atom) should be
exempt from certain other storm water
pollution prevention plan requirements
Such facilities would have already
minimized their discharge in manner
that may provide equivalent pollution
removal benefits to other measures in a
storm water pollution prevention plan.
However, care must be taken to
evaluate whether these traditional
devices cause ground water
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 159 / Friday, August 18, 199’l / Proposed Rules
-------
40980
Federal Register I Vol. 58, No. 159 / Friday. August 16, 1991 / Proposed Rules
contamination. In some cases, it is
appropriate to lunit traditional storm
water management practices to those
areas of the drainage system that
generate storm water with relatively low
levels of pollutants (e g.. many rooftops.
parking lots. etc.).
Sediment and erosion prevention. The
plan shall identify areas which, due to
topography, activities, or other factors.
have a high potential for soil erosion,
and identify and ensure the
implementation of measures to limit
erosion.
Employee training. Employee training
programs are necessary to inform
personnel at all levels of responsibility
of the components and goals of the
storm water pollution prevention plan.
Training should address topics such as
spill response, good housekeeping and
material management practices. A
pollution prevention plan should
identify periodic dates for such training.
Visual inspection and records.
Qualified plant personnel should be
identified to inspect designated
equipment and plant areas. Typical
inspections should include examination
of pipes, pumps, tanks, supports.
foundations, dikes. and drainage
ditches. Material handling areas should
be inspected for evidence of, or the
potential for, pollutants entering the
drainage system. A tracking or fo!lowup
procedure must be used to ensure that
appropriate and adequate response and
corrective actions have been taken.
Records of inspections are required to
be maintained.
Recordkeepzng and reporting
procedures. A recordiceeping system
ensures adequate implementation of the
storm water pollution prevention plan,
Incidents such as spills, leaks and
improper dumping, along with other
information describing the quality and
quantity of storm water discharges
should be included in the records.
Inspections and maintenance activities
such as cleaning oil and grit separators
or catch basins should be documented
and recorded.
Records of releases of a hazardous
substance in excess of reporting
quantities established at 40 CFR 117.3 or
40 CFR 302.4 describing each release
that has occurred at any time after the
date of three years prior to the issuance
of this permit, measures taken in
response to the release, and measures
taken to prevent recurrence must be
included in plans.
Non-storm discharges. Plans shall
include a certification that the discharge
has been tested for the presence of non-
storm water discharges. The
certification shall include a description
of the results of any test for the presence
of non-s torin water discharges. the
method used, the date of any testing,
and the on-site drainage points that
were directly observer! during the test.
Such certification may not be feasible if
the facility operating the storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity does not have access to an
outfall, manhole, or other point of access
to the ultimate conduit which receives
the discharge. In such cases, the source
identification section of the storm water
pollution plan shall indicate why the
certification required by this part was
not feasible.
iii. Special requirements for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from facilities subject
to SARA title III, section 313
requlrement,g, The Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) of 1986 resulted In the
enactment of title 111 of SARA. the
Emergency Planning and Comrnumty-
Rlght’to-Know Act. Section 313 of title
[ U of SARA requires operators cf certain
facilities that manufacture, import.
process, or otherwise use listed toxic
chemicals to report annually their
releases of those chemicals to any
environmental media. Listed toxic
chemicals include 329 chemicals listed
at 40 CFR part 372.
Facilities that meet all of the following
criterion for a calendar year are subject
to title UI reporting requirements for that
calendar year and must report under 40
CFR 372.30:
• The facility has 10 or more full-tune
employees;
• The facility is a multi-establishment
complex where all establishments have
a primary SIC code of 20 through 3
• The facility is a multi-establishment
complex in which one of the following is
true:
—The sum of the value of products
shipped and/or produced from those
establishments that have a primary
SIC code of 20 through 39 is greater
than 50 percent of the total value of all
products shipped and/or produced
from all establishments at the facility;
—One establishment has a primary SIC
code of 20 through 39 and contributes
mcre in terms of value of products
shipped and/or produced than any
other establishment within the
facility;
• The facility manufactured (uicludmg
imported), processed, or otherwise used
a toxic chemical in excess of an
applicable threshold quantity of that
chemical set forth in 40 CFR 372.25.
Alter 1989, the threshold quantity of
listed chemicals that the facility must
manufacture, import or process in order
to be required to submit a release report
is 25.000 pounds per year. The threshold
for a use other than manufacturing,
importing or processing of listed toxic
chemicals is 10.000 pounds per year.
EPA estimates that 22,000 facilities
nationwide will be subject to SARA title
III reporting requirements after 1990.
EPA promulgated a final regulation
clarifying these reporting requirements
on February 16. 1988 (53 FR 4500). EPA
believes that the information received
through reporting is a ‘front end” of the
toxins program to which EPA is already
committed and ultimately will assist in
better controls for routine toxics
releases and improved Industrial
practices to prevent and respond to
accidents involving toxics.
Of the 329 toxic chemicals listed at 40
CFR 372 which are used to define the
scope of SARA title UI. section 313
requirements, the Agency has identified
approximately 175 chemicals which 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
prionty chemicals” are defined as
chemicals or chemical categories which
also:
(1) Are listed at 40 CFR 372.65
pursuant to SARA title, section 313;
(2) Are present at or above threshold
levels at a facility subject to SARA title
III, section 313 reporting requirements:
and
(3) That meet at least one of the
following criteria: -
(i) Are listed in appendix D of 40 CFR
part 122 on either table U (organic
priority pollutants), table III (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 Cl/VA at 40 CFR 116.4,
or
(iii) Are pollutants for which EPA has
published an acute or a chronic toxicity
criteria.
The Agency estimates that about 9.000
facilities with storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
nationwide have section 313 water
priority chemicals in threshold amounts.
The large amounts of toxic chemicals
at facilities with section 313 water
priority chemicals raises concerns
regarding the potential of material
handling and storage operations to add
pollutants to storm water discharges
assccja ed with industrial activity As
discussed earlier in this fact sheet, the
material management practices
a:sociated with the storage and use of
toxic chemicals is a major potential
source of pollutants in storm water
-------
Federal Register / VoL 58. No . 159 / Friday. August 16. 1991 / Proposed Rules
40981
discharges associated with industrial
activity. The Agency believes that the
threshold criteria established in SARA
title Ill. section 313, along with the
regulatory definition of storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity, which for many facilities in SIC
codes 20—39, only includes storm water
from areas where material handling
equipment or activities, materials or
industrial machinery are exposed to
storm water (see 40 CFR 122.28(b)(14)),
identify potential risks in a manner that
is appropriate for use in developing
priorities for establishing the
applicability of specialized monitoring
and pollution prevention measures for
facilities which use and manage toxic
chemicals.
In evaluating risks and establishing
regulatory priorities for facilities with
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity, the Agency believes
that the large amounts of toxic
chemicals found at facilities with
section 313 water priority chemicals
pose 8uffiCient risk to warrant special
permit conditions for these facilities.
The Agency is requesting comments on
two primary options for developing
special permit conditions for these
facilities.
Under Option A. the permit would
provide for
(1) In addition to baseline
requirements for storm water pollution
prevention plans, special pollution
prevention measures, including spill
prevention and containment
requirements for areas of the facility
used for material management of these
chemicals;
(2) An acute WE’!’ Limit for storm
water associated with industrial activity
that comes into contact with any
equipment, tank, container, or other
vessel used for section 313 water
priority chemicals: and for truck and rail
car loading and unloading areas for
liquid section 313 water priority
chemicals; and
(3) thannual (twice a year) monitoring
and reporting requirements for a number
of parameters including acute whole
effluent toxicity.
Under Option B, the general permits
would provide for
(1) An acute WET limit for storm
water associated with industrial activity
that comes into contact with any
equipment, tank, container, or other
vessel used for sectIon 313 water
priority chemicals; and for truck and rail
car loading and unloading areas for
liquid section 313 water priority
chemicals: and
(2) Monitoring and reporting
requirements at a higher frequency”
than biannual (twice a year) monitoring
for acute whole effluent toxicity for
discharges of storm water that cornea
into contact with any equipment. tank.
container, or other vessel used for
section 313 water priority chemicals.
Under Option B. the Agency is
considering and requests comment on a
range of monitonng options for the WET
limitation, including monitoring
biannually, quarterly, or every di8charge
event. Under Option B. facilities would
remain subject to the baseline
requirements for storm water pollution
prevention plans, but would not be
subject to the technolo ’.based spill
prevention and containment
requirements outlined in Option A.
Option B would provide dischargere
with more flexibility than Option A for
complying with the permit. By providing
additional flexibility by not requiring
spill prevention and containment
requirements. Option B may reduce
compliance costs at facilities whose
storm water discharges are not toxic. In
addition, by not prescribing the specific
method for controlling toxic storm water
discharges, facilities can better take into
account local factors in desi ung an
appropriate cost-effective approach for
meeting the WET test performance
standard. Establishing a performance
standard also encourages the
development of new innovative and
more cost-effective approaches for
controlling toxic storm water discharges.
EPA requests comments on whether
the criteria used for identifying priority
facilities mibject to specialized
containment provisions and the WET
effluent limitation are appropriate or
whether these requirements should
address a smaller or larger set of
facilities including whether any set of
facilities should be subject to the
provisions of Option A or B.
51 Und Option A. the th (t permit proposes
biannual monitoring for atom, water discharge,
from containment areas The Agency believes that if
the final perirci followo Opuon 8(e g provides for
an effluent limitation but does nat require
containment), then. higher frequency of monitoring
may be appropriate for s number of re.,ons First.
where containment Is required. such controls may
provide the operator with a better opportunity to
evsluste and correct periodic releases of chemicals
which may influence the ioxiciy of the discharge
pnor to discharge Second, fac:litie, with
containment system. are expected to di,ckiazge
storm w.ter less frequently than facilities without
containment systems, thereby reducir.g the
variability of system discharges Third. discharges
from containmeni systems may exhibit lea.
vsnsbility due to mixing oconmng In the
containmant unIt. thereby requiring l ou frequent
monitoring to diar.cienee the dlschai!e EPA
requests comment on the appropriate mouiionng
frequency for these discharges if the permit does not
requite containment.
One alternative on which EPA
specifically requests comments would
be to impose the requirerner.ts of
Options A or B only on facilities
(including facilities that are not subject
to SARA title III, section 313) that have
had a discharge of a hazardous
substance in excess of reporting
quantities established at 40 CFR 1173 or
40 FR 302.4 at any time after the date
of three years prior to the issuance of
these general permits which either
discharge through a separate storm
sewer systems or that otherwise comes
into contact with storm water
The Agency also requests comment on
alternative approaches, including either
alternative design standards or
performance standards.63 to
establishing permit requirements which
target containment requirements for
chemical storage and handling activities
where aquatically toxic chemicals are
likely to be exposed to. or otherwise
come into contact with, storm water.
Comments addressing alternative
approaches should also provide a
description of the alternative
performance standards or design
standards. The Agency requests
comments on the advantages and
disadvantages of using design standards
or performance standards for controlling
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity. Comments can also
address other regulatory or market
incentives that can assure sufficient spill
control and material managing practices
that would make the imposition of
containment requirements unnecessary
Under Option A. the general permit
would provide that storm water
pollution prevention plans for facilities
with section 313 water priority
chemicals must, in addition to the
requirements associated with the
baseline pollution prevention plans,
provide for spill prevention and
containment-oriented controls ‘
The moat commonly u .ed performance
standards under the CWA are numenc effluent
limitations end whole effluent toxicity limitations
‘ The spill prevennon and contatmoent
provision. fat’ hazardous substances were analyzed
in the 1979 survey of BMP (set I4POES Best
Management Practice GuIdance Document” U S
EPA December 2979. EPA-800I9..79 -O45). arid the
draft “Analysis of trapleinenting Perriitt’rig
ActivThee for Storm Water Discharges Aesociated
With tndusrilal Activity. EPA. 1901 EPA haa also
analyTed similar poUution prevention requirements
for oil in the Spill Prev,ntlo . ConeoL and
Countiroreasnie (SPCCJ plait requirements at 40
CTh pan iii. (see ‘The OU Spill Prevention,
ControL and Countermeasures Program Task Force
Reporr EPA. May 1088)
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 56. t o. 159 / Friday. August 16. 1991 I Proposed Rules
Containment Involves the use of
physical structures or collection!
drainage equipment used to confine a
release of material after it escapes from
it physical location or containment.
Dikes. berins. retaining walls.
impounding basins, diversion ponds.
and retention ponds surrounding
material storage tanks are the most
common examples of containment.
Containment systems must be
sufficiently impervious to contain spilled
Section 313 water priority chemicals.
The spill prevention and containment
provision of these general permits are
designed to mitigate the discharge of
toxic chemicals to waters of the United
States from both significant spill events
and from more routine material
management practices and leaks.
Under Option A. the spill prevention
and containment control requirements
would only apply to priority areas of
facilities with section 313 water priority
chemicals (e.g. portions of the facility
where section 313 water priority
chemicals are stored or managed and
which generate storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity). 55
Secondary containment requirements
would only be required for liquid
storage areas where storm water comes
into contact with equipment. tank.
container, or other vessel used for
section 313 water priority chemicals;
and truck and rail car loading and
unloading areas for liquid section 313
water priority chemicals. In developing
the containment-oriented provisions of
Cption A. the Agency has provided
flexibility to allow facilities to use or
modify appropriate existing containment
approaches that facilities currently
employ.
EPA believes that where.
economically achievable, containment
structures for storm water associated
with industrial activity that comes into
contact with any equipment. tank.
‘It should be noted that many facilities which
are eubtect to SARA title IlL secuon 313 reporting
requirements because they manage sectIon 353
water priority chemicals do not generate storm
water thacharges associated with tndusUiet activity.
The regulatory defuutlon of ‘i water
auociated with indusuiel scthity ” (40 CTR
i22.284b)(14 1) addresses facilities In all Standard
Industrial ClassificatIon (SIC) codes between mend
35 (as well as additional classes of facilities).
However. facilities under SIC codes . ZI. 22. 23.
szt 33.283.281.31.283.283.30.31 (except 3111.
323.34 (except 3445). 35. 38. 31 (except 373). 3*. 39
which are not otherwise addressed in other parts of
the regulatory defuution only generate storm water
aisociated with industrial activity where material
handling equipment or ictivities, raw materiaLs.
intermediate products, final products. waste
materials. by.producti. or industrial machinery are
exposed to storm water. Such fscthties which do not
generate storm wife? discharges associated with
industrial activity are not subject to these permits
(see (4OcFR 122.25{bl(i4 1(aI))).
container, or other vessel used for
section 313 water priority chemicals:
and for truck and rail car loading and
unloading areas for liquid section 313
water priority chemicals can prevent
discharges of toxic chemicals after
releases associated with spills, chronic
leaks, and other material management
practices occur.
Option B can also result in the
implementation of measures to prevent
discharges of toxic chemicals associated
with spills, chronic leaks, and other
material management practices.
Option A provides that if the
installation of secondary containment
structures or equipment is not
economically achievable at a given
facility, the facility operator must
develop and implement a spill
contingency and integrity testing plan
which provides, as en alternative to
secondary containment, a description of
measures to ensure that discharges of
toxic amounts of section 313 water
priority chemicals do not occur. En these
situations, a spill contingency and
integrity plan must include:
• A detailed description which
demonstrates that secondary
containment requirements are not
economically achievable based on the
appropriate factors described at 40 CFR
125.3(d)(3);
• A spill contingency plan must
include, at a mmimum a description of
response plans. personnel needs, and
methods of mechanical containment
(such as the use of sorbants. booms,
collection devices. etc.): steps to be
taken for removal of spilled section 313
water priority chemicals: access to and
availability of sorbents and other
equipment and such other information
as required by the Directori
• The testing component of the plan
must provide for conducting integrity
testu of storage tanks at least once
every ve years. and conducting
integrity and leak testing of values and
piping .i minimum of at least once every
yean and
e A %mtten and actual commitment of
manpower. equipment and materials
require.l to comply with the permit and
to expeditiously control and remove any
quantity of section 313 water priority
c.’iemiuals that may result in a toxic
discharge.
Spill contingency and integrity plans
can prevent discharges of toxic
chemicals by minimizing the potential
for spills or leaks of toxic chemicals to
occui or for material management
practices to release toxic chemicals. In
addition, where such releases occur, this
approach can minimize the potential for
contact of storm water with toxic
chemicals. Option A requires secondary
containment where achievable because
of the degree of certainty that such
containment will prevent toxic
discharges. Nonetheless, where
effectively implemented. a spill
contingency and integrity testing plan
may result in a level of control similar to
that of installing containment structures.
(e.g. the prevention of discharges of
toxic amounts of section 313 water
priority chemicals). Thus, spill
contingency and integrity plans
constitute an acceptable alternative set
of requirements for some facilities based
on the appropriate factors at 40 CFR
125.3(d)(3) (iii) and (v). Option B would
ako result in actions which would
prevent toxic discharges.
EPA requests comment on the
frequency and cost of integrity testing
for tanks, valves, or pipes and whether
integrity testing is an appropriate
alternative to containment provisions
where secondary containment is not
economically achievable.
The Agency also notes that under
both Options A and B. facilities with
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity which. based on an
evaluation of site specific conditions,
believe that the appropriate conditions
of these permits do not adequately
represent BAT and BCT requirements
for the facility may request an
individual permit by submitting to the
Director an individual application (Form
1 and Form 2.FJ. Under Option A. the
storm water pollution prevention plans
at facilities with section 313 water
priority chemicals and with storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity must be reviewed and certified
by a Registered Professional Engineer.
With the certification, the Engineer must
attest that the storm water pollution
prevention plan has been prepared in
accordance with good engineering
practice. Such certifications will in no
way relieve the owner or operator of a
facility covered by the plan of their duty
to prepare and fully implement such a
plan.
The spill prevention and containment
provision of Option A are designed to
mitigate the discharge of toxic chemicals
to waters of the United States from both
significant spill events and from more
routine material management practices
arid leaks. The Agency requests
comment on a number of other
e prcaches to meet these objectives.
EPA requests comments on providing
permittees with the option of
Professional Engineer’s certification that
material management practices and
controls provide equivalent control as
the design specifications in the draft
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 159 I Friday. August 18. 1991 / Proposed Rules
4O98
permaL The Agency requests comment
on what level of assurance is
appropriate to determine that material
management practices and controls are
sufficient to provide equivalent control
as the design specifications in the draft
permit.
Storm water collected in containment
areas can pick up significant levels of
pollutants where material management
practices result in leaks, spills or other
exposure to chemicals. Rather than
attempt to establish specific numeric
limits of each type of pollutant subject
to section 313. the Agency believes that
it is more appropriate to establish acute
whole-effluent toxicity limits for these
discharges. For this reason, under both
Options A and B. the general permit
would establish an acute whole-effluent
toxicity effluent limitation applied as a
technology-based performance standard
for discharges of storm water that comes
into contact with any equipment, tank.
container, or other vessel used for
section 313 water priority chemicals.
and for storm water discharged from
truck and rail car loading and unloading
areas for liquid section 313 water
priority chemicals,
Toxicity monitoring and WET limits
have been used in the NPDES program
to address a wide range of discharges.
including intermittent discharges.
Applying numeric or toxicity limits on a
technology-basis to intermittent
discharges such as storm water protects
against periodic releases of high level,
of pollutants. Establishing limits for
intermittent discharges Is consistent
with the approach taken in the l’ ’PDES
program which does not allow for
periodic exceedances of limits by
continuous discharges.
For the purpose of this permit. EPA is
defining toxicity for use as a technology-
based limit as not being lethal to 20% or
more of the more sensitive of either
appropriate fish or invertebrate test
orgarusms. EPA is requesting comment
as whether this is the appropriate
definition of the toxicity parameter as a
technology-based limit for the purposes
of this permit.
Since these discharges are generated
from limited-sized, specific storage and
material handling areas, a wide range of
technologies are available to reduce the
toxicity of the limited volume of storm
water that is subject to the WET effluent
lunitation. The Agency anticipates that
most storm water discharges From these
areas at well-maintained facilities with
good housekeeping practices will not
exhibit acute toxicity. For the majority
of storm water discharges that do
exhibit acute toxicity, the toxicity can
be reduced by improving storage or
material handling procedures, practices
or equipment. Other classes of
discharges may require various types of
end-of-pipe treatment or various offaite
disposal options such as discharging to
a POTW.”
EPA requests comments on possible
alternatives to the V ’ET effluent
limitation for storm water discharges
that come Into contact with any
equipment. tank, container, or other
vessel used for section 313 water
priority chemicals, or from truck and rail
car loading and unloading areas for
liquid section 313 water priority
chemicals. thcluduig (1) Establishing an
effluent limitation that provides for zero
discharge (compliance determinations
based on the level of detection) for the
specific Section 313 water priority
chemicals used at the site, along with
the containment provisions of the draft
general permits. (Any untreated
overflow from containment facilities
properly designed. constructed and
operated to treat the volume of runoff
associated with a 25 year. 24 hour
rainfall event would not be subject to
the effluent limitation). This approach
would be based on the showing that the
best available technology for these
facilities would include containment
requirements and material management
practices and other measures that
ensured that storm water did not come
into contact with SARA title Ill, section
313 chemicals; (2) establishing a zero
discharge effluent limitation
(compliance determinations based on
the level of detection) without the
containment provision of the draft
general permit, and requiring discharge
sampling at a higher frequency (such as
quarterly or at every storm event) to
ensure permit compliance. This
approach is similar to approach 1, but
would not rely on containment
provisions to ensure and assist in
meeting the zero discharge effluent
hmitation (3) modifying approach 1 and
2 by establishing a non-zero effluent
limitation for specific section 313 water
priority chemicals based on BAT/BCT
a’zteria (the Agency requests comment
on which chemicals this approach would
be appropriate for); (4) using an
alternative indicator parameter other
than toxicity for establishing limitations
(the Agency requests comments on what
indicator parameters would be
appropriate for this purpose), and (5)
Instead of the WET effluent limitation.
require facilities that detect a statistical
difference in acute toxicity between the
control and 100% effluent to submit a
toxicity reduction evaluation (TRE) to
“S.. “Staff Analysi, of impletoennog Perenitth 5
ActiviUc, fot Storm Water Dia .r ei Aa.ociated
with Induathal Activity’ A. 1991.
the Director within one year. 6 ’ Under
this last approach, a ‘l’RE could be used
in issuing an individual permit
containing technology or water quality-
based requirements based on an
evaluation of site-specific conditions
The Agency believes that the
increased use of toxicity testing in the
NPDES program has resulted in the
development of adequate laboratory
capacity to conduct the toxicity testing
required by these permits. The Agency
requests comment on any anticipated
problems with inadequate laboratory
capacity to conduct toxicity testing in
the States addressed by these permits.
The draft general permits provide that
any untreated overflow from
containment facilities properly designed.
constructed and operated to treat the
volume of runoff associated with a 24
hour. 25 year rainfall event is not subject
to the WET limitation. The 24 hour, 25
year rainfall event is the most
commonly used design storm fur BAT
national effluent limitations guidelines
which address storm water. The 24 hour.
25 year rainfall event provides a
reasonable margin of safety when sizing
secondary containment units. ° EPA
requests comments on the use of
alternative storm events to a 25 year. 24
hour rainfall event in association with
both the WET effluent limitation and
containment provisions of the general
perm its.
iv. Special requirements for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from salt storage
facilities. The draft permits provide that
storm water pollution prevention plans
for facilities with storage piles of salt
used for deicing or other commercial or
industrial purposes must. in addition to
the requirements associated with the
baseline pollution prevention plans.
enclose or cover their salt storage to
prevent exposure to precipitation. 69
v, Special requirements for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity through large and
medium municipal separate storm sewe,
systems. Facilities covered by these
“VA baa developed the foliowin gwdance
document, wh i dew b. etetboda and procedices
for coaductin TREs and Toxicity Ide t iWicatio n
Evaluatjonr Ii) ‘Genaeshx,d Methodology for
Conducung lnduatrial Toxicity Reduction
Evaluation.’ ( AJ8OO/2—88/O7V) () “Method, for
Aquatic Toxicity identification Evaiuation. ‘ Phase
I Toxicity Charactetizition Procedure. (F AIOcOI3—
85/034). Phase 2 Toxicity identthcalaon Procedures
(EPA/600/3-as/mSj. Phase 3 Toxicity Confirmation
Procedure. ( A/899/3.48/ris6 .
“ “NPD Best Management Practice, Guidance
Document”. A. 1579, ( A—1OO/9-.79—O45j.
“Sea ‘Sta.il A aiy.i. of Implementing Permitting
Activities for Storm Water Discharge. Auociated
with Induatnal Activity” (m’A, 1991).
-------
1p 1
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 159 / Friday. August 18. 1991 1 Proposed Rules
permits must comply with applicable
requirements In municipal storm water
management prc ams 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 of such conditions. Part 5
of this fact sheet discusses how permits
for discharges from large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer systems
will typically require municipal
permittees to develop storm water
management programs which address
storm water associated with Industrial
activity which discharges through their
system.
vi. Special requirements for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity composed of coal pile
runoff
The draft general permits establish
effluent limitations of 50 mg/i total
suspended solids (TSS) and a pH range
of 8 to9 for storm water discharges
associated with industhal activity. 40
This effluent limitation Is similar to the
effluent guideline limitation for coal pile
rcnoff from facilities in the steam
electric power generating point source
category (see 40 CFR 423.12 b)(9)).
The limitation does not apply to any
untreated overflow from facilities
properly designed, constructed and
operated to treat the volume of coal pie
runoff which is associated with a 25
year. 24 hour rainfall event Providing a
limit to effluent guidelines for events
that exceed a specified storm event
provides operators with a basis for
installing and operating a treatment
system, as the design of the system.
particularly the collection devices, will
depend on the design storm chosen. The
25 year, 24 hour storm is most commonly
used in the BAT national effluent
limitations guideline that have been
developed by EPA. 4 ’ The effluent
guideline Limitation for coal pile runoff
from facilities In the steam electric
power generating point source category
at 40 CFR 423.1Z(b )(9) Incorporates a 10
year, 24 hour design storm into a best
practicable control technology currently
available (OPT) LImit OCT and BAT
effluent [ mutation guidalines for coal
pile runoff are currently reserved. The
Agency believes that the appropriate
design storm for coal pile runoff
addressed by these permits Is the more
stringent 25 year. 24 hour design storm
‘ Se. “St.tf Analyst. oiIuipts antIng P rm iiUng
Acdvftte. for S or Water DIacha e. Auoclated
with induatrial Activity” A. is 5i .
‘ BAT effluant Undtationa guideline. that
tncarp..r.la I Z 5 .year. Z4 .hoiw UtOsm eVent In Iudi
a ,umaI fe.dlot. (40 part 412J, fertilliar
manufactwtng (40 t R part 415). and phoaphal.
manufacturing (40 an part 4m ) .
as these permit, establish BAT/BC !’
limits (which are typically more
stringent than OPT limits), and the 25
year. 24 hour storm Is more commonly
used in effluent guideline limitations
based on the BAT or OCT standards.
The Agency requests comments on the
appropriate design storm (e g. the 25
year, 24 hour, or the 10 year, 24 hour) for
this limitation.
viL Public Availability. The draft
general permits clarify that all storm
water pollution prevention plans
required under the permit are
considered reports that shall be
available to the public under section
08(b) of the CWA. However, the
permittee may claim any portion of a
storm water pollution plan as
confidential in accordance with 40 CFR
part 2.
8. MonitorIng and Reporting
Requirements
a. Monitoring requirements. The draft
permits have been developed to provide
different mcnitonng requirements for
certain classes of discharges. Monitoring
and zeportlng requirements are
established for storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity from
six classes of Industries: SARA title III.
section 313 facilitIes with water priority
chemicals: primary metal facilities: land
disposal units: wood treatment facilities
(wood preservers) unrig chlorophenollc/
creosote formulations; wood treatment
facilities (wood preservers) using
arsenic/chromium preservatives: and
coal pile runoff. These categories and
the associated monitoring and reporting
requirements are discussed in more
detail below. These categories of
industrial facilities have been selected
as priority sites In terms of monitoring
requirements based on an evaluation of
activities at these types of facilities
which have the potential for
contributing toxic pollutants to storni
water discharges. EPA believes that
requiring these facilities to submit
monitoring reports will allow the
Agency to continue to assess the nature
of pollutants in storm water discharges
from these types of facilities, EPA
requests comments on the
appropriateness of categories specific
monitoring and reporting requirements
for other categories of industrial
facilities,
The draft general permit provides that
operator! of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
oil and gas operations have the option of
either monitoring their storm water
discharges associated with industhal
activity annually or, in lieu of the
monitoring, a facility may have a
Registered Professional Engineer certify
that a storm water pollution plan has
been prepared and Is being implemented
in accordance with the requirements o’
the permit.
Operators of other storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity covered by the draft general
permits which are not addressed by one
of the industry-specific monitoring
requirements are required to conduct
annual monitoring of a set of specified
parameters. Facilities subject to these
‘baseline’ monitoring requirements are
subject to record keeping requirements.
but generally do not have reporting
requirements. Although EPA is -
proposing to not require the reporting of
monitoring data for facilities without
industry-specific monitoring
requirements, the Agency believes that
monitoring requirements remain
appropriate as they will assist operators
of storm water discharges in identifying
sources of pollutants and in evaluating
the effectiveness of the implementation
of their storm water pollution prevention
plans. In addition. EPA may review
monitoring data during the term of the
permit or during the permit reissuance
process for the purposes of evaluating
the effectiveness of a facility’s storm
water pollution prevention plan and for
determining priorities for future permit
issuance or modification.
I. Monitoring reqwrernent.s—Baseline
monitorthgreqwrements. The following
eight parameters have been identified as
baseline parameters that generally form
the foundation for different monitoring
requirements in the pernuti Oil and
grease. pH. five-day biochemical oxygen
demand (BODS). chemical oxygen
demand (COD), total suspended solids
(TSS), total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl
nitrogen (TKN), and nitrate plus nitrite
nitrogen.
Oil and grease is a common industrial
pollutant which can be Indicative of
material management housekeeping
and transportation activities. TSS is a
common pollutant found In storm water
discharges that reflects surface
disturbances and material management
practices, and can have significant
Impacts an receiving waters. Oxygen
demand (COD and 00D5) will help the
permitting authority evaluate the oxygen
depletion potential of the discharge.
BOD5 Is the most commonly used
indicator of oxygen demand. COD is
considered a more Inclusive indicator of
oxygen demand. especially where
metal8 interfere with the BOD5 test, and
generally is better suited for comparing
the oxygen demand of a storm water
discharge with that of other discharges.
The pH will provide important
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 159 / Friday. August 18. 1991 / Proposed Rules
40985
information on the potential availability
of metals to the receiving flora, fauna.
and sediment, In some cases it will
provide information regarding material
management. Total phosphorus, TKN,
nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen are measures
of nutrients that can impact water
quality In addition, most of the
monitoring requirements contain a
requirement to monitor pollutants
subject to effluent limitation guidehnes.
Effluent limitation guidelines can
identify industry-specific pollutants
which may be of concern.
SAM title III. section 313 Facilities,
The large amounts of toxic chemicals
stored and utilized at SARA title UI,
section 313 facilities with section 313
water priority chemicals raises concerns
regarding the potential of material
handling and storage operations to add
pollutants to storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity.
Storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity that comes into
contact with any equipment. tank.
container, or other vessel used for title
LU. section 313 water priority chemicals;
and for truck and rail car loading and
unloading areas for hquid title LU.
section 313 water priority chemicals
must be inorutored semiannually (2
times per year) for Oil and grease
biochemical oxygen demand (BODS),
chemical oxygen demand (COD), total
suspended solids, total Kjeldahl nitrogen
(TKN). total phosphorus, pH. nitrate plus
nitrite nitrogen. acute whole effluent
toxicity, and any chemical constituent
for which the operator is subject to
reporting requirements under section 313
of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right to Know Act of 1986
for chemicals which are classified as
“section 313 water priority chemicals”.
The monitoring requirements for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity that comes into
contact with any equipment, tank.
container, or other vessel used for title
Ill. section 313 water priority chemicals;
and for truck and rail car loading and
unloading areas for liquid title U I.
section 313 water priority chemicals
modify the baseline parameters for other
storm water discharges by adding the
requirement to test, for any chemical
constituent for which the operator is
subject to reporting requirements under
section 313 and acute whole effluent
toxicity Acute whole effluent toxicity
monitoring requirements are being
established for two reasons: (1) Acute
whole effluent toxicity is a non-chemical
specific parameter suitable for
characterizing the potential impacts of
the wide range of chemicals and
chemical formulations expected to be
found at the wide variety of section 313
facilities: and (2) To support the acute
whole effluent toxicity limitation
proposed in the draft general permits.
Requirements to test chronic toxicity
have not been included in this permit
because discharges from the
containment areas are expected to be
generally less frequent than other storm
water discharges (e g. containment
system discharges are typically not
expected to occur with each event) and
relatively low volume where the area
generating the storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
subject to the containment requirements
described in the pollution prevention
plans developed under this permit is
relatively smalL Monitoring
requirements for storm water discharges
from containment areas are not
applicable where there is not a
discharge to a waters of the United
States (including discharges through
municipal separate storm sewer systems
to waters of the United States), such as
where the discharge is to a POTW.
Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from other
portions of SARA title III section 313
facilities (e.g. those storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity that are not composed of storm
water that comes into contact with any
equipment, tank, container, or other
vessel used for title Ill, section 313
water priority chemicals, or from truck
and rail car loading and unloading areas
for liquid title lii. section 313 water
priority chemicals) are subject to
baseline monitoring requirements of the
permit.
Primary Metal Facihijes. Facilities
classified as Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) 33 (Primary Metal
Industry) include steel works, blast
furnaces, rolling and finishing mills, iron
and steel foundries, primary and
secondary smelting and refining of
nonferrous metals, rolling, drawing and
extruding of nonferrous metals, and
nonferrous foundries. These facilities
typically have significant dust or
particulate generating processes, as well
as other activities, which can contribute
a wide range of pollutants, including
metals, to storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
Under the draft general permits
facilities classified as SIC 33 must
monitor semiannually (2 times per year)
all storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that are
discharged from the facility for oil and
grease, pH. BOD5, COD, TSS. total
phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen,
nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen, any
pollutant limited in an effluent guideline
to which the facility is subject, acute
whole effluent toxicity, total lead, total
cadmium, total copper, total arsenic, and
total chromium,
The monitoring requirements for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from primary metal
facilities modify the baseline monitoring
requirements by adding requirements to
monitor acute whole effluent toxicity,
and five metals, The five metals selected
are typically the most common toxic
metals generally expected in storm
water from primary metal facilities.
However, dust or particulate generating
processes or material management
activities at primary metal facilities can
result in a number of other metals and
pollutants in storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
primary metal facilities. Acute whole
effluent toxicity is a non-chemical
specific parameter Buitable for
characterizing the potential impacts of
these additional pollutants.
Land Disposal Units. Land disposal
units with storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity may
receive a diverse range of industrial
wastes, EPA has summarized case
studies documenting surface water
impacts and ground water
contamination incidents of land disposal
units (see August 30, 1988 (53 FR 33372)).
Evaluation of 163 case studies revealed
surface water impacts at 73 facilities,
Elevated levels of organics, including
pesticides, and metals have been found
in ground water and/or surface water at
many sites,
Facilities that discharge storm water
associated with industrial activity from
any active or inactive landfill, land
application site, or open dump that
received any industrial wastes are
required to monitor semiannually (2
times per year) for ammonia,
bicarbonate, calcium, chloride, total
iron, magnesium (total), magnesium
(dissolved), nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen.
potassium, sodium, sulfate, chemical
oxygen demand (COD), total dissolved
solids (TDS), total organic carbon
(TOC), pH. total arsenic, total barium,
total cadmium, total chromium, total
cyanide, total lead, total mercury, total
selenium, total silver, volatile organic
carbon (VOC) acute whole effluent
toxicity.
The parameters addressed by the
monitoring requirements for storm water
discharges associated with :ndustnal
activity from land disposal units is
similar to the parameters addressed by
proposed ground water monitoring
requirements for municipal solid waste
landfills established under sub itle D of
RCRA (see August 30, 1908 (53 FR
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58 . No. 159 / Friday, Atgust 13. 1991 / Proposed Rules
33372)). The Agency believes that the
pollutants identified for the purpose of
evaluating ground water quality at land
disposal units should also be considered
when evaluating storm water
discharges. Given the wide range of
materials that may be disposed at land
disposal units. many other pollutants
may potentially be found In storm water
discharges from land disposal units. For
this reason, the draft permits require
sampling of acute whole effluent
toxicity. The toxicity parameter Is
particularly relevant in situation, since
the evaluation of the toxicity parameter
does not require specific chemical
ident i.fication.
Wood Trectment (chiorophenolic/
creoso( formuiotions). 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, Indudin3
pentachiorophenol. fluoranthene.
benzo(a )anthracene, chrysene.
phenanthrene. and pyrene.
All storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from 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 facilities
that currently use chiorophenolic
formulations and/or creosote
formulation shall be monitored
semiannually (2 times per year) for oil
and grease. p1-f. BOD5. COD. TSS. total
phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen.
nitrate plus nitrite ni ogen. acute whole
effluent toxic tv, and pentachiorophenoL
The monitoring requirements for
storm water discharges associated with
Industrial activity from wood treatment
facilities modify the baseline monitoring
requirements by adding requirements to
monitor pentachiorophenol acute whole
effluent tcxicity. Pentachiorophenol is a
major constituent of preservatives used
at these facilities. and acute whole
effluent toxicity testing will assist In
assessing the presence of other toxins in
these discharges.
Wood Treatment (aenic/chromiwn
proservoticos). Arsanlc/chromiuin
preeervatives conzir.t of mixtures of
bivalent copper, pentavalent arsenic,
haxavalent chromium or fluorides. The
three most widely used compounds for
commercial wood treatment include
chromatic copper arsenate (CCA):
ammoruacal copper arsenate (ACA):
and fluorochrome-arsenate phenol
(FCAP). 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. Certain metals, including
chromium, copper, and arsenic, were
found at high levels In storm water from
wood-preserving facilities using
inorganic arsenical preservatives.
All storm water discharges associated
with Industrial activity from areas that
are used for wood treatment or storage
of treated wood at any wood preserving
facilities that currently use inorganic
preservatives CO t ining arsenic or
chromium shall be monitored
semiannually (2 times per year) for Oil
and grease, pH. 80D5. COD. TSS. total
phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen,
nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen, total
arsenici total chromium, and total
copper.
The monitoring requirements for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from wood treatment
or storage of treated wood at any wood
preserving facilIties that currently use
inorganic preservatives containing
arsenic or chromium modify the baseline
monitoring requirements by adding
requirements to monitor arsenic,
chromium and copper, three major toxic
constituents found in the preservatives
used by these facilities.
Coal Pile Runoff. Coal pile runoff has
been shown to contain significant levels
of suspended solids, Copper, iron.
aluminum, nickel, zinc and other trace
metals. (See “Development Document
for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards and Pretreatment Standards
for the Steam Electric Point Source
Category”. (EPA—440/182/029)).
All storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from coal piles
shall be monitored semiannually (2
times per year) tori Oil and grease. p1-f.
TSS, total copper, total nickel and total
zinc.
The monitoring requirements for
c orm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from coal piles
support the effluent limitations for pH
and TSS in these permits. The three
metals, total copper, total ruckeL and
total zinc have been shown to be at
concentraticas of concern In coal pile
runoff (see Table 3 above). Oil and
grease is a common industrial pollutant
which can be indicative of material
management. housekeeping and
transportation activities.
Oil and gas evploraz,on or production
operations. Operators of storm waler
discharges associated with industhal
activity from oil and gas exploration or
production operatior.3 have the option of
either monitoring their storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity annually or. in lieu of the
monitoring, a facility may have a
Registered Professional Engineer certify
that a storm water pollution plan has
been prepared and is being implementec
in accordance with the requirements of
the permit
Oil and Gas Exploration or
Production Operations (Sampling
Option). Operators of storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from oil and gas exploration and
production operations which elect to
conduct monitoring rather than obtain a
Professional Engineer’s certification are
required to analyze samples annually
(once a year) for the following
parameters: Oil and grease, pH. BOD5,
COD, TSS, total phosphorus. total
Kjeldahl nitrogen, nitrate plus nitrite
wtrogcn. and any pollutant limited in an
effluent guideline to which the facility is
subject. The rationale for selecting these
baseline parameters is disc,.issed above.
Oil and Gas Explorvtioa or
Production Operations (Certification
Option). Operators of storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from oil and gas exploration or
production operations have the option of
obtaining a Professional Engineer’s
certification that a storm water pollution
plan has been prepared by the facility
and Is being Implemented in accordance
with the requirements of the permit
Diachargers pursuing this option are
required to obtain recertification of the
plan every three years. By means of
certification. the Engineer shall attest
that: The Engineer has visited and
examined the facility and in familiar
with the provisions of this part: the Plan
has been prepared in accordance with
good engineering practice: reserve pits
used to hold spent drilling muds or
cuttings have been designed and built to
prevent storm induced overflows: and
the Plan is adequate for the facility.
Such certifications will In no way
relieve the owner or operator of a
facility covered by the plan of their duty
to prepare and fully implement such
plan.
Information from sources such as non-
point source assessments developed
pursuant to section 319(a) of the C’NA
indicate that significant water quality
impacts can be caused by wet.weather
failure of on.site waste disposal sy3tems
at oil and gas exploration and
production operations (such as stern-i
induced overflows of reserve pits used
to hold spent drilling muds and
cuttings ). Periodic sampling of
discharges may not be sufficient to
identify or predict these events. Rather.
a PE certlflcaticn may provide a more
appropriate link for evaluating the
-------
Federal Register / VoL. 55, No . 159 / Friday, August 16. 1991 / Proposed Rules
4O98
potential for and preventing these types
of events.
Allowing this class of dischargers the
option of obtaining Professional
Engineer’s certifications addresses a
number of concerns. First. Professional
Engineering certifications will provide a
direct link to the implementation of the
central provision of the general permits.
the requirement to develop and
implement storm water pollution
prevention plans. Second. providing
dischargers with the option of either
conducting annual sampling or obtaining
a Professional Engineer’s certification
will provide the discharger with
flexibility to select the most cost-
effective manner to comply with the
draft permits. Third. this approach will
reduce the admuustrative burdens on
EPA while not limiting its ability to
ensure permit compliance.
Storm Water Discharges Not
Otherwise Addressed. Operators of
storm water discharges covered by the
draft general permits which are not
subject to an industry specific
monitoring requirement under the
permits shall monitoring their storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity annually (once a year)
for the following baseline parameters:
oil and grease. pH. BOD5, COD, TSS,
total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl
nitrogen, nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen.
arid any pollutant limited in an effluent
guideline to which the facility is subject.
The rationale for selecting these
baseline parameters is discussed above.
ii Volume estimates. The draft
general permits take two approaches for
estimating volumes associated with
storm water discharges. The first
approach. which is applicable to two
classes of facilities, discharges from
SARA title ill section 313 containment
areas for chemicals which are classified
as ‘Section 313 water priority chemicals’,
and discharges from land disposal units,
requires that an estimate of the total
volume of the discharge monitored be
provided. This approach is taken for
these types of facilities because it is
ant cipa ted that some degree of
retention will be provided for the storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from these facilities i i
and that providing volume estimates
will be more practicable.
Other classes of storm water
discharges covered by the general
permits (wood preserving facilities,
“For e ampis. EPA ha. p opoied requiromenh.
for run-off conflol sytsm. from the icily. portion
of the municipal solid wutu landfill, to collect and
control ii th . water voitmte resulting from. 24-
hour. 25-ye.r storm (see Augult 30. 19 (53 FR
334 j)
primary metal facilities, and other
discharges without industry specific
requirements) are required to provide an
estimate of the size of the drainage area
(in square feet) and an estimate of the
runoff coefficient of the drainage area
(e.g. low (under 40%), medium (40% to
05%) or high (above a5%)). This
information assists in characterizing the
magnitude of the volume of discharges
that will occur for different magnitude
storm events. In addition, this
information will generally be easier for
dischargers to provide.
iii. Sampling waiver. The draft general
permits have an “adverse climatic
conditions” provision allowing a
discharger to submit a description of
why samples could not be collected in
lieu of sampling data when the
discharger is unable to collect samples
due to climatic conditions which
prohibit the collection of samples
including weather conditions that create
dangerous conditions for personnel
(such as local flooding, high winds,
hurricane, tornadoes, electrical storms,
etc.) or otherwise make the collection of
a sample impracticable (drought,
extended frozen conditions, etc.).
iv. Sample type. The requirements for
the type of samples taken vary
depending on the nature of the
discharge. 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 all other
discharges, data shall b reported for
both a grab sample and a composite
sample. All such samples shall be
collected from the discharge resulting
from a storm event that is greater than
0.1 inches and at least 72 hours from the
previously measurable (greater than 0.1
inch rainfall) storm event. The grab
sample shall be taken during the first
thirty minutes of the discharge (or as
soon thereafter as practicable). The
composite sample shall 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
iii 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. Only grab samples must
be used for pH. cyanide, and oil and
grease.
v. Reporting requirements.
Dlschargers addressed by the sampling
requirements for the six classes of storm
water discharges associated with
Industrial activity (SARA Title III. land
disposal units, primary metal, wood
preserving (chlorophenolic/creosote
formulations), wood preserving
(arsenic/chromium preservatives), and
coal pile runoff) are required to submit
signed discharge monitoring reports
(DMRs) to the appropriate EPA Regional
Office biannually.
Dischargers with at least one storm
water discharge associated with
industrial activity through a large or
medium municipal separate storm sewer
system (systems serving a population of
100.000 or more) in addition to filing
copies of the DMR to the Regional
Office, must submit signed copies to the
operator of the municipal separate storm
sewer system biannually.
Operators of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
oil and gas exploration or production
operations and that conduct sampling
requirements rather than obtaining a
Professional Engineer’s certification, as
well as operators of other storm water
discharges that are not subject to
industry specific monitoring
requirements, are not required to submit
monitoring reports unless specifically
requested by the Director. These
thschargers must maintain sampling
data collected during the term of the
permit, Upon reissuance of a new
general permit, the permittee will be
required to notify the Director of their
intent to be covered by the new general
permit. The Agency intends that NO!
provisions for the reissued permits will
require dischargers to summarize the
quantitative data they had collected
during the previous permit term. ‘lliis
approach will reduce the administrative
burdens associated with reviewing
annual DMRs for these discharges.
while providing for an opportunity for
Agency review at least every five years.
Further, reviewing discharger data
during the permit reissuance process
will assist in efforts to implement the
permitting strategy to address industry
specific or individual permitting. The
Agency requests comment as to whether
facilities covered by these permits
should be required to submit an annual
certification that a pollution prevention
plan has been developed for the site and
is being implemented.
vi. Relationship between permit
requirements and proposed rule change.
These monitoring requirements of the
draft general permits are consistent with
the proposed regulatory modifications to
40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)(ii), discussed earlier
In today’s notice. The final permits will
be consistent with the regulatory
requirements regarding this provision
that are in existence at the time of
-------
40988
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 159 / Friday, August 16. 1991 / Proposed Rules
permit issuance.. ’ 5 If EPA promulgates
teas stringent regulations specifying
minimum monitoring requirenienea. the
monitoring requirements in these
permits may be limited to priority
facilities. The Agency believes that
dasses of industrial facilities that may
be considered priority facilities for
monitoring include the classes of
facilities for which Industrial specific
monitoring requirements axe proposed In
these draft permits, deicing activities at
airports, steam electric facilities, pulp
and paper facilities, and organic
chemical facilities with storm water
discharges associated with indus trial
activity. EPA requests comment on
classes of facilities that should be
considered a priority for retaining
monitoring requirements in these
permf Is.
B. Other reporting requirements. The
draft general permits provide that any
facility that Is unable to provide the
certification that separate storm sewer
outfalls have been tested for illicit
connections must notify the Director
within ieO days of the effective date of
the permit Such notification shall
describe: The procedure of any test
conducted for the presence of non-storm
water discharges, the results of such test
or other relevant observations, potential
sources of non-storm water discharges
“Etie’wbare ta today. notice, the A cy Is
reque,l ng caauoenla 00 StA optiOn, tam modifytttg
the exisPing regulitamy pmovlslons addre.iing pennfl
monhtfli1m . EPA Lntmda to lime fiasi gmeiaI
pe Tnlts bu ’sa oe the draft permill notk d bet.
euthar it iii . a im tim. ot efter the Agency hat
completed the pe?tmt mcnitonm mulemahaug. The
monitonrug requirements n the final general permits
may be modified from thai. appeirtog In the draft
4eneril permits to reflect the pmmulgated
reguletey change..
to the storm sewer, and why adequate
tests for such storm sewers were not
feasible.
C Rete.ntion of recor Js , The permittee
Is required to retain records of all
monitoring information, copies of all
reports required by this permit. and
records of all data used to complete the
Notice of Intent to be covered by the
permit. for a period of at least three
years from the date of the measurement,
report, or application. This period may
be extended by request of the Director.
9. Cost estimates
a. Pollution prevention plan
implementation. Storm water pollution
prevention plans for the ma orlty of
facilities will address relatively low cost
baseline controLs for the majority of
Industrial facilities. EPA s analysis of
storm water pollution pre enIlon plans
indicates that the cost of developing and
Implementing the costs of these plans is
variable and will depend on a number of
factors. induding The size of the
facility, chemicals stored or used at a
facility, the nature of the plant
operations and plant designs and the
housekeeping measures employed.
Table 5 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 5 Is appropriate for
the majority of smaller facilities. High
cost estimates are also provided.
Additional information regarding the
estimates of the costs required to
comply with the conditions proposed In
this permit are provided in “Staff
Analysis of Implementing Permitting
Activities for Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Industrial Activity”
(EPA. 1991). The Agency requests
comments on these cost estimates.
b. SARA Title III Facthdes. Table 8
provides estimates of the range of costs
of preparing and implementing a storm
water pollution prevention plan for
facilities which are subject to the special
requirements for facilities subject to
SARA title UI section 313 reporting
requirements for chemicals which are
classified as “section 313 water priority
chemicals”. EPA anticipates that the
majority of facilities are expected to
have existing containment systems that
will 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. Costs
associated with meeting the toxicity
limitation in this permit only apply to
facilities whoae discharges exhibit
toxicity, and are based on an
assumption that the toxicity of discharge
can be reduced by: Modifying materiel
handling practices; by modifying
existing storage equipment to eWninate
leaks and other sources of chemical
exposure or by discharging waters
collected by a containment system to a
POTW. Costs of treatment where the
facility does not have existing treatment
capacity or off site disposal is typically
expected to be higher.
Additional information regarding the
estimates of the costs required to
comply with the conditions proposed in
this permit are provided In ‘Staff
Analysis of Implementing Permitting
Activities for Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Industrial Activity”
(EPA. 1991). The Agency requests
comments on these cost estimates.
5.000
500
100
14.000
¶0650
1965
640
?00
1.15
I 025
4.160
500
1,000
100
TABLE 5.—SuNM v OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR COMPUANCE WITH STORM WATER Pow.moN PREVENTION PLANS Wrni B*s usE
REQUiREMENTS
c
Coat. In 1988 dotlars
Law
st.
H fl cost.
C
rJ
A 0
Cost.
r
Annu

Plan PreoomtIon.. ..... ... . - 2.000
Plan P mion.........._....... — -.— — 200
,taieriat Irventory/R I aS Assesi nenL. ....... ..._........._ ..... . ..... .. . ,. -. .. . ... ..__.__ .. — . 90
$0.11 pr t.nnon/re.pon,. Proc.di,es .. —______ - .... ......_ -. . —. _.__.__ - .f _._. _.. 90
Empioye. Trenrug —— ._ ._ .._..._ ... — _______- 100
Vmmi Inap..c6o .._. ._._ .. _.... . ... .._..... . _....._. •.. • .•. . ,.... .• . ,. .. _.... ¶00
Pret ’eru6vi UaniSeranc ./I4oIusetleevIne — _______________— - ——
Sierra Water Management . ... .._ —.-—.—.________ -—
e .Xnent and Esoeaon Prew .n 5cn _ ... ._ —— 100
50
200
75 G00
7,500
To Foted coat
2.400
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 159 I Fnday. August 16. 1991 / Proposed Rule8
40989
TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF ES11MATED Cosrs FOR COMPLIANCE Wtm STORM WATER POLLUT1OPI PREVENTION PLANS WiTh BASELINE

Control meesu,e
Coats m i
sa do s
Low
ceeaat
costs
(e ;
costs
* o

Costs
Ca
casts
costs
Annual 0

Total Annual coats ._ . .—-.. -.- —4-
J
This tablo lo, ,.uf esimated Ow and hsgfl costs to develop and Implement Itonn water poS ubon prevention oleria
Low costs of implementing components we zero where esistmg programs, procedures or security w assumed adequate.
Annualized costs we based t on a 5 y permit and 10% scoI,It
1 Total costs only address ait auon wtteis storm water poituaon pun neede to be developed and not the lower cost situation whers a plan a siosting and needs
revisor
Cortuol measure
.
L b.

costs
(annu
.
Annual 0

-
Ca
(rinu

Annual 0


LiqwdSto r goC i ,tt,ig_ —_ -_.-..
RswMsteneJS agsTs,pauhn_____________
Runon Dr wrslon Tremin —___________ .
Coliecoci, Sysz.m__
0
0
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
i.im
400
1.100
15.000
25.000
160
250
3.000
500
—
Tonrjty Reduction Evsluation/Remetitat iar , - . ... . — -
Total Fiied Costs — ...._______
‘Total Anrei s i Cost ’-
0
42.820
This table identifies es$rnee Odatfr . I..aI low and high C O3ti to develop arid Inglu r d storm water pollution prevention plans for SARA This I I I. Secoon 313
$ub ect to special con bora
Lcw cost, at snoismenting pro, ,.m compo.,ems am zero where progra . procedures or security a assumed adequate.
Annualized costs we based i on .5 pemte rid 10% diacoint rate
$1 00 per square yWd.
$100 per imiam yrt
$1.25 s tars yard.,
$400 per s we yat
$100 per
$30.00 ts $200 per
basest
$5.50 per lte f t
per lines, foot
$8 00 per bn eat foot
$3 00 per square yard.
$4 00 per square yard
$4500 per aqusie
yard.
$3500 per square
$8500 per squat,
$100 per dam
$50 per dent
$4 00 per squats yard.
$8500 per square
12.25 per trier toot
$500 perJmser fooL
Variable
1300 per i n let.
$45 per souse yard
$500 to 17.000
rap
15.000 to 150.000 per
bean
$500 to 37.000
$1500 to $5,000 per
12.000 par rack
$500 to $1500
$2.50 per kneat loot
Practice . i as sad atablostion arid tie. pro-
taction siciwase p(cgefly valie3 and lately con-
suriw aesthetic neede.
TABLE 8.—Cas ’rs OF STORM WATER
MANAGEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION SITES
Coattor
s e
deve
oped
Cndtor
20aiz.
dams
oped
Wel poride...
we.
35.770
12.000
5.950
8.500
ama
$16300
29330
15.500
34.100
Dry ponds
Dry ponds e4th satendso
det . b un
Infi ba n
Estimates based on is.U .Juk. jy p .iied SI
of Uitan Runoff jaIny Conrous’, Wisgand.
C., Schueler, T., Chttsnden , W • a Jwh 0,
tkban Rurioll Qjalsty-lmpsct arid Quality Enhai .
merit Technology, Pioceactoiga at an Engaisenng
Foundation Cont ,,r nce . ASCE, 1966. aCted by B
Urbonas arid LA Rosaner,
d. Oil and gas production or
exploration operations. Facilities with
contaminated storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity, in
addition to the baseline requirements for
atorm water pollution prevention plans.
are required to vbtaln professional
engineer certifications or monitor their
discharges. The estimated cost of a
professional engineer certification Is
TABLE 6.—SUMMARY OF Esritws COSTS FOR COMPUANCE wim STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLANS PER APPLICABLE
UNIT OPERATION FOR FACIUT1ES SuBJEC1”rO SECTION 313 OF SARA Tm .E Ill Wim WATER PRiORITY CHEMICAU
TABLE 7.—SEDIMENT AND EROSION
CoNTRot. COSTS—Continued
Vegetatrve practices
c. Construction sites. The two major
costs associated with pollution
prevention plans far Construct ion
activities include the costs of sediment
and erosion controls (see Table 7), and
the cost., of storm water management
controls (see Table 8). The draft general
permits provide flexibility in developing
controls for construction activities.
Typically, most construction sites will
employ several types of sediment and
erosion controls and storm water
management controls, but nat all of the
controls listed in Tables 7 and 8. In
general, sites which distutb a larger area
will incur higher pollution prevention
costs.
TABLE 7—SEDIMENT AND EROSIoN
CoNTROL COSTS
Oruati bwnsrs,.......
Dranag. swaisa-gsss —
Drarnegs u-
Dminsga e -r
Dransgo realee-espnen
Drsinige sweles—cancrete.
hs daM -40Cli
Coec dame-covered
sw ba
L Uprsadsi-.aflhen
-
S aurfocs draln
Temporw storm drain dl.
Storm dram Im.t protection..
outiet protection —
Sedrmont tiape.
Temporary Sedenenl baacts
Stsnpp lt ——
Enrsnce v_
Entiar raot
Temporary waterway cioss .
Vegetativ, practices
_______________
Temporary lesCrig ——
Perin*ni se
Mu g
Vegststee butler 1ti s........
ProI .cX.i 01 ______
Ea dlk.s___
craw bale bass________
,dt lances- —
-------
40990
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 159 / Friday. August 16.1991 / Proposed Rules
SO0. Some oil and gas exploration or
production facilities are expected to
monitor their storm water discharges
astead of obtaining professional
engineer certifications. This additional
cost is not applicable to such facilities.
e. Salt storoSe facilities. Salt pile
covers or tarpaulins are anticipated to
have a fixed cost of $400 and an annual
coat of $160 for medium sized ptle , and
a fixed cost of £4,000 and an annual cost
of $ 1000 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
coats depending on their size and other
construction parameters.
I. Cool pzio runoff. The effluent
limitations for coal pile runoff in the
draft permits can be achieved by two
primary methods: by limiting exposure
to coal by use of covers or tarpaulins;
and by collecting and treating the runoff.
In some cases. coal pile runoff may be in
compliance with the effluent hirutations
without covering the pile or collecting or
treating the runoff. In these cases, the
operator of the discharge would not
have a controt cost.
The use of covers or tarpaulins to
prevent or minimize exposure of the coal
pile to storm water is generally expected
to be practical only for relatively small
piles. Coal pile covers or tarpaulins are
anticipated to have a fixed cost of $400
and annual cost of $160.
Table 9 provides estimates of the cost
of treating coal pile runoff.” “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 arid
mixing tanks for pH adjustment, and a
clarifier for settling. The costs far the
impoundment area include diking and
containment around each coal pile and
associated sumps and pumps and piping
from runoff areas to 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.
‘ The type end de ee of iseitment required to
meet the efituent Imitations of the.. permit. will
vary depending upon (actor. such a. the amount of
uLfur to the coat. This sectton desaibes a model
treatment acheme f’ir the purpose. esIiri.ailng coat.
(or compliance with the proposed effluent
Laiutationj. 0l.chsrger. may implement other mu
expensive aesimeni approache. to enable them to
discharge in accordanc. with these iimjts where
approprisie.
Additional costs may be incurred if a
polymer system is needed. [ a such a
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 9. The equipment and syateni
dasign. with the exception of the
polymer feeder, acid feeder and final
mixing tank, is essentially the same as
shown in Table 9. Two tanks are
required for a treatment train with a
polymer system. one for pecipitation
and another for final pH adjustment
with acid. The cost of mixing is
therefore twice that shown in Table 9.
The polymer feed system includes
storage hoppers. chemical feeder.
solution tanks, solution pumps.
interconnecting piping, electrical
connections and instrumentation. The
costs of clarification is identical to that
of Table 9. A treatment train with a
polymer system requires the use of an
acid additional system to readiust the
pH within the range of 6 to 9. The
components of this system include a
lined acid storage tank, two feed pumps.
an acid pH control loop, and associated
piping, electrical 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”.
UEPA—4401 182/ 029j. November 1982.
EPA).
TA8I.E 9.—SuMMARY OF ES11MATED
COSTS FOR TREATMENT OF COAL PIPE
RUNOFF
30C00
cubic meter
coal pile
1,200000
Cubic meter
ccai pde
T øiE 9 —SuMMARY OF ESTIMATED
CoSis FOR TREATMENT CF CoAt. PIPE
Ru, 4( IFF—Cont tnued
30000
cubic met
coat pile
1,20004 ’
OjCiC me
coal pita
Maintenance
(doi lars/yesfl.
Energy
tSX
lOx
Requirements
1O”3.
1O”3
( Itw Il/ynl
Land
2.000 ...
2.000
Pequueme ni s
(ft ”2).
C nflcebe
Installed Capital
168.000 .
260 500
Cost (doterS)
Operason and
3.000
3.800
Maintenance
(doaa r s/year)
Energy
13x
13 .t
Requirements
tO ’O.
10 ”3
( kw h / W i
Land
3,000 ......
7,000
Requirements
( 1r2).
to. Effective date requirements. This
permit shall be effective upon issuance.
11. EPA contacts.
MA. ML NH
United States EPA. Region!. Water
Management Division. (WCP—2109). John
F. Kennedy Federal Building. Room 2209.
Boston, MA 02203. Contact: Veronica
Harnngton. (617) 565—3525.
NY/Indian lands). Puerto Rico
United States EPA. Region (I. Water
Management Division. (WM—WPC).
Jacob K. Javitz Federal 3wlding. 28
Federal Plaza. New York. NY 10278.
Contact Jose Rivera (WM-WPC), (212)
264-1859.
District of Columbia. DE (Fec’erril facilities)
United States EPA. Region D I. Water
Management Division. (3WM55), 841
Chestnut Builduig. Philadelphia. PA
19107. Contact Kevin Magerr. (215) 597—
1651.
MI (Indian lands). MN (Indian lands). wr
(Indian lands)
United States EPA. Region V. Water Quality
8i -anch (5WQP), 230 South Deaebcrn
SIeet, Chicago. EL 00604 Contact. Irving
Ozikowski. (312) 355—2105.
Sowee ‘Development Document t Ettluem Urn.
itabons Guidelines and Standards and Preo-eatrnent
Standards for tIle Steam Etecs,c Point Source Cate.
gory”. EPA-440f18V029t Novemter 1962. EPA)
Costs eetntate have been revised to account t r
tntiason.
5,300 — ... 12.600.
riegligibte ... negligible.
Impoundment
Installed Capi
Cost (dodszs .
OperatIon and
Maintenance
(dodwu/yeesj
ms feed stene
Installed Capital
Cost (dO .
OpsiaUcn end
Maintenance
(d od ara/y ear)
Energy
Req i emems
( k w h / W i
Land
Requirements
(ft ”2 1
Mixoig Equipment
Installed Capital
Cost (dollars)
OperatIon and
AL (Indian lands). FL. GA (Indian lands). KY
361 (Indian lands). MS (Indian lands). NC (Indian
lands). SC/Indian lands). 7’N(Indian landsJ
16.100. United States EPA. Region (V. Water
Management Division. (FP&-31. 345
Courtland Street NE. Atlanta. GA 30065
Contact. Chris Thomas. (404) 347—3021
*27,000
5,300
36 x
10 ”e
5.000
60. c0
2.100
36 x
5.000
*07,500.
2.400
-------
40991
Federal Register I Vol. 58. No. 159 I Friday. August 16. 1991 / Proposed Rules
M. MN. O TX
Urated State, EPA..Regw Vt Water
Management DIvision. (8W-PM). Firsi
Interstate Bank Tower at Fountain Place.
1445 Ross Avenue. 12th floor. Suite 1200.
Dallas, TX 75202. Contact: Craig Weeks.
(214) 655-7180.
SD CO (Federal facilities and Indian lands).
MT (Indian lands). ND (Indian lands), UT
(Indian lands). WY (Indian lands)
United States EPA. Region VIII. Water
Management Division. Compliance
Branch (8WM—C), 999 18th StreeL Suite
500. Denver. CO 80202-2405. Contact:
Vern Berty. (303) 3-126O.
AZ CA (Indian lands), NV(/nthan lands)
Guam. American Samoa
United States EPA. Region CC. Water
Management Division. (W-6 -1), 75
Hawthorne Stieet San Francisco, CA
94105. Contact: Eugene Bromley. (415)
744—1908.
AK ID WA (Federal facilities and Indian
lands)
United States EPA, Region X. Water
Management Division. (WD —134 ), 1200
Sixth Street, Seattle, WA 98101. Andrea
Lindsay, (206) 553—8399.
12. Proposed schethiie for general
perm its issuance.
Draft Permits Transmitted to State
requesting section 401 certification:
August 16, 1991.
Notice of Draft Permits in Federai
Register August 16. 1991.
Comment Period Closed October 15.
1991.
Notice of Final.Pexmit Expected in
Federal Register 12/91
Vu. Economic Impact
EPA has prepared an Information
Collection Request (1CR) for the purpose
of estimating the information collection
‘ourden imposed on Federal. State and
local governments and industry by
proposed revisions to requirements to
submit annual momtoring reports.
rr.inimurn notice of intent (NOl)
requirements for NPDES general
permits, and for States to submit State
Storm Water Permitting Plans. (A
summai’y of the costs of compliance
with the general permit notice herein is
provided in the fact sheet presented
earlier in today’s notice).
The ICR evaluates five options for
modifying the existing regulatory
requirement that NPDES permits for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity must, at a minimum.
require dischargers to report monitoring
data annually All options considered
would lower the burdens on the Federal
government. State governments and
indusny. The burden savings to the
Federal and State governments range
from a savings of 6.743 hours per year
($105,724 per year) for Option 4 to a
savings of 14.848 hours per year
($23 2.817 pur year) for Options 2. 3 and
5. Option 3 is currently favored by EPA.
The burden savings to industry range
from a savings of 66,300 hours per year
(2.2 million per year) for Option 2 to a
savings of 795.600 hours per year ($26
million per year) for Option 5. The
option currently favored by EPA (Option
3) would resitit in a burden savings to
industry 01231,300 hours/year ($7.5
million/year).
EPA believes that the regulatory
modifIcations to the notice of intent
requirements for general permits will
codify existing practices. Therefore, this
regulatory change, while ensuring
national consistency, will not increase
the burdens to the Federal government
State governments or industry.
The reporting burden for State Storm
Water Permitting Plans is estimated to
range from 340 hours ($5,350) per
response to 1.500 hours ($22,500) per
response. The national total burden for
the 57 States (including 7 Tern tories).
averaged over a three year period, is
14.794 hours per year or $231,965 per
year. The Agency also estimates that the
costs to the Federal Government 20
hours ($315) to review each State Storm
Water Permitting Plan. The total burden
of reviewing these plans, averaged over
a three year period is 380 hours per year
or $5,958 per year.
VI I I. Executive Order I i
EPA has submitted this notice to the
Office of Management and Budget for
review under Executive Order 12291.
IX. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements associated with the
proposed regulatory changes have been
submitted for approval to the Office of
Management and Budget (0MB) tinder
the Paperwork Reduction Act. 44 USC.
3501 et. seq. An information Collection
Request (ICR) document has been
prepared by EPA (ICR No. 0229.05) and
a copy may be obtained from: Florice
Farmer, Information Policy Branch: EPA.
401 M SL. W (PM—2234); Washington,
DC or by calling (202) 382-2740.
The ICR document estimates the
information collection burdens imposed
on the Federal Government State
governments and industry associated
with the proposed revisions to
requirements to: submit annual
monitoring reports for storm water
discharges under 40 CFR 122.44:
establish minimum notice of intent
requirements for general permits under
40 CFR In addition, the ICR
estimates the information collection
burdens imposed on the Federal
government and the States to submit
State Storm Water permitting plans and
the burden imposed on the Federal
government to review these plans.
The ICR estimates that the reporting
burdens on industry for collecting
information associated with discharge
monitoring reports (DMRs) typically
ranges from 6 hours to 10.5 hours per
response. The ICR estimates that the
EPA or NPDES States will require 0.2
hours to review each DMR submitted.
The ICR estimates that the reporting
burdens on industry for collecting
Information associated with a notice of
Intent (NOl) is one hour per response.
The ICR estimates that the EPA or
NPDES States will require 0.25 hours to
review each NO! submitted.
The reporting burden for State Storm
Waler Management Programs is
estimated to range from 340 hours per
response for small States to 1.500 hours
per response for large States. Estimates
of reporting burden include reviewing
guidance, planning activities, analyzing
existing data, analyzing other data.
developing the strategy, public review
and comment and reviewing the
strategy. The Agency also estimates the
Federal Government will require 20
hours to review each State Storm Water
Permitting Strategy.
Send comments regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden. to
Chief. Information Policy Branch. PM—
223Y. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M St.. SW.. Washington. DC
20490 and to the Office of Management
and Budget. Washington, DC 20503.
marked “Attention: Desk Officer for
EPA.’ The final rule will respond to
0MB or public comments on the
information collection requirements
contained in thie proposal.
X. Regulatory flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibtirty Act. 5
USC 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 proposed amendments to the
regulations would generally make the
NPDES regulations more flexible and
less burdensome for permittees
Accordingly, I hereby certify, pursuant
to 5 U.S C. 605(b), that these
amendments, if promulgated. and that
these general permits, when issued, will
not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
-------
40992
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 159 / Friday, August 16. 1991 / Proposed Rules
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 122
Adnistrative practice and
procedure, Environmental protection.
Reporting and record keeping
requirements. Water pollution controL
Dated lilly 31. 1991.
William K. Reilly.
Adnunzstru r.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, part 122 of title 40 of the Code
of Regulations is proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 122—EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS; ThE NATIONAL
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
EUMINATION SYSTEM
1. The authority citation for part 122 18
revised to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C 1251 et seq.
Subpart C—Permit Conditions
2. Section 122.23 is amended by
redesignating current paragraph (b](2)
as (bJ(3) and by adding a new paragraph
(b)(2) to read as follows:
4 122.25 General permits (appilcabi. to
Stats NPOES programs, us 4123.25).
. . . I I
(b)
(2) Authorization to discharge. or to
engage in sludge use and disposal
practices. (1) Except as provided in
paragraphs (b)(2)(v) and (b)(2)(vi) of this
section. dlischargers (or treatment works
treating domestic sewage) seeking
coverage under a general permit shall
submit to the Director a written notice of
intent to be covered by the general
permit. A discharger (or treatment
works treating domestic sewage) who
fails to submit a notice of intent in
accordance with the terms of the permit
is not authorized to discharge. or in the
case of a sludge disposal permit, to
engage in a sludge use or disposal
practice, under the terms of the general
permit unless the general permit, in
accordance with paragraph (b)(2J(vJ of
this section, contains a provision that a
notice of intent is not required or the
Director notifies a discharger (or
treatment wcrks treating domestic
sewage) that It is covered by a general
permit in accordance with paragraph
(b)(2)(vi) of this section. A complete and
timely notice of intent to be covered
constitutes a permit application for
purposes of §4 122.8. 122.21 and 122.28.
(ii) The notice of intent shall include,
at a minimum, the legal name and
address of the owner or operator. the
facility name and address, type of
facilities or discharges, the receiving
stream(s). and such other information as
is reasonably necessary to ascertain
whether the discharger (or treatment
works treating domestic sewage) should
be included under the terms of the
general permit as specified in the final
general permit. General permits for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from inactive mining
or inactive oil and gas operations
occurring on Federal lands where an
operator cannot be identified may
contain alternative notice of intent
requirements.
(iii) Unless the general permit
specifies different time periods, the
notice of intent to be covered (including
notices of intent to be covered for new
discharges) shall be submitted within 60
days before the date of intended
coverage.
(iv) After a discharger (or treatment
works treating domestic sewage) has
filed its notice of intent to be covered.
the discharger (or treatment works
treating domestic sewage) shall be
deemed covered on the date specifed in
the permit and may discharge or. in the
case of a sludge disposal permit engage
in a sludge use or disposal practice
under the general permit, unless the
Director notifies the discharger (or
treatment works treating domestic
sewage) that it is not covered by the
general perrrut and instead must obtain
coverage under an individual permit or
an alternative general permit The
Director may specify in the general
permit that this paragraph shall not
apply and that dischargers (or treatment
works treating domestic sewage)
submitting a notice of intent to be
covered by the permit will not be
authorized to discharge or, in the case of
a sludge disposal permit. to engage in a
sludge use or disposal practice until
notified of their inclusion under the
permit by the Director.
(v) Discharges other than discharges
from publidy owned treatment works,
combined sewer overflows, primary
industrial facilities, contaminated runoff
from mining operations or oil and gas
operations and other storm water
discharges associated with Industrial
activity, may, at the discrei on of the
Director, be authorized to discharge
under a general permit without
submitting a notice of intent where the
Director finds that a notice of intent
requirement would be inappropriate. In
making such a finding, the Director shall
consideri The type of discharge; the
expected nature of the discharge; the
potential for toxic and conventional
pollutants in the discharges; the
expected volume of the discharges;
other means of identifying discharges
covered by the permit and the
estimated number of discharges to be
covered by the permit. The Director
shall provide in the public notice of the
general permit the reasons for not
requiring a notice of intent.
(vi) The Director may notify a
discharger (or treatment works treating
domestic sewage) that it is covered by a
general permit, even if the discharger (or
treatment works treating domestic
sewage) has not submitted a notice of
intent to be covered. A discharger (or
treatment works treating domestic
sewage) so notified may request an
individual permit under paragraph
(b)(3)(iii) of this section.
• . . I I
3. Section 122.44 is amended by
revising paragraph (i)(2) and adding
paragraphs (i)(3) through (i)(6) to read as
follows:
§ 122.44 EstablishIng limitations,
standards, and other permit condition,
(applicable to State NPOES programs, see
§123.25),
• • . . I
(i) • • •
(2) Except as provided in paragraphs
(i)(4) and (i)(5) of this section.
requirements to report monitoring
results with a frequency dependent on
the nature and effect of the discharge,
but in no case less than once a year. For
sewage sludge use or disposal practices.
requirements to monitor and report
results with a frequency dependent on
the nature and effect of the sewage
sludge use or disposal practice:
minimally this shall be as specified in 40
CFR part 503 (where applicable), but in
no case less than once a year.
(3) Requirements to report monitoring
results for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity which
are subject to an effluent limitation
guideline ohall be established on a case-
by-case basis with a frequency
dependent on the nature and effect of
the discharge, but in no case less than
once a year.
(4) Requirements to monitor storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity (other than those
addressed in paragraphs (i)(3) and (i)(5)
of this section) shall be established on a
case-by-case basis with a frequency
dependent on the nature and effect of
the discharge. however, at a minimun . a
permit for such a discharge must require
annual monitoring of representative
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity. Where dischargers
are not required to report monitoring
results to the Director, permits must
require that the results of monitoring be
retained for at least the term of the
permit and be made available to the
Director upon request. In such cases.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 159 I Friday. August 18. 1991 / Proposed Rules
40993
results of any monitoring conducted
during the term of the permit ahall be
Bubmitted as part of a permit application
or notice of intent requirement prior to
permit reissuance.
(5) Requirements to monitor
contaminated storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
ml and gas exploration or production
operations or from inactive nutting
operations where a past or present mine
operator cannot be identified shall be
established on a case-by.case basis with
a frequency dependent on the nature
and effect of the discharge. However, at
a minimum, a permit for such a
discharge must require either
(‘) Annual monitoring of
representative contaminated storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from oil and gas
exploration or production operations or
inactive, mines where a past or present
mine operator cannot be identified.
Where dischaxEers are not required to
report monitoring results to the Director.
permits must require that the results of
monitoring be retained for at least the
term of the permit and be made
available to the Director upon Tequest.
In such cases, results of any monitoring
conducted during the term of the permit
chall be submitted as part of a permit
application or notice of intent
requirement prior to permit reissuance;
or
(ii) the facility owner or operator to
develop and implement a storm water
pollution prevention plan or a storm
water best management plan which
includes a Registered Professional
Engineer’s certification that the plan had
been prepared and is being implemented
in accordance with good engineering
practices, with such certification being
obtained at a minimum frequency of at
least once every three years. Such
certification shall in no way relieve the
owner or operator of a storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity of their duty to prepare and fully
implement such plan in accordance with
the requirements of their permit. Where
dischargers are not required to report
results of such certification to the
Director, permits must require that the
certification be retained for at least the
term of the permit and be made
available to the Director upon request.
In such cases, an indication of whether
the certification was received should be
submitted as part of a permit application
or notice of intent requirement prior to
permit reissuance.
(6) Permits which do not require the
submittal of monitoring result reports at
least annually shall require that’the
‘)ermittee report all Instances of
oncornpliance not reported under
paragraphs 122.41(l)(1), (4), (5). and (6) at
least annually.
• • . • •
Appendix—Draft General Permits
Note: The following Appendix will not
appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations
Draft General Permits
Table of Contents.
Part L Coverage Under this Permit
A. Permit Area.
B. Eligibility.
C. Requiring an individual permit or an
alternative general permit.
D. Authorization.
Part IL Notice of Intent Requirement,.
A. Deadline, for NotifIcation.
B Failure to Notify
C. Contents of Notice of Intent.
D. Where to Submit
E. Additional Notification.
P. Renotiflcanon.
Part ilL Special Conditions. Management
Practices, and Other Non.Numenc
Limitations
A. Prohibition on non.etorm water
discharges.
B. Release, in excess of’ Reportable
Quantities.
C. Storm water pollution prevention plans.
Part IV. Numeric Effluent Limitation,
A. Acute Whole Effluent Toxicity.
B. Alternative Requirements.
Part V. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirement,
A. Failure to Certify
B. Monitoring Requirements.
C. Toxicity testing
D Reporting Where to Submit.
E. Retention of Records.
Part VL Standard Permit Conditions
A. Duty to Comply
B. Continuation of the Expired General
Permit.
C. Need to halt or reduce activity not a
defense.
D Duty to Mitigate.
E. Duty to Provide Information
F. Other Information.
G. Signatory Requirements
H. Certification
L Penalties for Falsification of Reports
J. Penalties for FaLsification of Monitoring
Systems.
K. Oil and Hazardoais Substance Liability
L Property Rights.
M Severability
N. Transfers.
0. State Laws.
P Proper Operation and Msiintenance
Q. Monitoring and record,.
R. Bypau of Treatment Facilities
S. UpsetConditlona.
T. Inspection and Entry.
U. Permit Actions.
Part VIL Reopener aauae
Part V . Definitions
Part I Coverage Under this Permit
A. Permit Area. The permit covers all
areas of the State of ___________
B. Eligibility.
1. Except for storm water discharges
identified under paragraph l.B.Z. this
permit may cover all new and exi.ating
discharges composed entirely of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity.
2. Limitations ott Coverage. The
following storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity are
not covered by this permit:
a. Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from facilities
with existing effluent guideline
limitations for storm water
b. Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from facilities
with an existing NPDES individual or
general permit for the storm water
discharges or which are issued a permit
in accordance with paragraph LC of this
permiti
C. Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that the Director
has shown to be or may reasonably be
expected to be contributing to a
violation of a water quality standarcli
and
di Storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from inactive
mining or inactive oil and gas operations
occumng on Federal lands where an
operator cannot be identified.
C. Requiring wi mdi viduol permit or
an alternative genera/permit.
1. The Director may require any
person authorized by this permit to
apply for and obtain either an individual
NPDES permit or an alternative NPDES
general permit. Any interested person
may petition the Director to take action
under this paragraph. The Director may
require any owner or operator
authorized to discharge under this
permit to apply for an individual NPDES
‘Note that the Agency Is noticing distinct draft
general permits in ALaska. Arizona, Florida. Idaho.
Louisiana. M.ssachuaetta, Maine. New Hampshire,
New Mexico Oklahoma. South Dakota, Texas.
Diiuict of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico. Guam, American Sanioa, the Coinmonwesith
of the Northem Mariana Islands. and the Trust
Territory of the Pacific Ia1andi on indian lands in
AL CA. CA. KY NO. MN. MS. MT. NC. ND. NY NV
SC. TN. liT WI and WY. from Federal faculties
and indian lands in CO and WA. and from Federal
facilities in Delaware.
‘For the purpose of this permiL the IcUow i ng
sffluent gutoelme limitaticins address storm water
cem.nt manufacturing (40 R pert 411), feedlot.
(40 CF’R part 41-21. fertilizer manufacturing (40 R
part 4Th): petroleum refining (40 R part 410).
phosphate manufacturIng (40 past 4 ) : steam
electric (40 R part 4 ): coal mining (40 CFR pert
434). minetsl mining and procoallng (40 ( R part
436). ore mining and dressing (40 R part 440): and
asphalt ulalm, )40 CFR part 44$).
-------
48994
Federal Register I Vol. 56. No. 159 / Friday, August 16. 1991 / Proposed Rules
permit only if the owner or operator has
been notified in writing that a permit
application 15 required. This notice shall
include a brief statement of the reasons
for this decision, an application form, a
statement setting a deadline for the
owner or operator to file the application.
and a statement that on the effective
date of the individual NPDES permit or
the alternative general permit as it
applies to the individual permittee.
coverage under this general permit shall
automatically terminate. The Director
may grant additional time to submit the
application upon request of the
applicant If an owner or operator fails
to submit in a timely manner an
individual NPDES permit application
required by the Director under this
paragraph, then the applicability of this
permit to the individual NPDES
permittee is automatically terminated at
the end of the day specified for
application submittal.
2. Any owner or operator authorized
by this permit may request to be
excluded from the coverage of this
permit by applying for an individual
permit or participating in an applicable
group application. The owner or
operator shall submit an individual
application (Form I and Form IF) with
reasons supporting the request. or
participate In a group application in
accordance with the requirements of 40
CFR 122.28. to the Director. The request
shall be granted by issuing of any
individual permit or an alternative
general permit If the reasons cited by
the owner or operator are adequate to
support the request.
3. When an Individual NPDES permit
is issued to an owner or operator
otherwise subject to this permit. or the
owner or operator is approved for
coverage under an alternative NPDES
general permit, the applicability of this
permit to the individual NPDES
perxnlttee is automatically terminated on
the effective date of the individual
permit or the date of approval for
coverage under the alternative general
permit, whichever the case may be.
When an individual NPDES permit is
detued to an owner or operator
otherwise subject to this permit. or the
owner or operator is denied for coverage
under an alternative NPDES general
permit, the applicability of this permit to
the Individual NP1DES perraittee is
automatically terminated on the date of
such denial, unless otherwise specified
by the Director.
0. Authorization. Owners or operators
of storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity must submit a
Notice of intent (NOl) In accordance
with the requirements of part (I of this
permit to be authorized to discharge
under this general permit 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 this permit Upon review of the NO!.
the Director may deny coverage under
this permit and require submittal of an
application for an individual NPDES
permit.
Part II. Notice of intent Requirements
A. Deadlines for notification.
Individuals who intend to obtain
coverage for an existing storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity under this general permit shall
submit a Notice of Intent (NOn in
accordance with the requirements of
this part within 180 days of the date of
issuance of this general permit or at
least 30 days prior to the commence-
ment of construction of a new storm
water discharge associated with
industrial activity.
B. Failure to notify. Owners (or
operators when owners do not operate
the facility), who fail to notify the
Director of their Intent to be covered.
and discharge pollutants to waters of
the United States without an NPDES
permit are In violation of the Clean
Water Act
C. Cantent.s of notice of intent The
Notice of Intent shall include the
following information:
1. Name, mailing address, and
location of the facility for which the
notification is subnuttedi
2. Up to four 4-digit SIC codes that
best represent the principal products or
activities provided by the facility
3. The operator’s name, address.
telephone number. ownership status and
status as FederaL State, private, public
or other enilty
4. The latitude and longitude of the
approximate center of the facility to the
nearest 15 seconds, or the nearest
quarter section (if the section, township
and range is provided) that the facility is
located in:
5. The name of the receiving water(s),
or if the discharge is through a municipal
separate storm sewer, the name of the
minucipal operator of the storm sewer
and the ultimate receiving water(s): and
6. Existing quantitative data
describing the concentration of
pollutants in storm water discharges.
7. Additional requirements for
construction activities. The Notice of
intent for a storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
a construction site shall, in addition to
the information required above. include
a brief description of the project.
estimated timetable for major activities.
estimates of the number of acres of the
site on which soil will be disturbed, and
a certification that the storm water
pollution prevention plan for the facility
provides compliance with approved
State or local sediment and erosion
plans or storm water management plans
in accordance with part l]LC.5.b.(3J of
this permit.
0. Where to SubmiL Facilities which
discharge storm water associated with
industrial activity must submit signed
copies of the Notice of Intent to the
- Director of the NPDES program at the
foilowing address:
Address of Central Receiving Office
to be determined later
E. Additional Notification.
1. Except for facilities subject to part
ILE.2. facilities which discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
to a large or medium municipal separate
storm sewer system (systems serving a
population of 100.000 or more) must, in
addition to filing copies of the Notice of
Intent in accordance with paragraph
lID, shall submit signed copies of the
Notice of Intent to the operator of the
municipal separate storm sewer to
which they discharge.
2. Facilities which discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
from construction activities and are
operating under approved State or local
sediment and erosion or storm water
management plans. in addition to tIling
copies of the Notice of intent in
accordance with paragraph II.D, shall
submit signed copies of the Notice of
Intent to the State or local agency
approving such plans.
F. Renotification. Upon reissuance of
a new general permit the permittee is
required to notify the Director of his
intent to be covered by the new general
permit.
Part Iii. Special condition&
mai agement practices, and other non-
numenc limitations
A. Prohibition on non-storm waler
di.scharges. All discharges covered by
this permit shall be composed entirely of
storm water. Discharges of material
other than storm water must be in
compliance with a NPDES permit (other
than this permit) issued for the
discharge.
B. Re/eases in excess of Reportable
Quantities. This permit does not relieve
the permittee of the reporting
requirements of 40 CFR part 117 and 40
CFR part 302. The discharge of
hazardous substances in the storm
water discharge(s) from a facility shall
be minimized in accordance with the
applicable storm water pollution
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 58. No. 159 I Friday, August 16. 1991 / Proposed Rules
409;
prevention plan for the facility, and in
no case, during any 24-hour period, shall
the discharge(s) contain a hazardous
“ibstance equal to or in excess of
porting quantities.
C. Storm water pollution prevention
plans. A storm water pollution
prevention plan shall be developed For
each facility covered by this permit.
Storm water pollution prevention plans
shall be prepared in accordance with
good engineering practices. The plan
shall identify potential sources of
pollution which may reasonably be
expected to affect the quality of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from the facility. In
addition, the plan shall describe and
ensure the implementation of practices
which are to be used to reduce the
pollutants in storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity at the
facility and to assure compLiance with
the terms and conditions of this permit.
1. The plan shall be signed in
accordance with part Vl.G. and be
retained on site in accordance with part
V A of this permit. It shall be completed
within 180 days of the effective date of
this permit (and updated as
appropriate), or. in the case of new
facilities, prior to submitting a NOl to be
covered under this permit. Plans shall
provide for compliance with the terms of
the plan within 365 days of the effective
te of this permit, or. in the case of new
.ilities. pnor to submitting a NO! to be
overed under this permit The owner or
operator of a facility with storm water
discharges covered by this permit shall
make plans available upon request to
the Director, or authorized
representative, or in the case of a storm
water discharge associated with
industrial activity which discharges
through a municipal separate storm
sewer system with an NPDES permit, to
the municipal operator of the system.
2. Ii the plan is reviewed by the
Director, or authorized representative,
the Director, or authorized
representative, may notify the permittee
at any time that the plan does not meet
one or more of the minimum
requirements of this Part. After such
notification from the Director, or
authorized representative, the perniittee
shall make changes to the plan and shall
submit to the Director a written
certification that the requested changes
have been made. Unless otherwise
provided by the Director, the permittee
shall have 30 days after such
notification to make the changes
necessary.
3. The permittee shall amend the plan
whenever there is a change in design,
istruction. operation, or maintenance.
ch has a significant effect on the
potential for the discharge of pollutants
to the waters of the United States or if
the storm water pollution prevention
plan proves to be ineffective in
achieving the general objectives of
controlling pollutants in storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity. Amendments to the plan may
be reviewed by EPA in the same manner
as part lll.C.2 above.
4. Except for storm water dtscharges
associated with industrial activity from
construction activities, which are
sublect to the requirements of paragraph
ll1.C.5, the plan shall include, at a
nunmium, the following items:
a. Description of Potential Pollutant
Sources. Each plan shall provide a
description of potential sources which
may be reasonably expected to add
significant amounts of pollutants to
storm water discharges or which may
result in the discharge of pollutants
during dry weather from separate storm
sewers draining the facility. Each plan
shall identify all activities and
significant materials which may
potentially be significant pollutant
sources. Each plan shall include:
(1). A site map indicating, an outline
of the drainage ares of each storm water
outfall; each existing structural control
measure to reduce pollutants in storm
water runoff and surface water bodies;
(2). A topographic map (or other map
if a topographic map is unavailable),
extending one-quarter of a mile beyond
the property boundaries of the facility.
The requirements of this paragraph may
be included in the site map required
under part LU.C.4.a.(1) if appropriate.
(3). A narrative description of
significant materials that have been
treated, stored or disposed in a manner
to allow exposure to storm water
between the time of three years prior to
the date of the issuance of this permit
and the present; method oi on-site
storage or disposal: materials
management practices employed to
niminuze contact of these materials with
storm water runoff between the time of
three years prior to the date of the
Issuance of this permit and the present.
materials loading arid access areas; the
location and a description of existing
structural and nonstructural control
measures to reduce pollutants in storm
water runoff; and a description of any
treatment the storm water receives.
(4). A list of significant sp:lls and
significant leaks of toxic or hazardous
pollutants that occurred at the facility
after the effective date of this permit.
(5). For each area of the plant that
generates storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity with
a reasonable potential for containing
significant amounts of pollutants, a
prediction of the direction of flow, and
an estimate of the types of pollutants
which are likely to be present in storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity; and
(6) A summary of existing sampling
data describing pollutants in storm
water discharges.
b. Storm Water Management
Controls. Each facility covered by this
permit shall develop a description of
storm water management controls
appropriate for the facility, and
implement such controls. The
appropriateness and priorities of
controls in a plan shall reflect identified
potential sources of pollutants at the
facility. The description of storm water
management controls shall address the
following minimum components,
including a schedule for implementing
such controls:
(1). Pollution Prevention Committee.
The description of the storm water
Pollution Prevention Committee shall
identify specific individuals within the
plant organization who are responsible
for developing the storm water pollution
prevention plan and assisting the plant
manager in its implementation,
maintenance, and revision. The
activities and responsibilities of the
committee should address all aspects of
the facility s storm water pollution
prevention plan.
(2). R.sk Identification and
Assessrnent/MoterzaJ Inventory. The
storm water pollution prevention plan
shall assess the potential of various
sources at the plant to contribute
pollutants to storm water dischargcs
associated with industrial activity. The
plan shall include an inventory of the
types of materials handled. Facilities
subject to SARA title UI, section 313
shall include in the plan a description of
releases to land or water of SARA Title
Ill water pnority chemicals that have
occurred at any time after the date of
three years prior to the issuance of this
permit. Each of the following shall be
evaluated for the reasonable potential
for contributing pollutants to runoff.
loading and unloading operations:
outdoor storage activities: outdoor
manufacturing or processing activities,
significant dust or particulate generating
processes: and on-site waste disposal
practices Factors to consider include
the toxicity of chemicals; quantity of
chemicals used, produced. or
discharged: the likelihood of contact
with storm wateri and history of
significant leaks or spills of toxic or
hazardous pollutants.
(3). Preventive Maintenance. A
preventive maintenance program shai.
involve inspection and maintenance of
-------
96
Federal Register I Vol. 56. No. 159 / Friday, August 16. 1991 / Proposed Rules
storm water management devices
(clàning oil/water separators, catch
basinsj as well as inspecting and testing
plant equipment and systems to uncover
conditions that could cause breakdowns
or failures resulting In discharges of
pollutants to surface waters.
(41. Good Housekeeping. Good
housekeeping requires the maintenance
a clean, orderly faCilty.
( Spill Pro yen don and Re. ponse
Pracethire,. Areas where potential spills
can occur, and their accompanying
cframage points shall be identified
clearly in the storm water pollution
prevention plan. Where appropriate,
spe fy ng material handling procedures
and storrige requ rements In the plan
should be cor. idered. Procedures for
cleaning up spills shall be identified in
the plan and made available to the
tt pziipriate personneL The necessary
equipment to Implement a clean up
should be available to personneL
(6J. Storm Water Management. The
plan shall contain a narrative
consideration of the eppz-opriateness of
traditional storm water management
praetfces (practices other than those
which control the source of pollutants).
Based on an assessment of the potential
c i various sources at the plant to
contribute pollutants to storm water
discharges associated with Industrial
activity (see Part aC.4.b.(Z) of this
permit), the plan shall provide that
measures determined to be reasonable
and appropriate ahali be implemexIted
and maintained.
(7). Sediment and Ejo.g ion Prevention.
The plan shall identify areas which, due
ta topography, activities, or other
factors, have a high potential for
significant soil erosion, and identify
measures to limit erosion.
(6), Employee Training. Employee
tr infng pTcgrams shall inform personnel
atail levels of responsibility of the
iriu .izi utS and goals of the storm
water pollution prevention plan.
Training should address topics such as
spill response, good housekeeping and
material management practices. A
pollution prevention plan shall Identify
periodic dates for such trRining
(9 VL ua1 hzspect ions. Qualified
ciant personnel shall be identified to
inspect designa ted equipment and plant
areas. Ma enal hanthk ig areas shall be
in.sç ted F ividenca of. or the
potential for, pollutant, entering the
drainage system. A tracking or blowup
psaceclure shall be used to ensure that
c riata rcsponse has been taken in
res cnse to the inspection. Records of
inspector.s shall be maintained.
(10). Re cord keeping and Internal
Reporting Procedure& Incidents such as
spills, or other discharges, along with
other Information describing the quality
and quantity of storm water discharges
shall be Included in the records.
Inspections and maintenance activities
shall be documented and recorded.
(11). Nori..Storm Discharges. A
certification that the discharge has been
tested for the presence of non-storm
water discharges. The certification shall
Include a description of the results of
any teat for the presence of non-storm
water discharges, the method used, the
date of any testing, and the on-site
drainage points that were directly
observed during the teaE. Such
certification may not be feasible if the
facility operating the storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity does not have access to an
outfall, manhole, or other point of access
to the ultimate conduit which receives
the discharge. In such cases. the source
identification section of the storm water
pollution plan shall indicate why the
certification required by this part was
not feasible. A discharge that Is unable
to provide the certification required by
this paragraph must notify In
accordance with part V.A of this periniL
c. Site mepection. A site inspection
shall be conducted annually by
appropriate personnel named in the
storm water pollution prevention plan to
verify that the description of potential
pollutant sources required under part
IILC.4.a La accurate, the drainage map
has been updated or otherwise modified
to reflect current conditions; and the
controls to reduce pollutants in storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity Identified In the storm
water pollution prevention plan are
being implemented and are adequate.
Records documenting significant
observation made during the site
inspection shall be retained as part of
the storm water pollution prevention
plan for three years.
d. Special requirement.s for stomi
water discharges associated with
ndu2t. -icJ activity throi .gh municipal
separate storm sewer systems ser’.’ing a
population of zt v.cx or mcre. Facilities
covered by this permit must comply with
applicable requirements in municipal
storm water in na ement programs
developed under NPDES permits issued
for the discharge of the municipal
separate storm sewer system that
receives the facilIty’s discharge.
provided the dLicharger has been
notified of such condi 1ocs.
e. Consistency with other p/wig.
Storm water management programs may
reflect requirements for Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasure (SPCC)
plans under sectIon 311 of the CWA or
Best Management Practices (BMP)
Programs otherwise required by an
NPDES permit and may Incorporate any
part of such plans Into the storm water
pollution prevention plan by reference.
f. Special requirements for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from facilities sub/ect
to SARA title Ill, section 3Z3
requirements. (Option A would Include
part ULC ,4 .L as shown below. See
section 7.B of the Fact Sheet for a
discussion of Option A and Option aj
Storm water pollution prevention plans
for facilities sublect to reporting
requirements under SARA title l]L
section 313 for chemicals which are
classified as (‘SectIon 313 water priority
chemicals’) In accordance with the
definition in Part VII of this permit are
required to include, in addition to the
information listed above, a discussion of
the “ ilIty ’s conformance with the
app ?iate guidelines listed:
t areas where Section 313 water
priori:y chemicals are stored. processed
or otherwise handled, appropriate
contammerrt, drainage control and/or
diversionary structures shall be
provided. At a minimum, one of the
following preventive systems or its
equivalent shall be used
(a) Curbing. culverting. gutters, sewers
or other forms of drainage control to
prevent or minimize the potential for
storm water ron-on to come Into contact
with significant sources of pollutants; or
(b) Roofs, covers or other forms of
appropriate protection to prevent
storage piles from exposure to storm
water, and wind blowing.
Il the installation of structures or
equipment listed In parts
or ULC.4.L(3 .(c) of
this permit is not economically
achievable at a given facility, the fscility
operator shall develop and implement a
spill contingency and integrity testui
plan which provides a description of
measures that ensure spills or other
releases of toxic amounts of Section 313
water priority chemicals do not occur as
an alternative to the requi.-eznents of
parts ULC.4L(3).(aJ.(iiJ, or IILC.4J.(3).(c)
of this permit A spill contingency and
integrity plan developed under this
paragraph shall comply with the
minimum requirements listed in parts
IILC.4.f.(2). (a) through (d).
(a) The plan shall indude a detailed
deocription which demonstrates that the
requirernenta of Pa;ts IILC.4.L(3).(a}.(ii)
and IILC,4J43J.(c) of this permit are not
economically achievable:
ib) A spill contingency plan must
Include, at a minimum, a description of
response plans. personnel needs, and
methods of mechanicaL containment
steps to be taken for removal of spilled
SectIon 313 water priority chemicals;
-------
40937
access to and availability of sorbents
and other equipment: and such other
information as required by the Dlrector-
(c) The testing component of the
alternative plan must provide for
conductuig integrity testing of storage
lanka at least once every five years. and
conducting integrity and leak testIng of
values and piping a minimum every
year: and
(d) A written and actual commitment
of manpower, equipment and materials
required to comply with the provisions
of Part IILC.4.f.(2). (b) and (c) of this
permit and to expeditiously control and
remove quantity of Section 313 water
priority chemicals that may result in a
toxic discharge.
(3) In addition to the minimum
standards listed under Part IILC.4.f.(1) of
this permit, the storm water pollution
prevention plan shall include a complete
discussion of measures taken to conform
with the following applicable guidelines,
other effective storm water pollution
prevention procedures, and applicable
State rules, regulations and guidelines:
(a) Liquid storage areas where storm
water comes into contact with any
equipmeni tank. container, or other
vessel used for Section 313 water
priority chemicals.
(i) No tank or container shall be used
for the storage of a Section 313 water
priority chemical unless its material and
construction are compatible with the
material stored and conditions of
storage such as pressure and
temperature, etc.
(ii) Secondary containment, sufficient
to contain the capacity of the largest
single container or tank in a drainage
system where section 313 water priority
chemicals are stored shall be provided.
If the secondary containment area and
its upstream drainage system are
subject to precipItation. an allowance
for drainage from a 25-year, 24-hour
precipitation event shall be provided
over and above the volume necessary to
contain the largeat single tank or
container. Secondary containment
systems shall be sufficiently Impervious
to contain spilled section 313 water
priority chemicals until they can be
removed or treated. The plant treatment
system may be used to provide
secondary containment, provided It has
sufficient excess holding capacity
always available to hold the contents of
the largest container in the drainage
area plus an allowance for drainage
from a 25-year. 24-hour precipitation
event.
(b) Material storage areas for section
313 water priority chemicals other than
liquids. Material storage area. for
section 313 water priority chemicals
ther than liquids which are subject to
runoff, leaching. or wind blowing shall
incorporate drainage or other control
features which will minimize the
discharge of section 313 water pnorlty
chemicals. Drainage control shall
minimize storm water contact with
section 313 water priority chemicals.
(c) Truck and rail car loading and
unloading areas for liquid section 313
water priority chemicals shall contain
sufficient secondary containment or
treatment capacity to hold or treat the
largest tank truck or rail car or the
largest compartment of a tank truck or
rail car if the tanks are compartrnented,
which is loaded or unloaded at the
facility. If secondary containment is
provided in the treatment system, it
must be designed so that adequate
hydraulic capacity always exists to
contain a spill of the largest container
from the loading and unloading areas.
including an allowance for drainage
from a 25-year, 24-hour precipitation
event.
(d) In plant areas where section 313
water priority chemicals are
transferred, processed or otherwise
handled, piping, processing equipment
and materials handling equipment shall
be designed and operated so as to
prevent discharges of section 313
chemicals. Materials used in piping and
equipment shall be compatible with the
substances handled. Drainage from
process and materials handling areas
shall be designed as described in
paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this
section, Additional protection such as
covers or guards to prevent wind
blowing, spraying or releases from
pressure relief vents from causing a
discharge of Section 313 water priority
chemicals to the drainage system shall
be provided as appropriate
(e) Discharges from areas covered by
paragraphs (a), (b), (ci or Id)
(i) Drainage from areas covered by
paragraphs (a), (b), (c) or (d) of tius part
shall be restrained by valves or other
positive means to prevent a spill or
other excessive leakage of section 313
water priority chemicals into the
drainage system. Containment areas
may be emptied by pumps or ejectors:
however, these shall be manually
activated.
(Ii) Flapper-type drain valves shall not
be used to drain Containment areas.
Valves used for the drainage of
containment areas shall, as far as is
practical, be of manual, open-and-closed
design.
(lii) If plant drainage is not engineered
as above, the final di i charge of all in-
plant storm sewers should 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 to the facility.
(iv) Records shall be kept of the
frequency and estimated volume (in
gallons) of discharges from containment
areas.
(f) Plant size runoff other than from
areas covered by (a), (b), (ci or Id).
Other areas of the facility (those not
addressed in paragraphs (a). (b). (c) or
(d)). from which runoff which may
contain section 313 water priority
chemicals or spills of section 313 water
priority chemicals could cause a
discharge shall incorporate the
necessary drainage or other control
features to prevent discharge of spilled
or improperly disposed material and
ensure the mitigation of pollutants in
runoff or leachate.
(g) Preventive maintenance and
housekeeping. All areas of the facility
shall be inspected at specific intervals
for leaks or conditions that could lead to
discharges of section 313 water priority
chemicals or direct contact of storm
water with raw materials, intermediate
materials, waBte materials or products.
In particular, plant piping, pumps.
storage tanks and bins, pressure vessels.
process and material handling
equipment. and material bulk storage
area shall be examined for any
conditions or failures which could cause
a discharge. Inspection shall include
examination for leaks, wind blowing,
corrosion, support or foundation failure,
or other forms of deterioration or
noncontainment. Inspection intervals
shall be specified in the plan and shall
be based on design and operational
experience. Different areas may require
different inspection intervals. Where a
leak or other condition is discovered
which may result in significant releases
of section 313 water priority chemicals
to the drainage system. corrective action
shall be immediately taken or the unit or
process shut down until correct:ve
action can be taken. When a leak or
noncontainnient of a 8ection 313 water
priority chemical has occurred.
contaminated soil, debris, or other
material must be promptly removed and
disposed in accordance with Federal.
State. and local requirements and as
described in the plan.
(h) Facihty security. Facilities shall
have the necessary security syatems to
prevent accidental or intentional entry
which could cause a discharge. Security
systems described in the plan shall
address fencing, lighting, vehicular
traffic control, and securing of
equipment and buildings.
(I) Training. Facility employees and
Contractor personnel using the facility
shall be trained in and informed of
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 159 I Friday, August 16, 1991 / Proposed Rules
-------
40998
Federal Register I Vol. 56, No. 159 / Friday. August 1 . 1991 / Proposed Rules
preventive measures at the facility.
Employee training shall be conducted at
intervals specified In the plan, but not
lesi than once per year. In matters of
pollution control laws and regulations.
and in the storm water pollution
prevention plan and the particular
features of the facility and Its operation
which are designed to m(ntmI
discharges of section 313 water priority
chemicals. The plan shall designate a
person who is accountable for spill
prevention at the facility and who will
set up the necessary spiii emergency
procedures and reporting requirements
so that spills and emergency releases of
section 323 water priority chemicals can
be isolated and contained before a
discharge of a section 313 water priority
chemical can occur. Contractor or
temporary personnel shall be informed
of plant operation and design features ui
order to prevent discharges or spills
from occurring.
(j) Engineering Certification. No storm
water pollution prevention plan for
facilities subject to SARA title LU,
section 313 requirements for chemicals
which are dass fled as ‘Section 313
water priory chemicals’ shall be
effective to satisfy the requirements of
part IILC.4.g of this permit unless it has
been reviewed by a Registered
Professional Engizieer and certified to by
such Professional Engineer. A
Registered Professional Engineer shall
recertify the plan every three years
thereafter. By means of these
certifications the engineer, having
examined the facility and being familiar
with the provisions of this part, shall
attest that the storm water pollution
prevention plan has been prepared In
accordance with good engineering
practices. Such certifications shall in no
way reLieve the owner or operator of a
racility covered by the plan of their duty
to prepare and fully implement such
p lan.
(Option B—Under option B, facilities
subject to SARA title III. section 313
would not be subject to the
requirements of part LU.C.4.L Such
facilities would remain subject to other
applicable requirements of parts LU
(baseline plan requirements) and IV
(eff!uent hmitatlcns). In addition, under
Option B, the monitoring frequencies for
such facilities could be raised from
biannually (2 tImes per year) (see part
LB.1 of this permit) to monitoring of
dincharges at a higher frequency (e g.
quarterly).)
g. Salt storage. Storage piles of salt
used for detcang or other commercial or
industrial purposes shall be enclosed or
covered to prevent exposure to
precipitation.
5. Alternative requirements for
coristivction actn’i ties. Operations that
discharge storm water associated with
industrial activity from construction
activities are not subject to the
requirements of part IILC4 of this
permit. but are Instead subject to the
following requirements. The storm water
pollution prevention plan shall Include
the following Items:
a. Site description. Each plan shall
provide a description of the followuigi
(1). A description of the nature of the
construction activity
(2). Estimates of the total area of the
site and the area of the site that Is
expected to undergo excavation or
gracilng
(3). An estimate of the runoff
coefficient of the site and existing data
describing the soil or the quality of any
discharge from the site:
(4). A site map indicating drainage
patterns and approximate slopes
anticipated after major grading
activities, the location of major control
structures identified in the plan, and
surface waters: and
(5). The name of the receiving water(s)
and the ultimate receiving water(s).
b. Controls. Each constr.iction
operation covered by this permit shall
develop a description of controls
appropriate far the facility, and
implement such controls. The
description of controls shall address the
following minimum components:
(1). Erosion and sediment controls.
(a). Vegetative practices. A
description of vegetative practices
designed to preserve existing vegetation
where attainable and revegetate open
areas as soon as practicable after
grading or constructlcn Such practices
may indude: temporary seeding,
permanent seeding, mulching, sod
stabilization, vegetative buffer stripe.
and protection of trees. The operator
shall initiate appropriate vegetative
practices on all disturbed areas within 7
calendar days of the last activity at that
area.
(b). Structzaroi practices. A dcaafptian
of structural practices to the degree
attainable divert flows from exposed
soils, store flows or ctherwise limit
runoff from exposed areas of the site.
Such practices may Include straw bale
dikes, silt fences, earth dike,, brush
barriers. drainage swales, check dame.
subsurface drain, pipe slope drain, level
spreaders, stcrrn dr un Inlet pmtectlon.
rock outlet protection, sediment traps,
and temporary sedinient basins.
(ij For sates with mere than tO
disturbed acres at one time which are
served by a common drainage location.
a detention basin providing storage or
eqiuvalent controls for runoff from
disturbed areas from a 10 year. 24-hour
storm, shall be provided where
attainable. For drainage locations with
more than 10 dIsturbed acres at one tlmt
which are served by a common drainage
location where a detention basin
providing storage or equivalent controls
for nmoff from disturbed areas from a 10
year, 24-hour storm is not attainable, silt
fences, straw bale dikes, or eqwvalent
sediment controls are required for all
sideslope and downslope boundaries of
the construction area.
(It) For drainage locations serving 10
or less acres, silt fences, straw bale
dikes, or equivalent sediment controls
are required for all sideslope arid
downslope boundaries of the
construction area or a detention basin
providing storage for runoff from
disturbed areas from a 10 year, 24-hour
storm shall be provided.
(2). Storm water management. A
description of measures to control
pollutants in storni water discharges
that will occur after construction
operations have been completed. Such
practices may include: infiltration of
runoff onaite flow attenuation by use of
open vegetated swales and natural
depressions: storm water retention
structures and storm water detention
structures. Where such controls are
needed to prevent or minimize erosion.
velocity dissipation devices shall be
placed at the outfall of all detention or
retention structures and along the length
of any outfall channel as necessary to
provide a non-erosive velocity flow from
the structure to a water course.
justification shall be provided by the
permsttee for rejecting each practice
based on site conditions.
(3). Other controls.
(a). Waste disposal. No solid waste.
including building materials, shall be
discharged.
(b) Off-sate vehicle tracking of
sediments shall be rrdnunized.
(cj. The plan shall ensure and
demonstrate compliance with applicable
State or local waste disposal, sanitary
sewer or septic system regulations.
(4). Approved stats or local plans.
Facilities which discharge storm water
associated with mdustrlal activity from
construction activities must Include in
their storm water pollution prevention
plan procedures and requirements
specified in ar plicable sediment and
erosion site plans or storm water
management plans approved by State or
local officials. Applicable requirements
specified In sediment and erosion plans
or storm wElter management plans
approved by State or local officisls are,
upon subrn : tal of arm NO! to be
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 159 / Friday. August 18.
1991 / Proposed Rules 40999
authorized to discharge under this
permit. incorporated by reference and
are enforceable under this permit even if
they are not specifically included In a
storm water pollution prevention plan
reqiured under this permit Operators of
facilities seeking alternative permit
requirements shall submit an Individual
permit application in accordance with
part LC.2 of the permit, along with a
description of why requirements in
approved State or local plans should not
be applicable as a condition of an
NPDES permit
(5). Maintenance. A description of
procedures to maintain in good and
effective operating condition vegetation.
erosion and sediment control measures
and other protective measures Identified
In the site plan. Procedures in a plan
shall provide that all erosion controls on
the site ore Inspected at least once every
seven calendar days.
(8). All storm water pollution
prevention plans required under this
permit are considered reports that shall
be available to the public under section
308(b) of the CWA. The owner or
operator of a facility with storm water
discharges covered by this permit shall
make plans available to members of the
public upon request by the public.
However, the permittee may claim any
portion of a storm water pollution plan
as confidential in accordance with 40
CFR part L
(7). No condition of this permit shall
release the permittee from any
responsibility or requirements under
other environmental 8tatutes or
regulations.
Part 1V Numeric Effluent Limitations
A. SARA title IlL section 313
Faczht,es. The effluent (100%) composed
in part or in whole of storm water
associated with industrial activity from
faci!ites subject to reporting
requirements pursuant to SARA title III,
section 313 for chemicals which are
classified as “section 313 water priority
chemicals” that comes into contact with
any equipment, tank, container or other
vessel used for storage of a section 313
chemical, or located at a truck or rail car
loading or unloading area, shall not be
lethal to 20% or more of the more
sensitive of either appropriate fish or
invertebrate test organisms (96 hour
static replacement toxicity tests (96-hr.
LC2O> 100% effluent) for fish test
organisms and 48 hour static
replacement toxicity tests (48-hr. LCZO
> 100% effluent) for invertebrate test
organisms). Failure to demonstrate
compliance with the acute whole
effluent toxicity requirement after the
compliance date of three years after the
te of Issuance of thig permit will
constitute a violation of this permit (see
part V.1) of this permit). My untreated
overflow from facilities designed.
constructed and operated to treat the
volume of runoff from areas identified
above which is associated with a 25
year. 24 hour rainfall event shall not be
subject to the limitations of this part.
B. Coo/pile runoff. Subject to the
provisions of part IV.D, any composed
in part or in whole of coal pile runoff
shall not exceed a maximum
concentration for any time of 50 mg/i
total suspended solids. The pH of such
discharges shall be within the range of
6.( -9.0. 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 limitations of this part
Part V. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
A. Failure to Certify. Any facility that
Is unable to provide the certification
required under paragraph ffi.C.4.b.(11)
(testing for illicit connections), must
notify the Director within 180 days of
the effective date of this permit. Such
notification shall describe: the
procedure of any test conducted for the
presence of non-storm water discharges;
the results of such test or other relevant
observations; potential sources of non.
storm water discharges to the storm
seweri and why adequate tests for such
storm sewers were not feasible.
B. Morutorzng Requfrements:
1. Section 313 of SARA title U I
facilities. During the period beginning on
the effective date and lasting through
the expiratrnn date of this permit,
facilities subject to requirements to
report releases into the environment
under section 313 of SARA title UI for
chemicals which are classified as
“section 313 water priority chemicals ”
are subject to the following monitoring
requirements for storm water discharges
associated wn.h industrial activity that
are discharged from any containment
area:
a. Parameters. The parameters to be
measured Include; Oil and Grease (mgi
I.); Five Day Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BOD5) (mg/L); Chemical
Oxygen Demand (COD) (mg/I.); Total
Suspended Solids (mg/L) Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen (TKN) (mg/L); Total
Phosphorus (rng/L); pH; acute whole
effluent toxicity and any Section 313
water priority chemical for which the
facility Is subject to reporting
requirements under section 313 of the
Emergency Planning and Community
Right to Know Act of 1988. In addition:
the date and duration (in hours) of the
storm event(s) sampled: rainfall
measurements or estimates (in Inches)
of the storm event which generated the
sampled rwioff the duration between
the storm event sampled and the end of
the previous measurable (greater than
0.1 inch rainfall) storm event: and an
estimate of the total volume (in gallons)
of the discharge sampled shall be
provided.
b. Frequency of Monitoring. Sampling
shall be conducted at least semi-
annually (2 times per year) except as
provided by paragraph V.B.io V.B.llor
V.C.1;
2. PrImary metal Industries. During the
period beginning on the effective date
and lasting through the expiration date
of this permit, facilities classified as
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
33 (Primary Metal Industry) are subject
to the following monitoring requirements
for storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity that are
discharged from the facility;
a. Parameters. The parameters to be
measured include: oil and grease (mg/L);
five day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5) (rug/I.); chemical oxygen
demand (COD) (mg/I.); total suspended
solids (mg/L); total Xjeldahl nitrogen
(TKN) (mg/L); nitrate plus nitrite
nitrogen (mg/I.); total phosphorus (mgi
I.); pH acute whole effluent toxicity;
total lead (mg/I.); total cadmium (mg/Li;
total copper (mg/L); total arsenic (mg/
L); and total chromium (mg/I.). In
additioni the date and duration (in
hours) of the storm event(s) sampled.
rainfall measurements or estimates (in
inches) of the storm event which
generated the sampled runoth the
duration between the storm event
sampled and the end of the previous
measurable (greater than 0.1 inch
rainfall) storm event and an estimate of
the size of the drainage area (in square
feet) and an estimate of the runoff
coefficient of the drainage area (e.g. low
(under 40%), medium (40% to 65%) or
high (above 65%)) shall be provided.
b. Frequency of monitoring. Sampling
shall be conducted at least semi-
annually (2 times per year) except as
provided by paragraph V.B.io, V.B.n or
V.C.1;
3. Land disposal units. During the
period beginning on the effective date
and lasting through the expiration date
of this permit, storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
any active or inactive landfill, land
application site, or open dump that
received any industrial wastes are
subject to the following monitoring
requirements:
a. Parameters. The parameters to be
measured include: Ammonia (mg/L).
-------
41 0e0
Federal Register / Vol . 36. No. 159 / Friday, August 18. 1991 / Proposcd Rules
Bicañionate (mg/L), Calcium (mg/U,
Chloride (mg/U). Total Iron (mg/U,
Magnesium (total) (mg/U), Magnesium
(dissolved) (maJU), nitrate plus nitrite
mtrogen (mgfL), Potassium (rng/L),
Sodium (mg/U). Sulfate (mg/L).
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) (mg/
U), Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) (mg/U),
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) (rng/L). oil
and grease (mg/U). pH. Total Arsenic
(mg/U), Total Barium (mg/U). Total
Cadmium (mg/LI. Total Chromium (mg i
L), Total Cyanide (mg/U). Total Lead
(mg/U). Total Mercury (mg/L). Total
Selenium (mg/L). Total Silver (mg/U).
acute whole effluent toxicity. In
addition: the date and duration (in
hours) of the storm event(s) sampled:
rainfall measurements or estimates (in
inches) of the storm event which
generated the sampled runoff; the
duration between the storm event
sampled and the end of the previous
measurable (greater than 0.1 inch
rainfall) storm event and an estimate of
the total volume (in gallons) of the
discharge sampled shall be provided;
b. Frequency of rnozutorzng. Sampling
shall be conducted at least semi-
annually (2 times per year) except as
provided by paragraph V.B.10. V.Rii or
V.C.1;
4. Wood treatment (chloropheno/ic/
creosote formulations). During the
period beginning on the effective date
and tasting through the expiration date
of this permit, storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
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
facilities that currently use
chlorophenolic formulations and/or
aeosote formulations are subject to the
following monitoring requirements:
a. Parameters. The parameters to be
measured include: oil and grease (mg/L).
pH. BOD5 (mg/U). COD (mg/U. TSS
(mg/U. total phosphorus (mg/U). total
Kjeldahl nitrogen (mg/U). nitrate plus
nitrite nitrogen (mg/U), acute whole
effluent toxicity, and pentachiorophenol
(mg/U). In additlom the date and
duration (in hours) of the storm event(s)
sampled: rainfall measurements or
estimates (In inches) of the storm event
which generated the sampled runoff the
duration between the storm event
sampled and the end of the previous
measurable (greater than 0.1 Inch
rainfall) storm event and an estimate of
the size of the drainage area (In square
feet) and an estimate of the runoff
coefficient of the drainage area (e.g. low
(under 40%). medium (40% to 85%) or
high (above 65%)) shall be provided:
b. Frequency of monitoring. Sampling
shall be conducted at least semi-
annually (2 tImes per year) except as
provided by paragraph V.8.10. V.B.11 or
V.C .1;
5. Wood treatment (arsenic or
chromium preservatives). During the
period beginning on the effective date
and lasting through the expiration date
of this permit, storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
areas that are used for wood treatment
or storage of treated wood at any wood
preserving facilities that currently use
inorganic preservatives containing
arsenic or chromium are subject to the
following monitoring requirements:
a. Parameters. The parameters to be
measured Include: oil and grease (rag/U).
pFL SODS (mg/U. COD (mg/L). TSS
(mg/U), total phosphorus (mg/U), total
Kjeldahl nitrogen (mg/U), nitrate plus
nitrite nitrogen (mg/L), total arsenic
(mg/L), total chromium (mg/U, and total
copper (mg/L). In addition: the date and
duration (in hours) of the storm event(s)
sampled rainfall measurements or
estimates (in inches) of the storm event
which generated the sampled runoff; the
duration between the storm event
sampled and the end of the previous
measurable (greater than 0.1 inch
rainfall) storm event and an estimate of
the size of the drainage area (in square
feet) and an estimate of the runoff
coefficient of the drainage area (e.g. low
(under 40%), medIum (40% to 65%) or
high (above 65%)) shall be provided:
b. Frequency of monitoring. Sampling
shall be conducted at least semi-
annually (2 times per year) except as
provided by paragraph V.B.10 or V.8.11:
6. Cool pile runoff During the period
beginning on the effective date and
lasting through the expiration date of
this permit, storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity from
coal pile runoff are sub Jectio the
following monitoring requirements:
a. Pararr ters. The parameters to be
measured include: oil and grease (mg/L).
pH. TSS (mg/U), copper, nickel and zinc.
In addition: the date and duration (in
hours) of the storm event(s) sampled:
rainfall measurements or estimates (in
inches) of the storm event which
generated the sampled runoff the
duration between the storm event
sampled and the end of the previous
measurable (greater than 0.1 Inch
rainfall) storm event and an estimate of
the size of the drainage area (in square
feet) and an estimate of the runoff
coefficient of the drainage area (e.g. low
(under 40%), medIum (40% to 65%) or
high (above 65%)) shall be provided;
b. Frequency of monitoring. Sampling
shall be conducted at least semi-
annually (2 times per year) except as
provided by paragraph V.8.10 or V.8.11;
7. Oil and gas exploration or
production operations. During the period
beginning on the effective date and
lasting through the expiration date of
this permit, storm water di3charges
associated with Industrial activity from
oil and gas exploration or production
operations are, except as provided in
part V.B.7.c. subject to the following
monitoring requirements:
a. Parameters. The parameters to be
measured Include: oil and grease (mg/U,
pH. 80D5 (mg/U. COD (mg/U), TSS
(mgfL). total phosphorus (n,g/L), total
Kjeldahl nitrogen (mg/U), nitrate plus
nitrite nitrogen (ing/L). and any
pollutant limited in an effluent guideline
to which the facility is subject In
additioni The date and duration (in
hours) of the storm event(s) sampled;
rainfall measurements or estimates (in
inches) of the storm event which
generated the sampled runofF, the
duration between the storm event
sampled and the end of the previous
measurable (greater than 0.1 inch
rainfall) storm event and an estimate of
the size of the drainage area (in square
feet) and an estimate of the runoff
coefflc:ent of the drainage area (e.g. low
(under 40%), medium (40% to 65%) or
high (above 65%)) shall be provided;
b. Frequency of monitoring. Sampling
shall be conducted at least annually (1
time per year) except as provided by
paragraph V.8.10 or V.8.11:
c. Engineering certification. In lieu of
the monitoring requirements specified in
parts V.B.7.a and b, a facility may have
a Registered Professional Engineer
certify that a storm water pollution plan
has been prepared and Is being
implemer.ted in accordance with the
requirements of part IILC. A Registered
Professional Engineer shall recertify the
plan every three years. By means of
these certifications the engineer, having
examined the facility and being familiar
with the provisions of this part. shall
attest that the storm water pollution
prevention plan has been prepared In
accordance with good engineering
practices. Such certifications shall in no
way relieve the owner or operator of a
fadiliLy covered by the plan of their duty
to prepare and fully implement such
plan.
8. Other facilities. During the period
beginning on the effective date and
lasting through the expiration date of
this permit. storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity which
are covered by this permit, but are not
subject to sampling requirements under
parts V.8.1 through V.B.7 are subject to
the following monitoring requirements:
a. Parameters. The parameters to be
measured Include: oil and grease (mg/L).
-------
Federal Register / Vol 58. No. 159 / Friday, August 18. 1991 / Proposed Rules
Al
•t £ .i .
pH. BOD5 (mg/I.). COD (mg/LI. TSS
rngfL), total phosphorus (mg/U. total
r jeldahl nitrogen (mg/L . nitrate plus
nitrite nitrogen (mgIL), and any
oollutant limited in an effluent guideline
to which the facility is subject. In
addition: The date and duration (in
hours) of the storm event(s) aampled
einlall measurements or estimates (in
inches) of the storm event which
generated the sampLed runoff, the
duration between the storm event
sampled and the end of the previous
measurable (greater than 0.1 inch
rainfa!.i) storm event. and an estimate of
the size of the drainage area (in square
feet) and an estimate of the runoff
cjefflcient of the drainage area (e.g. low
(under 40%), medium (tO% to 65%) or
h h (above 65%)) shall be provided;
b. Frequency of monitoring. Sampling
shall be conducted at least annually (1
Li:ne per year) except as provided by
paragraph V.B .lOor V.B.11.
9. Sample type. For discharges from
holding ponds or other impoundments
with a retention period greater than 24
hours (estimated by dividuig the volume
of the detention pond by the estimated
volume of water discharged during the
24 hours previous to the time that the
sample is collected). s mIrl!mum of one
grab sample may be taken. For all other
discharges, data shall be reported for
both a grab sample and a composite
sample. All such 8amples shall be
collected from the discharge resulting
from a storm event that Is greater than
0.1 inches in magnitude and that occurs
at least 72 hours from the previously
measurable (greater than 0.1 Inch
arnfall) storm event. The grab sample
shall be taken during the first thirty
minutes of the discharge. If the
collection of a grab sample during the
first thuiy minutes is impracticable, a
grab sample can be taken during the
first hour of the discharge, and the
discharger shall submit with the
monitoring report a description of why a
grab sample during the first thirty
minutes was impracticable, The
compoe te sample shall either he flow-
weighted or time-weighted. Composite
samples may be taken with a continuous
sampler or as a combination of a
minimum of three sample aliqucts taken
in each hour of discharge for the entire
dischare or for the first three hours of
the discharge, with each aliquot being
separated by a minimum period of
fifteen minutes. Only grab samples must
be collected and analyzed for the
determination of pH. cyanide, and ad
and grease.
10. Sampling waiver. When a
discharger Is unable to collect samples
due to adverse climatic conditions, the
discharger must submit in lieu of
sampling data a description of why
samples could not be collected,
including available documentation of
the event. Adverse climatic conditions
which may prohibit the collection of
samples includes weather conditions
that create dangerous conditions for
personnel (such as local flooding, high
winds, hurricane, tornadoes, electrical
storms, etc.) or otherwise make the
collection of a sample impracticable
(drought, extended frozen conditions.
etc.).
11. Reprvsenta!:ve discharge. When a
facility baa two or more outfalls that,
based on a consideration of features and
activities within the area drained by the
outfall, the permittee reasonably
believes discharge substantially
identical effluents, the permittee may
test the effluent of one of such outfalis
and report that the quantitative data
also applies to the substantially
identical outfalls. In addition, for each
outfall that the permittee believes is
representative, an estimate of the size of
the draLnage area (in square feet) and an
estimate of the runoff coefficient of the
drainage area (e.g. low (under 40%),
medium (40% to 85%) or high (above
85%)) shall be provided.
C. Toxicity testing. Lii accordance
with Parts IV and V of this permit,
permittees that are required to monitor
for acute whcte effluent toxicity shall
initiate the series of tests described
below within 180 days after the issuance
of this permit or within 30 days after the
commencement of a new discharge.
1. The permittee shall conduct an
acute 48 hour static replacement toxicity
test on an appropriate invertebrate test
species (EPA/800/4—85/013, Table 1)
and an acute 96 hour static replacement
toxicity test using an appropriate fish
test species (EPA/000J4—85/013. Table
1). (Recommer.dation A Daphnidae
species, and the fathead minnow
(Pimephalee promelas)). All test
organisms. procedures and quality
assurance criteria used shall be in
accordance with Methods for Measuring
the Acute Toxicity of Effluent to
Freshwater and Marine Organisms.
EPA—600/4-85/013 (Rev. March 1985).
EPA has proposed to establish
regulations regarding these test methods
(December 4. 1989, (53 FR 50216). Tests
shall be conducted semiannually. Such
tests shall be conducted on a grab
sample of the discharge at 100% strength
(no dilution). Compliance with the acute
whole effluent toxicity limit of no
significant difference from the control at
the 95% confidence Interval will be
determined using the “t-test” statistical
method described in Appendix H of
Shart.Term Methods for Estimatirie tha
Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and
Receiving Waters to Freshwater
Organisms )Second Edition. EPA/600/4-
59/001, March 1989 and subsequent
editions). Results of all tests conducted
with any species shall be reported
according to EPA/600/4—85(013. St ction
13. Report Preparation and Data
Utilization, or its latest revision, and
shall be submitted to EPA with the
quarterly discharge monitonag report.
The peruuttee’s monthly Discharge
Monitoring Reports (DMR’s) will report
‘0” it there is rio statistical difference
between the control mortality and the
effluent mortality.’
2. If acute whole effluent toxicity is
found in storm water discharges subject
to the effluent limitation of Part IVA in
any samples collected after the
ccmpliarice date of two years after the
date of issuance of this permit. it will
constitute a violation of this permit. The
permittee will then be subject to the
enforcement provisions of the Clean
Water Act. In the event a violation of
toxicity limits results in an enforcement
action, any different or more stringent
monitoring requirements imposed in that
enforcement action shall apply in lieu of
the requirements of this permit condition
for whatever period of time is specified
by EPA in the enforcement action.
3. If acute whole effluent toxicity is
detected In storm water discharges
subject to the effluent limitation of part
IV.A before the compliance date of two
years after the date of issuance of this
permit. and it Is determined by the
pernut issuing authority that a toxicity
reduction evaluation (TRE) is necessary.
the perrnittee shall be so notified arid
shall initiate a TRE immediately
thereafter. The purpose of the TRE wi!l
be to establish the cause of the toxicity,
‘in otdai to p Tide cunlesteocy with other
permiti wntten In Region VIfl. the permit. foe
discher es In CO. WY, h T. ND and t T would
aubitirut. the fnUowu, I.ngua e for Part V C i
‘ Thc permitta. shell conduct an acute 48-boer stauc
replacemeni toximly tell uiin Conodaphiuo .p
and an acute 96.how stauc replacement toximt y test
using f.th ed tows. The replacement static
tox mty tests shall be conducted in general
sccorda oe with the procedures set øut In the latest
revision *5 “Method. foe Meapunflg the Acute
Toxicity of Effluinta to Freshwater and Marine
Organtams, A— 5COf 4-85—013 (Rev. Mar’ h 19 )
and the Region VU] E PA NPDin Acute Teat
Conditions—StatIc Renewal Whole Efflueni
Toxicity Tn t .” Test. shall be condt 1ed
semiannually Such tests ihsU be conducted on a
grab sample of the discharge at Im% seength (ao
dilution) Alter low’ 4) ets of teSts oI two 12)
species. the pwnuttee may haul subsequent telling
to the moat penaitive of di. two (2) species, based
on the results of the previou, tests. Resuiti of all
lest. shall ha rsponed In. format co Lstent with
th, latest reylilon of the “Region V III Guidsncs for
Acute Whole Effluent Repo,tmg”, sod shall Include
sil chemical and physical data ii epecifled.
-------
- LOO2
Federal Register I Vol. 58. No. 159 I. Friday., August iBi 1991 1. Propesed,Ruies
1hr atii-the source(s) of the toxicity, and
or provide treatment for the
tuxicity priority to the compliance date
of two years after the date of issuance
of’this permit.
a Noncompliance reporting:
t. Anticipated noncompliance. The
perimttee shall give advance notice. if
possible, at least ten days before the
daie of any planned changes in the
permitted facility or activity which may
result in any bypass. upset, or other
noncompliance with permit
requirements.
2. Unanticipated bypass or upset. The
permittee shall submit notice of an
unanticipated bypass or upset Any
information regarding the unanticipated
bypass or upset shall be provided orally
within 24 hours from the time the
permittee became aware of the
circumstances. A written submission
shall also be provided within 5 days of
the time the perinittee became aware of
the circumstances. The written
submission shall contain a description
of the bypass or upset and its cause: the
period of the bypass or upset including
exact dates and times, and if the bypass
or upset has not been corrected, the
anticipated time it Is expected to
continue: and steps taken or planned to
reduce, eliminate, and prevent
reoccurrence of the bypass or upset
E Reporting: where to szibm,ti
t a. Pernuttees which are required to
conduct sampling pursuant to parts
V.B i. V.B.Z and V.8.3 must submit
monitoring results obtained during the
previous 6 months on Discharge
Monitoring Report Form(s) postmarked
no later than the 28th day of the month
follbwing the completed reporting
penodi The reports are due on the 28th
da j of January and July. The first report
may’ include less than the 8 months of
lnfr irn2atlon.
hi Permittees which are required to
conduct sampling pursuant to parts
V.8l4 V.8.5, and V.B.6 must submit -
monitoring results obtained during the
previous 6 months on Discharge
Momtonng Report Form sJ postmarked
mm later than the 28th day of the month
folib wing the completed reporting
period. The reports are due on the 28th
day of April and October. The first
report may include less than the 8
months of information.
c. Signed copies of discharge
monitoring reports required under parts
V.Eta and V.E.i.b. arid all other reports
required herein. shall be submitted to
thal!1ü ector of the NPDES program at
the SiflbwIng address:
ROgTnnId Office
Except as provided in part V.E.1 of
thia permit, for discharges subject to
sampling requirements pursuant to parts
V.8.7 and V.2,8. permittees are not
required to submit monitoring results
pursuant to part V,E.1. However, such
permittees must retain monitoring
results in accordance with part V.F.
3. Additional Notification. Facilities
with at least one storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity
through a large or medium municipal
separate storm sewer system (systems
serving a population of 100.000 or more)
in addition to filing copies of discharge
monitoring reports in accordance with
paragraph V.E.i. must submit signed
copies to the operator of the municipal
separate storm sewer system of
monltonng results obtained during the
previous 6 months on Discharge
Monitoring Report Form(s) postmarked
no later than the 28th day of the month
following the completed reporting
period. For permittees which are
required to conduct sampling pursuant
to parts V.2.1. V.8.2, and V.2.3 the
reports are due on the 28th day of
January and July. For perm.ittees which
are required to conduct sampling
pursuant to parts V.2.4. V.B.5, and V.2.8
the reports are due on the 28th day of
April and October. The first report may
indude less than the C months of
information.
F. Retention of records:
1. The permittee shall retain records
of all monitoring information, copies of
all reports required by this pernut. arid
records of all data used to complete the
Notice of Intent to be covered by this
permit for a period of at least three
years from the date of the measurement
report, or application. This period may
be explicitly modified by alternative
provisions of this permit (see Part V.F.2
of this permit) or extended by request of
the Director at any time.
2. For discharges subject to sampling
requirements pursuant to part V.2.. in
addition to the requirements of part
V.F.1. perm.ittees are required to retain
for a three-year period from the data of
sample collection or for the term of this
permit, which ever is greater. records of
all monitoring information collected
during the term of this permit
Permittees must submit such morutoring
results to the Director upon the request
of the Director, and submit a summary
of such result as part of renotificatlon
requirements in accordance with part
DY.
Part V I. Standard Permit Conditions
A. Duty to Comply. The permnittee
must comply with all conditions of this
permit Any permit noncompliance
constitutes a violation of CWA and is
grounds for enforcement actlon for
permit termination, revocation and
reissuance. or modiflcatloiu or for denial
of a permit renewal application.
2. Toxic pollutants. The permittee
shall comply with effluent standards or
prohibitions established under section
307(a) of the CWA for toxic pollutants
within the time provided in the
regulations that establish these
standards or prohibitions. even if the
permit has not yet been modified to
incorporate the requirement
2. Penalties for violations of permit
conditions. Section 309 of the CWA
provides significant penalties for any
person who violates a permit condition
implementing sections 301. 302. 308. 307.
308. 318, or 405 of the CWA. or any
permit condition or limitation
implementing any such sections in a
permit issued under section 402. Any
person who violates any permit
condition of this permit is subject to a
civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per
day of such violation, as well as any
other appropriate sanction provided by
section 309 of the CWA.
B. Continuation of the expired gen era!
permit An expired general permit
continues in force and effect until a new
general permit is issued. Only those
facilities authorized to discharge under
the expiring general permit are covered
by the continued permit.
C Need to halt or reduce activity not
a defense. It shall not be a defense for a
permittee in an enforcement action that
it would have been necessary to halt or
reduce the permitted activity in order to
maintain compliance with the conditions
of this permit.
D. Duty to mitigate. The permittee
shall take all reasonable steps to
minimize or prevent any discharge in
violation of this permit which has a
reasonable likelihood of adversely
affecting human health or the
environment.
£ Duty to provide information. The
permittee shall furnish to the Director.
within a reasonable time, any
information which the Director may
request to determine compliance with
this permit The permittee shall also
furnish to the Director upon request
copies of records required to be kept by
this permit
F. Other information. When the
permittee becomes aware that he or she
failed to submit any relevant facts or
submitted incorrect Information in the
Notice of Intent or In any other report to
the Director, he or she shall promptly
submit such facts or information.
C. Signatory requirements. All
Notices of Intent, storm water pollution
prevention plans. reports, certifications
or information either submitted to the
Director or the operator of a large or
-------
Federal Register I Vol.’ 56, No. 159 / Friday, August 10. 1991 / Proposed Rules
medium municipal separate storm sewer
system, or that this permit requires be
maintained by the permittee, shall be
signed.
1. Mi Notices of Intent shall be signed
as follows:
a. For a Corporation: By a responsible
corporate officer. For the purpose of this
section, a responsible corporute officer
means:
It) A president, secretary, treasurer,
or vice-president of the corporation in
charge of a principal business function,
or any other person who performs
similar policy or decision-making
functions for the corporation or
(2] The manager of one or more
manufacturing, production or operating
facilities employing more than 250
persons or having gross annual Bales or
expenditures exceeding S25.000.000 tin
second-quarter 1980 dollars) if authority
to sign documents has been aasigned or
delegated to the manager in accordance
with corporate procedures;
b. For a partnership or sole
proprietorship: By a general partner or
the proprietor, reapecuvely or
c. For a municipality State. Federal.
or other public agency: by either a
principal executive officer or ranking
elected official. For purposes of this
section. a principal executive officer of a
Federal agency includes (1) the chief
executive officer of the agency, or (2) a
senior executive officer having
responsibility for the overall operations
of a principal geographic unit of the
agency (e g. Regional Administrators of
EPA).
2. All reports required by the permit
and other information requested by the
Director shall be signed by a person
described above or by a duly authorized
representative of that person. A person
is a duly authorized representative only
if:
a. The authorization is made in
writing by a person described above
and submitted to the Director.
b. The authorization specifies either
an individual or a position having
responsibility for the overall operation
of the regulated facility or activity, such
as the position of manager, operator,
superintendent, or position of eqtuvalent
responsibility or an indMdual or
position having overall responsibility for
environmental matters for the company.
(A duly authorized representative may
thus be either a named individual or any
individual occupying a named position).
c. Changes to authorization. If an
authorization under paragraph IV.D.2. is
no longer accurate because a different
individual or position has responsibility
for the overall operation of the facility, a
new authorization satisfying the
requirements of paragraph LD2 mud be
aubmitted to the Director prior to or
together with any reports. information,
or applications to be signed by an
authorized representative.
H. Certification. Any person signing
documents under this section shall make
the following certification:
I certify under penalty of law that this
document and all attachments were prepared
under my direction or supervision in
accordance with a system designed to assure
that qualified personnel properly gathered
and evaluated the uiforniation submitted.
Based on my inquiry of the person or persons
who manage the system. or those persons
directly responsible for gathering the
Information, the Information submitted is. to
the best of my knowledge and belief, true,
accurate, and complete. I am aware that there
are sigrufIcant penalties for submitting false
information, including the possibility of fine
and imprisonment for knowing violations.
(.Penaltjes for falsification of reports.
Section 309(c)(4) of the Clean Water Act
provides that any person who
knowingly makes any false material
statement, representation, or
certification in any record or other
document submitted or required to be
maintained under this permit, including
reports of compliance or noncompliance
shall, upon conviction, be punished by a
fine of not more than $10,000, or by
imprisonment for not more than 2 years,
or’by both.
J. Penalties for falsification of
monitoring systems. The CWA provides
that any person who falsifies, tampers
with, or knowingly renders inaccurate
any monitoring device or method
required to be maintained under this
permit shall, upon conviction, be
punished by fines and imprisonment
described in section 309 of the CWA.
K. 0 ,1 and hazardous substance
liability. Nothing in this permit shall be
construed to preclude the institution of
any legal action or relieve the pernuittee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or
penalties to which the permittee is or
may be subject under section 311 of the
CWA
L Property rights. The issuance of this
permit does not convey any property
rights of any eoi l, nor any exclusive
privileges, nor does it authorize any
injury to private property nor any
invasion of personal rights, nor any
infringement of Federal, State or local
laws or regulations
M. Sever’obility. The provisions of this
permit are severable, and if any
provision of this permit. or the
application of any provision of this
permit to any circumstance, is held
invalid, the application of such provision
to other circumstances, and the
remainder of this permit shall not be
affected thereby.
N. Transfers. This permit is not
transferable to any person except after
notice to the Director. The Director may
require the operator to apply for san
obtain an individual NPDES permit a i
stated in part IC.
0 State laws. Nothing iii this permit
shall be construed to preclude the
Institution of any legal action or relieve
the permitlee from any responsibilities,
liabilities, or penalties established
pursuant to any applicable Slate law or
regulation under authority preserved by
section 510 of the Act.
P. Proper operation and maintenance.
The permittee shall at all times properly
operate and maintain all facilities and
systems of treatment and control (and
related appurtenances) which are
installed or used by the perinittee to
achieve compliance with the conditions
of this permit and with the requirements
of storm water pollution pre ention
plans. Proper operation arid
maintenance also includes adequate
laboratory controls and appropriate
quality assurance procedures. Proper
operation and maintenance requires the
operation of backup or auxiliary
facilities or similar systems. installed by
a permittee only when necessary to
achieve comphance with the conditions
of the permit.
Q. Monitoring and records:
1. Samples arid measurements taken
for the purpose of monitoring shall be
representative of the monitored activity.
2. The permittee shall retain records
of all monitoring information including
all calibration and maintenance recorca
and all original strip chart recordings for
continuous monitoring ir.strumentaticn.
copies of the reports required by this
permit, and records of all data used to
complete the application for this permit,
for a period of at least 3 years from tLe
date of the sample, measurement report
or application. This period may be
extended by request of the Director at
any time.
3. Records contents. Records of
monitoring information shall include.
a. The date, exact place, and time of
sampling or measurements:
b. The initials or name(s) of the
individual(s) who performed the
sampling or measurements:
c. The date(s) analyses were
performed;
d. The time(s) analyses were initiated;
e. The initials or name(s) of the
individual(s) who performed the
analyses;
f. References and written procedures,
when available, for the analytical
techniques or methods used: and
g. The results of such analyses.
including the bench sheets. instriment
-------
41304
Federal Register / VoL 56. t4o. 159 f Fr day 1 August 6. t l / Proposed Rules
readouts. competes disks or tapes. etc.,
used to determine these results.
4. Monitoring must be conducted
according to test procedures approved
under 40 ( R part 138. unless other test
prOCedures have been specified in this
perraiL
5. The Clean Water Act provides that
any person who falsifies. tampers with.
or knowingly renders Inaccurate any
monitoring device or method required to
be maintained under this permit shall.
upon conviction, be punished by a fine
of not more than $10000 per violation, or
by unprisonmezit kg net mare than 2
years per violation, or by both.
K. Bypass of Zr atmentfac.zliLies:
1. NotIce:
a. Anticipated bypass. If the perniittee
knows In advance of the need for a
bypass. he or she shall submit prior
notice. if possible. at least ten days
before the date of the bypass: including
art evaluation of the anticipated quality
and effect of the bypass.
b. Unanticipated bypass. The
pernuttee shall submit notice of an
unanticipated bypass. Any information
regarding the unanticipated bypass shall
be provided orally within 24 hours from
the time the permzttee became aware of
the circumstances. A written submission
shall also be provided within 5 days of
the time the permittee become aware of
the circumstances. The written
submission shall contain a description
of the bypass and its cause the period
of the bypass. Including exact dates and
times. and If the bypass has riot been
corrected. the anticipated time it Is
expected to continue and steps taken or
planned to reduce. eliminate, and
prevent reoccurrence of the bypass.
2. ProhibItion of bypass:
a. Bypass La prohibited and the
Director may take enforcement action
against a pernilttee for a bypass. Unless:
(1). The bypass was unavoidable to
prevent loss of life, personal ui ury. or
severe property damage
(2). There were no feasible
alternatives to the bypass. such as the
use of auxiliary treatment facilities.
retention of untreated wastes, or
maintenance during normal periods of
equipment downtlixis. This condition is
cot satisfied if the pezmittee should. In
the exercise of reasonable engineering
judgement, have installed adequate
backup equipment to prevent a bypass
which occurred during normal periods of
equipment downtime or preventive
marntenancei and
(3). The permittee submitted notices
as required under Part R.1 of this
section.
b. The Director may approve an
anticipated bypass after considering its
adverse effects. If the Director
determi ’ that It will meet the three
conditions listed in part VIIL2.a. of this
seCtiOn.
S. Upset conditions.
1. An upset constitutes an affirmative
defense to an action brought For
noncompliance with technology-based
permit limitations if the requirements of
paragraph 2 below are met. No
determination made during
administrative review of claims that
noncompliance was caused by upset.
and before an action for noncompliance.
if final administrative action subject to
Judicial review.
2. A permittee who wishes to
establish the affirmative defense of an
upset shall demonstrate, through
properly signed. contemporaneous
operating logs, or other relevant
evidence, that:
a. An upset occurred and that the
perruittee can identify the specific
cause(s) of the upset
b. The permitted facility was at the
time being properly operated.
a. The permittee submitted notice of
the upset as required under Part V: and
d. The perrnittee complied with any
remedial measures required under IILF.
3. In any enforcement proceeding the
permittee seeking to establish the
occurrence of an upset has the burden of
proof.
‘I ’. inspection and entry. The permittee
shall allow the Director or an authorized
representative of EPA. the Slate, or. in
the case of a facility which discharges
through a municipal separate storm
sewer, an authorized representative of
the municipal operator or the separate
storm sewer receiving the discharge.
upon the presentation of credentials and
other documents as may be required by
law, to:
1. Enter upon the permittee’s premises
where a regulated facility or activity is
located or conducted or where records
must be kept under the conditions of this
permit
2. Have access to and copy at
reasonable times, any records that must
be kept under the conditions of this
.perrnit and
3. Inspect at reasonable times any
facilities or equipment (uic.luding
monitoring and control equipment).
U. Permit actions. This permit may be
modified. revoked and reissued. or
terminated for cause. The filing of a
request by the pernuttee for a permit
modification, revocation and reissuance.
or termination. ora notification of
planned changes or anticipated
noncompliance does riot stay any pes ’lnIt
condition.
Part VII. Reopener Clause
A If there is evidence indicating
potential or realized impacts on water
quality due to any storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity covered by this permit. the
owner or operator of such discharge
may be required to obtain individual
permit or an alternative general permit
in accordance with part LC of this
permit or the permit may be modified to
include different [ iautations arid/or
requirements.
B. Permit modification or revocation
will be conducted arding to 40 CFR
122.62.122.83,122.64 and 124.5.
Port VIL Definitions
Best Management Practices (BMPs)
means schedules of activities.
prohibitions of practices, maintenance
procedures. and other management
practices to prevent or reduce the
pollution of waters of the United States
BMPs also include treatment
requirements. operating procedures. and
practices to control plant site runoff.
spillage or leaks, sludge or waste
disposaL or drainage from raw material
storage.
Bypass means the intentional
diversion of waste streams from any
portion of a treatment facility
Coal pile runoff means the rainfall
runoff from or through any coal storage
pile
CWA means Clean Water Act or the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Director means the Regional
Administrator or an authorized
representative.
Flow-weighted composite sample
means a composite sample consisting of
a mixture of aliquots collected at a
constant time interval, where the
volume of each aliquot is proportional to
the flow rate of the diachai e.
Landfill means an area of land or an
excavation in which wastes are placed
for permanent disposaL and which is not
a land application unit, surface
irnpowtdmeat. injection well, or waste
pile.
Land application wilt means an area
where wastes are applied onto or
incorporated into the soil surface
(excluding manure spreading
operations) for treatment or disposal.
Large and Medium municipal
separate storm sewer system means all
municipal separate storm sewers that
are ettheri
(I) Located in an incorporated place
with a population of 100000 or more as
determined by the latest Decennial
Census by the Bureau of Census: or
-------
41 35
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 159 / Friday . August 16, 1991 1 Proposed R ies
(ii) Located in the counties with
unincorporated urbanized populations
of 100.000 or more, except murucipal
separate storm sewers that are located
in the incorporated places, townships or
towns within such counties; or
(ui) Owned or operated by a
municipality other than those described
in paragraph (i) or (ii) and that are
designated by the Director as part of the
large or medium municipal separate
storm sewer system.
NO! means notice of intent to be
covered by this permit (see part [ I of this
permit.)
Runoff coefficient means the fraction
of total rainfall that will appear at the
conveyance as runoff.
Section 313 water priority chemical
means a chemical or chemical
categories which are:
(1) Are listad at 40 CFR 372.65
pursuant to section 313 of Title Ill of the
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthoriza tion Act (SARA) of 1983,
also titled the Emergency Flaming and
Community Right-to-Know Act of 1988;
(2) Are present at or above threshold
levels at a facility subject to SARA title
Ill. section 313 report Ing requirements;
and
(3) That meet at least one of the
following criteria:
(i) Are listed in appendix D of 40 CFR
part 122 on either Table U (organic
priority pollutants), Table UI (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 118.4;
or
(iii) Are pollutants for which EPA has
published acute or chronic water quality
criteria.
Severe Property Damage means
substantial physical damage to property,
damage to treatment facilities which
causes them to become inoperable, or
substantial and permanent loss of
matinal resources which can reasonably
be expected to occur in the absence of a
bypass. Severe property damage does
not mean economic loss caused by
delay8 in production.
S rnfzcoi,t materials includes, but Is
not limited to: Raw ir.aterials; fuels;
materials such as 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 CLA any
chemical the facility is required to report
pursuant to section 313 of title Ill of
SARA fertilizers; pesticides; and waste
products such as ashes, slag and sludge
that have the potential to be released
with storm water discharges.
Sign,f;cant spii 1 s includes, but is not
limited to: releases of oil or hazardous
substances in excess cf reportable
quantities tinder section 311 of the Clean
Water Act (see 40 CFR 110.10 and FR
117.21) or section 102 of CERCLA (see 40
CFR 302.4).
Storm Water means storm water
runoff, snow melt runoff, and surface
runoff and drainage.
Storm Water Associated with
IndustriolActivizy means the discharge
from any conveyance which is used for
collecting and conveying storm water
and which Is directly related to
manufacturing, processing or raw
materials storage areas at an industrial
plant The term does not include
discharges from facilities or activities
excluded from the NPDES program. For
the categories of industries identified in
eubparagraphs (i) through (x) of this
subsection, the term includes, but is not
limited to, storm water discharges from
industrial plant yards: immediate access
rcads and rail lines used or traveled by
carriers of raw materials, manufactured
products, waste material, or by-products
used or created by the facility material
handling sites; refuse sites; sites used for
the application or disposal of process
waste waters (as defined at 40 CFR part
401); sites used for the storage and
maintenance of material handling
equlpment sites used for residual
treatment, storage, or disposal; shipping
and receiving areas: manufacturing
buildings; storage areas (including tank
farms) for raw materials, and
intermediate and finished products; and
areas where industrial activity has
taken place in the past and significant
materials remain and are exposed to
storm water. For the categories of
industries identified in subparagraph
(xi), the term includes only storm water
discharges from all areas listed in the
previous sentence (except access roads)
where material handling equipment or
activities, raw materials, intermediate
products. final products, waste
materials, by-products, or industrial
machinery are exposed to storm water.
For the purposes of this paragraph.
material handling activities include the:
storage. loading and unloading.
transportation, or conveyance of any
raw material, intcrmed,ate product,
finished product. by .product or waste
product. The term excludes areas
located on plant lands separate from the
plant’s industrial activities, such as
office buildings arid accompanying
parking lots as long as the drainage from
the excluded areas is not mixed with
storm water drained from the above
described areas. Industrial facilit es
(inc,luding industrial facilities that are
Federally or municipally owned or
operated that meet the description of the
facilities listed in this paragraph (iHxi))
include those facilities designated tinder
122.26(a)(1)(v) The following categories
of facilities are considered to be
engaging in ‘industrial activity” for
purposes of this subsection:
(i) Facilities subject to storm water
effluent l:mitations guidelines, new
source performance standards, or toxic
pollutant effluent standards under 40
CFR Subchapter N (exceot facilities with
toxic pollutant effluent standards which
are exempted under category (xi) of this
paragraph);
(ii) Facilities classified aa Standard
Industrial Classifications 24 (except
2434). 26 (except 265 and 287), 28, 29, 30.
311, l2 , 33, 34.41, 373;
(iii) Facilities classified as Standard
Industrial Classifications 10 through 14
(mineral industry) including active or
inactive mining operatior.s (except for
areas of coal m:ning operations meeting
the definition of a reclamation area
under 40 CFR 434.11(1)) and oil and gas
exploration, production, processing, or
treatment operations, or transmission
facilities that discharge storm water
contaminated by contact with or that
has come into contact with, any
overburden, raw material, intermediate
products, finished produc:s. byproducts
or waste products located on the site of
such operations; inactive mining
operations are mining sites that are not
being actively mined, but which have an
identifiable owner/operaton
(iv) Hazardous waste treatment.
storage, or disposal facilities, !ncludlng
those that are operating under interim
status or a permit under Subtitle C of
RcRA
(v) Landfill3. land application sites
and open dumps that have received any
industrial wastes (waste that is received
from any of the facilities described
under this subsection) including those
that are subject to regulation under
Subtitle D of RCRA.
(vi) Facilities involved in the recycling
of materials, including metal scrapyards.
battery reclaimers, salvage yards. am a
automobile Junk) antis, including but
limited to those classified as Standard
Industrial Classification 5015 and 5093.
(vi ,) Steam electric power generating
facili ties, inchding coal handling sites:
(viii) Transportation fac:lities
classified as Standard Industrial
Classifications 40, 41. 42, 44. and 45
which have vehicle maintenance shops.
equipment cleaning operations, or
airport deicing operations. Only those
portions of the facility that are either
involved in vehicle rna;nter,ance
-------
41006
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 159 I Friday, August 16. 1091 / Proposed Rules
(including vehicle rehabilitation.
mechanical repairs. painting, fueling.
and lubrication), equipment deaning
operatimis. airport deicirig operations. Or
which are otherwise identified under
paragraphs (i)-(vii) or (ix)-(xi) of this
subsection are associated with
industrial actlvUy
( lx) Treatment works treating
domestic sewage or any other sewage
sludge or wastewater treatment device
or syntem. used in the storage treatment.
recycling. and redamaton of municipal
or domestic sewage. including land
dedicated-to the disposal of sewage
sludge that are located wrvhin the
confines of the facility, with a desi i
flow of 1.0 rngd or more. or required to
have an approved pretreatment program
under 40 CFR part 403. Not included are
farm lands. domestic gardens or lands
used for sludge management where
sludge is beneficially reused and which
are not physically located in the
confines of the facility, or areas that are
in compliance with 40 CFR part 503:
(x) Construction activity including
clearing, grading and excavation
activities except operations that result
in the disturbance of less than five aeres
of total land area which are not part of a
larger common plan of development or
sale:
(xi) Facilities under Standard
Industrial Classifications 20. 21. 22. 23.
2434. 25. 285. 287. 27. 283. 31 (except 311).
34 (except 3441), 35. 36. 37 (except 373).
38.39.4221-25. (and which are not
otherwise included within categories (i)-
(x));
Time-weighted composite means a
composite sample consisting of a
mL’cture of eq ia1 volame aliquots
collected at a constant e interval.
Waste pile means any
nonconialnerized ir imulation of solk.
nonflowing waste that is used for
treatment or storage.
25•ycar. 24-hour precipitation event
means the maxi”um 24-hour
precipitation event with a probable
reoccurrence interval of once in 25
years. This information is available in
“Weather Bureau Technical Paper No.
40.”. May 1961 and “NOAA Atlas 2.
1973 for the 11 Western States. and may
be obtained from the National Climatic
Center of the Environmental Data
Service. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. U.S.
Department of Commerce.
LFR Doc. 91-18825 Filed 8-15-91: 845 arni
8 W4 case
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 135 I Monday. uly 15. 1991 I Notices
32209
such that HDDs/HDFs would not be
produced.
Under the regulation, a request for
either an exclusion or waiver must be
made before September 4, 1987, for
persons manufacturing, importing, or
processing a chemical substance as of
June 5. 1987. or 60 days before
resumption of manufacture or
importation of a chemical substance not
being manufactured, imported. or
processed as of June 5, 1987.
Rhone-Poulenc Inc. requests an
exclusion under 40 CFR 768.32(a)(1)(i)
and (alll)(li) for 2.3,5.0- tetrachloro-2,5-
cyclohexadiene-1.4-dione (CAS No. 118-’
75-.?., chloranil).
ICI Americas Inc. requests an
exclusion under 40 CFR 768.32(a)(1)(h)
for 2.3.5.6 .tetrachloro-2.5-
cyclohexadiene-1.4- dione (CAS No.
118—75—2. chloranil).
Pfister Chemical Inc. requests an
exclusion under 40 CFR 766.32(a)(1)(ii)
for 3.4’.5-tribromosalicylanilide (CAS
No. 87—10—5).
Confidential Business Information
(CBI). while part of the record. is not
available for public review. A public
version of the record. from which CBI
has been deleted. is available for
inspection in the TSCA Public Docket
Office. rm. NE-COOL 401 M SL SW..
Washington. DC from 8 a.m. to 12 noon.
And from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except legal holidays.
Dated: June 14. 1991.
Charles M. Auer,
D,rec or, &x:s:lng Cliam,colAssessment
Division. Office of Toxic Substances.
IFR Doc. 91—16748 FIled 7—12—91. 8:45 amj
WNG co U884
(FRL-3914-3 1
Revision of the Alabama National
Pollutant Discharge Ellmlnatton
System (NPDES) Program To Issue
General Permits
1
AO NCY Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACT10* Notice of Approval of the
national Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System General Permits Program for the
State of Alabama.
SUMMARy On June 26, 1991, the Regional
Administrator for the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Region IV
approved the State of Alabama’s
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System General Permits
Program. This action authorizes the
State of Alabama to issue general
permits in lieu of individual NPDES
permits.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACfl
Jim Patnck. Acting Chief. Facilities
Performance Branch. U.S. EPA. Region
IV, 345 Courtland Street. NE.. Atlanta.
Georgia 30305. 404/347-2913.
SUP#I.EMENTARY INFORMATIOIC
L Background
EPA regulations at 40 CFR 122.28
provide for the issuance of general
permits to regulate discharge of
wastewater which result from
substantially similar operations, are of
the same type wastes, require the same
effluent limitations or operating
conditions, require similar monitoring.
and are more appropriately controlled
under a general permit rather than by
individual permits.
Alabama was authorized to
administer the NPDES program in
October 1979. Its program as previously
approved. did not include provision, for
the i8euance of general pernuts. There
are several categones which could
appropriately be regulated by general
permits. For those reasons the Alabama
Department of Environmental
Management requested a revision of Its
NPDES program to provide for issuance
of general permits. The categories which
have been proposed for coverage under
the general permits program include:
storm water discharges from municipal.
Industrial and construction sites:
hydrostatic test waten non-conlact
cooling wateri once-through discharges
from wet-decking operations: off-shore
oil and gas activities not discharging
drilling muds and cuttings: underground
storage tank remedlatlon sites: and sand
and gravel operations.
Each general permit will be subject to
EPA review as provided by 40 CFR
123.44. Public notice and opportunity to
request a hearing is also provided for
each general permit.
II. Discussion
The State of Alabama submitted. in
support of its request. copies of the
relevant statues and regulations and
proposed regulations. The State also has
submitted a statement by the Attorney
General certifying. with appropriate
citations to the statues and regulations.
that the State will have adequate legal
authority to administer the general
permits program consistent with 40 CFR
123 28. Based upon Alabama’s Program
Description and its experience in
administering an approved NPDES
program. EPA has concluded that the
State will have necessary procedures
and resources to ad) unister the general
permits program.
Under 40 CFR 123.62. NPDES program
revisions are either substantial
(requiring publication of proposed
program approval in the Federal
Register for public comment) or non-
substantial (where approval may be
granted by letter from EPA to the state).
EPA has determined that assumption by
Alabama of general permit authority is a
non-substantial revision of its r .PDES
program. EPA has generally viewed
approval of such authority as non-
substantial because it does not alter the
substantive obligations of any
discharger under the State program. but
merely simplifies the procedures by
which perixuts are issued to a number of
point sources.
Moreover, under the approved state
program, the State retains authority to
issue individual permit., where
appropnafe. and any person may
request the state to issue an individual
permit to a discharger eligible for
general permit coverage. While not
required under * 123.82. EPA is
publishing notice of this approval action
to keep the public informed of the status
of its general permit program approvals.
III. Federal Register Notice of Approval
of State NPDES Program . or
Modifications
The following table provides the
public with an up-to-date list of the
status of NPDES permitting authority
throughout the country. Today’s Federal
Register notice is to announce the
a proval of Alabama’s authority to Issue
general permits.
Ca o rn -
Co lorado ___
Co -- ---- - . ,. -
STATE NPDES PROGRAM STATUS
10 119/79
11/01/88
05114/13
03 ,21/15
09126173
06/28/91
1/01188
00/22/89
03/04 183
Approved Slat. NPOES
pemil program
Approved to regi4st.
Federal I aoiiaes
Approved State
Preecaunera program
Approved state general
permit. crogram
10119179
11101/88
05/05/78
01//09 /69
10/19/79
11/01/88
09/22189
06/03/el
-------
3 1O
Federal Register / Vol 56. No 135 / \lond,iv , Iulv l . 1991 I t\otices
STATE NPDES PROGRAM STATUS—Continued
.
Apotovad SZaw NPDES
pe 7TIIt Pro i
I Apvr ad to regulate
Federal tacilibes
I Aocroved Stale
Prewoatinent p ogrwn
Aptyoved aata gwie al
J permits p rogYam
Ctetawe, .
04f01/74
—
—
—
— -
06/2 5/74
12/08180
03/12/81
01/28/91
— — - -
11128/74
06101 179
08112/83
IIIino i* ..._._ .. — -
10123177
09/20179
0l/04/84
In erw - — .
01/01/75
12/09/78
04 02 .’91
— —— - .
06/10/76
08/10/78
06/00/8 ?
—
Kansas - —
Kenluclty_ — — - ....
06/28/74
09/30/83
08128/85
09/30/63
—
09/30/83
—
09130163
Marytand - —
09/05174
11/10/87
09/30/85
—
-. .
Mv in e ot —
10/ 17F 7 2
08/33/74
05/01/74
10/33/74
06/10 /74
12/09/78
12 /09/78
01/28/83
06/28/79
06/21/el
06/07/83
07/16/79
05/13/82
06103/8 1
—
—
12/15/87
—
12/12/85
04/29/83
— -— —
Monlana — ——— - - .__. ..__. .
.
96/12/74
1 1/02/79
09/07/84
07/20/89
09/19/75
0.4/13/82
08/31/78
0 4/13/82
—
04/13182
—
04/13/82
— —
New Yoa .. -
North Cam/ins .. . - ....
10/28/91
10/19/75
06./13/80
09/28/84
—
06/14/82
. —
—
North Dakoli .. - ... -
Ohio______________ - .__._
Oregon .. .
05/12/75
03111/74
00/26/73
01/22190
01/28/83
03/0V79
—
07/27/83
03/12/81
0 1/22/90
—
02123/82
Penrs ivere ._ ._ — -
06 /30(78
06/30/78
—
—
Rhode Island
09/17/84
09/17/84
09/17/84
09/17/84
South Carorix - -. - -
06/10/75
09/26/80
04/09/82
—
- - - - - -
1 2 /28/77
09/30/86
08/10/83
04 /18/91
UWL....
07/07/87
01/07/87
07107/87
07/07187
Vannorl —
03/11(74
—
03/16/82
—
Virgie Isuie —
Virginia —- — ..__ . - - — - .. -
06/30/76
03131/75
—
02/09/82
—
04/14/89
—
05 20 /91
Waslungloit .___ . — . —— -
West V ir g, -
11/14/ 7 3
05/ 10/82
—
05/10/82
09/30186
05/10/82
09/28189
W rew i_ — —- — —.. -— - —
02/04/74
11/26/79
12/24/90
12/19/86
Wyoming_.. —
Tot_________ -
01/30/75
05/ 18/81
—
—
39
34
27
22
IV. Review Under Executive Order
12291 and the Regulatory flexiLility Act
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the review
requirements of Executive Order 12 l
pursuant to section 8(b) of that Order.
Under the Regulatory Flexability Act.
EPA is required to prepare a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysts for all rules which
may have a significant Impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Pursuant to section 605(dl of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U S.C. 601
e seq.). I certify that this State General
Permits Program will not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number small entitles. Approval of the
Alabama NPDES State General Permits
Program establishes tin new substantive
requirements, nor doet it alter the
regulatory control over any industrial
category. Approval of the Alabama
State General NPDES Permits Program
izerely provides far a eimplfied
administrative process.
— 28. 1691
Joscpb &. Franzmathes.
AssL Regional Adm,niai,e’tor
IFR 13cc. 91-16704 Filed 7—12—91 845 aml
nes coew
FEDERAL. RESERVE SYSTEM
Exchange Bankahares Corporation of
Kanans Formation of, Acquisition by,
or Merger of Bank Holding Companies
The company listed in this notice has
applied for the Board s approval under
section 3 of the Bank Holding Company
Act (12 U.S.C. 1842) and 225 14 of the
Board s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.141 to
become a bank holdmg company or to
acquire a bank or bank holding
company. The factors that are
considered in acting on the applications
are set forth in section 3 c) of the Act (12
U.S.C. 1M2!c .
The application is available for
immediate inspection at the Federal
Reserve Bank indicated. Once the
application has been accepted for
processing, it will also be available for
inspection at the offices of the Board of
Governors. Interested persons may
expr a their views in wnting to the
Reserve Bank indicated for that
application or to the offices of the Board
of Covernors, Any comrnr nr on an
application that requests a hearing must
include a statement of why a written
presentation would not suffice in lieu of
a hearing. Identifying specifically any
questions of fact that are in dispute and
summarizing the evidence that would be
presented at a hearrng.
Comments regarding this application
must be received not later than July 31.
1991.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas
City (Thomas M Hoenig. Vice Presidenti
925 Grand Avenue. Kansas City.
Missouri 6419&
2 Exchange Bankshares Corporation
of Konsos. Atchison. Kansas. to acquire
100 percent of the votusg shares of The
Firit Kanses Bancorp. Leavenworth,
Kansas. and thereby indirectly acquire
First National Bank & Trust Company.
Leavenworth. Kansas.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System. July 0. 1991..
Jennifer 7. Jobns
/lssoczateSecre ary ofthe Board.
[ FR Doc. 91-16721 Filed 7-12-91. 845 amf
SILUNO OS 1318414
First Virginia Banks, Inc..; Acquisition
of Company Engaged In Permissible
4onbanktng Activities
The orgaiization listed in this notice
has applied under 22.5 23(aRZI or (fl of
the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR
Z25 234e)(2) or (fl) for the Boards
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1991 I Notices
30573
70460. (202)554-1404. TOO (202) 554—
0551.
suppLEMEwrAfiy INFORMATIOIC The
following notice contains Information
extracted from the noriconfidential
version of the submission provided by
the manufacturer on the PMNs received
by EPA. The complete nonconfidentlal
document is available in the TSCA
Public Docket Office. NE—G004 at the
above address between 8 a.rn. and noon
and 1 p.m. and 4 p.m.. Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays.
V 91—142
Manufacturer. Confidential.
Chemical. (C) Polyester polyurethane.
Use/Production. (5) Polymeric
coating. Prod, range: 300.000-600.000 kg/
yr.
Toxicity Data. Eye irritation: strong
species (rabbit). Skin irritation: strong
species (rabbit).
V 91—14.3
Manufacturer. Confidential.
Chemical. (C) Polyester polyurethane.
Use/Production. (S) Polymeric
coating Prod. rangeS Confidential.
Toxicity Data. Eye irritation: strong
species (rabbit). Skin irritation: strong
species (rabbit).
V 91—144
Manufacturer. Confidential.
Chemical. (C) High solids long oil
alkyd resin.
Use/Production. (S) Architectural.
Prod. range: ConfidentiaL
V 91-145
Manufacturer. Confidential.
ChemicaL (G) Modified soya/linseed
alkyd.
Use/Production. (S) Resin
Intermediate. Prod. range: ConfidentiaL
V 91—147
Manufacturer. Confidential.
Chemical. (C) A&ylic modified soya!
Linseed polymer.
Use/Production. (S) Binder In
architectural coatings. Prod. range:
Confidential.
V 91-141
Manufacturer. Confidential
Chemical. (C) Acrylic modified soya
alkyd polymer.
Use/ProductIon. (5) BInder for
coatings. Prod. range: ConfidentiaL
V 91—140
Manufacturer. ConfidentiaL
Chemical. (C) Styrene-acrylic
copolymer.
Usa/Production. (C) Coatings
Ingredient. Prod. range: Confidential.
v.1—Is a
Importer U S. Paint Corporation.
Chemical. (C) Polymer of: isophthallc
acid, fatty acid.
Use/import. (C) Open. nondispersive
use. Import range: Confidential.
V 91—153
Importer. Kyowa Yuka Co. Ltd.
Chemical. (G) Polymer of: phathatic
acid, fatty acid, polystyrene alkyl
alcohol.
Use/import. (G) Open. nondispersive
use. Import range: ConfidentiaL
V 91—154
Manufacturer. S. C. Johnson & Sons,
Inc.
ChemicaL (C) Aqueous acrylic
polymer.
Use/Production. (C) Open.
nondispersive use. Prod. range:
Confidential.
V 9 1—I 55
Manufacturer. S. C. Johnson & Sons.
Inc.
Chemical. (G) Aqueous acrylic
polymer.
Use/Production. (C) Open.
nondispersive use Prod. range:
Confidential.
V e l—iso
Manufacturer. Confidential.
Chemical. (G) Carboxylated styrene.
acrylate copolymer salt.
Use/Production. (C) Open.
nondispersave use. Prod. range:
Confidential.
V al—Is?
Manufacturer. Confidential.
Chemical. (C) Carboxylated styrene-
acrylate copolymer saiL
Use/Production. (C) Open.
nondispersive use. Prod. range:
Confidential.
V 91—150
Manufacturer. ConfidentiaL
Chemical. (C) Carboxylated styrene-
acrylate copolymer salt.
Usa/Production. (C) Open.
nondispersive use. Prod, range:
Confidential.
V 01-159
Manufacturer. Confidential.
Chemical. (C) Carboxylated styrene-
acrylate copolymer salt.
Use/Production. (C) Open.
nondlspersive use. Prod. range:
Confidential.
V 9 1— I SO
Manufacturer. Confidential.
Chemical. (C) Carboxylated styrene.
acrylate copolymer salt
Use/Production. (C) Open.
noridispersive use Prod. range:
Confidential.
V 91—102
Manufacturer. ConfIdentiaL
Chemical. (C) Aliphatic polyester
urethane.
Use/Production. (C) Coatings. Prod
range: Confidential.
V 91—163
Importer. Confidential.
Chemical. (C) Polyurethane resin.
Use/Import. (C) Printing inks. Import
range: Confidential.
V 91—144
Importer. Confidential.
Chemical. (C) Phathallic alkyd resin.
Use/Import. (C) Paints and coatings.
Import range: Confidential.
V 91—165
Manufacturer, Confidential.
Chemical. (C) Isophthallic acid.
terephthalic acid, trimellitic. diethylene
glycol. rieopentyl glycol polymer sod:um
neutralized.
Use/Production. (C) Dispersive, use
as a coating Prod. range 250.000—
500.000 kg/yr.
V 91—1 06
Importer. Reichhold Chemicals. Inc
Chemical. (G) Polyester.
Use/Import. (C) Polyester for glass
fiber sizing. Import range: Confidential.
Dated: June 27. 1991
Steven N.wburg-Rinn,
Acting Director. Informal,on Management
Division. Office of Toxic Substances.
[ FR Doc. 91—15834 Filed 7—2.-Ol, 845 aml
G NO COOS i r
Revision of the Virginia NatIonal
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Program To issue
General Permits
AGSNC’r Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACflOIC Notice of approval of the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System General Permits
Program of the Commonwealth of
Virginia.
SUMMARY On May 20, 1991. the
Regional Administrator for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
region III approved the Commonwealth
of Virginia a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System General Permits
Program. This action authorizes the
Commonwealth of Virginia to issue
general permits in lieu of individual
NPDES permits. EPA has determined
this program modification to be non-
substantial for the following reasons: 11)
The State regulations have already been
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 56. No. 128 1 Wednesday. july 3. 1991 / Notices
subject to public notice by the State and
( ) t’ is moddicatjon involves the
adoption of an administrative
r.iechantsm to facilitate coverage of
numerous discharges by a general
permit rdther than new program
authority.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTAC’T
Kenneth j Cox. Chief. Program
Development Section. U.s. EPA. region
III. 841 Chestnut Street. Philadelphia.
Pennsylvdnia. 19107. 215/597—8211.
SIJ°PLEMEWTARY INFORMATIOIe
I. Background
EPA regulations at 40 CFR 122.28
provide for the issuance of general
permits to regulate the discharge of
astewater which results from
substantially similar operations, are of
the same type wastes. require the same
effluent Lmitations or operating
conditions, require similar rnomtoruig.
and are more apprc,priately controlled
under a general permit rather than by
individual permits.
Vu’ginia was authorized to ddlrnn ister
the NPDES program ir March 1975.
Tneir program, as pre.ioustv approved.
did not include pro isions for the
iisuance of general permits There are
several categories which could
appropriately be regulated by general
permits. For those reasons the Virginia
State Water Control Board requested a
revision of their NPDES program to
provide for issuance of general permits.
The categories which have been
proposed for coverage under the general
permits program include. Sewage
discharges with flows less than or equal
to 1000 gallons per day. leaking
underground storage tanks, water source
heat pumps. noncontact cooling water.
separate storm sewers, storm water
discharge. and any other class of
discharge that meets the requirements of
section 6.2 of Virginia Permit Regulation
VR680-14-O1.
Each general perTrut will be subject to
EPA review and approval as provided
by 40 CFR 123.44. Public notice and
opportunity to request a hearing is also
provided under Virginia law for each
general permit.
II. Discussion
On April 15, 1991 the Commonwealth
of Virginia submitted in support of its
request. copies of the relevant statutes
and regulations and an amendment to
the Memorandum of Agreement dated
March 31., 1975. The Commonwealth has
also submitted a statement by the
Attorney General dated March 1.5, 1991
certifying, with appropriate citation of
the statutes and regulations. that the
Commonwealth will have adequate legal
authority to administer the general
permits program as required by 40 CFR
123 23(c) upon adoption of its proposed
regulations. In addition, the
Commoin ealth submitted a program
description supplementing the origmal
application permiuts program, including
the authority to perform each of the
activities set forth in 40 CFR 123.44.
Basod upon Virgmias program
description and upon its experience in
administering an approved NPDES
program. EPA has concluded that the
Commonwealth will have the necessity
procedures and resources to administer
the general permits program.
HI. Federal Register Notice of Approval
of State NPDES Programs or
Modifications
EPA must provide Federal Register
notices of any action by the Agency
approving or modifying a State NPDES
program. The following table provides
the public with an up-to-date list of the
status of NPDES permitting authority
throughout the country Todays Federal
Register notice is to announce the
approval of Virginia s authority to issue
general permits.
STATE NPDES PROGRAM STATUS
.
* OYSd
sIaIINPOES
oem
po am
AXIOI.Od E
reguia
FeOe
I acaties
ApØrowed
lists
eessune
1 mam
Apvr d
stal.gono ai
pe mu
pic um
Calilorma
C orado -—
I01I9 79
11/01/86
05/05/78
10/19/79
11f0 11’88
09/22/89
01109189
06/03/81
11/01/88
09/22/89
03/04/83
01/28/91
01/04/8 ;
04/02191
09/12/81
08/l2/83
06/03/81
— ._______________________________
—-
Geoiq ____ -.. . - —-., - —
—
IIlinoi . - - - . —
Ind ia i —_____ _____________________________
Io*i. _,_ ,._. . __ _._ .. .-. . ___________________ . -
Ka’i sa , , .____,_ ,. —. . — — —.—--.. ______ —
heniuc liy —. - _ ._ .. ___ ,- - . .——— —-—-. — -,—.—
U e,vlQfld — —.——— —.— __________________——
—_________________
____—— _____________________ --— . -—.- —
—— . — —— —
— —-—--——— - . —-.----— -,
N e s _-- __
—
Newyc it — __________— ______ _______
_____
NorbO ,_ . --- -- --___- -
Ohio - ___. -— - —-— —,— .-.- --
Pgms’ v ——, -.- . - . —— -
RhoOela isra S .. _ .. —- — .. — —
- ,, - - . -. - -
- - — - - - - - —-- —— .—— --
Uiafl ————---— —— —- — _____
—
VI q3n l lar s . — . -— _,—._ ,,_, , , — - -
ET IIS _, ., — - . -— ——
to, 19/79
11/01/88
05/14/73
03127/75
09/26/73
04/01174
06/28/74
11/28/74
10/23/71
01/01/75
08/10 178
08/28/74
09/30/83
09/05/74
10/11 (13
06/30/74
05/01 1 74
10/30 1 74
06/10/74
06/12/14
09/19/75
04/13/82
10/2 5 (75
10/19 1 75
08/13/75
0 3/ 11/74
09/2 6 113
06/30/78
09/17/04
06110/75
12/28/71
07/07/87
03/11/74
06/30/70
03 31/15
12/08/80
06/01/19
09/20/79
I 2(OSF75
08/10/78
08/28/85
09/30/83
11/10/87
12/09178
12/09/78
01/28/83
06/26fl9
06/23 /01
11/02119
08/31/78
04/13/82
06/13 / 80
09/28/84
01/22/90
01/28!83
03/02/79
06.130/18
09/17/84
00/26/80
09/30/08
07 107/81
02/09/82
09/30/83
09/30185
06/07/83
07/16/79
05/13/82
08130181
09/07/84
04/13/82
06/14/82
07/27/83
03 / 12/81
09/i 7(64
04 /09(82
08/10(83
07/07(81
03/16/82
09/30/83
12/15/87
12112/85
04/29/63
07/20/89
04113/82
01/22/90
02/23/82
04/18/91
07/07/87
04/14/89 I 05/20/91
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 128 / Wednesday, fiily 3. 1991 I Notices 3O57
STATE NPDES PRoo Ml S ’rATUS—COntnUed
A provsd
state NPOES
perwet
proprain
Approved to
regulate
Federal
(a01 be,
Approved
slate
preessanent
propram
Approved
state çenecal
permd*
program
Wa at r’qton ..—___..____. .,, -_ - -. ...._ . .. . .. ... .._ .. — . ._...
We stVrgirta..._... ,..,,_ ...,....... ..._ — . . . .._
weonan -— — . . —. —- . .
Wyoming —.. . . __,.,.,, .,. .. . . ,,,, ,, , .
Total . . - ., , - • . . -— . - - ..
11/14173
05/10/82
02104174
01/30/75
,,__.,
05/10/82
11/26/79
05/I8/8I
09/30188
05/10/82
12/24180

09/26/89
05/10/62
l2/18 186
._
39
34
27
21
Number of Complete NPOES Programs (Federal Facihte,, Pretreatment, General Perm Itsi 15.
IV, Review Under Executive Order Industrial category Approval of the persons contemplating certain mergers
12291 and the Regulatory Flexibility Ad Virginia NPDES State Genera! Permits or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade
Program merely provides a simplified Cornirnssion and the Assistant Attorney
The Office of Management and Budget adnwiistrative process. General advance notice and to wait
has exempted this rule from the review designated periods before
requirements of Executive Order izz i Dated. fune consummation of such plans. Section
pursuant to section 8(bJ of that Order. M . Mortia. 7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies.
Under the Regulatory Flexiblity Act. Acting Regional 4dm,n,strntor. in individual cases, to terminate this
EPA is required to prepare a Regulatory (FR Doc 91—158354 Filed 7—2—91. 845 dIal waiting period prior to its expiration and
Flexiblity Analysis for au rules which BUiilIlO COOL 6560 .40.45 requires that notice of this action be
may have a significant impact on a published in the Federal Register
substantial number of small entities. The following transactions were
Pursuant to section 605(d) of the FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION granted early termination of the waitir.g
Regulatory Flexiblity Act (5 U S C. 801 et period provided by law and the
seq). I certify that this State General Granting of Request for Early
Permits Program will not have a Termination of the Waiting Period premerger notification rules The grants
Under the Premerger Notification were made by the Federal Trade
significant impact on a substantial Rules Commission and the Assistant Attorney
number of small entities. General for the Antitrust Division of the
Approval of the Virginia NPDES State Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 Department of Justice. Neither agency
General Permits Program establishes no U.S.C. 18a. as added by title II of the intends to take any action with respect
new substantive requirements, nor does Hart-Scoti-Rodino Antitrust to these proposed acquisitions during
it alter the regulatory control over any Improvements Act of 1976. requires the applicable waiting period.
TRANSACTIONS GRANTED EARLY TERMINATiON BETWEEN: 061091 ANO 062191
Nanie of .cguirmg person, name of actiutred p4rSon, name of acguved emily
PMN No
Oats
I naied
Marlin Manett Corporation, Susan WPlyte. Bar Gwtrtnett Stone Co - • . . . - , _____ .., , __________ .. 91-0954 06/Il/il
Jardine Mauteson Holdings Lxmted. Rosa S Gilbert, RGNB Carp .. , ,_ ,,.,, ,, —______ .._,.. - 91-10l8 06/11/il
Gary vose, Secisity National Financial Corporation, Irrvestors E sty Life lnsurw’ice Company of Navies, (id - 91-0863 06/12/91
JWP Inc., Gowen Holding Company, inc.. Gowen Holding COITIPSnY, Inc , , -. -— ______________—— 91.1013 06/12/91
Hairy Gray, Mel l(Iein & Paimers. LP, United Gas Holding Corporation ,, ,, ,, , , — 81 1Q31 06/12/91
United Gas Hr4dIng Corporation ._ ,,., ,,.,. , ,,, , , _,,, ,
Wiibasit T Giaham, Newell Co. Newell Co ,,,, _________ ____,,,.., . ,, .,, , . .. ._ ,, , — ,,,, ,,,,,, - 91-0932 06/13/91
Student Loan Marketing Association, Rkfler C. Nivi HEMAR Corporation ,,, , , ,, - ,,,.,, ,,,, 91-1005 06/13/91
Amenc n Financial Carporstion, Enwonm..maj Control Group, Inc., Fidelity Envirortmentaj Insurance Company. ._ ..,._. 91-1020 06/13/91
HAL Trust, Pacific Northem (35 Corporation, Peoftc Nor6een (35 Corporation ,.,,, ,_ _________________- - 91-1034 06/13/91
S le rnenl .Akt lenge seft sd taft -.-..... .. . . - — . ._ ... ..._ __,. 91-lois 06/14/91
Ferntnti l /8srnauonsl plc, C don Electro,.,,.. . Inc .,—.. .. -. - ... - . —. -. .—. —.- — - —
Hsli44ouston C I Company, N I.Mo ji Oftstvi , l4H j Ofishoro ,, , _,_ _,,,__ _______ 91-1022 06/14/91
Bechtel Investments, Inc., Peeww Stott, Crown Pacific, - -- , 91-1026 06/14/91
Metaflqesellscflalt AG, IWC Coip. .. .Uo. . . Oslute Products. Inc. & Oaiute Producta of Canada, Lid — ..,,, 91-1029 06i 14/91
Robert L Hence, Chevron Chevron U Sf.. Inc ,,,..,,. _,,, ,,, .,, .. ,,,, . , , ,, ,, .. 91-1038 06/14/91
I ’seaItI’i USJlIQOIT IeIIt Associate.. Inc., The Maaion.ry Servants of the Most Blessed Tilnity, The Hoty Name Of Jesus Medical Center. Inc 91-1040 06/14/91
JWP tIC., Busslesaland, Inc., Busuleesland, Inc — ,.,,, _, ,,,,,,, ., _,,,,, __,,,,,, 91—1044 06/14/91
Thomas I I Lee, CNC Hoedng Corpo. . .tgo. 1 , Child World, Inc . ,, ,,,. , ,,,,,,,, ,, ,, .,, , ,,_, ,, _______- ,. 91-1054 06/14191
Maniberi Corporation, Tra .a I-4oldul, Company, Inc., Trsa i-lciding Company, Inc ,,. — ,,.,_ _.,, .__. _ , . . ._ .,.. . 910981 06/17/91
Sony Camp, Gannett Co., Inc — ________ , ,,,, _,,,,,, , ,, _, ,,, ,, ,,,,,,_ ,,_ 91.1004 06/17/91
The Culver Sttidios, Inc ...., ,..,. __,,.,., — _ .. - —. . —. - ‘. - - “, __________ “ .“ “ “ “ “ ‘
Ford Motor Company, Fund C under Trust Agreement of Gavice 0 Kuncaid, Kentucky Finance Co Inc ,,,,, ,,,, , ,,,,,,_ , . ._, 91-1055 06/I 7/91
Comndj,co. Inc. USF 5 G Corporation, information Processing Systems, In - -. . ,. 81-1059 06/17/91
Mr 0mw ZN Askan, do United Tectun,caj Services, Maurice Buderrnarln. J Schoeneman Inc ,_, , - - — . 91-0988 06/18/9 I
Onoda Cement Co. Lid., National Intergroup. Inc.. me Perniian Corporation - . — - -. ._. . _. 91-0995 06/18/9 I
OUJ o hnO’yAb . — 91-1041 06(18/91
Crown Cruise Line nc, S A, (Joint Venture) Crown Cruise Line Inc. S A (JOint-Venture)
Mr Odemund R Grundatad, Crcwn Cntis. Line Inc Sf.. (Joini Vefltue ). Crown Cruise I .ine Inc. S A. (Joint Venlure) . - 91-1048 06/18/91
Gannett Co. Inc. The rumes Journal Company, Th Tumee Journal Company . — -. . . 91-1052 06/18/91
Amoco Corporation, Apache Corporation, Ap Corporation - -. , 9I -1045 06/19/91
Ash land Oil, Inc. Onoda Cement Company, Lid California Portland Cement Company - . -. . 9I-0996 06/20/91
Onoda Cement Co Ltd.. Ashland OU. Inc. APAC, Inc , ,, - - . - - 91-0997 06/20.91
-------
Federel Register I Vol. 58, No, 110 / FrIday, June 7, 1991 I Notices
bacillus Lhurulgiensis variety kw,takj
(MYX-7V5).
Use/Production. (S) The TME
substances are agricultural pesticide
intermediates. The engineered
mic ’oorgamams produce the delta
eridotoxin during growth in a fermenter
under controlled conditions, and are
killed and fixed. Encapsulation of the
b.t. delta endotoxin within the killed.
flAed p. fluorescens cell provides
protection from the elements. end
extends the residual activity of the toxin
to 5-7 days. Prod. range 45 batches max.
191—20
Close of Review Period. July 5,1991.
Manufacturer. Mycogen Corporation.
ChemicaL (C) Preudomonas
fluorescens engineered to contain a gene
for production of delta endotoxui from
bacillus thuangiensis variety son diego,
(MYX .18o6
Use/Production. (9) The TME
substances are agricultural pesticide
intermediates. The engineered
mi oorganisms produce the delta
endotox.in during growth in a fermenter
under controlled conditions, and are
killed and fixed. Encapsulation of the
b.t. delta endotoxin within the killed.
fixed p. fluorescens cell provides
protection from the elements, end
extends the residual activity of the toxin
to 5-7 days. Prod. range 18 botches wax.
Dated June 4. 1991.
Douglas W. Sellers.
Acting Director. information Monogemeni
Division. Office of Toxic Substancee.
LFR Doc. 91—13520 Filed 6-6-91 845 am)
B 1UJNO O0( S810-4C ’4
[ OW-FRL-39$2-6 1
Assessment and Control of
Bloconcentratable Contaminants In
Surface Waters: Draft GuidanCe
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTIO Notice of extension of public
comment penod.
SUMMARY: The notice aounces an
extension of the public comment period
on the draft guidance document entitled
“Assessment and Control of
Biocoricentretable Contaminants In
Surface Waters. The draft guidance
document was made available on March
29, 1991 (58 FR 13150).
oarEs: All comments must be received
by EPA on or before July 28, 1991.
ADDRESSEai Interested persons should
submit written comments to William J.
Morrow. Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance. 4-33G ,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street. SW., Waslunglon, DC
2095e.
FOM IIFORMATION COWTAC
WIlliam j. Morrow at ( ) 475-9531.
SUPPtIMENTARY Ai1O On
March 29, 1991. EPA made available a
draft guidance document entitled
‘Aseeesment and Control of
Bloconcesitratable Contaminants In
Surface Wateis. The purpose of this
draft guidance document In to provide
guidance to State and Federal regulators
on assessing and, where necessary.
controlling the release of pollutants
which, due to their chemical properties.
accumulate In the tissues of aquatic
organluns. The Environmental
Protection Agency solicits comments
from the public on all aspects of this
draft guidance document. The March 29
notice sets a period of 60 days for the
receipt of public umiuents. Since
publication of that notice, EPA has
received several requests to lengthen the
comment period. In response to these
requests. EPA has decided to extend the
comment period to July 28. 1991.
Dated: May 28. 1991.
Michael B. Cook.
Director. ( 7ce of Waste water &,forcemeni
and Conipliance.
[ FR Dec. 91-13533 FlIed 6-6-91; SiSS am)
seise coos s s.ss.a
IFRC-3161-9 1
Availability and Review of New
FInancial Aaaiatwice P ugram NPOES
Related State Program Support—State
Grants
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTIOIS Notice of availability and
review.
suasua vi The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) announces the
availability of 516,500.000. under section
104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act, to
support new requirements related to
National Pollutant Discharge
1Iminatlon System (NPDES) program
implementation. Funding will be
available for unique investigations,
special one time studies, pilots and
demonstrations so as to implement
NPDES related activities. These
activities Include (1) The development
of NPDES permits and other
administrative activities (including
enforcement) for combined sewer
overflow (CSO) and storm water
discharges. and (2) the implementation
of municipal water pollution prevention
pilot programs. Eligible applicants
Include. State water pollution control
agencies; interstate water pollution
control agencies: and other public
agencies. Grant funds must lead to
Implementation with tangible results:
they can not be used to support ongoing
State water quality programs. Our
schedule is to review and appnrv all
project proposals by July 15.1991.
FOR R1WTM Pi O IAflOIS NTACY:
Applicants should request appru 1 lrLate
giant epplicatfon forms from their
Regional Grants Administration Office.
For programmatic or technical
Information, applicants should work
closely with their Regional water
program contacts. Applicants should
work with the Regions to develop
informal grant proposals for
Headquarters review and concurrence
before completing formal grant
applications. For further assistance and
to apply for funds, applicants should
contact the following EPA Regional
staTh
EPA Region I (Maine. Vermont.
Connecticut. New Hampshire.
Massachusetts and Rhoda Ialand)
William Nuxzo. Water Management
Thviaion. John F. Kennedy Federal
Building, room Z 33. Boston. MA. ( 03
(617) 585-348O
EPA Region TI (New York. New Jersey.
Puerto Rico. Virgin Islands): Patrick
Harvey. Water Management Division.
Jacob K. Javltz Federal BuIlding. 28
Federal Ptaxa, New York. NY. 1OV8.
(212) 204-895
EPA Region U] (Pennsylvania.
Delaware. Maryland. Virginia. West
Virginia. District of Cohimbia): Ken Cox.
Water Management DIvision. 841
Chestnut Building. Philadelphia, PA,
19107, (215) 597—8211;
EPA Region IV (North Carolina. South
Carolina. Tennessee. Kentucky. Georgia,
Alabana, Mississippi arid Florida):
James Patrick, Water Management
DivisIon. 345 Courtland Street. NE.,
Atlanta. GA. 30385. (404) 347- 01
EPA Region V (illinois. Wisconsin.
Michigan. Ohio, Indiana ): Barry DeGraff,
Water Management Division, 230 South
Dearborn Street. Chicago, IL. 60640,
(312) 353—0147;
EPA Region VI (Texas. Arknn .as.
New Mexico, Oklahoma. Louisiana3
Jack Ferguson. Water Management
Division. First Insterstate Bank Tower at
Fountain Place. 1445 Rosa Avenue. 12th
floor suite 1200. Dallas. TX. 75202-V33.
(214) 6557170.
EPA Region VU (Missouri. Kansas,
Nebraska. Iowa): Larry Ferguson, Water
Management Division. 77.8 Minnesota
Avenue. Kansas City, KS. 66101. (913)
551—7447;
EPA Region VIII (Colorado. North
Dakota. South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming,
-------
213412
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 110 / Fnday. June 7. 1991 / Notices
Montana): Janet LaCombe. Water
Management DivIsion. 999 lath Street.
Denver. CO. 80202. (303) 293-1854:
EPA Region IX (California. Arizona.
Hawaii. Nevada. Trust Territories):
William Pierce. Water Management
Division. 75 Hawthorne Street. San
Francisco. CA. 94015. (415) 744—1878;
EPA Region X (Washington. Oregon.
Alaska. Idaho): Harold Geren. Water
Management Division. 1200 Sixth
Avenue. Seattle. WA. 98101. (206) 442.-
1258.
For information at EPA Headquarters.
Office of Waten Rita South. Office of
Wastewater Enforcement and
Compliance (EN.-335). U.S. EPA. 401 M.
Street. SW., Washington. DC, 20460.
(202) 475—8488.
SUPPt.ENENTARY INFO MAT1OtC EPA will
award 516.500.000 in grants. under
authority of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
section 104(b113), to State and interstate
water pollution control agencies and
other public agencies which commit to
undertake specific. targeted activities to
strengthen NPDES related program
implementation. Assistance will be
targeted to agencies for special studies,
demonstrations. ujuque one time
investigations or pdot programs that will
enable the NPDES program to
effectively implement CSO and storm
water control programs. Eligible
activities must be relatively short time
frames (one or two years) and produce
concrete results.
First priority for the use of grants will
focus on the establishment of schedules
and requirements for controlling CSO.
Second priority will Involve
implementing storm water discharge
control strategies. Eligible activities
Include: Addressing unique
requirements (permits and/or
enforcement orders) relating to CSO
controls. controlling CSO and storm
water discharges in targeted
watersheds; demonstrating successful
Implementation of State C50 strategies.
developing model general permits for
storm water and CSOs. evaluating
toxicity data and toxicity testing for
storm water discharges. and
demonstrating municipal waitewater
pollution prevention pilot programs. All
grants will require specific outputs
which will be negotiated at time of grant
awardi for example. monitoring and
planning work must lead to
implementation. such as permit
issuance.
This program is eligible for
intergovernmental review under
Executive Order 12732 and Is eub ect to
the review requirements of section 204
of the Demonstration Cities and
Metropolitan Development Act. States
choosing to review applications in this
program must notify the following office
within thIrty days of this publicatloru
Grants Administration Division (PM-
218?. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 M. Street. SW.. Washington
DC. 20460. ATI”N: Corinne Allison).
Applicants must contact their State’s
Single Point of Contact (SPOC) for
intergovernmental review as early as
possible to find out if the program is
subject to the State’s official E.O. IZ32
review process and what material must
be submitted to the SPOC for review. In
addition, applications for projects within
a metropolitan area must be sent to the
areawtde/ Regional/local planning
agency designated to perform
metropolitan or regional planning for the
area for their review. SPOCa and other
reviewers should send their comments
on an application to the appropriate
EPA Regional Grants Management
Office, no later than sixty days after
receipt of the applciation and other
required material for review.
States are encouraged to work closely
with their Regional water programs to
develop project proposals that will
effectively address the critical goals of
this new grant program.
Dated: June 3. 1991.
Michael B. Cook,
Director. Office of Wastewoter Enforcement
and Compliance.
(FR Doc. 91-13531 Filed 0-6.41; 845 am)
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
IGEN Docket No.91-59; DA 91-4223
Wyoming Region PubHc Safety Plan
aGvicY: Federal Communications
Commission.
AGTIOIC Notice. -
SUUMARY The FCC is accepting
Wyoming’s (Region 46’s) plan for public
safety. By accepting this plan. the FCC
enables the licensing of 821-824/886-869
MHz spectrum for public safety to begin.
FOR PURThER INFORMATION CONYACT
Betty Woolford. Private Radio Bureau.
Policy and Planning Branch.
Washington. DC 20554 . (202) 632-6497.
SUP UMWITARY INFORMAT 1OfC
1. On October 28. 1990. Region 48
(Wyoming) submitted its public safety
plan to the Commission for review. The
plan sets forth the guidelines to be
followed in allotting spectrum to meet
current and future mobile
communications requirements of the
public safety and special emergency
entities operating in Its region. On
March 1. 1991. Wyoming filed revisions
to the plan, based on conversations with
the Commission’s staff.
2. The Wyoming plan was placed on
Public Notice for comments on March
12. 1991. 56 FR 11555 (3—19-41). The
Commission received no comments in
this proceeding.
3. We have reviewed the plan
submitted for Wyoming and find that it
conforms with the National Public
Safety Plan. The plan includes all the
necessary elements specified in the
Report and Order in Can. Docket No.
87—112. 3 FCC Rcd 905 (1987) 53 FR 1022.
January 15. 1988. and satisfactorily
provides for the current and projected
mobile communications requirements of
the public safety and special emergency
entities in Wyoming.
4. Accordingly. ii i.s orc’ered hIit the
Public Safety Radio Plan for Wyoming js
accepted. Furthermore, licensing of the
821—824/886—889 MHz band in Wyoming
may commence immediately.
Federal Cominuzucatiocis Commission.
Beverly C. Saline.
Deputy Chief. Private Radio Bureau.
[ FR Doc. 91-13438 Filed 5-8-01. 845 aml
Bn.LiiiO coca .iii.oi-
FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY
(FEMA-SOS-DRI
Major Disaster and Related
D.terminatlons, AX
aotaC : Federal Management Agency.
AC’T1O Notice.
SUMMARY! This is a notice of the
Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Alaska (FEMA—
909-OR), dated May 30. 1991, and
related determinations.
DATaru May 30. 1991.
FOR FURThER INFORMATiON CONTACII
Neva K. Elliott, Disaster Assistance
Programs. Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington. DC
20472(202) 646-3814.
NOTICL Notice Is hereby given that. in a
letter dated May 30, 1991. the President
declared a major disaster under the
authority of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S .C. 5121 et seq..
Pub. L 93-288. as amended by Pub. L.
100-707), as follows:
I have determined that the damage in
certain area, of the State of Alaska. resulting
From heavy snow, flooding, and ice jams
beginning on April 30. 1991, is of sufficient
seventy and magnitude to warrant a major
disaster declaration under the Robert 1.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 65 I Thursday . April 4. 1991 / Notices
13827
In 1977. EPA and CE published a
document entitled “Ecological
Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of
Dredged Materials Into Ocean Waters”
(The ‘Green Book”). This technical
testing manual provided guidance for
implementing the environmental
evaluations required under the ocean
dumping regulations to determine the
acceptability of dredged materials for
ocean dumping The manual made
available today. the 1991 “Green Book.”
entitled “Evaluation of Dredged
Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal-
Testing Manual” replaces the 1977
document for testing dredged materials
proposed for ocean disposal to ensure
compliance with EPA’s environmental
cnterie.
Since the 1977 testing manual was
published. EPA and CE have gamed a
great deal of experience in testing
dredged material for environmental
effects. New tests have been developed
which represent the rapidly advancing
state-of-the-art in sediment
eootoxicology Those new tests and the
e’penence of both Agencies was used
to prepare a revised draft testing manual
hich was made available to the public
through a notice of availability in the
Federal Register on March 7, 1990
Subsequent to the 1990 Federal
Register notice of availability, EPA and
CE conducted a public meeting iii
Washington. DC on April 2. 1990. and
regional meetings iru Narragansett RI,
Gulf Breeze. FL Vicksburg. MS.
Newport. OR. San Francisco, CA: and.
Washington. DC. to discuss the draft
manual and receive comments, The
comments received at these meetings
and those received in writing were
carefully considered In the development
of the 1991 revised testing manual which
is now available.
This final testing manual entitled,
“Evaluation of Dredged Material
Proposed for Ocean Disposal-Testing
Manual,” describes the procedures for
ecological evaluation of dredged
material required by the 1977 ocean
dumping regulations. It contains tests to
implement these procedures, definitions.
sample collection and preservation
procedures. valuatave procedures,
calculations and supporting references.
A mathematical model is used in
conjunction with the manual to assist in
determining initial mixing of dumped
material in the water column. The
manual sets out a tiered approach to
testing materials for their acceptability
to be ocean disposed, This tiered
approach is a scientifically valid, cost
effective means of testing material and
is highly reliant on toxicity and
b,oaccusnuiation bioassays. The
bloassaya also employ exposure
conditions which are more scientifically
defendable based on research and
development activities which have
transpired since the 1977 testing manual
was prepared,
The revised testing manual and its
accompanying computer disks
containing the initial mixing model are
available to the public and can be
obtained by writing to the individual
listed under “ADORESSES.’
The 199’l revised testing manual will
be phased into use by the EPA Regions
and CE Districts over the next several
months. It is expected that all permit
and project decisions regarding the
suitability of dredged material for ocean
disposal in the U S. will be following the
guidance in the 1991 revised testing
manual by October 1, 1991.
Dated’ March 29, 1991.
Robert H. Wayiand m.
DeputyAsais:antAdm,n,str ,r, Office of
Water.
[ FR Doc 91-7927 Filed 4-3-91: 845 aml
WNQ cooi tusi-
FOW—FRL-3919—7J
Technical Support Document for
Water Quality-Based Toxics Control:
Final Guidance Availability
AOENCY Environmental Protection
Agency,
ac’nose Notice of availability .
suMMaRy: This notice announces the
availability of the final guidance
document entitled “Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-Based
Toxics Control” (TSD) and the
responsiveness summary for the major
comments received on the June. 1990
draft document. The goal of this
document is to provide comprehensive
technical recommendations for water
quality-based toxics control. These
recommendations are intended to
provide scientifically sound and useful
procedures to regulatory authorities and
the regulated community.
OATES Copies of this guidance
document and the responsiveness
summary are available beginning today.
ADORESSES: Copies of the TSD can be
obtained through the National Technical
Information Service (NTIS). L I S.
Department of Commerce, 5285 Port
Royal Road. Springfield, VA 22161, (703)
487-4650. When requesting the
document, please reference the NTIS
No PBBI—127415. Copies of the
responsiveness summary can be
obtained by writing Ms Jacqueline
Romney, Office of Water Enforcement
and Permits. EN—336. U S
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street. SW. Washington. DC 20480.
FOR FURTHER INFORMAt ION COWTACT
Jackie Romney at (202) 475—9528. U S
Environmental Protection Agency, at the
above address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMA’TlOrn The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA) national “Policy for the
Development of Water Quality-Based
Permit Limitations for Toxic Pollutants”
(March 1984) states that to control
pollutants beyond Best Available
Technology Economically Achievable
(BAT), secondary treatment, and other
Clean Water Act technology-based
requirements and in order to meet water
quality standards, the EPA will use an
integrated strategy consisting of both
biological and chemical methods to
address toxic and noncoveritional
pollutants from industrial and municipal
sources.
In addition, EPA’s surface water
toxics control regulation (54 FR 23868
Uune 2, 1989)), established specific
requirements for assessing and
controlling point source discharges of
pollutants which cause, have the
reasonable potential to cause, or
contribute to an excursion above any
State water quality standard,
The final guidance document
announced in today’s notice is intended
to support the implementation of both
the policy and the regulation. The
document is agency guidance only. It
does not establish or affect legal rights
or obligations It does not establish a
binding norm and is not finally
determinative of the issues addressed
Agency decisions in any particular case
will be made applying the law and
regulations on the basis of specific facts
when permits are issued or regulations
promulgated.
The overall approach taken in this
document is to provide additional
explanations and clarifications based on
accumulated experience and data
related to the various recommendations
which were made in the original (1985)
TSD. Additional data is provided to
support the scientific basis for whole
effluent toxicity testing and the contro.
of the discharge of toxic pollutants
through the “integrated strategy”. The
TSD strongly recoinniends the use of an
Integrated water quality-based approach
(i e. employing chemical-specific, whole
effluent, and biocriteria components) for
preventing impacts to receiving waters
from toxic pollutants. The document
also discusses mixing zones for toxicity.
non-persistent toxicants. and
bioaccumtiianve pollutants, effluent
characterization with and without data.
-------
13828
FederaL Regsster / Vol. 56. No. 65 / Thursday, April 4. 1991 I Notices
exposure assessment methods: permit
issuance procedures: toxicity reduction
evaluations (TREs); and
recommendations for enforcing water
quality-based permits. An overall
summary of each chapter as well as the
most significant changes since the
original TSD are provided below
Chapter 1: Approaches to Water
Quality.Based Toxics Control
This chapter describes the regulatory
and scientific bases for water quality-
based toxics control and contains much
of the information that was contained in
the original TSD. In particular. the
“integrated” approach to water quality-
based toxics controls (i.e., use of
assessment and control teduuques for
both individual chemicals and whole
effluent toxicity) is still strongly
emphasized. The chapter is now
supported by new documentation and
‘xplanations.
Chapter Water Quality Criteria and
Standards
The discussions in this chapter lay the
groundwork for the “standard-to-
permits” process by describing key
features of water quality criteria and
standards for both aquatic life and
human health protection. One addition
is the presentation of specific
procedures for deriving reference
ambient concentrations (R.AC) for
human health protecti on. The discussion
of mixing zones from the previous 1985
version of the document has been
revised. Biological and sediment criteria
are introduced as future elements of
standards.
Chapter 3: Effluent Characterization
This chapter describes the procedures
for determining, either with or without
effluent data, whether an effluent
causes, has the reasonable potential to
cause, or contributes to an excursion
above a waler quality criterion. The
effluent characterization
recommendations described in this
chapter have been completely revised
end streamlined as compared to the
original TSD. Where effluent data are
available, effluent characterization can
now be performed in a single step with a
minimum of data. A statistical
procedure for determining the
reasonable potential for exceeding
water quality criteria has been added to
this chapter.
Chapter 4: Exposure Assessment and
Wasteload Allocation
Where effluent characterization
indicates the need for a water quality-
based permit limitation, the water
quality analyst develops a wasteloaJ
allocation (WLA) using the procedures
described in chapter 4. Information Is
provided for modeling exposure of an
effluent both with mixing zones and
where mixing IS complete.
Recommendations for both steady state
and dynamic models are provided. As
with the original TSD, ambient criteria
to control acute toxicity to aquatic life
may be met within a short distance of
the outfall. However, this provision is no
longer restricted to outfalla which have
high rate diffusers, but is now available
for any type of outfall for high
monitoring data indicate that the
criterion maximum concentration (CMC)
is met within the short distances
specified.
ChapterS: Permit Requirements
Chapter 5 provides procedures for
translating various types of WIA
outputs into permit lumtations. Other
permit.related issues such as permit
documentation and toxicity reduction
evaluations are also presented. No
major changes have been made in the
substantive recommendations in the
original TSD. all of these have been
clarified arid supported with additional
tables and figures. Better guidance on
detection levels and limits for metals
was added.
Chapter & Enforcement
Compliance monitoring and
enforcement considerations for water
quality-based permits are summarized
in this chapter. The discussions
emphasize the regulatory principle that
any failure to meet a permit linutation is
a violation subject to the full range of
possible enforcement responses.
Enforcement discretion is explained.
Dated. March 27. 1991.
James R. Elder.
Director. Office of Water Enforcement and
Permits.
Dated. March 27 1991.
Martha G. Piethro
Director. Office of Water Regulations and
Standards.
[ FR Doc. 91-7928 Filed 4—3—91. 645 aml
sa.usu coot eseo.eo.e
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Public Informatton Collection
Requirements Submitted to Office of
Management and Budget for Review
March ia. 1991.
The Federil Communications
Commission has submitted the following
information collection requirements to
0MB for review and clearance under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44
U S.C. 3307).
Copies of these subrrussions may be
purchased from the Commissions copy
contractor. Downtown Copy Center.
1114 21st Street. NW.. Washington. DC
20036. (202) 452—1422. For further
information on these submissions
contact Judy Boley, Federal
Communications Commission. (202) 632—
75 13. Persons wishing to comment on
these information collections should
contact Jonas Neihardt. Office of
Management and Budget. Room 3235
NEOB. Washington. DC 20503. (202) 305—
4814.
0MB number 3000-0405.
Title: Application for Authority to
Construct or Make Changes in an FM
Translator or FM Booster Station.
Form number FCC Form 349.
Action: Revision.
Respondents. Businesses or other for-
profit (including small businesses).
Frequency of response: On occasion
reporting.
Estimated annual burden: 600
responses. 35.5 hours average burden
per response. 21.300 hours total annual
burden.
Needs and uses FCC Form 349 is used
to apply for authority to construct a new
FM translator or FM booster broadcast
station. or to make changes in the
exisiting facilities of such stations. The
Commission adopted Report and Order
in MM Docket No. 88-140. which
amended the part 74 of the Rules
governing FM Translator stations. The
form has been revised to reflect the
new/revised rules with an additional
burden of 10.33 hours. The form has also
been revised to include fee data. The
data on the form is used by FCC staff to
ensure that the applicant meets basic
statutory requirements and will not
cause interference to other licensed
broadcast services.
0MB number 3060-0041.
Tide: Application for Authority to
Operate a Broadcast Station by Remote
ControL
Form number FCC Form 301-A.
Action: Revision.
Respondent.s. Business or other for-
profit (including small businesses).
Frequency of response: On occasion
reporting.
Estimated annual burden: 40
responses: 5 hours average burden per
response’. 20 hours total annual burden.
Needs and uses: FCC Form 301-A is
required to be filed by AM licensees or
permittees with directional antennas
when requesting authority to operate a
station by remote control. The form ha’
been re%ised to include fee data and
incorporate changes regarding Characit.
-------
Thur da
March 21, 1991
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CfRPart 127
N.li Pollutant rgs EUm1u
Syatem Paimit A r A.&tIQfl RIgU MIOnS
for orm Water Dsdsargaa Appflcatlcn
Dead Flna& aa Propoi.ed Rufe
PartiV
-------
12093 Federal Ragiater I VoL 58, No.55 I Thursday, March 214 1991 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC11ON
AGENCY
40 CR 1 Part 122
(FRL3SII-4 1
National Pollutant Ofsdlarg.
Eflm cn Syatem Permft 4on
Regulations f ci Storm Water
Dlscf arge& Application Deadline for
Group Applications
AG 5NCY ’ Envlronmentai Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTIOSC Final rule.
5U MARy EPA Is extending the
deadline for submission of Part I of
group Industrial storm water
applications to September 30, 1991. EPA
Is also establishing a fixed deadline of
no later than May 18, 1992 for Part 2
group applications. EPA Ii mAk1r g these
changes because EPA has received
numerous requests from the regulated
community that they were, until
recently, unaware of the Impact of
EPAs November18. 1990 rule or have
had difficulty determining whether or
not the regulations apply to them. These
changes will provide the regulated
community with additional time to
determine their status under the
November 18, 1990 rule, to organize
groups and to prepare and submit Pert 1
applications. In establkhlng May 18,
1992 as a fixed data for suhmbti1n of
Part 2 of a group application, EPA Is
attempting to ensure that there will be
no practical change In the time by which
full group applications will be flied and
thus when final storm water permits will
be Issued.
W1CTTVI DATE March18. 1991.
FO 5 N 5O *TION ACI
Thomas J. Seaton, Office of Water
Enforcement and Permits (EN-338J ,
United States Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street. SW., Washington,
DC 20460. (202)475-0516.
MVffARY P AflO
L Backgrormd
On November16. 1990, EPA
promulgated regulations (55 FR 47990)
specifying, later ella, NPD application
requirements and application deadlines
for storm water discharges associated
with industrial activfty These
requirement. included a new procedure
for applying for NPD permits through
a group application process. The group
application proces . allows for a group of
similar discharges to file a permit
application which requires storm water
sampling data from. subset of the
facilities covered by the application.
Under j 1.26(e)(2) of the November
18,1960 regulation., Part I of the group
application must be submitted to EPA
no later than March 18, 1081. Part Its to
Include a list of the facilities applying.
basic narrative information about each
facility, and a proposed designation of
the facilities In the group to perform the
quantitative sampling. The regulation
provides that EI’A has a 60 day period
after receipt to review the Part I
applications and notify the groups as to
whether they have been approved or
denied as a properly constituted “group”
for purposes of this alternative
application process. Under the
Novemberie. 1990 regulations, once
Part 1 is approved by EPA, part 2 of the
group application, which contains
requirement, for sampling data, must be
ified with EPA Headquarters within one
year of EPA providing notification of Its
approval.
As EPA explained In the preamble to
the November 16. 1990 regulation, the
group application process merely
establishes a set of procedure. to obtain
sufficient Information about Industrial
facilities to allow for Issuance of NPD
permits, in the hopes of implementing
the statutory mandate of section 402 (p)
of the Clean Water Act as expeditiously
and efficiently as possIble. 55 FR 48021.
48920. The group application process
attempts to lessen the burden on the
regulated community by mln1m1 ng the
amount of quantitative sampling data
collected. It also mlnlmfres the number
of individual storm water permit
applications filed, which helps to lessen
the administrative burden on EPA and
the NPDES-authorlzed States. The group
application process does not, however.
change the requirement to apply for and
obtain a permit, nor does It limit EPA’.
disoretion to collect additional
Information from an applicant. It
represents a new form of application
procedwn, not a change to the storm
water requirements.
U. for Todays f bi.
The group application process has
been designed by EPA as a one-time
al, ,bl.frative procedure to ease the
burden on the regulated cot rnum1ty and
permitting authorities In the Initial stage
of the program. As noted above, EPA
has established a single deadline for the
filIng of group applications. To facilitate
meeting this deadline, the Agency has
undertaken substantial efforts to
provide the public with notice of the
group application process. As part of
this outreach effort, the Office of Water
Enforcement and Permits (OWEP)
established • hotline which has fielded
thousand. of telephone Inquiries on
group applications and related Issues.
OWEP has also held workshops In ten
cities amuse the country during the first
six weeks of 1981. and has addressed
storm water requirements at 30 other
conferences and speaking engagements.
Staff In EPA Regional offices hav, also
contributed to this effort by participating
In numerous State and local workshops
and conferences on storm water
discharge permit application
requirements.
Despite these efforts. EPA has
received an extensive number of
requests to extend the March 18, 1991,
deadline for filing Part 1 of the group
application. Numerous industry and
munldpal representatives have
expressed concern that although they
are currently forming groups, they may
not be able to file the Part 1 application
by the March 18, 1991 deadline.
Particular concerns have been raised by
municipal governments. Under the
November16. 1990 rule, operations
owned or operated by a Federal. State.
or municipal entity that result. in storm
water discharges associated with
Industrial activity must also apply for
industrial storm water permit.. 55 FR
48015. (The regulations Impose
additional permit application
requirements on large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer
systems. Deadlines for complying with
the.. requirements are not affected by
todays rule.) EPA has learned that
several small municipalities were
largely unaware of the impact of the
new storm water regulation, on them
many apparently believed that since
their municipal separate storm sewer
systems were not yet covered by the
rule, they were unaffected.
EPA I. also aware that many
industrial facilities, whether or not
mimlclpally.owned. have had difficulty
determining whether the new
regulations apply to them. EPA defined
the scope of coverage In the November
10,1990 nI. on the basis of SIC code..
However, many facilities engage in more
than one operation falling into more
than one SIC coda; some of these
operation, are verud . while others are
not. EPA has received over 50 letters
and 3.000 phone Inquiries to date
regarding the scope of the final rule as It
applies to Industrial activity. Since
many facilities could not quickly
determine whether they were cevered
by the regulation. many got a late start
In forming groups to file group
applications.
For thes, reason.. EPA Is today
extending the March 18, 1091 deadline
for Part I group applications to
September 30. 1991 for all storm water
discharges associated with Industrial
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 58. No. 55 / Thurad y, March 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulaiioni
O99
acftvlty. a j that aa&
month extanoIn Is an appzopstata
amount of additional time for member,
of the regulated community to determine
their status under the November 16. 1090
rule, to organize groups, and to prepare
and submit Part I applicatlone, EPA
notes that the Part I application Is not
particularly burdensome, Part I requires
only a list of the facilities applying,
basic narrative Lnformatlon about each
facility, and a proposed designation of
the facilities In the group Ia perform the
quantitative sampling. veraJ large
groups have already fanned and have
submitted thefr 5Pp&dlh s before the
March 18.1991 deadlIne. EPAnise
believe,, however, that a shorter
extension may not be sefficlent,
particularly for those email
m1ciPalitlen ,h1chown ercp ata
operations which discharge storm water
associated with industrial activity.
Municipalities may face a more difficult
task in determining which of their
operations conatituta industrial activity.
Groups of such municipalities also face
particular problems of coordination.
Municipal governmente may need to
seek specific local or state legislative
approval to join a group. In addition,
many functions of municipal
governments that lead to storm water
discharges associated with Industrial
activity are not reflected In existing
organizations which could take the lead
In organizing groups. EPA also believes
that non-municipally owned or operated
Industrial facilities may also experience
coordination problems La forming
groups, particularly groups that extend
am’ogs State line ,. Therefore, EPA
believes It appropriate to grant them an
extension as well and, in any event,
believes it should maintain a single date
for submission of all group applications
to avoid fuither confusion In the
regulated community.
Thus, EPA believes that extending the
application deadline six months will
address all of the concaras raised. EPA
strongly en uragee, however, that
dlschargers submit their group
applicatio as soon as possible,
Today’s rule also establishes a fixed
deadline of May i8 1992 for submission
of Part 2 groUp applications, While
under the November 18. 1090 regulation,
Part 2 was not due until one year after
the Patti, under today’s amendment
Part 2 of the group application will be
due no later than May 18,1902, even if
A’s approval of the Part I occurs after
May 18, 1991. In other words, groups
that take advantage of the deadline
extension In today’s rule to file their
Patti applications would potentially
have less than the full year to complete
their Part 2.By establIshing alixaddate
of no Later than May, 1992, EPA has
made no efTac*1v.ehs , In the tim, by

applicatima will be filed, and thus ‘when
final storm water permit, should be
Issued. This will ensure that the
envlronnlental benefits of the November
18, 1990 rule are not delayed, EPA does
not believe that any further delay In the
ultimata i5 ta of storm water permits
Is appropriate or fl esOI y, Sectiaa
4 O 2 (p) su eeta a strong Congrenhinal
desire to Implement the storm water
program expeditiously, and EPA does
not want the eatem j the Pad I
deadline ta befit up af the
group application pro _.
This deadline may poslbi me
those groups that file significantly later
than March 18 1991 tofleaslam th e n
one year to complete the pmt2
application. Thus, even with todays
extuns It 1, In the b interest , .1
facilitie, to file group ep lr . ,Hr , .
soon as possible to allow for the
maximum time to collect Part 2 sampling
Information, particularly those In arid
climates. EPA also note8 that nothing
prevents facilities from collecting
quantitative sampling data from a
representative storm event that occurs
between now and when the Part I
application Is approved. Certain groups
of facilities may need to engage in such
preliminary sampling If they do not get
their group applications in at an early
date.
Elsewhere in todays Federal Register,
EPA Is proposing to amend the other
deadlines for individual Industrial storm
water applications to establish a May
18,1992 deadline for all individual
applications for storm water discharge.
associated with Industrial activity,
either from those facilities who do not
join a group or those facilities who are
rejected from a group.
ID. MA Requirements
Today’s rule is being Issued without
notice and comment. EPA believes that
notice and comment are not required
because today’s rule doe, not change
any substantive requirements Imposed
on the regulatory community, The rule
only specifies a date when group storm
water permit applications should be
flied for EPA processing. It does not
change the requirement In section
40 Z(pJ [ 4) of the CWA to submit an
NPDES storm water permit application
or the general requirement of the CWA
not to discharge without a permit
Furthermore, this rule does not change
the date by which group application.,
are ultimately due, In that Part 2
applications are due no later than
originally contemplated under the
November18. 1990 nit,, Thus, EPA
believes todays rule has no substantial
Impact on the regulated community and
the public. The rule L i therefore merely a
“rulelJ of RgFnry ‘ ‘procedure” and
is thus exem item MA requirements
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 558(b)(A). See
American HospitoiAs. ‘a v. Bowan, 834
F.2d 37 (D.C. as. 1987).
In addition even if todays rule Is
sub jact to the mandatory notice and
comment requirements of the APA. EPA
believe, that there is good cause for
Issuing this rulewithout notice and
commAnt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
EPA bases this determination on two
grounds. P!rst, seeking notice and
comment before the exIsting March 18,
1961 deadfln would be Impracticable
and contrary to the public Interest This
ndemret be 4ssued In final form
Immediately so that those affected by
the March t8 , 1991 deadlIne will no
longer becempelled to submit a group
application by that date, which will help
to alleviate the confusion In the
regulated community. Similarly, the
establishment of the fixed May 13, 199
deadline must be issued in final form so
that the regulated community is fully
aware of Its obligations to complete
group applications as quickly as
possible and so that groups can start to
complete the Part 2 application.
Promulgation of today’s rule will also
have the effect of encouraging
additional participation In the group
application process by those who are
recently aware of their regulated status.
Today’s rule will reduce the number of
individual applications submitted,
improve the quality of those group
applications which are submitted, and
decrease the admintatrativa workload
on EPA and authorized States in
processing large numbers of,lndwidual
applications and, for EPA. In processing
poorly and hastlly.prepared group
applications, Thus, today’s rule will
ultimately advance the statutory goal of
reducing point source discharges of
pollutants. EPA therefore believes that
Immediate promulgation of today’s rule
is In the public interest and failure to
promulgate ImmedIately would
adversely affect these interests,
EPA also believes notice and
comment Is unnecessary because the
rule ha, no substantive effect on the
regulated community’s requirement to
submit, permit application or the
ultimate date for submission of Part 2
group applications and subsequent
permit issuance and compliance, leading
to the desired water quality benefits,
For the sam, reasons as discussed
above, there is good cause to make this
-------
12100 Federal Register / VoL 58 No. 55 / Thursday. March 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
rule Immediately effective, pursuant to 3
u.ac. 553(d)(3).
IV. Regulatory Requlremants
Today’s rule makes no change In the
substantive requirements of the storm
water program, only the date by which
storm water permit applications are due.
Thus the rule meets none of the criteria
for a major rule under section 1(b) of
Executive Order 12291. The Information
collection requirements in this rule have
already been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget and been
assigned O? ffi control number 3040-
0088. SInce this rule does not change any
existing substantive requirements, I
certify that It will not have a significant
Impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act EPA has submitted this regulation
to the Office of Management and Budget
for review. Any written comments
received will be put into the public
docket
List of Subjects Ia 40 GR Part 1
Ai4mlnhifrative practice arid
procedure. Reporting and recordkeeplng
requirements, Water pollution control.
Confidential business Information.
Dated: March 15. 1991.
William K. Reilly,
Admznistruiat.
For the reasons set out above, part
122, chapter I of tItle 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations Is amended as
follows:
PART 1 —EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMSi ThE NATIONAL
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM
Subpart —Permft Application and
SpecIal NPOES Program Requirement.
1. The authority citation for part 122
continues to read as follows:
1fl. Storm wets? dusa g..
( ppII5b 5 St.ts NPOES Plnw.Ina , ies
2. In paragraph 122.28(e)(2)(1), “March
18,1991” Is revised to read “September
30, 1991.”
3. Paragraph 122.28(e)(2)(lll) Is revised
to read as follows:
• • . 0 0
(a) I I
(2)
(lii) Part 2 of the application shall be
submitted to the Director. Office of
Water Enforcement and Permits no later
than 12 months after the date of
approval of the part 1 applicatIon or
May 18.1992, whIchever comes first.
• • • I •
(PR Doe. 91-W37 P lIed 3-19-01:9:06 am
Authaitty Clean Water Act. 33 LLS.C. 1251
6 g. seq.
-------
Federal Reglstay I VoL 56, No. 55 I Thursday, March 21. 1991 / Proposed Rules
12101
ENTAL PROTEc
40 cn Pert 122
(FRL 3916-63
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit Appllcadon
Rigutations for Storm Water
D%arge, Appllcatlan Deadlines
AOSNCY Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
Acnose Proposed rule.
ev EPA is proposing to extend
the deadline for submission of
Individua l Lndu trlal storm water
application, to May 18, 1992. EPA i also
proposing to establish a fixed deadline
of no later than Mayi , 1992 for
submiss ion of lndlvldunj applicatjona
from rejected members of storm water
groups. These proposed changes are
designed to reduce confusion in the
regulated community over what
application requirements affect which
facilitie, and on which dates, In
addition, the proposed change. are
designed to treat all regulated facilities
a. equitably as possible, and to avoid
serious delay, in the Issuance of storm
water permits and the implementation of
necessary control, leading to the
desired water quality benefits,
oai EPA will accept comment, until
April , 1091.
The public should send an
original and two copie, of their
comments to Tom Seaton, Office of
Water Enforcement and Permit,, (EN.-
338), UnIted State. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.
Washington, DC 20460, (292) 475 - 5
The public docket for this proposal is
located at EPA Headquarter, (the above
address). room NE-20 5 and Is available
for viewing from 9 30 a.m, to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding
FederaJ holidays. Appolnmient, may be
made by calling Shavonne Slerma at
( ) 475- 5ai. Copies cost 13 cents per
page.
S ewoui AT,ow COWTACT
Thomas J. Seaton, Office of Water
Enforcement and Permits (EN . -336),
United 8tatu Envfronmentaj Protection
Agency, 401 M Street SW. Wuhlngt ,
DC (292) 475-651 5.
msTaay u
I. Rackgroijn
On November18. Iggo, EPA
Promulgated regulations (55 FR 47900)
speclfyjn& inter oiica, NPDES application
require t , and application deadlines
for storm water discharge, associated
with Industrial activity. The..
requirem , , t , included a new procedure
for applying for NPD permits through
a group application process. The group
application proces. allows for a group of
similar discharger, to file a permit
application which requires storm water
sampling data from a subset of the
facilities covered by the application,
Under lZZ.Z5(e)(2) of the Novemba
18.1990 regulation,, Part I of the group
application must be submitted to EPA
no later than March 18, 1091. Part II, to
include a list of the facilities applying,
basic narrative Information about each
facility, and a proposed designation of
the facilities in the group to perform the
quantitative sampling. The regulation
provide, that EPA has a 60 day period
after receipt to review the Part I
application, and notify the group. u to
whether they have been approved or
denied as a properly constituted “group”
for purposes of this alternative
application process. Under the existing
regulations, once Part I Is approved by
EPA. Part 2 of the group application,
which contains requirements for
sampling data, must be filed with EPA
Headquarter, within one year of EPA
providing notification of its approvaL
The group application process has
been designed by EPA as a one-time
admln1atj . procedure to ease the
burden on the regulated community and
permitting authorities In the initial stage
of the program. As noted above, EPA
has established a single deadline for the
filing of group applications, To facilitate
meeting thi, deadline, the Agency has
undertaken substantial efforts to
provide the public with notice of the
group application process, As part of
this outreach effort. the Office of Water
Enforcement and Permits (OWEP)
established a hotlin. which has fielded
thousand, of telephone Inquirle, an
group application, and related Issues.
OWEP has also held workshop. in tan
cities aorou the country during the first
six week, of 1991, and ha. addressed
storm water requirements at 30 other
conference, and speaking engagems
Staff In EPA Regional offices have als
contributed to this effort by participating
In numerous State and local workshop,
and conferences on storm water
discharge permit applicatlosi
requirement,.
Despite these efforts. EPA has
received an extensive number’ of
request, to extend the March 10,1591 .
deadline for filing Part 1 of the group
application, Numerous industry and
municipal representatives hers
expressed concern that although they
are currently forming groups, they may
not be able to file the Part I application
by the March 18. 1991 deadline.
Particular concerns have been raised by
municipal governments, Under the
November18. 1990 rule, operations
owned or operated by a Federal, State,
or munldpal entity that results In storm
water discharges associated with
Industrial activity must also apply for
Industrial storm water permIt.. 55 FR
48015. (The regulation, Impose
additional permit application
requirement, on large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer
systems. Deadlines for complying with
these requirement, are not affected by
today’. rule.) EPA has learned that
several small municipalitie, were
largely unaware of the Impact of the
flaw storm water regulations on theni
many apparently believed that since
their municipal separate storm sewer
systems were not yet covered by the
rule, they were unaffectetj.
EPA is also aware that many
Industrial facilities, whether or not
munldpally.owned, have had diThculty
determining whether the new
reguiatf on, apply to them. EPA defined
the scope of coverage in the November
10, 1990 rule on the basi, of SiC codes.
However, many facilities engage in morr
than one operation failing into more
than one SIC code some of these
operations are covered, while others are
not. EPA has received over 50 letters
and 3000 phone inquiries to date
regarding the scope of the final rule as It
applies to industrial activity. Since
many facilities could not quickly
determine whether they were covered
by the regulation, many got a late start
in forming group. to file group
applications,
For these reasons. EPA has extended
this deadline from March 13, 1991 In a
separate final rule published elsewhere
In today’. Federal Register and
established a fixed final deadline of
May18, 1992 for submission of part 2 of
the group application, However, many
question, ramMn regarding the effect of
today’, change an the other deadline, in
ths storm water regulations. Therefore,
as discussed below, EPA I. proposing.
and accepting public comment on
change , to other related application
deadline, in the storm water program in
light of the chang, to the Part I group
application deadline.
IL Todays peupo..I
Under l 2 ! R(e)(1), individual
application, for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity are
currently due on November 18, 1991.
Under 1 .26(e)(2)(I) (as amended
today), Part I of group application, are
due on September 30. 1991. Section
122.28(e)(2) (as amended today)
specifie, that EPA will approve or deny
-------
121w
F. aE 1 e a I VoL 5 &‘a 5 I T nreday. March 1 ØTF” 4 2 J
soup appi1 n w4tflth chyEOf
recelpa au th P rt Zaf the greu !
applieatie I . dtiwone yesraft rthwP rt
IF. eppreve . but nelaterthanMaTl8,
1992.
EPA l. po i tn-make tw
other change. I. Lb. deadibire apecifIe f
in the November i6 I99 regthtfone
These change. era de.f sed to
accomplish several goal& to reduce
confusion In the ,e elRted comm lt
over whal app katJoo requlremen
affect which facilitfe, ew w del
and to real g re ulateâ facilfifee as
equitabl’y a p e.thl be aieetn-e,old
serious. delo lia the ce of eturm
water psr ts and the [ mpleraentadeir of
neceu y’ cootro l4oc ng fD the
desl wntnrqu l1ybe to.
To ü l acu$ t j at EPA to
first proposing th fl ewth
EPA rejects lorluc aaf aflled
appUc ion should file an lflthvI
application on 1et than May iL .
EPA Is propoathg this d iinga far tho
samereaeoas that Ithe. already
established afide l lth
submiussonof thePart 2appllcatk t
thoee eher in gmupi EPA
does ao beile .e that an farther àM
In the ultimate ta eafs
peim e F. apgra la e. essW.
Sectlee4OZ l eves
CongressI al t lt.1ae
stor piewam
EPA doe.natwlahto d aley the sadeé
water quaLll b a&so&th..tmna
watfi po .
The.. fa Jltianl jolma ou
application which isfiledIsiestheethe
original March 16 1991 deadll..ma be
required. to conç ae IndL daaL
application in Issi. than aes yeas In the
event they a r js ti dfrom th.gse’
EPA notes that a hfactht a.
will hays already eat d
Lht s rejected tg 4D4,& will aè .ei
corn eFona .ZY.1nd d. d a ge}ac*od
facility Is on. that.wa&orl&n fllI
destgnated.fm .am U n laibePadi
oup pIicstion. the Fo m samçilcg
data and other tnf afln a1 already
have been. cnIb efad by and. be aMailablS
to the facility by the Unis ecalisaths
notice oL mj i ff n—
EPA recogi zas.bowaver. that fat
facilities In certain pr ip aUnn.”
It may be difficult to collect quantitative
storm water sampling ghe.Ieu .
than one year t.aampln.EPkaote& that
It Is In the best mntarp 1 of f 41D1.
file soup applications u.soon.se
possible ta allow kir the imum time
to collect Part Z [ nfanaa*fzm. pestladasly
those In arId c1Imatns EPA else notes
that nothing prevents f fflW’ from
collecting quantftatuvn rnp1Thg d.ta
from a reprasenfath’s elorm euent that
oconra between near and when. the Pert.
I appilcatfan Ii app oved.EPAf
tecpieatfrig comment on creation of the
May19. 1992 fixeddeadffne fat
individual applications of refecled sup
members..
EPA Ii not proposing, any changea ta
the Internal regulatory recpitrPm ni to.
process uup applications within. 6
days ofrocalpL4UC (21WT
EPA Is stifl.commIt ad to processing
group applications within that 60 day
period and notifying the group m mh
of appravar or deniaL
EPA to al proposing to exiønd the
Individua l ap ffca on 0 ndllnn far
nduJm gere whacfa not eIaa.
group to May 1 1D9 This w 1fl have the
effect of ennurInfalL1nd11dT f
applications. whether En&vfdnaLor
. w iMbe duia on the sa day.EFL
beffevee t?jai..aa wilk the.. i 4 nrg
who are now attempting (a joma a oup ..
there may be many facilities affected hy
the November18, I I ruls who am
plAnnfng to a an. IndMdual application
and who have only recently become
awamo(Lhelr atabie under the
regulaffon. EPA a piabaflavas this ’ to. be
a particular prchlemfoz smalL
munI pa1Itfei who ewe
oper”fnn”- whfeK r u nI t ln.a iMr . water
dI1 hnr L tedwUh
acthd4’. EPA believes that . those who.
have beet unable to loin a gr ”
applkaMoa arena d i eat In termeaL
nhIa.wiJ ththsna
regulations. than those who Ends pm
to join.
EPA wishes to emplui.-i that toda ’a.
propeaaL does not. affect the. application.
dun’tflnoesped&d.In the NOveHIbSI 19.
1990 rule for mirL14g41 sepuzite etoim.
sewal syatama. Patti. ppIi ut1 ras
large rnnnimpeL separa storm aiwel
syetarn&anaeU due Nov u 1& l t
PerU applications, fAat ___
are dee May18. 199g, . EPA ho. as
Infor ” to sisggeat that these
systems. which am
enumerated In. th. final redetise
55 FR -74 (flpvi& F -i to pest
122 amunnwaieoI thsNovea I8.’
199 re*da orthal UarTnaed any
additional. tiers .eamplatoPadt of tier
application, in a H1on large s .d
medium cities have an additional
to couipletoPas$Zo
appUcation w s final
date f flhIn9efu1)appLIcatise to
beyond M. . 1 ..
EPA requeeta ”eetsanali iito
of today’s proposal.
HI. R. ulaf quLuuiuu
Today’s proposed rule maker. no.
change In tb.a substantive reqairwasala
of the atoem wales program, only tho
data bywhfch Phrtl
due. Thus, th. r’ale meets flo of lb.
criteria for a major rule
1(b) of Executive Ordar 12 L Th.
Information collection requIrem
this rule have already been app ov
the Office ofMaxmgement and
and been aul wd OP , control nu be
2040-008&.Stnce thi, rota does not
change ny ’mtfstlng substantive
requirements. I certify that It w
have a significant Impact on a
substantial number of small enti
imdrthwRcaulaluiy Fl A1bllhyAc
EPA ha. ib tle this regnlstio
Office of Itfenugemeet and Dudg, .
review. Any wrftlee. commeats re
w iI epubEcdo
List of 8 ” 1 ’4ftetoIa O’ Pizt
Arr frutT1vur practice and
procedtnw. I epnrt1ng and
requireineii Water go hitian control,
ConMeutful business Information.
Dat.dcMth1I. 5.
wlm.m K. 1liy
Adauai L
Fortheomeens al owtabove It Is
propused to u ptI .chep Lof
tals4Gufths deOfFederek
ReguIath ai kl1o
PARE 121—EPA ACIIN3 1Efl
PE MT PROGRA THE NATIO 1f
pou .uTAPa CIScI4ARGE
km
-rmwUApp t ie
— P u .mReq w
1. The authudydlather fee pert1
ccn1L loresdasfe eww
Autharil een Wat Ast mLL&C .111.
ii s
2. In “&cvem I
1091” Is’ ues4 “May 1$
& See 122 *e 2TUvt ft added to’
read aef w
I i a _
• . a • S
( • S S
(Iv) Padilties the? are ref acted as
members ofth . upeball rebantas
Individual application no later thee 12.
months after the date of receipt of the
notice of reju tkJu or May rn 106Z
whkhuv erccnzenftilt
S • • I
[ FR
ui coer — mu
-------
Federal Register I VoL 56 No.42 / Monday. March 4. 1991 1 Proposed Rules
8973
event a c attee Is established. Its
first meeting will be en March 14 and 15.
If a negotiated rulemaking committee Is
not established, a Notice to that effect
will be published.
The purpose of the meeting is to
discuss and ratify the organizational
protocols by which the committee will
operate. organize workgroups and
charge them with developing
information and recommendation. to the
committee concerning specific topics.
develop the committee’s specific agenda
for Its operation.. and begin to consider
the substantive Issues Involved.
The meeting will be open to the public
without advance rugistatlon.
0AT! The meeting will be held on
March 14 from 9 a.m. until 6p.m. and on
March 15 and from 9a.m. until 4 p.m.
AOORESSE The meeting will be held at
the Quality Hotel Capitol Hill, 415 New
Jersey Avenue NW.. Washington. DC
20001. (202)638-1618.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Persons needing further information an
substantive aspects of the rule should
call Carol Menzunga of EPA’s Motor
Vehicle Emission Laboratory. Office of
Mobile Sources. (313) 668—4575. with
respect to issues concerning
reformulated fuels, and Alfonse
Mannato of EPA’s Field Operations and
Support Division. Office of Mobile
Sources. (202) 382—2887. with respect to
issues concerning oxygenated fuel..
Persons needing further information on
administrative mattere such as
committee arrangements or procedures
should contact Chris Kirtz of EPA’.
Regulatory Negotiation Project, or one of
the Committee’s Independent
facilitator., Philip j. Hailer at (202)687—
1033 or Alan. S. Knaster at (816) 702.-
9526.
Dated: Februaiy 26.1991.
Paul LapsJ.y.
Director. ReiayManoaeiizDiv:sioe.
Office hc P!anrungandEvniuauae.
(FR Doc. 91-5016 Piled 2—V--01 1. pm)
coes
40 CR1 Pert 123
(FRL-3t10-61
State of Colorado’s Submission at a
Substantial Program Revision to Its
Authortzed National Pollutant
Olscharg. Elimination System (NPDES)
Program
AGENC ’ri Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
Acricic Notice of application. public
comment period, and public hearing.
SUMMASYt The State of Colorado has
submitted Its Aquatic Life Btomcnftortng
Regulation. COW. ADMIN. CODE title
5. chapter 1002. article 2. sectIon 8.9.7
(5CCR100Z—2) (adopted by the Colorado
Water Quality Control Commission in
November 1988) (hereina.f tar the
Colorado Biomorutoring Regulation) to
EPA for review as a revision to the
State’s authorized National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDF )
program. EPA has determined that the
regulation constitutes a substantial
revision to Colorado’s authorized
NPDES program. Accordingly, EPA
requests public comment and is
providing notice that a public hearing on
the submitted regulation will be held
pursuant to 40 ( R 12n-R2(b) and part
25. EPA seeks public comment on
whether to approve or disapprove the
Colorado Biomonitormg Regulation as a
revision to Colorado’s authorized
NPDES program.
Copies of the Colorado regulation are
available for public inspection as
indicated below.
DATES; Comments must be received
before May 3. 1991. A public hearing has
been scheduled for Apnl 19. 1901. at the
Hyatt Regency. 1750 Welton Street,
Denver, Colorado 60202. from 2 p.m.to 5
p.m. (or later as necessary) and 7p.m. to
10p.m. (or later as necessary).
A D E3SE3: Comments should be
addressed to Robert J. Sum. U.S. EPA.
Region VU!, 8WMC. 999 18th Street.
Suite 500, Denver. Colorado 8020Z-24C .
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTAC’T
Robert J. Bum, (303) 223—1587, at the
above address.
5UPPL ENTARV INFORMATIOPC Section
402 of the Federal Clean Water Act
(CWA) created the NPDES program
under which the Administrator of EPA
may Issue pemuts for the discharge of
pollutants Into the-water, of the United
States under conditions required by the
CWA. Section 402(b) allows States to
assume NPDES program responsibilities
upon approval by EPA. On March V.
1975. Colorado received approval to
assume the NPDES program: on March
4.1983. the State was authorized by EPA
to issue general permits under the
NPDES Program.
EPA has issued regulations In 40 Q’R
part 1.23 that establish the requirements
for NPDES State Program.. Section
123.82 establishes procedures for
revision of authorized NPDES State
Programs, Under 123.82 (a). a State
may Initiate a program revision and
must keep EPA informed of proposed
modifications to its regulatory authority.
In January 1990. the State of Colorado
submitted Its bionionitonng regulation
for formal review by EPA. Under
123.82(b)(1), a State program submittal
Is complete whenever the State snbm i4s
such documents as EPA determines are
necessary under the circumstances. In
this Instance. EPA has determined that
the State submission is complete.
Section 123.62(b)(2) requires EPA to
Issue public notice by publication in the
Federal Register and In newspapers
having Statewide coverage, and to
provide a period of public comment of at
least 30 days whenever the Agency
determines that a program revision is
substantiaL EPA has determined that
the biomorutoring regulation. which is
described below, constitutes a
substantial revision to Colorado’s
NPDES program. Section 123 .82 ( b)(2)
also requires EPA to hold a public
hearing regarding the proposed revision
“If there is significant public interest
based on requests received.” EPA
believes based upon contacts with the
State of Colorado and the public in the
last two years that there is already
substantial public interest ci the
proposed revision and accordingly has
proceeded to schedule a public hearing
at this tune.
The Colorado Biomonitonng
Regulation describes the Stews
requirements for conducting whole
effluent toxicity testing. for establishing
effluent limitations in NPD permits to
control whole effluent toxicity. for
enforcing established limitations, and
for eliminating the cause(s) of the whole
effluent toxicity.
Following passage of the Colorado
regulation. NPDES permits were drafted
by Colorado containing the provisions of
the new regulation. Numerous permits
were subsequently formally objected to
(vetoed) by EPA because they did not
satisfy the minimum requirements of the
CWA. Formal admuinstatlve
proceedings on such permits proceed
according to 40 CFR parts 123 and 124,
and the permits will not be the sublect
of public comment and hearing under
this notice.
On June 2,1989. EPA promulgated
regulations at 40 CFR t22 .44 (d)(1). which
clarify existing requirements for
developing water.quality.based effluent
limitations. See 54 FR 23888. The
regulations require permitting
authorities to set whole effluent toxicity
limitations where necessary to achieve
(as described in the regulation a
numeric criterion for whole effluent
toxicity or a narrative criterion within
an applicable narrative water quality
standard. Section i L25(15) of the
NPDES State Program regulations
requires NPDES authorized States to
have the legal authority to implement
-------
13974
Federal Register / Vol 50, No. 42 / Monday, March 4. 1991 / Proposed Rules
the requirements of the provisions of
122.44.
At the close of the public comment
period (including the public hearing), the
EPA Regional Administrator, with the
concurrence of the Associate General
Counsel for Water and the Director of
the Office of Water Enforcement and
Permits. will decide whether to approve
or disapprove the Colorado
Biomonitoring Regulation as a revision
to the Colorado NPDES program. The
decision to approve or disapprove will
be based upon the reqwrements of the
CWA and 40 CFR part 123. A public
hearing to consider the Colorado
Biomonitoring Regulation has been
scheduled for April 19, 1991, at the Hyatt
Regency, 1750 Welton Street. Denver.
Colorado 80202, from 2p.m. to 5 p.m. (or
later as necessary) and from 7p.m. to 10
p.m. (or later as necessary).
The Colorado Bionionitoring
Regulation may be reviewed by the
public from 6 a.zn. to 4 p.m. at the EPA
office in Denver. Monday to Friday
(excluding holidays), at the address
appearing earlier in this notice. Copies
of the submittal may be obtained for a
fee by contacting Robert J. Bun at the
above telephone number or address.
The following are the policies and
procedures which shall be observed at
the public hearing: (1) Any person may
submit written statements or documents
for the record. (2) the Presiding
Officer(s) may establish reasonable
limits on the time allowed for oral
statements: (3) the transcript taken at
the hearing, together with copies of all
submitted statements and documents
shall become a part of the record of this
proceeding: (4) the hearing record shall
be left open until May 3. 1991, as
described below, to permit any persona
to submit additional written statements
or to present views or evidence tending
to rebut testimony which was presented
at the public hearing: and (5) the
Presiding Officer(s) shall have the
authority to open and conclude the
hearing and to maintain order.
Immediately following the public
comment period, a complete hearing
record will be prepared. The record will
be made available for public review.
and copies of the record may be
obtained by the public at cost,
Hearing statements may be oral or
written, Written copies of oral
statements are urged for accuracy of the
record. Statements should summarize
any extensive written material ..
All comments or objections received
as discussed above, by May 3. 1991, wIll
be considered by EPA before taking
final action on the program revision.
Please bring the foregoing to the
attention of persona whom you know
will be interested in this matter. All
written comments and questions on the
hearing should be addressed to Robert J.
Burnt at the above address or telephone
number.
Dated: February 28. 1991.
Laluans S. Wllcher,
Assistant Adcnn:sLrvto r for Water,
Envzmnmentai Protection Agency.
Dated: February 28. 1991.
— I. khe w.
RegionalAdmirusimior, Envimnmentoi
Thvtact,on Agency. Region I/ILL
(FR Doc. 91-5020 FlIed -l-01 845 am)
SLLJ NI 5
FEDERAL COMMUNICATiONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
(MM Docket No. 91-32, RM-78061
Radio Broadcasting SeMces Chetek,
WI
AGENCy Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTTOSC Proposed rule.
SMuAwr This document requests
comments on a petition flied by Chetek
Broadcasters proposing the allotment of
Channel 294C2 to Chetek. Wisconsin, as
that community’s first local service.
There is a site restriction 2 kilometers
(1.3 miles) east of the community to
avoid a short spacing to Channel 296C2,
New Richmond. Wisconsin. Canadian
concurrence will be requested at
coordinates 45—19-23 and 91—37—27.
DAT Comments must be filed on or
before April 19. 1991, and reply
contmnnts on or before May 6. 1991.
aooeeusm Federal Communication,
Commission. Washington. DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the
FCC. interested parties should serve the
petitioner, or its counsel or consultant,
as follows: Richard J. Hayes. Jr., 1359
Black Meadow Road. Spotsylvanla.
VirgInia 22553. (Counsel to petitioner).
PO THI5 IN?ORMA11ON CONTAC1
Kathleen Scheuerle. Mass Media
Bureau. (202)634-8530.
1UP L 1N1’ARY INPCNMA11OSC This is a
synopsis of the Commissions Notice of
Proposed Rule Making. MM Docket No.
91—32. adopted February 11. 1991. and
released February 28. 1991. The full text
of this Coinmissi on decision I. available
for Inspection and copying during
normal business hours in the FCC
Dockets Branch (room 230), 1919 M
Street NW.. Washington. DC. The
complete text of this decision may also
be purchased from the Commission’s
copy contractors, International
TransaIption Service. (202)857-3809.
2100 M Street NW.. suIte 140.
Washington. DC 20037.
Provisions of the Regulatory
flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to
this proceeding.
Members of the public should note
that from the time a Notice of Proposed
Rule Making is issued until the matter is
no longer subject to Commission
consideration or court review, all ex
parts contacts are prohibited in
Commission proceedings, such as this
one, which Involve rhannel allotments.
See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex partc contacts.
For information regarding proper filing
procedures for comments, see 47 CFR
1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects In 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
Andraw J.
Acting Chief. AJlocaL,ons Brnnc& Policy and
Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau.
(FR Doc. 91-4059 Filed 3-1-91: 8.45 am)
O( 171 3 . 0 1— 5
47 CFR Part 73
(NM Docket No. 91-30, RM-76001
Tsisv$sion Broadcasting Servlcei
Vandi,tItt,MI
AGEnC Y: Federal Communications
Commission.
acriole Proposed rule.
SUSIMARY: This document requests
comments an a petition filed by GRK
Productions, Inc.. proposing the
allotment of Channel 45 to Vanderbilt.
Michigan. as that communitys first local
commercial TV service. Canadian
concurrence will be requested for this
allotment at coordinates 45-08-42 and
04-39-38.
DA1I Comments must be flied on or
before April 27, 1991. and reply
comments on or before May 7, 1991.
suo ,.-——- Federal Communications
Commission. Washington. DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the
FCC. interested parties should serve the
petitioner. or Its counsel or consultant,
as follows: Carry R. Knapp. GRIC
Productions. inc.. 7400 South 45 Road.
Cadillac, MIchigan 49601. (PetitIoner).
FOR FURTI4IR INFORMATION CONTACT
Kathleen Scheuerle. Mass Media
Bureau. (202)634-8530.
IUPPLEMUITARY INFO AflOie This is a
synopsis of the Commissions Notice of
Proposed Rule Making. MM Docket No.
-------
Thursday,
January 24, 1991
Part III
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 125
Modification of Secondary Treatment
Requirements for Discharges Into Marine
Waters; Proposed Rule
-------
2314
Federal Register / Vol. 58 . No 16 / Thursday. Janudry 24. 1991 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
4OCFR Part 125
(FR t-3817-eJ
RIN 2040-A829
Modification of Secondary Treatment
Requirement! for DIscharges Into
Manne Waters
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (“EPA”).
AC’TIQPc Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing
amendments to the regulations
contained at 40 CFR part 125. subpart G.
which implement section 301(h) of the
Clean Water Act (the ‘CWA” or Act’).
33 U.S.C. 1311(h). Section 301(h)
provides for modifications of secondary
treatment requirements for discharges
into marine waters by publicly owned
treatment works (POflVs) that
demonstrate their compliance with the
301(h) criteria. These proposed revisions
to the 301(h) regulations and application
requirements are primarily intended to
im 1etnent amendmnnts to sectrnn 301(h)
contained in section 303 of the Water
Quality Act of 1987 (“WQA’ ) A’ the
same time, changes to the
questionnaires and regulations have
been proposed to reflect program
experience and to clarify requirements
for permit renewaL These amendments
will supplement and revise the existing
part 125, subpart C regulations and
simplify and revise the application
requirements contained in appendices A
and S of subpart C. Only POTWa which
submitted 301(h) applications prior to
December 2.8. 1982. are eligible to
receive section 301(h) waivers: the part
12.5. Subpart C regulations apply only to
POTWs that applied by that date.
DATES: Comments on these proposcd
amendments, the Application
Questionnaire revisions, and the
amended Technical Support Document
(TSD) must be submitted on or before
March 25. 1991. The public hearing on
these proposed regulations will be held
in Washington. DC on March 7, 1991
from 1-5 pm at the EPA Headquarters
Education Center Main Auditorium. 401
M Street. SW.. Washington. DC.
ADDRESSES: Comments and requests for
the amended section 301(h) Technical
Support Document should be addressed
to: Virginia Fox Norse. Office of Marine
and Eatuarine Protection (WH—556F),
U S Environmental Protection Agency.
401 M Street. SW, Washington. DC
20460 (202) 475—7129 The official record
for this rulemaking is available for
viewing in the Public Information
Reference Umt. room 2904. Wai r’ uln
Mall. 401 M Street SW.. Washington.
DC 20460, (202) 382-5928 from 8 a.m to
4 p.m.. Monday through Fnday,
excluding legal holidays. The EPA
public information regulatioe (40 CF’R
part 2) provides that a reasonable fee
may be charged for copying. The March
7. 1991. 1—5 pm public hearing will be
held at the EPA Headquarters, 401 M
Street SW.. Washington, DC in the
Education Center Main Auditorium.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATiON CONTACY:
Virginia Fox-Norse. Office of Marine
and Estuarine Protection (WFI.-556F).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street. SW. Washington. DC
2.0460 (202) 475—7129.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIOIC
L Introduction
A Statutory Background
Under section 301(b)(1)(B) of the
Clean Water A.t (CWA or Act) (33
U S.C. 1311(b)(1 )(B)), POT’Ns were
required to achieve secondary treatment
by July 1. 1977 Congress amended the
CWA in 1977 to add section 301(h). 33
U S C. 1311(h), to allow the
Administrator, upon application by a
POT’ V and with the concurrence of the
State. to issue a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit which modifies the secondary
treatment requirements of section
3Oltbfll)ffl). POTWe were allowed for a
limited tune to apply for a section 301(h)
modified NPDES permit into marine or
estuanne waters if the applicant could
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Administrator that the proposed
discharge would comply with the
section 301(h) criteria and all other
NPDES permit requirements.
Section 30 1 (h) wa later amended by
the Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Construction Grants Amendments
(MWTCGA) of 1981 (Pub. L 97—117, 95
Stat. 1823). These amendments resulted
in the following changes:
(1) Any POTW which proposed to
discharge into marine waters was
eligible to apply for a section 301(h)
modified permit within the specified
time period. Previously, only POTWe
actually discharging into such waters as
of December 27. 1977, were eligible.
(2) The deadline for submission of
301(h) applications (in section
301(j)(l)(A) of the Act) was extended
until December 29. 1982.
(3) POTWs achieving secondary
treatment could apply to discharge
pollutants at less than secondary
treatment levels.
(4) EPA was prohibited from granting
section 301(h) modified permits for the
discharge of sewage sludge
(5) Section 301(h)(8), which stated that
construction grant funds available to
section 301(h) waiver recipients had to
be used to carry out best practicable
wastewater treatment technology or the
requirements of section 301(h), was
repealed.
B. New Sta(utoiy RequiremenLr
On February 4. 1987, Congress passed
the Water Quality Act of 1987 (Pub. L
100-4). which amended CWA section
301(h) in several important respects.
Section 303 of the WQA. which contains
the amendments to section 301(h),
resulted in the following changes:
(1) Discharges. in accordance with
modified reqwrements. cannot interfere.
alone or in combination with pollutants
from other sources, with the attainment
or maintenance of water quality which
assures the protections and uses listed
in section 301(h)(2).
(2) The scope of required monitoring is
limited to only those investigations
necessary to study the effects of the
proposed discharge.
(3) For POTWa serving a population of
50.000 or more, with respect to any toxic
pollutant introduced by an industrial
source for which poilutant there is no
applicable pretreatment requirement in
effect, the applicant must demonstrate
that sources introducing waste into the
POTW are in compliance with all
applicable pretreatment requirements.
the applicant will enforce those
requirements. and the POTW has in
effect a pretreatment program which, in
combination with the POTWs own
treatment processes. removes the same
amount of the toxic pollutant as would
be removed if the POTW were to apply
secondary treatment and had no
pretreatment program for the pollutant.
(4) At the time the 301(h) modification
becomes effective, the applicant will be
discharging effluent which has received
at least primary or equivalent treatment
and which meets water quality criteria
established under C’WA section
304 )a)(1) alter initial mixing in the
waters surrounding or adtacent to the
point at which the effluent is discharged.
(5) No modification may be issued for
a discharge into marine waters unless
those waters exhibit characteristics
assuring that water providing dilution
does not contain significant amounts of
previously discharged effluent from the
POTW.
(6) No permits may be issued for
discharges into estuarine waters which
exhibit certain specified stressed
conditions, without regard to whether
the applicant’s discharge is causing or
witi cause those conditions. No permits
may be issued for discharges into the
-------
Federal Re ster I VoL 56. No. 18 / Thursday , January 24. 1991 / Proposed Rules
2815
New York Bight Apex under any
conditions.
(7) Any POTW that had a contractual
agreement before December 31. 1982. to
use an outfall operated by another
POTW which has applied for or
received a section 301(h) modified
permit may apply for a 301(h) permit Lfl
its own right within 30 days of WQA
enactment.
(8) Cerlain provisions of the WQA
amendments do not apply to
applications which received final or
tentative approval before enactment of
the WQA. These permits will, however,
be subject to the new section 301(h)
requirements upon permit renewal.
Unless noted otherwise, the statutory
citations in the remainder of this
preamble will refer to section 301(h) of
the CWA and its various subsections. as
amended by the WQA. rather than to
section 303 of the WQA.
C. Regulatory Development
EPA initially promulgated regulations
Implementing section 301(h) of the CWA
on June 15. 1979(44 FR 34784,40 CFR
part 125. subpart G). Those regulations
were challenged in part in the U S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit. As a result, the Court
invalidated three provisions of the
regulations in Nat ur’ai Resources
Defense Council, Inc. v. &‘A (“NRDC”),
656 F.2d 768 (DC Cir. 1981).
In response to the statutory
amendments of the MWTCGA and the
results of the NRDC Suit, EPA
promulgated amendments to the section
301(h) regulations on June 8, 1982 (47 FR
24918). The preamble to those fiiial
amendments explains the results of the
lawsuit, the MWTCCA statutory
changes. and the ensuing regulatory
amendments, On November 26. 1982.
EPA promulgated further amendments
to the section 301(h) regulations (47 FR
53666). These amendments were
intended to reflect EPA’s program
experience, to respond to Executive
Order 12291. and to respond to the
September 11. 1981. rulemaking petition
from the Pacific Legal Foundation.
The current part 125. subpart C
regulations (i.e., prior to today’s
proposed amendments) require a POTW
seeking a section 301(h) modified permit
to demonstrate the following
(1) There is an applicable water
quality standard specific to the
pollutants for which the modification is
sought:
(2) The modified requirements will not
Interfere with the attainment of water
quality which protects public water
supplies, provides a balanced
indigenous population of shellfish, fish
and wildlife, and allows recreational
activity;
(3) It has established a system to
monitor impacts on aquatic biota. to the
extent practicable;
(4) The modified requirements will not
result in additional requirements on
other point or nonpoint sources;
(5) All applicable pretreatment
requirements for sources introducing
wastes into the P01W will be enforced;
(6) It has established a schedule of
activities to eliminate the introduction of
toxic pollutants into the P01W from
noninclusthal sources, to the extent
practicable:
(7) There will be no new or
substantially increased discharges from
the point source of the pollutants to
which the modification applies above
the discharge volumes specified In the
permit.
POTWs receiving 301(h) variances are
required to develop and implement
effluent, receiving water, and biological
morutonng programs. Permittees that
have known or suspected industrial
sources of toxic pollutants are required
to have an approved pretreatment
program in accordance with 40 CFR part
403 and are required to meet NPDES
permit requirements. uicludmg the use of
appropriate biological techniques (such
as whole effluent toxicity testing, where
necessary: 49 FR 9016. March 9. 1984) as
a complement to chemical specific
analyses to assess effluent toxicity,
which can lead to a modification in
permit limitations
The purpose of monitoring toxic
pollutants and pesticides in the POTW
effluent is to emphasize the detection of
toxic pollutants and relate discharge
characteristics to receiving water
quality, to evaluate treatment plant
performance and compliance with
effluent limitations in permits, and to
determine the effectiveness of toxics
control programs required for both
industrial and non-industrial sources
discharging to the POTW The 301(h)
regulations also require an analysis by
the applicant of whether treatment of a
POTW’s discharge at less than
secondary treatment levels will require
other point or nonpoint pollutant
sources to increase their treatment
levels or apply additional controls.
Today, EPA is proposing amendments
to the regulations to reflect program
expenence, to implement the
requirements of the Water Quality Act.
and to clarify the permit renewal
process.
D. Status of Permit Decisions
EPA received 208 permit applications
by the statutory deadline of December
29, 1982. As of the end of 1988. 142
permit modifications had been finally
denied or withdrawn, and 48 had
received final EPA approval. EPA has
not reached decisions on the remaining
18 permit applications. A number of the
48 modified permits will expire in the
near future, These permnittees should
begin to consider how they intend to
comply with the new proposed
regulatory requirements, In particular,
they should give early consideration to
the new requirements in proposed
125.60 (primary or equivalent
treatment) and 125.85 (urban area
pretreatment program). Including the
possible need to develop local limits or
require additional treatment to satisfy
the latter provision, as discussed below
E. Organization of Preamble
Section II of this preamble discusses
the EPA’s proposed changes to the
existing regulations in response to the
statutory amendments. Section 111
contains a section-by-section analysis of
the proposed regulations, indicating
where changes have been proposed to
the existing regulations and the
reasoning for the changes. Section IV
addresses compliance of the proposed
regulations with Executive Order 12291.
Regulatory Flexibility Act, and
Paperwork Reduction Act. The agency
has completed analyses of the scope
and magnitude of impacts related to
these proposed regulatory changes
More detail regarding these impacts can
be found In Section IV or in the
Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) end the
Information Collection Request (ICR)
II. Response to the Statutory
Amendments
The following is a description of
today’s proposed changes to the
regulations implementing section 301(h),
as summarized In the table below The
discussion is organized according to the
subsections of section 303 of the WQA.
Citations to parts of the part 125,
subpart C regulations in the discussion
below refer to the section numbers of
the regulations as renumbered under
today’s proposal.
-------
Z816
Feder Regtster I Vol. 58. No. 16 / Thursday, January 24. 1991 / Proposed Rules
Pra Ise Contains of Reetss Sic6on
Oavaii Si ose 13
Chwigs. m Ctr m Satipse G
125 5R —
SopesiidP i,po,.
12557
— . ... — . .- ‘_ __. . ... ._
Law gQraiTa. .d uance 0$ 5 SectOn 301(11) moCifled pen ut
t25 . .56...... ..._
72557..____
Urctanged.
.
tnco(pO iates new W tsr Quality Act (Pit L ioO- p prow.
12558 . ....
Oofirst ions
ecflL
125 59..._,......
• .________ —
G flI 1I - -— . .._.
125.58
12559..
Ad and danfiei defltwlicna ,
Amended to coofomi to new s Mory reqisomeins and
125 60 .. .
Primary or eqiavajenl iseamiem
addS rea cilcadcn rocei res,
12561 ... ., .
.._ . - .. —
mte, of and compliance anti apCUcable walar quality
alandai &
. . -
125 60..,.,.._,, —
iaw sac n.
Reisignatod, odirwisa iMthanged
12562 ._.
Attainment or maintenance of water qua lity *tiicfl asaixea
protecaon of wsi si p1ie , arid 510 protecaon and proo.
agallon of a balanced, indigenous poci aXn 0$ shilfli&i ,
ft h and wtdI,fo, and allows racreabonaf
12561 - —
Amended to conform to flew SIatl.ilOry requirementS, redes.
ignated.
12583 .. .. .. .
actVtbes.
Establishment of a morotonrig program . -
125.62
Amended to CoCTform to new atatuiory requirements reoes.
12564
Effect of discharge on othei porn arid noriporni
ignated,
12565 — .
Urban area pretteenerit program
- .
Pndesigi stad. Othetwise tmchanged
12566 .,
. ,_
Toxici conati program - .
.. -
12564
New eecxn
Amended to upidal. doedlines for preeeaunerit program
12567 _. .
lncteas. ri effluent eSume or amount of poltucares dis.
12565
approval’ redesignated,
c*’arged.
Redesignated. otherwise unchanged.
12558 . .
Sgeoal conditccn, for secton 301(h) modified permits
12567
AppendS —
.
Applicant queetonna,e for modificaaon 01 secondary ireaX
mont ‘ery .aremen .
—.._ . . . ....,,
Appen ij
Minor confomang changes. redesignated.
AjTiaiiSed 10 coiwnflhig5 into cne oCI1 Oed JesDOnflsre
WQA section 303(a), ameiiding CWA
section 3OUh)(2). Previously, this section
required a demonstration that the
applicant’s discharge will not interfere
with the attainment or maintenance of
water quality which assures protection
of public water supplies and the
protection and propagation of a
balanced indigenous population (61P) of
fish. shellfish, and wildlife, and allows
recreational activities. Under the WQA
amendments, the applicant must now
demonstrate that there will be no such
interferences attributabe to its own
modified discharge, alone or in
combination with pollutants from other
sources
Under the e’ isttng secl’.on 301(h)
regulations ( 1 2 5 92 (f ) ). EPA already
con,,cderg the combined effects of (he
modified d:scharge and other pollutant
sources when evaluatir g compliance
with the requirements of 301(h)(2 )
Specifically, under 125.62(f). the
ap .licant must demonstrate compliance
with the requirements in the rest of
§ 125 62 unless it can show that the
failure to meet those requirements is
entirely attributable to other sources. In
other words, the applicant Is already
required to make these water quality
demonstrations with respect to its
discharge alone or in combination with
those from other sourcpq: it is released
from these requirements only if t can
show-that the interferences are entirely
attributable to the other sources. The
current regulations are thug already
fully consistent with the requirement
added by WQA. section 303(a)
Nevertheless, because this is now a
statutory requirement. EPA is proposing
to add Iang’Ja e to 123 62 ( 1) to cldnfy
this issue, This new language makes
clear that it is not suificieu.t to
demonstrate that an applicont’s own
modified discharge will not interfere
with the attainment or maintenance of
water quality as speci ed in the
remainder of § 125 62. Instead, EPA will
evaluate such compliance based on the
combined effects of the applicants
modified discharge and pollutants from
other sources.
WQA section 303(b), amending CW.4
section 301(h) (3): This section states that
the scope of Inonltori.ng under section
301(h) is to be limited to only those
scientific investigations necessary to
study the effects of the applicant’s
proposed th. charge The specific
monitoring programs to be implemented
by indi’iidual applicants are developed
on a case-by-case basis,
The requirements for monitoring
programs under the existing regulations
are in fact already generally focused on
the effects of the applicants discharge
(see, eq.. § 125.63(b), which provides
that the program shall be adequate to
evaluate the impact of the discharge on
marine biota. and § 125.63(a)(l)(iv),
which provides that the frequency and
exteril of monitoring programs should be
determined after taking into account the
nature of the discharge and potential
impacts on receiving waters: see also
* 125.83(a)(iJ). However, to make this
new statutory limitation an explicit
requirement. EPA proposes adding this
limitation to § 125.83 of the regulations.
As in the past, the rationale for and
scope of 301(h) monitoring programs will
be discussed in the 301(h) decision
document and supporting record for
each permit decision
WQA sect:on 303(c), amending CW 1
section 301(h)(6): This amendment adds
a new requirement, the urban area
pretreatment program, to section 301 hJ
This requirement applies only to
POTWa serving a population of 50.000 or
more, and only with respect to toxic
pollutants introduced by industrial
discharger, Under this provision, each
such applicant must demonstrate, for
each toxic pollutant introduced by an
industrial discharger. that it either (1)
has an ‘appht ble pretreatment
requirement” in effect or (2) has in effect
a program that achieves “secondary
removal equivalency,” as descri’bed
further below This new statutory
requirement complements ttie toxics
control program requirements cor.ta:ned
in the existing section 301(h) regulations
(*12566).
Section 3OUh)(6) as amended also
requires POT’Ns to demonstrate that
industrial sources are in compliance
with all of the-.r pretreatment
requirements. including numerical
standards set by local limits, and that
those requirements will be enforced.
This part of section 301(h)(6)
complements the existing requirement in
section 301(h)(5) for applicants to
demonstrate that all applicable
pretreatment requirements for sources
introducing waste into a POTW will be
enforced.
The requirement for POTWs to
demonstrate that industrial sources ‘are
in compliance” with all pretreatment
requirements will not necessarily
require a demonstration that 100 percer’t
of industrial sources are in compliance
For urban area POTWa with significant
numbers of industrial users, at any given
-------
2!17
tIme. ft teLike t U P ast ane ormww
of thn u ilI a* of c uplI.nc .
Adwpzi an ln rpr tjai r nznng 1
xz cisuiplla would be
‘ D l ra .ticai and rould e et:t wl
prohthse waiver wv bty far
large POTWa.
instead ,. EP!, baheweitia a psoprMre
to coneidg . s e case-by-ease besi the
number aed nai e at the
nonco npLiazcesIt iaeaaseaiabl. not to
d yaod ,flcate,ns to’POTW thai are
diligently rnp emeatin a pretreatment
program merely becaveg. theret, an
ir.substaeticl degree of noncosaplianee
with pretreatment reqpnemants.by
industrial uaer& lnate. , .FPA wij
exerciqe dac io date mining the
8i 8 Tuf r11nCa . of the noac eapliance.. and
will examine the measures the POTW ia
takrng tsaseure camplianca and
Izr.plemant. an affective pre.tieatment
program.. This interpretation La.
cons istent with the directives in &
Senate Report on. an earlier versi of
the bi e.S..Rap. .N 112& S9thCoz . .
1st Sesa. .14 1 . ))_
To implement. these new
require is. EPA proposes. to adi.L
* 12585 tothe.nn j .
revise certain definitions. in 125.58.
The term toxic pollutanr Is de necL in
the existin€ 3O1 r reguratfann
( 125.53.(aaj] and today.. proposat
Would not change that daflaitioe. An a
result under that de nfl1on. the
requirements of proposed i 125 85
would, apply to the t2fl priority
pothitants listed In 40 401J5. ,fn
addition, proposed T258sTa7 ZT
clanfles the retaffonship of the toxics
control requirements. contained in
proposed * t25.B5 and the axis ting
general pretreatment reqwrements in 40
CFR part 4 This provision makes
clear that the requireme.nta of proposed
* 1Z5 65 are to apply in addition to any
applicable pretreatmen t requirements
contained.m 40 C Rprn4z Nothjcg in
proposed 125.65 Is intended to waive
orrefax the CFR part40
req u Irementn
1. Applicable Pretreatment Meqt emeet
in Effect
The first mannerin which an
applicant may satisfy’ prepeced’ f 125.6
is to. show that there lean “flpp6cabfe
pretreatment requireitrenr r effbet for a
toxic pothitant. Appl cnble pretreamieni
requirements. may’ take . the fei’m at
federal categorical pretreatment
standapds promulgetedb EPA under
8ectIon 307 of the Act. ocathinit,
developed in accorifanee with 4OCFI
part 403, ore combinqtf pefboqf,.
h combInation of both types of
pretreatment standar wilt often be
required sir order to setfsfy seclien
__a. collecttie appI enbl
pr1tma n rvquwement C regOT1CaI
standards and m s are distinct
and complements!) typeset
pretreatment standards. Cat .e ,cul
standari e a mnaily’ onn ..
tecloqy-be d ttmita developed for
aoecifjc indnatriei. La. contrast, under4O
CFR pert 403, P0’rW meat develop
local Li m i ts Ins all indua ial, sou e. an
necessary to prevent interferezine anil
pass- through and to imp enre a. the
epecahc probthitiona of 40 CFR
Under todays proposal. POTWe may
also need to develop focak bmiia to
easine that. the requirements of 4 125.O
are satisfied. (,sea proposed 12S .&4c}).
Thus, the existence of categorcal
standards that c er certain industrial
diachargers does not relieve a L’CTW of
any obligation It may h&v I i, deveLop
local limits for those inñustriaj
dischargerg or athera. in adibtian, where
an uithzririal drediarger is. sub lect to
both a categorical standard and a rocar
lim it. themore-strtngenrcifthe watimits
appliee.
M. , -euvei.. ta quatLfy ag an qiyl cab1e
preireatinerx reqtnrement” a
reqmremenr or set of r ui -ewente must
apply to elPtndirstrfaFcflacharge
um 1ui.j the t c pollutant mb the
P07W. A itpøfftit mfoft n may be
introduced by several mdasthal sources,
some of whfd arz subiect to a
categorical standard For that pa utnr . ,
and some ’qf bkL are nat In such
easee in order to show that there is an
apph dMe pretreatment reqmr xienr
in e1 ct appHcarrta would need to
develoij focal limits to ensare that alt
industrial userg introducing the toxic
pollutant into the POTW are subject to
applicable pretreatment requirements.
in light of the above, A proposes to
define an “applIcable pretreatment
req iremenr far a toxic polltitant as one
that consists of the foUowuig two
eleinen l 65fc)) ta) As to each
Industrial discharger to the applicants
treatment works a width therE is no
applicable categorical’ pretreatment
standard’ farthe toxic pollutant. a local
limit oi-hmfts an the toxic pollutant
sattsfyingthe requirements of4OCFft
part 40a and ensuring that the
requirements of* 15.6 vii be mefl.
and(bJ as To each mdusti,al discharger
to the app [ hmnts treatment worka that
is covered by a categoricaL pretreatment
standard for die’ toxic pcthit nr, the
categorical stindard pl a local Limit or
Licuts a necessary to satisfy 40 CFR
part 403 and T 5 6Z Put another way.
EPA wifffirid that there iran
•‘apphenble ’ pr tr utmenrreqmrrrnenr
for a toxic poffnrani sri satnfaction of
section 3Q1(PlJ(6 only under the
1&Iov’mg ccndrtroiw Frsr, for each
thdossehergertfict Is ,wt eo,ered
bye categorica l preti atmenr stm rd
for that pollutant, there most inallceaes
be’s lecaPlicaeorrthepo utant
approved by EPA pu ueuI to the
requsere ta of 46 CFR p r469andthe’
requirements of TZ5 .8 se md. even
forfacilitfe, that are subject toe
categorical standard For the pofhmtant.
there ernst be err EPA a iy iuiied local
limit on the pollutant which satisfies 4
CFR pare4caand .6z.
In addition, POTWa seekmgta
demonstrate that they have an
applicable pretreatment ?eq aremen in
effect for a particular toxic psllutaat by
reLya, en Lecal h ta fo r that pnIfatar
must demonatate that the loca’ lkmta are’
adequate’ and enforceable.. Under
proposed. I 5(cj( EPA ma
require lcical imets Ia be revieed where
necessary to satisfy the reqaeemea . of
both 4GCIP. part 4 125 . . EPA
refers applic s to. the tacMn
guidance decum i issued by’ kYA in
December. 19 foe the pwpoaea of 4
GFR pail (Ll.S Ensirmunental
Protectiar,Aejnqi Officeef W t
Enforsemerrt and Permit,. Gtgderice
Man usl os, th, Develop m t and
Impiementatian at Land Dncbar
bixMatmnn Under’ theP a ,r . na
Prngra E einber , 3 As to.
the r,i uremantaat
at a appbcnti m s
reveaL for exainpfa. ‘ more . gens
pretree ent to to
protection of a balanced indigenous
population of fish. shellfish., and wilditfe
under 12 82 c Snnrlady. under
proposed 1 64a , 3Xt(b)l applicant,
must demonstrate’ that applweble’ water
quality’ standards. or EPA terqiraltty
criteria, as.appropriste, wiltbe met at
and beeend the boundary at the Ze,ie’o
hutia Dffuttag ( D7 msdei’ critical
enviroranental and treatment plant
conditious. Section 30 1(h) modified
permit. heM by POTWa will cenrain
effluent limits based air these aothes-
re9uwements in turn, each ’ POTW must
demonstrat, diet there’ are’ focal
pre’treastiem reqon’emenle in place that
will allow i to meet those uzI limits.
These requirement, are subject ttr
approval by the’Adniinistrator as part of
the 301(h) review inuixa 5
2. Secondary Removal Equivalency
The second manner in which an.
applicant rrmy sarrsfy proposed 12565
is to demonstrate that the combination
of its own treatrnenrphre pretivanneng
by industrial d15ChUI- VTx achieves
“secondary removaL equwalency -
Apphrzrnts rn -rat make this
demonstration whenever they cannot
show that a toxic pollutant introduced
Fedeeak Reajster / ?oL 56. 1cm. 16/ Thursday, January :4, ltJ9l I Proposed Rules
-------
2818
Feder-t Register I VoL . No. 113 / Thursd-’v. an ry 24. 1991 / Proposed RUes
by an industrial discharger is subject to
an “appiicaole pretreatment
requirement’ in effect
This proposed regulatory provision is
Intended to implement the new
requirement in section 301(h)(6) that.
where there is no applicable
pretreatment requirement in effect for a
toxic pollutant, applicants must
demonstrate that they have in effect the
following:
(A) pretreatment program which, in
combination with the treatment of discharge,
from such work,, remove, the same amouflt
of iuch pollutant as would be removed if
such works were to apply secondary
treatment to discharges and if such work,,
had no pretreatment program with respect to
such pollutant.
EPA has termed this the “secondary
removal equivalency” requirement, and
proposes to add the definition of that
term in § 125.58(w).
Secondary treatment is intended to
control conventional, non ’toxic
pollutants (40 CFR part 133). However.
where secondary treatment is applied, a
certain amount of the toxic pollutants in
the wastewater is also removed. in
essence, this part of eect on 301(h)(8)
requires a program that achieves the
same amount of toxic pollutant removal
(considering both the pretreatment and
the applicant’s own treatment at below
secondary levels) as would be achieved
if the applicant were to apply secondary
treatment and there were no
pretreatment requirements covering the
pollutant
Under today’s proposal, to
demonstrate secondary removal
equivalency, an applicant would need to
use a secondary treatment pilot plant
By diverting part of its influent to the
pilot plant, the applicant would
empirically determine the incremental
amount of a toxic pollutant that would
be removed from the influent if the
applicant were to apply secondary
treatment. The applicant would then
demonstrate to EPA that it has a
pretreatment program in effect which, in
combination with its own treatment
processes, ensures at least that amount
of toxic pollutant removal from the
POTW’s discharge. This demonstration
would likely require the POTW either to
Install additional treatment, or to
develop or revise local pretreatment
limits.
More specifically, for “secondary
removal equivalency,” the statute
requires a showing that the amount of a
toxic pollutant removed by the
applicant’s existing treatment plus its
pretreatment program Is equivalent to
the amount of that pollutant that would
be removed if the applicant were to
apply secondary treatment and if the
açpl’cant had no pretreatment prc ’am
at all with respect to the pollutant. This
can be represented as follows:
POTW existing treatment + industrial
pretreatment = POTW existir.3
treatment upgmded to seconda.-y
treatment + no industrial pretreatment
EPA recognizes, however, that it
would be much simpler for applicants to
perform this empirical demonstration by
using a pilot plant to apply secondary
treatment to the applicant’s reguLir
influent—,,e, influent that has already
received industrial pretreatment in
accordance with the requuemen’s of 40
CFR part 403. This approach would alter
the above showing as follows:
POTW existing treatment + industrial
pretreatment upgraded to secordary
treatment POTW existing treatment ‘
industrial pretrealment
EPA has determined that the
empirical demonstration of secondary
removal equivalency using inlluent that
has received industrial pretreatment
would be conservative—, e.. it would
overstate the amount of toxic poilutant
that would be removed by applying
secondary treatment, as compared with
an empirical demonstration using
in.fluent that has not received industrial
pretreatment, since the demonstration
takes into account the toxic pollutants
remo ed through the industrial
pretreatment program. Therefore, under
today’s proposal, to demonstrate
secondary removal equivalency using
the pilot plant approach, the applicant is
permitted to make that demonstration
(although it need not) by using influent
that has received industrial
pretreatment (see proposed
125 58(w)—definition of ‘Secondary
Removal Equivalency”)
EPA refers comxnentors to the
Amended Technical Support Docunent.
which is located in the public record for
this rulemaking, and provides guidance
and illustrations on the methods that
may be used to make the demonstration
of Secondary Removal Equivalency
WQA section 303(d). adding CWA
section .361(h)(9): lius section of the
WQA adds new language to 301(h)
providing that at the time the waiver
becomes effective, the applicant tn’.ist be
discharging effluent that has received at
least prunary or eqwvalent treatment
and that meets EPA water quality
criteria after initial mixing. In addition
to requiring an applicant to demonstrate
that its discharged effluent has received
primary or equivalent treatment.
125 60 would also require applicants to
monitor to ensure compliance with this
treatment requirement based on the
monthly avernge results of the
monitoring. To implement the primary or
equivalent treatment pro•::sion. EPA
proposes to add 125.60 to regulations.
WQA section 303(d) defines primary
or eav.lent troatmer.t as “treatment by
screening, sedimentation, and skimming
adequate to remove at least 30 percent
of the biochemical oxygen demanding
(BOO) material and of the suspended
sc!ids (SB) In the treatment works
irifluert. and disinfection, where
appropnate.’ In light of WQA section
303(d). EPA believes that a definition of
“primary or equivalent treatment” is
necessar p. arid proposes ‘o define th s
term in 125 58(q) exactly as it is
defined in the WQA.
EPA believes that the terms
“sedimentation” and “skimming”
include a range of treatment techniques
For example. these techniques would
include coagulation and precipitation
(physical adjuncts to sedimentation).
and flotation and subsequent removal
by skur.rnlng. These techniques would
be adequate forms of treatment under
section 303(d) and today’s proposed
regulations (* 125 58(r) and 125.80) as
long d S they satisfy the stated
conditions for no less than 30 percent
BOD and SS removaL
WQA section 303(d) also requires (in
new CWA section 301(hfl9)). at the tirre
the wavier becomes effective, that
discharges meet water quality criteria
estabished by EPA under CWA section
304(a)(1) of the Act after initial mixing in
the waters surrounding or adjacent to
the point of discharge. In generaL CWA
section 304(a) criteria serve only as
guidance to the States. States may base
their development of water quality
standards on the 304(a) criteria as
modified to reflect site-specific
conditions or on other scientifically
defensible methods (see 40 C R
131.11(b)). In addition, water quality
standards are subject to EPA appro%al.
and are approved by EPA
notwithstanding differences with the
304(a)(1) criteria where they are deemed
appropriate with respect to local
conditions.
Accordingly. EPA believes that
Congressional intent behind this part of
section 301(h)(9) will best be satisfied if
the applicant demonstrates compliance
with directly corresponding numerical
water quality standards, instead of
section 304(a)(1) criteria, where such an
EPA.approved numerical standard
exists for a pollutant If there is no
directly corresponding numerical water
quality standard with respect to a
pollutant, then applicants would need to
demonstrate compliance with the
304(a) (1) criteria. For example. in some
cases there is a nuinencal water quality
standard for a group of chemicals, such
-------
P q Regis er I Vol. . i / thuretfay . January 24 1991 / Pn o e Rt,fes ’
as total toxic ntetaj , and therera a
3 04(alflJ critenew f r a spen fic
LflOP,,,e-thantjcal such nimo
The applicant woafd be required to meet
the 3 O 4 18 jIl, er rests.
it reIer toa gpeciflcchemicai rather
than to a 8 Olpe c em1ca p. The ,.
applicants weuld npc f redemon,t’rate
compliance with (tie 3)4(e) fl a’tfenca
flog the w terqaalIty standard
This appreuclr le adopted today ur
proposed 125.GZfeJfTJ fi7 end (iii. in
atidition. prt,peeed 125 e2(a f1)fiir)
make, ir clear Vths.re merits in
* 1 t to. meet water qualit tandavd
or criteria apply l v , addtti.ip any
requirementa t a meet weter quelity
s anda,d, in. ç i m e nd that these new
requiremems do. not we4ve ’orenhsfttute.
for eqisremaiw, i i , ç M the
requvreerern, ol the wO eecbena diger,
the more slrmgent would apply
EPA believe, that Carr r did riot
intend to’ deny 30 J wai ,ey, in case,
where’ nemsncaf wofe, eelrty
stan(fardg ve.su bee,, adopted and
approved by EP4 a, replacement, for
the 3}f )cri?erya end ths ’appffcant
dem one trelee’ eemp ienee wvth those
standards at the hewidary of the ZW
Instead. Ce g,e,, appee,, to. have
added the req eren ,enp lip see 1ei,
3O1(h) ta enewespl e,e a general
level of profecisoip eiwbo e m EPA’,
water qee1it criteria ceen, where a
full eof water qon4ky standard,
correspoNdlw! . then, esiferi a have n o t
bee,, de ed There(ar,. aee ,pflaoce
v. ith aw EP4app,e,ed rioiuvy el water
quality star.e ferape ,. çe nJ 0
pollL aat I, suffi cfent ends , today’,
propeeal. Pegori ve of whether tbe
standard 1, more or lees then
the car under
section
The seth .,, 3I efl? alterva for the
protectfow efaqeacte life. and himiars
hoellh. gj non refrieqe,
recoran,end nwrve’ie,,j,e, far cnbiee$
levels e(t p&toi nlinmen 7 , hut net
all, cases (e.g.. spec i f ic’ seax ,u erZ
hour a erv ge e.ne’e , , level if. A
believes tha’ eise ,lev.lu,
where spe.ifled. are the. level, that
section JQ1$$a *cen u ouldb,
required to
requwemeat to ‘lvwet the’ suc .v,
304(a)(1) crften. bsaee,whe,,.
bectmn. 3Ot aW1 al moi, f or tho
protection o aqu e h1 or for the
procec en of hems,, healt% far nor,-
carcinogenic. peltigants doe,,
recoi .nJ & rRanarlc. kvr there. ye no
section 304(a)(1) aiterfs fe,’th.
applicant . ‘ enC aná the. applicant
would iIbe ueE fad...
Accw ’daigly Ufl ,y”s pcvposed
rule., am a 1 spli iI w1 the’ sictLo
304(a)(1J eriferia et ’tc life’ and
huma,, health for noo’ yc c
pollumms where it meot the
recocmencfed eels,. if any.. epeci?ied In
the’ s etiej’t f& 1} criteria for awphienr
levels of the pollutant.
In the cage of cai- nu us, EPA’a
section 3c# a (fl Prermirn hea ih criteria
for carcrnogerne poflntunt recommend a
concentration of zsr for tIre ma,im i,
prureelien of Immart health. The secflon
3O4(alf cntena dn,cumente far
carcinogens also present ITIfDTITTBtIOTT On
the’ mnge of poileftins tt tta,
that correspawd to,na’evae,,gaf cancer
risks of 10’. “ and1 ’. sue
additional case of cancer over a lilatime
in a poafloer yip ,
thousand on, miliio and ten milhooj
at spemf%ed exposure pottenis.
!ecevre a zei le’veP Fe eeseimally
unattainable. undersectreir 3O of the
CWA EPA be, approved n t
waterquabry criteria fi,rcarcrno rn,
that correspond to ’acceptable risk
ranges shove zer . If there is seth an
EPA-approved rmmeric Stafe water
quality stan d fare per cider
polinrerit. thi.n aspreviourfy discussed.
a demensa-anon ofcornpfiance’ with that
standard would be sofficrent See.
proposed 125.82fa)(1 fl .
Howe, ’er. In the abeerice of an EPA-
approveihr,umenc tewates-q,ea ty
standard.’ frarislater praceclure Thra’
partke4arpo niant. If wtff be ’necereu iy
Ion applicant to.deesoristrape
coivipliarree w , the epplicaMe. Uwr
3 O4(a)er eyie. See.
* 12S82(aJ 1)(i .) , Given that the Feve+ of
zero cmme ehpthe ’EPA criterfe.
for earcmgeerne poffn rant re
unattainab , . EPA wlldeterrinzpesgp
apjan iete n ri-rena’ level of risk nit (hi!
Clrcnmsteacs ’ by co,reidrru g all relevant’
infonnet For, EPA wilt then use the
seeNon 30Q(a) ( ’ I criteria docomeyit,,
aepplemented by other relevenni
to determIne the specific’
pollutant cencenteution, that coTr ponds
to the’ selected risk revel.
hr sefeethig a risk level, for pizi ose.
of this regufaffanr, EPA will’ consider
whether there are’ EP -approved tie
wafer quelity starid!ard, tii the pdrtfcular
State fore rcarcmogenlc poltutan
that pners1fy reflect a sing le risk level
employed by dt Stare-in ita wafer
qeeltry staznc rda far exposure tu
carcinogens. If the- Starr has canislrtentfy
employed s eth a’ single nsk level ins
establislei’ig’ if, water qoaliry standard,.
EPA wi riorthiarisir te’vela, the erieew
which to’ be emenerniretcon, for
the careme nic lunt nsqoestcerr,
The a icasIwou1dne,r4 e meet these
hmita tions to show that It meets the’
(section 3o4ta f aiteria’ torthe-
particular
While EPA will considerwhether tl e
State’, . ivr quidiry standard, far other
care . ., . , floreuts reflect a’ level of
exposore’crineferentFy correspontffng to
a singicrisk level’, the risk levels forrhe
‘.anou, carcinogens need not alP he
exaet. t ytherame Forexampfe, rt may
be that theStaf,numerafEp .
approved standards that COitf 5pund to a
level of I x i ’, andante standard that
corresponrf,’toa level of T..5 Th In
that case. EPA could determine that
there’ is a single’ risk level consistently
employed by the State and the agency
we&d apply that nsk wit)r respect
to sethng’ hmira’r,ons on the’ carcinogen
inquestren, eothrrhand , if a Slate’
has several EPA-approved water quahry
standard, that correspond to wicMy-
%ary’rng ’nslr Tevele(e’g’. hr 4 inn same
casee and 1 ia othersj EPA would
de’rermme that there re no’ single risk
level consistently employed by the’
State.
Under the Agency’! water quaRry
standard, pragnara. Siate, are currsntl’y
required to. devefep numeric criteria tar
the priority pollutant, (‘see secriwp
3O3(c)ç2)( of the Clean Water Aer .
EPA therefore expect, diet many or
most of the’ coastal ata a’ will have- one
or mere EP -eppre J weferqnelrry
standards for earcMe v ic pelluttotte by
the tune theAgenepptb ’,
ride, ifinalfer ortheitiy thereafter
‘eprpo,cdalt , . . , . $ir. k
level based., a cona . ,ck ,r Slate’ pohcy
(he sppffcaarmay at i’ts option. work
with the State to have’ the Stare
r ummende p tlcndarrrsk tevsfhesacj
on a . . o.atien that the’
recommended level 1 , acceptable. The
Stafeweofifhear ’the l e’dinrof
justifying’ the risk Ievel
i.e.. the’ State would need to. explant the’
basi, upon whith it believe, that the
re zzw nded level wi J aslwe the
prOf ffowofhamam health. EPA would
consider tbj, r . . endatcan but inn aI
caae,EPA wn&mahethefonaf
det ofw th level F,
acceptable’
The’ State’, w jatiuyr must
desnons ’ate . to. the’ satisfaction, of the
Admith, utcr , that tbe nwu w d!d
level Lasufffdeutfypnntecrjveof humary
health in ligl t of the exponnne ’ and
uncertainty factors a ci fed with (Ire
estimate of the actual risk posed by the
applicanra disdiar ’. Exposure facr ra
would incfode for evemple. local
patterns of ffth cmrsampduir. carnulunve’
effects of mult plec ote it and
local p pulaMo senertc,i’tfe,. Ftz terre
related to uncertaiinrg’ would Include, for
example. rIte’ weighs of scfenttflc’
-------
2320
Federal Reqister I vol. 56. No. 16 / Thursday. January24 , 1991 / Proposed Rules
evidence concerning exposures and
health effects and the reliability of
expoew’e data.
The State’s demonstration should be
supported by sufficient documentation
to allow EPA to fudge the scientific
souzidneas of the demonstration, The
State must also show that It has held a
public hearing to review the selection of
the nsk level, in accordance with
provisions of State law and public
participation requ Irements of 40 CFR
part 25. and has considered the
comments received pursuant to the
hearing. EPA ’s intent Is that the public
participation process should be
substantially similar to that required at
40 CFR part 130 for the establishment of
State water quality standards. The State
woujd also need to show that its
recommendation is based on the best
information available. EPA will consider
these and other pertinent health and risk
factors to complete an overall judgment
on acceptability.
In summary, under today’s proposal
EPA will first determine if there is an
EPA-approved State water quality
standard that directly corresponds to
the EPA section 304(aJ(l) criterion for
the carcinogenic pollutant under
consideration. Under proposed
{ 125.62(e)(1J{iu), an EPA-approved
Slate water quality standard would be
deemed to “directly correspond” If (1)
the Slate water quality standard
addresses the same pollutant as EPA’s
water quality criterion and (2) the State
water quality standard specifies a
numeric criterion for that pollutant or
objective methodology for denying such
a pollutarit.epecific cr,terion. EPA would
apply this directly corresponding State
standard where available, Absent such
a State standard, EPA will consider all
relevant information In determining the
pollutant concentratIon that represents
an acceptable level of risk. Thai
iMormatjon would Include evidence that
the State has consistently used a single
risk level when establishing EPA-.
approved water quality standards. In
(kin absence of such a consistent State
policy. EPA will also consider a State
recommendation of a risk Level LI the
State demonstrate, to the satisfaction of
the Administrator that the parUc iija,
rIsk level Is Instilled. The State
demonstration would need to account
for the relevant exposure and
uncertainty factor,, show adequate
public participation In the selection of
the risk level, and show that use of the
Identified risk level Is sufficiently
protective of human health,
In cases where there Is no consistent
State policy or satisfactory State
demonstration on whjcl to base a risk
level, EPA has decided not to set a
specific risk level (a.g , 10’) In today’s
proposal that applicants would need to
meet (either presumptively, or in all
cases). Instead, in such Instances, EPA
will select an acceptable risk level
based on the circumstance, of each
case. EPA requests com ment, however,
on whether these regulation, should
specify the risk level that applicants
would need to meet in such cases, and if
so, what that level should be and the
basis for that level
EPA recognizes that section 301(h)(9)
could be read to require compliance
with 304(a) criteria in all cases.
regardless of whether a standard eiusts
that Is better tailored to site-specific
conditions, Supporting thia reading of
compliance with 304(a) criteria in all
cases is the recognition that EPA water
quality criteria and water quality
standards may differ, yet Congress
specifically referred only to the former
in section 301(h ) (9). Therefore, for
proposed * 12.5.62(a), EPA considered
the alternative of requiring strict
compliance with 304(a) criteria in all
cases, but rejected this alternative for
the above reasons. EPA specifically
requests comment, however, on this part
of today’s proposal.
EPA is interpreting ‘after initial
mixing in the weters surrounding or
adjacent to the point at which (the)
effluent is discharged” to mean at the
boundary of the ZID (proposed
125.82(a)(ifl. The ZID is defined in the
existing regulations as “the region of
initial mixing surrounding or adja cent to
the end of the outfall pipe or diffuser
ports, provided that the ZID may not be
larger than allowed by mixing zone
restrictions in applicable water quality
standards” (* 12.5.58(cc)). Under today’s
proposal, the applicant’s diffuser must
be located and designed so as to provide
adequate imual dilution, dispersion. and
transport of wastewater to meet water
quality standards or criteria, as
applicable, at and beyond the boundary
of the ZID under critical environmental
and treatment plant conditions (see
proposed 125.fi2 afl. This Is consistent
with EPA’. existing practice as reflected
in the Technical Support Document
which recommends that compliance
with water quality criteria under critical
conditions be determined at and beyond
the boundary of the Z .
In light of the new section 301(h)(9)
requirements, today’s proposal also
requires the applicant to provide, as part
of lta monitoring program, data for
evaluating compliance with applicable
water quality standards or criteria, as
applicable 125.83(cflj)),
WQ ,4 section 303(e). amending
section 301(hJ The purposes of this
section are (1)10 require applicants to
take into account plume recarculatlon
and re-entrainment of previously
discharged effluent when deterimiung
compliance with water quality
standards or criteria, and with the other
301(h) criteria, and (2) to prohibit
permits that would allow discharges into
the New York Bight Apex and all
stressed saline estuarine waters. This
new recirctiiation requirement applies to
ocean as well as estuarme waters.
For all applicants WQA section 303 [ e)
calls for a determination of whether the
dilution waters contain ‘significant
amounts” of previously discharged
effluent from the treatment works.
Section 125.62(a)(1) currently requires
that the applicant’s diffuser be located
and designed so as to provide initial
dilution, dispersion and transport
sufficient to ensure that all applicable
water quality standards are met at and
beyond the ZID boundary under critical
environmental and treatment plant
condition,. Where all water quality
standards are met, EPA believes that the
dilution water does not contain
8lgiuflCaflt amounts of previously
discharged effluent from the treatment
works, That Is. EPA views the current
regulatory requirement to provide
adequate initial dilution at the Z1D
boundary to be a sufficient criterion for
ensuring that “significant amounts” of
previously discharged effluent are not
entrained. This is consistent with.the
statement in the Report by the
Conference Committee regarding this
statutory amendment that the reference
to water supplying dilution does not
include those waters immediately
surrounding the point at which the
efflueat is discharged In which initial
mixing occur,. See CooL Rep, No. 99-
1004, 99th Cong.. 2d Seu. at 119(1986).
Therefore, EPA has not proposed any
changes to the regulations, although
changes to the questionnaire
(Incorporated Into the regulations as an
appendix) have been proposed to reflect
this WQA provisIon.
En addition, EPA La proposing changes
to the TSD to revise Lbs location of
monitoring stations used to determine
compliance with water quality
standard, or water quality criteria, as
appropriate. These sampling location
changes have been proposed to ensure
that ambient conditions are not
impacted by the previously discharged
effluent of the POTW.
EPA proposes to add the WQA
sectIon 303(e) provisIon ott stressed
saline estuaries to the prohibitions listed
in 125.59 (see proposed l25.59(b)(4)).
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 56. No. 16 / Thursday , January 24. 1991 / Proposed Rules
2821
This provision would ban, without
exception, all permit waivers for
discharges into stressed estuaries This
provision would not, however, affect
any current 301(h) applicants for new or
renewed permits because no applicants
are currently discharging into stressed
estuaries. To ensure that 301(h)
permitlees will not discharge into
estuaries that have become stressed.
EPA will evaluate the condition of
affected saline estuaries when
re’.iewing applications for permit
renewal.
WQA section 303(e) makes clear that
discharges into stressed estuarine
waters are prohibited in all cases,
without regard to whether the stressed
conditions are caused by the applicant’s
discharge. Section 125.62(l) of the
regulations, however, currently allows
discharges into stressed estuarine
waters where an applicant demonstrates
that it will not contribute to the stressed
conditions. This allowance must be
eliminated in light of the blanket
prohibition of Vs QA 303(e). Therefore, in
todays action. EPA proposes to limit the
scope of 125 62(f) by making it
applicable only to stressed ocean waters
(thereby excluding estuarine waters).
WQA section 303(f), amending CWA
section 301 (j)(1)(a). This section allows
POTWs that had contracted prior to
December 31, 1982 to use outfalls of
section 301(h) POTWs, to apply for their
own 301(h) modification within 30 days
of enactment of the WQA. This section
was intended to allow the Irvine Ranch
District in Califorma to apply for a
modified 301(h) permit. However, no
POT’sV applied under this section within
30 days of WQA enactment. Therefore,
there is no need to revise the regulations
to reflect WQA section 303(1 ).
WQ .A section 303(gJ This section
exempts applicants that received
tentative or final approvals of 301(h)
modified permits prior to the date of
WQA enactment from meeting certain
requirements of the WQA until the time
of permit renewal. Today’s proposal
adds these “grandlathertng” exemptions
in new 125.59(j). Specifically, this
section exempts grandfathered
applicants from meeting the
reqturements of fi 125,59 (b)(4) and
(b)(5), 12560. and 125.65 until the time of
permit renewal. In addition, EPA
believes that applicants may need up to
two years from the promulgation of
these regulations in any event to come
into compliance with the latter two
provisions (i.e., 125.60 (primary or
equivalent treatment) and 125.85 (urban
area pretreatment program)). Therefore,
§ 125.59(j) would allow applicants
additional time as deemed appropriate
on a case-by-case basIs, but not to
exceed this two-year period, to meet
these two requirements in cases where
permit renewal will occur before the end
of the two-year period.
While WQA section 303(g) also
extended grandfathering protection to
other parts of WQA section 303, these
provisions are not accounted for in
proposed § 125 59(j). Specifically. WQA
section 303(g) also applies to section
303(a) (applicant’s discharge must be
evaluated “alone or in combination”
with those of other sources) and the first
part of section 303(e) (dilution water
must not contain “significant amounts of
previously discharged effluent”) As
explained above, however, these two
provisions are already effectively
included in the existing section 301 (h)
regulations. Therefore. EPA has
determined that there is no resscn to
include these two provisions of WQA
section 303 in the proposed regulation
concerning grandfa thering.
EPA believes that the purpose of this
“grandfather” provision is to avoid the
need to reopen a decision already
approved or near approval at the time of
WQA enactment. In some cases, EPA
may have initially granted a tentative
approval, but, in light of new
information, may have subsequently
withdrawn that tentative approval or
issued a tentative denial prior to
enactment of the WQA. In other cases.
prior to enactment of the WQA,
applicants withdrew applications that
EPA had tentatively approved. EPA
considers such applications not to have
been near approval at the time of WQA
enactment, Therefore, under proposed
§ 125.59(p), they may not take advantage
of the WQA section 303(g) grandfather
provisions.
Other requirements Under today’s
proposal, applicants must demonstrate
compliance with all of the part 125.
subpart C requirements before EPA will
Issue a final section 301(h) modified
permit (see proposed § 125.59(i)(1)).
Where an applicant has not
demonstrated such compliance,
however, but is making a good faith
effort to come into compliance. EPA
may tentatively approve a permit
modification based upon a schedule that
the applicant must meet with respect to
the outstanding requirements (see
proposed § 125 59(h)). With respect to
the new requirements in H 12580
(primary or equivalent treatment) and
125.65 (urban area pretreatment
program), EPA will grant in no case
more than two years to achieve
compliance (see proposed
* 125 59(f)(3flii)) (except for
grandfathered applicants, as described
above). This provision for tentative
approvals is consistent with existing
regulations In part 125, subpart C and 40
CFR part 122 and will allow flexibility in
EPA’s 301(h) permit modification
decisions in cases where applicants
have met some, but not all, of the 301(h)
regulatory requirements and are using
reasonable, good faith means to come
into compliance with the remaining
requirements.
EPA considered an alternative
approach of not making tentative
deci8ions available in cases where an
applicant has not satisfied the new
requirements of § § 125.60 and 125 65.
Under this approach, after
promulgation of today’s regulations, the
Agency would make final decisions on
waiver applications based upon whether
the applicant is in full compliance with
all of the existing arid new regulatory
requirements in part 125, subpart C
The Agency determined that this
approach should not be adopted. It
would result in denials of waiver
applications in cases in which
applicants justifiably need more time to
meet the new regulatory requirements.
These denials would lead to the
imposition of secondary treatment
requirements pursuant to schedules
extending well beyond the additional
time that would have been needed to
meet the new 301(h) requirements.
Instead, the strategy adopted in today’s
proposal would allow additional time
before a final EPA decision for
applicants who are making good faith
efforts to comply, but would set
reasonable limits on the additional time
allowed.
EPA seeks comments on the approach
in today’s proposal regarding the time
period for demonstrating compliance. In
particular, the Agency seeks comments
on whether the approach of allowing up
to two years to come into compliance
with 125.60 and 125.65 is appropriate.
or whether It would be more appropriate
to allow a shorter time or. conversely.
an extension of the two-year period for
good cause.
EPA has also added a sentence to
* 125.59(f)(4) stating that a failure to
submit the required State certifications
under H 125.61(b)(2) and 125.84(b) will
be grounds for denial of an application.
This does not represent a change to the
regulatory scheme but has been added
simply to make explicit EPA’s existing
authority to deny applications on this
basis.
EPA also proposes to add a
requirement in § 125.59(e) that
permittees and applicants, including
those that have been grandfathered
under WQA section 303(g). must submit
-------
2822
Federal Register I Vol. 56. No. 16 I Thursday , Ianuary 24. 1991 / Proposed Rules
to the Mmrnistrator within 90 days of
the effective date of these regulatory
revisions additional information
regarding their intention to demonstrate
compliance with the new requirements
under 125. o and 125.85 upon permif
renewaL U necessary, the Adznuuatrator
may reopen such permits to insert
schedules, ensuring that these new
requirements will be met upon pem it
renewaL
III. Sectlon.By-Section Analysis
In addition to the above changes. at
various other places in the regulations,
as explained below, EPA proposes
language to clarify requirements for
permit renewal.
Section 125.5& This section
establishes the general scope and
purpose of the regulations. This section
remains unchanged.
Section 125.57 This section sets forth
the statutory language applicable to
section 301(h) modified permits.
including the statutory amendments
enacted on December 29, 1981 (Pub. L.
97—117) and on February 4, 1987 (Pub. L
100-4).
Section 12555: This section sets forth
the definitions applicable to the Subpart
C regulations. As a result of Section 303
of the WQA. definitions of primary or
equivalent treatment, pretreatment.
categorical pretreatment standard.
secondary removal equivalency, water
quality criteria. perrnittee, and New
York Bight Apex have been added. The
definition of uidustrial source has been
revised to include the term “industrial
discharger” which appears in section
303(c) of the WQA. As explained in the
1979 regulations, waters landward of the
baseline were included in recognition of
indentations in the coast which were
considered to be marine water, but
were still inside the baseline. EPA
proposes to amend the term “ocean
waters” to clarify that ocean waters are
distinct froni saline estuarine waters,
since saline estuaries are subject to
specific additional regulatory criteria
riot applicable to oceans. The definition
of application has been modified to
include applications for permit renewal.
The definition of application
questionnaire has been changed to
reflect the combining of the
questionnaire, for small and large
applicants.
Section 125.59: This section describe,
the general requirements applicable to
301(h) applications, including filing
deadlines and procedures, procedures
for revising applications, and procedures
for State determinations. Several
changes to this section reflecting the
new statutory requirements are
proposed. EPA has also added
procedures for permit renewal, and for
submitting additional information
(specifically, letters of intent and project
plans, including schedulesj to
demonstrate compliance with the urban
area pretreatment program and primary
or equivalent treatment requirement. an
order to ensure that timely
implementation of the requirements is
accomplished.
Section 125.&2 This new section
requires an applicant’s discharge to
have received at least primary or
equivalent treatment (section 303(d) of
the WQA).
Section 125.62: ThIs section requires
an applicant to demonstrate that there is
a water quality standard for the
pollutant for which the modification is
requested. The section aLso requires that
the applicant obtain a certification from
the state which documents that the
modified discharge will comply with
applicable provisions of state law,
including state water quality standards.
No changes are proposed to this section.
Section 125.62 This section
implements section 301(h)(2) of the
CWA, and contains requirements to
ensure the attainment or maintenance of
water quality The stressed waters
subsection ( 12582(0) has been
modified by adding the word ‘ocean’ to
stressed waters, thereby complementing
proposed * 125.59(b)(5), which prohibits
discharges into stressed estiianne
waters under any conditions. EPA
proposes to amend § 125.62(aJ(1) to
provule that applicants must meet EPA
water quality criteria established under
section 304(a)(1) of the Act, or EPA.
approved numerical water quality
standards where such standards directly
correspond to 304(a)(1) water quality
criteria.
Section 12563. This section outlines
the general requirements for monitoring
programs required under section.
301(hJ(3) of the CWA. In response to
section 303(bJ of the WQA. EPA
proposes adding language to restrict the
required scope of the 301(h) monitoring
program. EPA is also proposing that
applicants monitor their discharges to
ensure compliance with water quality
criteria (if applicable under proposed
* 125.62(a)), in addition to water quality
standards, as part of the applicants’
monitoring programs.
Section 12544: This section contains
criteria related to the Impacts of the
modified discharge on other point and
nonpoint sources and implements
section 301(hJ(4J of the CWA. This
section remains unchanged.
Section 125.65 This proposed new
section sets forth the urban pretreatment
program requirements of section 303(c)
of the WQ&
These new requirements are
discussed In section II of the preamble.
Section 12536: This section Includes
the criteria for a control program of
toxic pollutants and pesticides, and
implements sections 30 1(h)(5) and (hJ(6)
(in part) of the CWA. To update
compliance deadlines. EPA is proposing
a minor change (see proposed § 125 68
(c)(1)) in reference to deadlines by
which applicants were required to
develop approved ,retreetment
programs.
Section 12567: This section discusses
the criteria related to increased
discharges and implements section
301(h)(7) of the CWA. This section
remains unchanged.
Section 1256& This section sets forth
special permit conditions to be included
in 301(h) modified NPDES permits No
changes to these requirements have
been made.
Application questionnaires There are
currently two mandatory questionnaires.
one each for small and large applicants,
in the Appendices to the section 301(h)
regulations. EPA is today proposing to
require all applicants, regardless of size.
to complete one combined
questionnaire This single questionnaire
has been developed, based on EPA’s
301(h) program experience, to clarify
responses from all applicants and
facilitate EPA’s review as to whether the
applicant’s modified discharge meets the
criteria of section 301(h) and the subpart
C regulations. Information requested by
EPA in the questionnaire has changed in
response to new WQA requirements.
The questionnaire is still in two
sections. a general information and
basic requirements section (part II) and
a technical evaluation section (pail ill)
IV. Compliance With Executive Order
12291, Regulatory flexibility Act, and
Paperwork Reduction Act
A. Executive Order 12291
Under section 3(b) of Executive Order
12291. the agency must judge whether a
regulation is major and thus subject to
the requirements of a Regulatory Lmpact
Analysis. The proposed regulation
published today is not major because
the rule will not result in an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or
more, will not result in increased costs
or prices, will not have significant
adverse effects on competition.
employment, investment, productivity,
and innovation and will not significantly
disrupt domestic or export markets.
Therefore, the agency has not prepared
a Regulatory Impact Analysis under the
Executive Order. EPA has submitted this
regulation to the Office of Management
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. l ’Jo. 16 / Thursday. January 24, 1991 / Proposed Rules
2823
and Budget (0MB) for review as
required by Executive Order 12291.
8. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in th proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to 0MB
under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 44
U.S C. 3501 et seq. An ICR document has
been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 138) and
a copy may be obtained from Sandy
Farmer. Information Policy Branch (PM—
223), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 M Street. SW., Washington.
DC 20460. (202) 382—2706.
The average annual burden hours for
the collection information is
approx.rnately 1.006 hours per POTW
respondent, and 120 hours per state
respondent. Of that, the incremental
burden from these regulatory changes is
rlpproxixnately 192 hours per small
facility, and 256 hours per large facility,
and 40 hours per state respondent.
These est.inia tea include the tune for
POTWs to collect additional information
to comply with this proposed rule, to
conduct monitoring and toxins control
activities, and to prepare an application
for permit renewal, and time for states
to prepare the state determinations and
certifications.
Send comments regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden by
February 25. 1991, to ChieL Information
Policy Branch (PM-223), U S
Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M
Street. SW. Washington, DC 20460; and
to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs. Office of
Management and Budget. Washington.
DC 20503, marked “Attention Desk
Officer for EPA “The final rule will
respond to any 0MB or public
comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposaL
C. Regulatorj Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 at seq.), federal
agencies must, when developing
regulations, consider their Impact on
small entities (small buainesees, small
government junsdictions, and small
organizations). To evaluate whether this
proposed rule will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, the Agency has
prepared an EIA The Agency has
concluded, based on the EIA, that this
rule as proposed would not have a
significant Impact on a substantial
number of small entities because it will
not create sigruficant economic impacts
and will affect only a small number of
appllcants/permittees.
There are 66 current applicants or
permittees In the 301(h) permit program.
Out of these 66 applicants or permittees,
only ten are both subject to the primary
or equivalent treatment requirements
and meet the Small Business
Administration (SBA) definition of a
small entity (having a service area
population of less than 50.000). All those
applicants or permittee, subject to the
urban area pretreatment requirements
and one of the permitteeg subject to the
primary or equivalent treatment
requirements have service area
populations of greater than 50.000. and
thus are not small entities, The SBA
considers twenty percent to be a
substantial number of small entities. The
ten small entities represent only about
fifteen per cent of the total current
applicants or permittees in the 301(h)
permit program. Therefore, this
proposed rule does not affect a
substantial number of small entities.
On a national level, the total
estimated capital coat of meeting the
primary or equivalent treatment
requirements for the ten small entities
amowits to a little more than $13 million
with an associated operations and
maintenance cost of $505.000 per year.
Assuming a 20 year repayment schedule,
the total annualized cost. for the ten
small entities, equals approximately
$870,000 a year. After compliance with
the primary or equivalent treatment
requirements, the total annual sewer fee
for these ten small entities is less than
one percent of the community’s median
household income Consequently, none
of the small entities affected by this rule
are expected to incur significant
economic Lmpacts.
In summary, I certify that this
proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 125
Water pollution controls, Waste
treatment and disposal.
Dated January ii. 1991.
F. Henry Hablcht,
Acting Administrator
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, part 125 of title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations are amended as
set forth below.
Note: For clai-ity, EPA has set (crib below
Part 125, subpart C in its entirety as it would
look after Incorporation of the amendment.
In todays proposal However. EPA is
requesting comment, only on the portions of
these regulation, that the Agency is
proposing to amend In today’, notice
Although the existing portion, of subpart C
that EPA t, not proposing to amend are also
set forth below, EPA Is not reconsldenng
those portions and they are not subject to
comment as part of this proposed rulemaking
PART 125—CRITERIA AND
STANDARDS FOR THE NATiONAL
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
FUMINATIOPi SYSTEM
40 CFR part 125 is amended as
follows:
1. The authority citation for subpart C
of part 125 continues to read as follows:
Authority Clean Water Act Sections 301.
304. 501. Pub L 92-508,88 Stat. 816. as
amended by Pub. L. 95—217. 91 Stat. 1588. as
amended by. Pub L 97—117,95 Stat. 1623. as
amended by Pub. L 100-4. 101 Stat. 29-47
2.40 CFR part 125, subpart C is
revised to read as follows:
Subpart G—Crtterts for Modifying the
Secondary Treatment Requtraments Under
SectIon 301(h) of th Clean Water Act
Se
125 58 Scope and purpose.
125.57 Law governing issuance of a section
30 1(h) modified permit.
125.58 DefinitIons.
12559 General
125 60 Primary or equivalent treatment
requirements.
12581 Existence of and compliance with
applicable water quality standards.
123.82 Attainment or maintenance of water
quality which assures protection of water
supplies, and the protection and
propagation of a balanced, indigenous
population of shellfish, fish and wildlife,
and allow, recreational activities.
12563 Establishment of a monitoring
program.
12564 Effect of the discharge another point
and nonpouit sources
12565 Urban area pretreatment program.
12568 To,ucs control program.
12587 Increase in effluent volume or
amount of pollutants discharged.
12588 Special conditions of sectIon 301(h)
modified permits,
Appendix Applicant Questionnaire for
Modification of Secondary Treatment
Requirements
Subpart G—Crtterla for Modifying the
Secondary Treatment Requirements
Under SectIon 30 1(h) of the Clean
Water Act
125,56 Scope end purpose.
This subpart establishes the criteria to
be applied by EPA in acting on section
301(h) requests for modifications to the
secondary treatment requirements. It
also establishes special permit
conditions which must be included in
any permit Incorporating a section
301(h) modification of the secondary
treatment (“section 301(h) modified
permit”).
-------
Federal Resister I Vol. 58. No. 16 / Thursday. January 24. 1991 / Proposed Rules
2 24
* 125.57 Law gov.mlng le.u ic Ot S
.sc on 301(h) modlfl.d pwNt .
(a) Section 301(h) of the Clean Water
Act provides that;
The Administrator, with the concurrence of
the State. may issue a permit under section
402 which modifies the requirements of
subsection (b )(1J(B ) of this section with
respect to the discharge of and poUutant from
a publicly owned treatment works into
marine water,, if the applicant demonstrates
to the satisfaction of the Administrator that—
(1) There is an applicable water quality
standard specific to the pollutant for which
the modification is requested. which has been
identified unuer section 3041a ((6 ) of this Act.
(2) The discharge of pollutants in
accordance with such modified racuiremente
will not interfere, alone or in combination
with pollutants from other sources, with the
attainment or maintenance of that water
quality which assures protection of public
water supplies and protection of shellfish,
flab and wildlife. and allow, recreational
acil%itles. in and on the water
(31 The applicant has established a system
of monitonng the impact of such discharge on
a representative sample of aquatic biola. to
the extent practicable. end the scope of such
monitoring us limited to include only those
investigations necessary to study the effects
of the proposed discharge:
(4) Such modified requirements will not
result in any additional requirements on any
other point or nonpount source.
(5) All applicable pretreatmeat
requirements for sources introducing waste
unto such treatment works will be enforced.
(8) to the case of any treatment .vorka
serving a population of 50.000 or more, with
respect to any toxic pollutant introduced into
such work, by an Industrial discharger for
which pollutant there is no applicable
pretreatment requirement in effect, sources
introducing waste into such work. are n
compliance with all applicable pretreatment
requirements, the applicant will enforce such
requirements. and the applicant ttaa .ii effect
a pretreatment program which, in
combinaton with the treatment of discharge.
from iuch work, removes the same amount
of such pollutant aa would be removed if
such work. were to apply secondary
treatment to discharges and if sum works
had no pretreatment program with respect to
such pollutant
(7) To the extent practicable. the applicant
has established a schedule of activities
designed to eliminate the entrance of toxic
pollutant, from nonlndu.sti’ial sources into
such treatment works:
(8) There will be no new or substantially
increased discharges from the point source of
the pollutant to which the modification
applies above that volume of discharge
specified in the permit
(9) The applicant at the time such
modiflcaiion becomes effective will be
discharging effluent whIch has received at
least primary or equivalent treatment and
which meets the critena established under
section 304(a )( ll of this Act after initial
mixing in the water, surmuni icq or adiuicent
to the point at whIch such effluent us
discnarged,
For the purpose, of this subsection, the
phr .a.”th. discharge of any pollutant mlii
marine waters” rates, to water, of the
contiguous eons, or into saline estuarins
waters where there is strong tidal movement
and other hydrological and geological
characteristic. which the Administrator
deternunes necessary to allow compliance
with parsigiiph (2) of this subsection, and
section 1O1(s)(2) of this Act. For the purpose.
of paragraph (9). “primary or equivalent
ireatment” means treatment by screening.
sedimentation, and skimming adequate to
remove at least 30 percent of the biological
oxygen demanding material and of the
suspended solidi in the treatment work,
influent. and disinfection, where appropriate
A municipality which applies secondary
treatment shall be eligible to receive a permit
pursuant to this subsection which modifle.
the requirements of subsection lb)(1)(B) of
this section with respect to the discharge of
any pollutant from any treatment works
owned by such municipality into marine
waters No permit issued under this
subsection shall authorize the discharge of
sewage sludge into marine waters. lii order
for a permit to be issued under this
subsection for the discharge of a poll4tani
Into marine waier,, such marine water, must
exhibit characteristics assuring that water
providing dilution does not contain
significant amounts of previously disc’iarged
effluent from such treatment works No
permit issued under this subsection shall
authorize the discharge of any pollutant into
saline eatuanne waters which at the time of
application do not support a balanced
indigenous population of shellfish. fish and
wildlife, or allow recreation in and on the
waters ci’ which exiubil ambient water
quality below applicable water quality
standards adopted for the protection of
public water supplies, shellfish, fish and
wildlife or recreational activities or such
other standards necessary to assure support
and protection of such use.. The prohibition
contained in the preceding sentence shall
apply without regard to the preser.ce or
absence of a causal relaticnship be’ween
such characteristics and the usppLcant a
current or proposed discharge
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this
subsection, no permit may be issued under
this aubsecnon for discharge of a pollutant
Into the New York Bight Apex consisting of
the ocean waters of the Atlantic Ocean
westward of 73 degrees 30 minutes west
longitude and northward of 40 degrees 10
minutef north latitude
(b) Section 301(i)(1) of the Clean
Water Act provides that:
Any applIcation filed under this aection for
a modification of the provisions of—
(A) Subsection (b)(i flU) under subsection
(h) of this section shall be filed not later than
the 385th day which begins after the date of
enec’ment of the Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Construction Grant Amendinenta
of 1981. except that a publicly owned
treatment works which prior to December31
1982, had a contractual arrangement to use a
portion of the capacity of an ocean outfall
operated by another publicly owned
treatment works which ha. applied for or
received modification under subsection (h).
may apply fore modification of subsection
(h ) in its own right not later than 30 days
after the date of the enactment of the Water
Quality Act of 1987.
(cJ Sectton 22(e) of the Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Construction
Grant Amendments of 1981. Public L
97—117. provides that:
The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of enactment of
this Act except that no applicant, other than
the city of Avalon, California. woo applies
after the date of enactment of this Act for a
permit pu.”auant to subsection (h) of section
301 of the Federal Water Pollution Control -
Act which modifies the requirements of
subsection (b)(I)(B) of section 301 of such Act
shall receive such permit during the one.year
period which begins on the date of enactment
of this Act.
(d) Section 303(b)(2) of the Water
Quality Act. Pub. L 100—4, provides that
301(hfl3) shall only apply to modification.,
arid renewals of modifications which are
tentatively or finally approved alter the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(e) Section 303(g) of the Water Quality
Act provides that:
The amendments made to 301(h) and (h)(2f,
as well as provision, of (h )(8) and (h)(9 1 , mall
not apply to an application for a permit unoer
section 30 1 (h) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act which has been ieriiatively or
rmally approved by the Administrator before
the date of the enactment of this Act, except
that such amendments shall apply to all
renewals of such permits after such date of
enactment.
§ 125,58 DettnhlSona.
For the purposes of this subpart:
(a) Administmror means the EPA
Admarustrator ore person aesignated by
the EPA Administrator.
(b) Altered discharge means any
discharge other than a currett discharge
or improved discharge. as defined in this
regulation.
(c) Applicant means an applicant for a
new or renewed section 301 h) modifed
permit Large applicants have
populations contributing to their POTWa
equal to or more than 50.000 people or
average dry weather flows of 50
millions gallons per day (mgd) or more:
shall applicants have contributing
populations of less than 50.000 people
and average dry weather flows of less
than 5.0 mgd. For the purposes of this
definition the contributing population
and flows shall be based on pro )ectlons
for the end of the five year permit term.
Average dry weather flows shell be the
average daily total discharge flows for
the maximum month of the dry weather
sPa8OrL
(dl Application means a rinal
appl.cation previously submitted in
-------
Federal Register / Vol . 56, No. 16 / Thursday. Jdnuary 24. 1991 I Proposed Rules
28 5
accordance with the lune 15. 1979.
section 301(h) regulation. (44 FR 34784);
an application submitted between
December 29. 1981 and December 29.
1982: or a 301(h) renewal application
submitted in accordance with these
regulations. It does not uiclude a
preliminary application submitted in
accordance with the June 15, 1979,
cection 301(h) regulations.
(e) App licotion questionnaire means
EPA’s “Applicant Questionnaire for
Modification of Secondary Treatment
Requirements”, published as an
appendix to this subpart
(1) Bolanced, indigenous population
means an ecological community which.
(1) Exhibits characteristics similar to
those of nearby, healthy communities
existing under comparable but
unpolluted environmental conditions: or
(2) May reasonably be expected to
become re-established in the polluted
water body segment from adjacent
waters if sources of pollution were
removed.
(g) Categorical pretreatment standard
means a standard promulgated by EPA
under 40 CFR chapter 1. subchapter N
(b) Current discharge means the
volume, composit ion. and location of an
applicant’s discharge at the tune of
permit application.
(i) Improved discharge means the
volume, composition and location of an
applicant’s discharge following:
(1) Construction of planned outfall
improvements. including, without
limitation, cutfall relocation, outfall
repair. or d.ffuser modification, or
(2) Construction of planned treatment
system imorovements to treatment
lev2ls or discharge or characteristics; or
(3) Implementation of a planned
program to improve operation and
maintenance of an existing treatment
system or to elinuxiate or control the
uitrcduction of pollutants into the
applicant’s treatment works.
(j) Industrial discharger or industrial
source means any source of
nondomestic pollutants regulated under
section 307(b) or (c) of the Clean Water
Act which discharges into a P01W.
(k) Modified discharge means the
volume. composition, and location of the
discharge proposed by the applicant for
which a modification tinder section
301 (h) of the Act is requested. A
modified discharge may be a current
discharge. improved discharge. or
altered discharge.
(I) New York Bight Apex means the
ocean waters of the Atlantic Ocean
westward of 73 degrees 30 minutes west
longitude and northward of 40 degrees
10 minutes north latitude.
(m) Nonindustrzal source means any
source of pollutants which is not an
industrial source.
(a) Ocean waters means those coastal
waters other than saline eatuarine
waters landward of the baseline of the
terntonal seas. the deep waters of the
tern tonal seas, or the waters of the
contiguous zone
(o) Permittee means an NPDES
permittee with an effective 3 01(b)
modified permit.
(p) Pesticides means derneton.
guthion, malathion. mirex.
rnethoxychlor. and parathion.
(q) Pretreatment means the reduction
of the amount of pollutants, the
elimination of pollutants, or the
alteration of the nature of pollutant
properties in wastewater prior to or in
lieu of discharging or otherwise
introducing 8uch pollutants into a
P01W The reduction or alteration may
be obtained by physical, chemicaL or
biological processes, process changes or
by other means, except as prohibited by
40 CFR part 403.
(r) Primary or equivalent treatment
for the purposes of this subpart means
treatment by screening, sedimentation,
and skimming adequate to remove at
least 30 percent of the biological oxygen
demanding material and of the
suspended solids in the treatment works
influent. and disinfection, where
appropriate.
(s) Public water supplies means water
distributed from a public water system.
(t) Public water system means a
system for the pros ision to the public of
piped water for human consumption, if
such system has at least fifteen (15)
service connections or regulacly serves
at least twenty-five (2 ) individuals
This term includes (1) Any collection.
treatment, storage and distribution
facilities under the control of the
operator of the system and used
primarily in connection with the system,
and (2) any collection or pretreatment
storage facilities not under the control of
the operator of the system which are
used primarily in connection with the
system.
(u) Publicly owned treatment works or
“P01W” means a treatment works, as
defined in section 212(2) of the Act.
which is owned by a State, municipality,
or ntermunzcipal or interstate agency.
(v) Saline estuarine waters means
those semi-enclosed coastal waters
which have a free connection to the
territorial sea, undergo net seaward
exchange with ocean waters, and have
salinities comparable to those of the
ocean Generally, these waters are near
the mouth of estuaries and have cross-
sectional annual mean salinities greater
than twenty-live (25) parts per thousand.
(w) Secondary removal equivalency
means that the amount of a toxic
pollutant removed by the combination of
the applicant’s own treatment of its
influent and pretreatment by its
industhal users is equal to or greater
than the amount of the toxic pollutant
that would be removed if the applicant
were to apply secondary treatment to its
discharge where the discharge has not
undergone pretreatment by the
applicant’s industrial users.
(x) Secondary treatment means the
term as defined in 40 CFR part 133
(y) Shellfish, fish and wildlife means
any biological population or community
that might be adversely affected by the
applicant’s modified discharge
(z) Stressed waters means those
ocean waters which an applicant can
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Administrator, that the absence of a
balanced, indigenous population is
caused solely by human perturbations
other than the applicant’s modified
discharge
(as) Toxic pollutants means those
substances listed in 40 CFR 401.15.
(bb) Water quality criteria means
scientific data and guidance developed
and periodically updated by EP under
section 304(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act.
which are applicable to manne waters.
(cc) Water quality standards means
applicable water quality standard3
which have been approved, left in effect.
or promulgated under section 303 of the
Clean Water Act.
(dd) Zone of initial d laLion (ZID)
means the region of initial iulxlr .g
surrounding or adjacent to the end of the
outfall pipe or diffuser ports. provided
that the ZID may not be larger than
allowed by mixing zone restrictions in
applicable water quality siandards
125.59 Genrat,
(a) Basisfor application An
application under this subpart shall be
based on a current improved, or altered
discharge into ocean waters or saline
estuarine waters,
(b) Pmhiba,ons. No section 301(h)
modified permit shall be issued.
(1) Where such issuance would not
assure compliance with all applicable
requirements of this subpart and part
122,
(2) For the discharge of sewage
sludge:
(3) Where such issuance would
conflict with applicable pro isions of
State, local, or other Federal laws or
Executive Orders. This includes
compliance with the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, as amended.
16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.: the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as ameided. 16
-------
2826 ”
Federal Register /Vol: 50, No. 18 / Thuraday. January 24. 1991 / Proposed Rules
U.S.C. 1531 et seq. and title III of the
Marine Protection, Research arid
Sanctuaries Act, as amended. 16 U.S.C.
1431 et seq.;
(4) Where the discharge of any
pollutant enters Into saline estuarine
waters which at the Lime of application
do not support a balanced indigenous
population of shellfish, fish and wildlife.
or allow recreation in and on the waters
or which exhibit ambient water quality
below applicable water quality
standards adopted for the protection of
public water supplies, shellfish, fish and
wildlife or recreational activities or such
other standards necessary to assure
support and protection of such uses. The
prohibition contained in the preceding
sentence shall apply without regard to
the presence or absence of a causal
relationship between such
characteristics and the applicant’s
current or proposed diahcarge; or
(5) Where the discharge of any
pollutant is into the New York Bight
Apex.
(c) Applications. Each applicant for a
modified permit under this subpart shall
submit an application to EPA signed in
compliance with 40 CFR part 122
subpart B which shall contain:
(1) A signed. completed NPDES
Application Standard form A. parts I, II.
EU:
(2) A completed Application
Questionnaire;
(3) The certification in accordance
with 40 CFR 122.22(d);
(4) in addition to the requirements of
4 12S.59(c)(1)—{3), applicants for permit
renewal shall support continuation of
the modification by supplying to E1’A,
the results of studies and monitoring
performed in accordance with 4 125.83
during the life of the permit. Upon a
demonstration meeting the statutory
criteria and requirements of this
subpart, the permit may be renewed
under the applicable procedures of 40
CFR part 124.
(d) Revisions to applications. (1)
POTWs which submitted applications in
accordance with the June 15. 1979.
Regulations (44 FR 34794) may revise
their applications one time following a
tentative decision to propose changes to
treatment levels and/or outfall and
diffuser location and design in
accordance with 4 125.59(fJ(2)(l) ; and
(2) Other applicants may revise their
applications one time following a
tentative decision to propose changes to
treatment levels and/or outfall and
diffuser location and design in
accordance with 4 125.59(fl(2)(i).
Revisions by such applicants which
propose downgrading treatment levels
end/or outfall and diffuser location and
design must be justified on the basis of
substantial changes in circwnstances
beyond the applicant’s central since the
Lime of application submission.
(3) Applicants authorized or requested
to submit additional informatina under
4125.59 (g) may submit a revised
application in accordance with
4 125.59(fl(2)(ii) where such additional
Information supports changes in
proposed treatment levels and/or outfall
location and diffuser design. The
opportunity for such revision shall be in
addition to the one-time revision
allowed under 4 125.59(d) (1) and (2),
(4) POTIIVa which revise their
applications musti
(i) Modify their NPDES form and
Application Questionnaire as needed to
assure that the information filed with
their application is correct and
complete;
(ii) Provide additional analysis and
data as needed to demonstrate
compliance with this subpart:
(iii) Obtain new State determinations
under §4 125.81(b)(2) and 125.64(b): and
(iv) Provide the certification described
in paragraph (c)(3) of this subsection.
(5) Applications for permit renewals
may not be revised.
(e) Submittal of additional
information to demonstrate compliance
with § 125 50 cad 12585. (1)On or
before the deadline established in
paragraph (fl(3) of this section,
applicants shall submit a letter of intent
to demonstrate compliance with
4 * 125.60 and 125 65. The letter of intent
is subject to approval by the
Administrator based on the
requirements of this paragraph arid
paragraph (fl(3) of this section. The
letter of intent shall consist of the
following:
(i) For compliance with 4125 60:
(A) A description of the proposed
treatment system which upgrades
treatment to satisfy the requirements of
125.60.
(B) A project plan. including a
schedule for data collection and for
achieving compliance with 4125.80. The
project plan shall include dates (or
design and construction of necessary
facilities, submittal of influent/effluent
data and submittal of any other
Information necessary to demonstrate
compliance with § 125.60. The
Administrator will review the project
plan and may require revisions prior to
authorizing submission of the additlrinal
information.
(ii) For compliance with 4125.85:
(A) A determination of what approach
will be used to achieve compliance with
125.65.
(B) A project plan for achieving
compliance. The project plan shell
include any necessary data collection
activities, submittal of additional
Information. and/or development of
appropriate pretreatment limits to
demonstrate compliance with 4125.65.
The Administrator will review the
protect plan and may require revisions
prior to submission of the additional
Information.
(iii) POTWs which submit additional
information musti
(A) Modify their NPDES form and
Application Questionnaire as needed to
assure that the information filed with
their application is correct and
complete;
(B) Obtain new State determinations
under §4 125.81(b)(2) and 125.84(b); and
(C) Provide the certification described
in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(2) The information required under
this subsection must be submitted in
accordance with the schedules in
4 125 59(fl(3)(ii). If the applicant does
not meet these schedules for
compliance, EPA may deny the
application on that basis.
(I) Deadlines and distribubon—(1)
Applications.
(i) The application for an original
301(h) permit for POTWs which directly
discharge effluent into saline waters
shall be submitted to the appropriate
EPA Regional Adniinistrator ‘o later
than December 29. 1982.
(ii) The application for renewal of a
301(h) modified permit shell be
submitted no less than 180 days prior to
the expiration of the existing permit,
unless permission for a later date has
been granted by the Administrator (The
Administrator shall not grant permission
for applications to be submitted later
than the expiration date of the existing
permit.)
(iii) A copy of the application shall be
provided to the State and interstate
agency(s) authorized to provide
certification/concurrence under
§4124.53—124.55 on or before the date
the application is submitted to EPA.
(2) Revisions to Applications. (i)
Applicants desiring to revise their
applIcations under 4 125.59(d) (1) or (2)
must:
(A) Submit to the appropriate
Regional Administrator a letter of intent
to revise their application either within
45 days of the date of EPA’s tentative
decision on their original application. or
within 45 days of November 26. 1982.
whichever is later. Following receipt by
EPA of a letter of intent, further EPA
proceedings on the tentative decision
under 40 CFR part 124 will be stayed.
(B) Submit the revised application s
described for new applicauona in
4125 59(f)(1 ) either within one year of
the date of EPA’s tentative deusion on
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 56, No. 10 I Thursday, lanuary 24. 1991 I Proposed Rules
2827
the original application or within one
year of November 28. 1982. if a tentative
decision has already been made,
whichever is later.
(ii) Applicants desiring to revise their
applications under 125 59(d)(3) must
submit the revised application as
described for new applications in
125.59(0(1) of this part concurrent with
submission of the additional information
under 125.59(g).
(3) Deadline for additional
information to demonstrate compliance
with 125.60 and 125.65
(i) A letter of intent required under
125.59(e)(1) must be submitted by the
following dates: for permittees with
301(h) modifications or for applicants as
to which a tentative or final decision has
been issued, within 90 days of
promulgation of this provision: for all
others, within 90 days after the
Administrator issues a tentative
decision on an application Following
receipt by EPA of a letter of intent
containing the information required in
L125.59(e)(1), further EPA proceedings
on the tentative decision under 40 FR
part 124 will be stayed.
(ii) The project plan submitted under
123 59(e)(1) snaIl ensure that the
applicant meets all the requirements of
§ § 125 60 and 12585 by the following
deadlines
(A) Within two years of promulgation
of this subsection for applicants that are
not grandlathered under 125.59(j).
(B) At the time of permit renewal or
within two years of promulgation of this
subsection, whichever is later, for
applicants that are grandfathered under
§ 125 59(j).
(4) Slate deterrn,na!,on deadline
State determinations, as required by
§ 125 81(b) 2) and 125 84(b) shall be
filed by the applicant with the
appropriate Regional Administrator, no
later than 90 days after submission of
the revision to the application or
additional information to EPA.
Extensions to this deadline may be
pro ided by EPA upon request.
Howe er, EPA will riot begin review of
the revision to the application or
additional information until a favorable
State determination is received by EPA.
Failure to provide the State
determination within the tlmefreme
required by this subsection is a basis for
denial of the application.
(g)(1) The Administrator may
authorize or request an applicant to
submit additional information by a
specified date not to exceed one year
from the date of authorization or
request.
(2) Applicants seeking authorization
to submit additional Information on
current/modified discharge
characteristics, water quality, biological
conditions or oceanographic
characteristics must
(i) Demonstrate that they made a
diligent effort to provide such
information with their application and
were unable to do so, and
(ii) Submit a plan of study, including a
schedule for data collection and
submittal of the additional information.
EPA will review the plan of study and
may require revisions prior to
authorizing submission of the additional
information
(h) Tentative decisions on section
301(h) modifications. The Administrator
shall grant a tentative approval or a
tentative denial of a section 301(h)
modified permit application. To qualify
for a tentative approval, the applicant
shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the Administrator that it is using good
faith means to come into compliance
with all the requirements of this subpart
and that it will meet all such
requirements based on a schedule
approved by the Administrator in
accordance with § 125.59(f)(3)(ii).
(i) Decisions on section 301(h)
modifications (1) The decision to grant
or deny a section 301(h) modification
shall be made by the Administrator and
shall be based on the applicants
demonstration that It has met all the
requirements of * 125.59 through
125.68
(2) No section 301(h) modified permit
shall be issued until the appropriate
State certificate/concurrence is granted
or waived pursuant to § 124.54 or if the
State denies certIfication/concurrence
pursuan’ to § 124 54
(3) In the case of a modification issued
to an applicant in a State administering
an approved permit program under 40
CFR part 123 the State Director may’
(i) Revoke an existing permit as of the
effective date of the EPA issued section
301(h) modified permit, and
(ii) Cosign the section 301(h) modified
permit if the Director has indicated an
intent to do so in the written
concurrence
(4) Any section 301(h) modified permit
shall:
(i) Be issued in accordance with the
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 124.
except that, because section 301(h)
permits may only be issued by EPA. the
terms “Administrator or a person
designated by the Administrator” shall
be substituted for the term ‘Director” as
appropriate. and
(ii) Contain all applicable terms and
conditions set forth in 40 CFR part 122
and § 125 68.
(5) Appeals of section 301(h)
determinations shall be governed by the
procedures in 40 CFR part 124.
(j) Grandfotherrng provision
Applicants that received tentative or
fInal approval for a section 301(h)
modified permit prior to February 4,
1987, are not subject to 125.60. the
water quality criteria provisions of
§ 125.62ta)(1). or § 125,65 until the time
of permit renewal. In addition, if permit
renewal will occur prior to two years
after promulgation of this subsection,
applicants may have additional time to
come into compliance with * § 12560
and 125.85, as determined appropriate
by EPA on a case-by.case basis Such
additicnal time, however, shall not
extend beyond the date that is two
years after promulgation of this
subsection. This subsection does not
apply to any application that was
initially tentatively approved, but as to
which EPA withdrew its tentative
approval or issued a tentative denial
prior to February 4. 1987
§ 125.60 Prtmary or equivalent treatment
requirements,
(a) The applicant shall demonstrate
that, at the time its modification
becomes effective, it will be discharging
effluent that has received at least
primary or eqwvalent treatment.
(b) The applicant shall perform
monitoring to ensure, based on the
monthly average results of the
monitoring, that the effluent it
discharges has received primary or
equivalent treatment.
§ 125.61 ExIstence of and compliance with
applicable water quality standards,
(a) There must exist a water quality
standard or standards applicable to the
pollutant(s) for which a section 301(h)
modified permit is requested. including’
(1) Water quality standards for
biochemical oxygen demand or
dissolved oxygen.
(2) Water quality standards for
suspended solids, turbidity, light
transmission, light scattering or
maintenance of the euphotic-zone. and
(3) Water quality standards for p 1- 1.
(b) The applicant must:
(1) Demonstrate that the modified
discharge will comply with the above
water quality standard(s): and
(2) Provide a determination signed by
the State or interstate agency(s)
authorized to provide certification under
§ 12453 and 124.54 that the proposed
modified discharge will comply wiih
applicable provisions of Slate law
including water quality standards. This
determination shall include a discussion
of the basis for the conclusion reached.
-------
Federal Register / vol. 58, No. 16 I Thursday. January 24, 1991 / Proposed Rules
2823
123.62 Attalnm.nt or malntananc. of
Wstr quality wtdcfl assures prot.ceon of
water ai p and liii protection and
propagation of a balanced, LndI enous
population ot shsIMsIi, flats, and wildlife,
and allows recreational . UvWIL
(a) Physical chamcter,st:ce of
discharge. (1) At the time the 301(h)
modification becomes effective, the
applicant’s outfall and diffuser must be
located and designed to provide
adequate initial dilution, dispersion, and
transport of wastewater such that the
discharge does not exceed at and
beyond the zone of initial dilution:
(i) All applicable EPA approved State
water quality standards that directly
correspond to EPA water quality
criteria, and:
(ii) All applicable EPA water quality
criteria for pollutants for which there is
no applicable EPA approved State water
quality standard directly corresponding
to the EPA water quality criterion for
the pollutant.
(iii) For purposes of paragraphs (a)(1)
(i) and (ii) of this section. a State water
quality standard “directly corresponds’
to an EPA water quality criterion only if
(A) the State water quality standard
addresses the same pollutant as the EPA
water quality criterion and (B) the State
water quality standard specifies a
numeric criterion for that pollutant or
State objective methodology for deriving
such a numeric criterion.
(iv) The evaluation of compliance
with paragraphs (a)(1) (i) and (ii) of this
section shall be based upon conditions
reflecting periods of maximum
stratification and during other periods
when discharge characteristics, water
quality, biological seasons, or
oceanographic conditions indicate more
critical aitudtions may exist.
(2) The evaluation under paragraph
(a)(1)(ii) of this section as to compliance
with applicable section 304(aJ(1) water
quality criteria shall be based on the
follow ingi
(i) For aquatic life criteria: The
pollutant concentrations that must not
be exceeded are the numeric ambient
values, if any, specified In the EPA
section 304(a)(1) water quality criteria
documents as the concentrations at
which acute and chronic toxicity to
aquatic life occurs or that are otherwise
Identified as the criteria to protect
aquatic life.
(ii) For human health criteria for
carcinogens: (A) For a known or
suspected carcinogen, the Administrator
shall determine the pollutant
concentration that shall not be
exceeded. To make this determination,
the Administrator shall first determine a
level of risk associated with the
pollutant that is acceptable for purposes
of this subsection, The Administrator
shall then use the Information in the
section 304(a)(1) water quality criterion
document, supplemented by all other
relevant information, to determine the
specific pollutant concentration that
corresponds to the identified risk level.
(B) For purposes of paragraph
(a l(2)(ii)(A) of this section: an
acceptable risk level will be a single
level that has been consistently used, as
determined by the Administrator, as the
basis of the State’s EPA-approved State
water quality standards for carcinogenic
pollutants. Alternatively, the
Administrator may consider a
recommendation by the State of an
acceptable risk level, which may be
submitted at the applicant’s option. The
State recommendation must
demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the
Administrator, that the recommended
level is sufficiently protective of human
health in light of the exposure and
uncertainty factors associated with the
estimate of the actual risk posed by the
applicants discharge. The State must
Include with its demonstration a
showing that the risk level selected is
based on the best information available
and that the State has held a public
hearing to review the selection of the
risk level, in accordance with provisions
of State law and public participation
requirements of 40 CFR part 25. If the
Administrator neither determines that
there is a consistently used single risk
level nor accepts a risk level
recommended by the State, then the
Administrator shall otherwise determine
an acceptable risk level based on all
relevant information.
(iii) For human health criteria for non-
carcinogens ’ For non-carcinogenic
pollutants, the pollutant concentrations
that must not be exceeded are the
numeric ambient values, if any,
specified in the EPA section 304(a)(1)
water quality criteria documents as
protective against the potential toxicity
of the contaminant through ingestion of
contaminated aquatic organisms.
(3) The requirements of paragraph,
(a)(1) and (a)(2 ) of this section apply in
addition to, and do not waive or
substitute for the requirements of
* 125.61.
(bJ Impact of discharge on public
water supplies. (1) The applicant’s
modified discharge must allow for the
attainment or maintenance of water
quality which assure, protection of
public water supplies.
(2) The applicant’s modified discharge
must not:
(i) Prevent a planned or existing
public water supply from being used, or
from continuing to be used, as a public
water supply; or
(ii) Have the effect of requinng
treatment over and above that which
would be necessary in the absence of
such discharge in order to comply with
local, and EPA drinking water
standards.
(c) Biological impact of discharge (1)
The applicants modified discharge must
allow for the attainment or maintenance
of water quality which assures
protection and propagation of a
balanced indigenous population of
shellfish, fish, and wildlife,
(2) A balanced indigenous population
of shellfish, fish, and wildlife must exist.
(i) Immediately beyond the zone of
initial dilution of the applicant’s
modified discharge and;
(ii) In all other areas beyond the zone
of initial dilution where marine life is
actually or potentially affected by the
applicant’s modified discharge.
(3) Conditions within the zone of
initial dilution must not contribute to
extreme adverse biological impacts,
including, but not limited to. the
destruction of distinctive habitats of
limited distribution, the presence of
disease epicenter, or the stimulation of
phytoplankton blooms which have
adverse effects beyond the zone of
initial dilution.
(4) In addition, for modi t ied
discharges into saline estuarine water
(i) Benthic populations within the zone
of initial dilution must not differ
substantially from the balanced
indigenous populations which exist
immediately beyond the boundary of the
zone of initial dilution:
(ii) The discharge must not interfere
with estuanne migratory pathways
within the zone of initial dilution, and
(iii) The discharge must not result in
the accumulation of toxic pollutants or
pesticides at levels which exert adverse
effects on the biota within the zone of
initial dilution.
(d) Impact of discharge on
recreational activities. (1) The
applicant’s modified discharge must
allow for the attainment or maintenance
of water quality which allows for
recreational activities beyond the zone
of initial dilution, including, without
limitation, swimming, diving, boating,
fishing, and picnicking, and sports
activities along shorelines and beaches.
(2) There must be no FederaL State or
local restrictions on recreational
activities within the vicinity of the
applicant’s modified outfall unless such
restrictions are routinely imposed
around sewage outfalls. This exception
shall not apply where the restriction
would be lifted or modified, in whole or
in part, if the applicant were discharging
a secondary treatment effluent.
-------
Federal Register I Vol 58. No 6 / Thursday, January 24, 1991 / Proposed Rules
(e) Additional requ,rement,g for
applications based on improved or
altered discharges. An application for a
section 301(h) modified permit on the
basis of an improved or altered
discharge must include’
(1) A demonstration that such
improvements or alterations have been
thoroughly planned and studied and can
be completed or implemented
expedit iously
(2) Detailed analyses projecting
changes in average and maximum
monthly flow rates and composition of
the applicant’s discharge which are
expected to result from proposed
improvements or alterations:
(3) The asaessmcnts required by
paragraphs (a) through Ib) of this section
based on its current discharge:
(4) A detailed analysis of how the
applicant’s planned improvements or
alterations will comply with the
requirements of paragraphs (a) through
(d) of this section.
(I’) Stressed waters. An applicant must
demonstrate compliance with
paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section
not only on the basis of the applicants
own modified discharge, but also taking
into account the applicant’s modified
discharge in combination with
pollutants from other sources. However.
if an applicant which discharges into
ocean waters believes that its failure to
meet the requirements of paragraphs (a)
through (e) of this section is entirely
attributable to conditions resulting from
human perturbations other than its
modified discharge (including, without
limitation, other municipal or industrial
discharges, noripoint source runoff and
the applicant’s previous discharges), the
applicant need not demonstrate
compliance with those requirements if it
demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the
Administrator, that its modified
discharge does not or will not:
(1) Contribute to. increase, or
perpetuate such stressed condiuorig
(2) Contribute to further degradation
of the biota or water quality if the level
of human perturbation from other source
increases, and
(3) Retard the recovery of the blots or
water quality if the level of human
perturbation from other source
decreases.
§ 125.63 EstabtIshmect of. monfturtng
preg
(a) General requ,rem fg (1) The
applicant must:
(i) Have a monitoring program that Is
(A) DesIgned to provide data to evaluate
the impact of the modified discharge on
the marine blots. demonstmte
compliance with applicab water
quality standards, and measure toxic
substances in the discharge. and (B)
limited to include only those scientific
investigations necessary to study the
effects of the proposed discharge:
(ii) Describe the sampling techniques.
schedules and locations (including
appropriate control sites), analytical
techniques, quality control and
venf’ication procedures to be used in the
monitoring program:
(iii) Demonstrate that it has the
resources necessary to implement the
program upon issuance of the modified
permit and to carry it out for the life of
the modified permit and
(Iv) Determine the frequency and
extent of the monitoring program taking
Into consideration the applicant’s rate of
discharge, quantities of toxic pollutants
discharged, and potentially significant
impacts on receiving water quality,
marine biota. and designated water
uses.
(2) The Administrator may require
revision of the proposed monitoring
program before issuing a modified
permit and during the term of any
modified permit
(b) Biological monitoring program
The biological monitoring prograrrijor
both small and large applicants shall
provide data adequate to evaluate the
impact of the modified discharge on the
marine biota,
(1) Biological monitoring shall include
to the extent practicable:
(i) Periodic surveys of the biological
communities and populations which are
most likely affected by the discharge to
enable comparisons with baseline
conditions described in the application
and verified by sampling at the control
stations/reference sites during the
periodic surveys:
(ii) Periodic determinations of the
accumulation of toxic pollutants and
pesticides in organisms and
exanunation of adverse effects, such as
disease, growth abnormalities.
physiological stress or death;
(lii) Sampling of sediments in areas of
solids deposition In the vicinity of the
Z , In other areas of expected impact.
and at appropriate reference sites to
sUpport the water quality and biological
surveys and to measure the
accumulation of toxic pollutants and
pesticides; and
(lv) Where the discharge would affect
commercIal or recreational fisheries,
periodic assessments of the conditions
and productivity of fisheries.
(2) Small applicants are not subject to
the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)
(il)-(ivj of thie section Il they discharge
at depth. greater than 10 meters and can
demonstrate through a suspended solids
deposition analysis that there will be
2829
negligible seabed accumulation in the
vicinity of the modified discharge.
(3) For applicants seeking a section
301(h) modified permit based on’
(i) A current discharge, biological
monitoring shall be designed to
demonstrate ongoing compliance with
the requirements of 125.82(c).
(ii) An improved discharge or altered
discharge other than outfall relocation.
biological monitoring shall provide
baseline data on the current impact of
the discharge and data which
demonstrate, upon completion of
Improvements or alterations, that the
requirements of 125.82(c) are’met or
(iii) An improved or altered discharge
involving outfall relocation, the
biological monitoring shall’
(A) include the current discharge Bite
until such discharge ceases: and
(B) Provide baseline data at the
relocation site to demonstrate the
impact of the discharge and to provide
that basis for demonstrating that
requirements of 125.82(c) will be met
(c) Waler quality monitoring program.
The water quality monitoring program
shall to the extent practicable.
(1) Provided adequate data for
evaluating compliance with water
quality standards or water quality
criteria, as applicable under
125.82(a)(1)
(2) Measure th presence of toxic
pollutants which have been identified or
reasonably may be expected to be
present In the discharge.
(d) Effluent monitoring program In
addition to the requirements of 40 CFR
part 122, to the extent practicable,
monitoring of the POTW effluent shall
provide quantitative and qualitative
data which measure toxic substances
and pesticides in the effluent and the
effectiveness of the toxic control
program.
12S. 4 Effect of the Uiir On Othir
poUft Ond nUs sowess.
(a) No modified discharge may result
in any additional pollution control
requirements on any other point or
nonpoint source.
(b) The applicant shall obtain a
determination from the State or
interstate agency(s) having authority to
establish wasteload allocations
indicating whether the applicant’s
discharge will result In an additional
treatment pollution controL or other
requirement on any other point or
nonpouit sources. The state
determination shall include a discussion
of the basis for Its conclusion,
-------
Fed 5 zid R er I Vol. 5 No.161 Thursday. J rTuary 24 19ST I Propeeed i es
125M Ur a w eM
(a) Scope and applico&&y.. (1 The
requirements of this sectiwi apply to
each POTW serving a population of
50.000 or more that has tinicpollutazxts
introduced into the POTW by ore or
more industrial d schar ere and that
seeks a sectf err 301(1,) modification.
(27 The requirxin ,o( thie secl ion
apply in addition to an i a Lkable
requirements 0(40 CFR part 4W. and do
not waive c sub thte for the airt 4W
requirements in eny Wxy.
(b) Toxic poLlutaria coWrvLtI)As to
each toxic pollutant tctroduced by an
induatrial discharger. each POTW
sublect to the re purementa of this
8CCtlOfl shall demonsrate that iteither
(i) Ha, an applicable pretreatment
requirement in effect in acconlance with
parag -dph of thiT c on or (i1 ha,
in effect a pru - z that achiever
Secondary Removel u eney n
accordance with pa agr pi d) of tine
se ioa.
(2) Eath applicant i1 demonatrata
that seintea intrixtuc ..,g waste m the
applkant. treatment w wka . are in
conpllanca with all applEable
pretreatment rec ramenta. including
numerical staniiirds set by local lun &
and that it will enforce those
requirements.
(c) App/icdile prot.-aarmenr
rPqulrement. C 17 Rn appltca&e
pretreatment requirement under
paragraph (b )(flf of tile section with
reaped 5 a li n de polhstanf shalT consint
of the fallowm
(I) As to each i isthai .eag
discher n to the applicant, trea t
works Is, which that, is no applica
categorica’ pIetrea it st it rd for
the toxic poLlutant, a onth limit or limit.
on the toxic pollutant sa1iaiyin the
requirements of 4U R p t 40 end
ensurina that the requirements of
125.62 are met and
(ii) As to each industrial source
diechargin to the applicants treatment
wo,ka that is ibiect to. catepncaé
pretreatment st atd for t c
pollutant, the catetorical standard p 1 tia
a local tunit or mita as aecemary to
satisfy the requirements of 40 ( R part
400 and to ensure that the requirements
of section 125.82 are met.
(21 Any loca l hmrts dwvrlu u.d to meet
the requir sofpa €,pha fb f1 l7
and (cjfl; of lit. section e be (9
Consistent wilt, ai spp eeb1e
requirements o(40 CFR port 4W end (II)
aubiect to acpnwa) by the
as part of the 387 (ltP . b,ca4lon renew.
The Adazimseatormnay require such
local limits to betevwsdonuecesaw j to
meet the req ir.ITI ra of
*12562. or49CFft t 403.
(d) Secondasy rernova eqsev&enc
An applicant gail demonitrete that ii
achieves Secondary Removal
Equivalency thrsu t the use of a
secondary treatment pilot
(demonetratarn) plant at the applicant,
lacility which provides an ertipincal
determination of t amount ol a tonic
pollutant removed by the applicauoo of
secondary treatment to the applicanra
iriiluent. where the applicant’s inl]nent
hds nut been psetreeted. Alterriauvaly.
an apphcaat may make this
detai-unnatioa ustn ifluent dm1 ha.
received industrial pretreatment.
notwithstanding 125.58(wJ.
125.69 ToxIc, control program.
(al C. em,ca1 analysis. (1) The
apphcant shalr submit at the time of
application a cheinicafanafysu of it3
current dfscharge for all toxic pollutants
and pesticides as defined In f 125.58
(ia) and (p]. The analysis shall be
performed on two 24 hour composite
samples (one (fry weather and one wet
weather)’. Rpphcanta may supplement or
substitute chemical arialyaes if
composition of the supplemental or
substitute samptes typifies that which
occurs during dry end wet weather
conuin oils.
(21 Unless req nired by the State. this
requirement shalt riot apply to arty small
section 301(h) applicant which certifier
that there are- no known or suspected
sources of toxic pollurante or
and document, the certification with an
indusfrta8 user survey a, desaibed by
4OCFR 4fl 2 (f7( .
(b) I Wi7kofiem ofsoorres. The
applicant shall sub,mf at the time of
appilcatfe,, as, eriatyme of the Irnown or
suspected source, of toirrc’ pollutants or
pesticides identified in t5.66(a ) The
applicant shaD to the extent practicable
categonze the sourtee according to
industrial and non*,due faF types
fr JXithISIreJI prufreaUnerrt
requirements (fl An p4ksnt that Pine
known or suspected Induseial sources
of hoc p ollutan i* shalt have ai
approved pretreotineiw p u z uRI Ii )
accee,fance w,thi4O CFR part 4 1fl.
(2) Thi. requwement shalt not apply to
asp pppllcant which ha. r i o know ur
suspected Industrial uusueo of talc
pollutant, erpeattade. and so certifies
to the Administrator.
P pzeti’eatnwnt pIvgrwI
submedb the eppitcani wislorthi.
sei lon iha4 be subject to ravtsisa ae
required by the uvstrattirpwsortb
iss,m or renewing any srctioi, 3W h}
modthed permit and during the torus of
any anch permit.
K) tmp tntioodakkexiU’iq
pre eetmcnt requirements and
authonti..m bemairrtained through
the period of development oi y
additi i pretzu tmant requ ln
that may be occeasary to cnmpfy with
the rmparemmsts of this nd,part.
(d) Nozunthmtriu) s r,ve cerntmi
program. (1) The applicant shell submrt
a proposed public education prugrum
designed to mmirnize ’ the entrance of
rmnmdus trial toxic polTutacts and
pesticides info its POTW(s) whith shall
be implemented no later than tO months
aftcr issuance of a 301(PI modified
permit.
(2 The applicant shall also de elop
end implement addit ona1nonindusrna1
source control programs on the earliest
possible schedule. This requirement
shall not apply to a small applicant
which certifies that there are rio kno n
or suspected water quality, sediment
accumulation. or biological problems
related to toxic pollutants or pesticides
in as discharge.
(3) The applicant’s nonin&iatria4
source control program. under
paragraph (d)(2) of Lbis section shall
inclade the following schediles winch.
are to be urplemented. no Late, than, tS
months alter issuance of
modified permit
(i) A schethihi of actr flies for
idnt fying cxormrlu’itrrak wcca of
toxic p hii nu and pesnct and
A schedule br the development
and imp enla ben of cwstroi pru ams
to the extent rnacucab(e. for
nonmdeetrial sces of toxic po(ao(e
and pesticides.
(47 Each nanindustrial
sowue- coTitrof prwgr.Lw and/or schedule-
submftted by the applicant ander this
section siral? be- sub;ect to rsrvniorr as
determined by the Athumistratur prior
to issuing or renewing any secttoir 3Ot(P
modified permit arid during the term of
any such prrrmnt
* 125.67
untntpc vad.
(a tIle modified discharge may result
in any new ornthsiantlaffy tncuaaed
discharger of the p ,ffutantra wfl ch the
modification applies above the
discharge spacifled in the suction 3fl ’lthl
modified permit
(b) Where pollutant discharges are
attributable in part to combined sewer
overflow.. the apphc.e$ shal l ,mniznie
existing overflows and prevent
iricres i i the i. .m of peMe f
discharged.
(cpTh , applicant shaiP provide
ectlone of efituent vthisne- end mass
loadinga for any pelhi4anla to which. the
modification applies inS. year
increments (or the desico life of lIe
facility.
-------
l’edcr I Rogbter I vol 56. No 16 ,1 Thursdjy. J inujry 21 11)91 I Proposed Rules
§ 12&68 Special conditions for section
301(h) rnodlf ted pernijtL
Each section 301(h) modified permit
issued shall contain, in addition to all
applicable terms and conditions
required by 40 CFR part 122, the
following
(a) Effluent limitations and mass
loadings which will assure compliance
with the requirements of this subpart:
(b) A schedule or schedules of
compliance for
(1) Pretreatment program development
required by § 125 66(c),
(2) Nonindustral toxics control
program required by § 125 86(d). and
(3) Control of combined sewer
overflows required by § 125.67
(c) Monitoring program requirements
that include:
(1) Biornomtoring requirements of
§ 12563(b),
(2) Water quality requirements of
125.63(c):
(3) Effluent monitoring requirements
of § 125.60(b) and 125 63(d).
(d) Reporting requirements that
include the resuits of the monitoring
programs required by paragraph (c) of
this section at such frequency as
prescribed in the approted mon:tonng
program
Appendoc—Applicant Questionnaire for
Modification of Secondary Treatment
Requirements
I Introduction
This questionnaire is to be submitted by
both small and large applicants for
modification of secondary treatment
requirements under section 301(h) of the
Clean Water ct (CWA) A small applicant is
defined as a POTW that has a c ,onuibuting
populat:on to its wastes ater treatment
faLlilty of ess than 50000 and a projected
ai erage dry weather flow of less than 50
m.llion gallons per day (nigd, 022 cubic
meters/see) (40 CFR 125 58(d) A large
applicant is defined as a POTW that has a
population contributing to its wastewater
treatment facility of at least 50.000 or a
protected average dry weather flow of its
discharge of at least 5.0 million gallons per
day (ngd. 022 cubic meier,/secl (40 CFR
125 58)cJ) The questionnaire is in two
sections. a general information and basic
requLrements section (Part II) and a technical
esaluation section (Part LII). Satisfactory
completion by small and large thschargere of
the appropriate question. of this
questionnaire is necessary to enable EPA to
determine whether the applicant s modified
discharge meets the aitena of section 301(h)
and EPA regulations (40 CFR part 123.
subpart C)
Most small applicants ahould be able to
complete the questlonnai using available
information. However, small POTWs with
low initial dilution discharging into shallow
waters or water, with poor dispersion and
transport characteristics, discharging neat
distinctive and susceptible biological
habitats, or discharging subqtantial quantities
of to’iics should anticipate the need to collect
additional information and/or conduct
additional analyses to demonstrate
compliance with section 301(h) criteria If
there are questions in this regard applicants
should contact the appropriaie EPA Rcguona)
Office for guidance.
Guidance for responding to this
questionnaire is provided by the newly
amended section 301(h) technical support
document Where available information is
incomplete and the applicant needs to collect
additional data during the period it is
preparing the application or a letter of intent.
EPA encourages the applicant to consult with
EPA prior to data collection and submission.
Such consultation, particularly if the
applicant provides a project plan, will help
assure that the proper data are gathered in
the most efficient manner
The notation (1) means large applicants
must respond to the question, and (S) means
small applicants must respond.
II General Information and Basic Data
Requirements
A Treatment System Description
1. (L. S) On which of the following are you
basing your application A current discharge.
improved discharge. or altered discharge. as
defined in 40 CFR 125 587 (40 CFR 125.59(a))
2. (L S) Description of the Treatment/
Outfall System (40 CFR 12502(a) and
125 62(e))
a Provide detailed descriptions and
diagrams of the treatment system and outfall
configuration which you propose to satisfy
the requirements of section 301(h) and 40 CFR
part 125 subpart C What is the total
discharge design flow upon which this
application is based?
b. Provide a map showing the geographic
location of proposed outfall(s) (i.e.
discharge) What is the latitude and longitude
of the proposed outfall(s)?
c For a modification based on an improved
or altered discharge, provide a description
and diagram of your current treatment system
and outfall configuration. Include the current
outfalls latitude and longitude. if different
from the proposed outfall.
3. (L S( Primary or equivalent treatment
requirements (40 CFR 125 60)
a Provide data to demonstrate that your
effluent meets at least primary or equivalent
treatment requirements as defined in 40 CFR
125.58(r)? (40 GFR 125 60)
b If your effluent does not meet the
pnmary or equivalent treatment
requirements, when do you plan to meet
them? Provide a detailed schedule, including
design, construction, start up and full
operation with your application. This
requirement must be met by the effective
date of the new section 301(h) modified
permit
4 (LS) Effluent Limitations and
Charactenstic, (40CFR 12581(b) and
125 62 el(2 )(
a Identify the final effluent limitations For
five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOO ,).
suspended solids, and pH upon which you
application for a modification I. based:
—BOO, mg/I
—Suspended solids mg/I
—pH (range)
b Provide data on the following effluent
charactenstics for your current discharge as
well as for ihe modified discharge if diliprert
from the current discharge’
Flow (m /scc(.
—Minimum
—Average dry weather
—Average wet weather
—Maximum
—Annual average
1300, (mg/I) for the following plant flows
—Mi:umuni
—Average dry weather
—Aberage wet weather
—Maximum
—Annual average
Suspended solids (mg/I) for the following
plant flows
-Minimum
—Average dry weather
—Average wet weather
—Ma iumuin
—Annual average
Toxic pollutants and pesticides (jig/I)
—List each toxic pollutant and pesticide
pH.
—Mizumuxn
-Maximum
Dts olved oxygen (mg/I. prior to chlorination)
for the following plant flows
-Minimum
—Average dry weather
—Average wet weather
—Maximum
—Annual average
Immediate dissolved oxygen demand (mg/I)
5 (L,S) Effluent Volume and Mass
Emissions (40 CFR 125.82(eJ(2) and 125 67)
a Provide detailed analyses showing
projections of effluent volume (annual
average, m 3 fsec) and mass loadings (mi/yr)
of BOO, and suspended solids for the design
life of your treatment facility in five year
increments If the application is based upon
an improved or altered discharge, the
protections must be provided with and
without the proposed improvements or
alterations
b Provide projections for the end of your
five-year permit term for (1) the treatment
facility contributing population and (2) the
average daily total discharge flow for the
maximum month of the dry weather season.
6. (LS) Average Daily Industrial Flow (m /
see) Pro%ide or estimate the average daily
induotnal inflow to your treatment facility for
the same hate increments as in question
U A 4 above (40 CFR 125 68)
7 (LS) Combined Sawer Overflows (40
CFR 125 67(b))
a. Does (will) your treatment and collection
5) stein include combined sewer overflows?
b U yes, provide a description of your plan
for minimizing combined sewer overflows to
the recei ing water
8.. ILS) Outfall/Diffuser Design. Pro ide the
following data for your current discharge as
well as for the modified discharge, if different
from the current discharge: (40 CFR
125 62(a)(1))
—Diameter and length of the outfall(s)
(meters)
-------
Z 3Z
F s l Be stev / Vo’. 56 . No. I I Thursa y. anuary 23. 1991 1 Proposed Rules
—Diameter and length 04 the diffuaer(s
(ms iar.4
—Az*(& if port azfentaLLo4a from
(de
—Port dlameterfsj (metara
—Orifice COfl 5CtJOfl ci,afflcient(s . irk own
—Vertical distance (toni mean lower ow
water (or mean low water) surface and
outfaU port(s) centerline Imetar.
—Number of ports
—Port Spacing (meters)
—Oeei i flow tale (or each pert ifaultiple
port, ere n d (m- c
B. Receiving Water Description
1. (LS) Are you applying for a modification
based on a discharge to the ocean (4OCFR
12538(n)) or to a saline estuary (40 CTR
125.58(vt)? (40 CFR 1 25 .59(a))
2. (LSJ I , year carrerw I.the,ge ar
modified disCharge to snesaed watere ec
defined in (40 CYR 123.58(z))? If yea. wAa4 ar e
the pollution sources coombadag is
stress? (40 CFR 125 59(b) (6p s.d l23. )J
3. (LS) Provide a description anchd. .eq,
the seasonal circulation pauera, t he
vicinity ol ;ois, current and modified
discharge(s (40 ( ‘R 123.82(afl
4. (L) Oceanographic conditions in the
vicinity of the current and proposed modified
discharge(s). Provide data on the 1o( owing
(40G ’R 125 62 (a ))
—4.owesf tew percenule current speed
aec)
—Predominant current speed (m/sec} avid
direction (true) dunng the lam ’ aeesQn,
—Period(s) of maximurm a atin,,
(months
—Period(s) of natural upwelhn ewnis
(dws ioa and free imocy.z.m,tha
—Density profile, during penod(i) of
mazunum strati&atfan
S. (L.S) Do the receiving waters for your
discharge contain si iilicant amounts of
effluent previously dlachargeif from the
tieaO t work. (or wiflth you are applying
(ore section 11 (bt mo.ilffedpermitT(40G ’R
123..57 (at (
6 . Ambkur ware’rquallry condition, during
the penod of inasmium slreflflcarlomr at
the zone of fmfnsfdTh stum fZTDj boundary. at
other areas of porenisal impact. end at control
stationS. (40 CFR 125.62(a))
a. (14 Provide p fi1e , (wide depth on the
following for the current diaeha, 5 e leaaflea
and for the nnedjjied discharge lacanon. if
different from die c sefl4 d .ctiarger
—BOtl (mg/t)
—OlgaoPvqd onyges (mgjlP
—Suspended solid. (aug11)
-
—Tern sra tr . ’r q
— Salinity (ppt )
—Traasp .ms ç1an1dlr . cent 11gM
transmittance)
—0th., ssgm ns (e . mena.
toxic poltutw y sad psa . fend
ealifoma bscis1s
b.. (3) Provide ssodabl. d. ma the
following in the vicinity of tbe -
dn .chi lecanos mid fm’tha tTiOebfled
discharge location. iI differeut from he
current discharge ’. I4 is ,aitb ) i) )
—Dissolved oxy taieJl)
—Susper.ded solids (mg/I)
—pH
—Temperature ( C’)
-t a ..p..saqr ( wt tht psicaai ligM
trana o anqap
—Other sigaficant aadebtas feg. .outnunst.
toxic p ” etant , and p.$ficj e, , (emil
ce o —
L 53 Are the ,, othsa ’per$oOwbe*
receiving water quality condldo.ua may be
more critical thai th. pmaod(a 04 maiinui
•tratificaila 11w. deacnbe thne s . d olime
criticol periods mid data rar ueered a ta. for
the odem’ aitmal p.rto4s). (4G€ ’R
7 (L) Provide dais as study state
eeiflmaoi thas.tv,d oxygov demand sad
dissolved ygen deniusid dine is
rcsmpeoman S I b unts a tha’ viesraty of
your current and fiei* discharge(s) (mg-
I/day).
C. Btola caI C.nthuian
1.(L Pmaidaadatanleddeaaptju of
repcaaaatatwe biologicaL comasunxnai (a
plankton. maa nthoa. damenaal á . sic)
in the vicinity of your current and modified
discharge4s Within the D . at It. 2.10
boundary, at other areas of potenuaj
discharge-reIase impear. and at refarence
(control) sites. Community characteristics to
be described shall mdude (but not be limited
to species composition: abundancw
domnniance and div icy ape tlatttempcral
disti,bistlon growth and reproducno
disease freqnency opkuc structure and
productivity psnem& presence of
opportumatic species. bioaccurnulation of
thxicniateria(g, and the occurrence of mass
mortalities.
2. (1. Sla Are distinctive habitats of
limited distribution teach as kelp beds or
coral reefs) focarvd in areas rexiflally
affected by the modified d1schargel(4 G’R
125 62(c))
(b If ye, provide rnf ’ormarton on type.
extant, and location of babitara.
3. ft., S a. Aie cmmnercial or recrestionat
findiene. located in areas porenaaily affected
by the discharge? (40 CFR 12362 (C) and EdU
b 1? yea pravide informnarien on types.
locatina. mi t valve of fisheries.
O Stats and Federal Lawi (4OCYR 1256) and
125 82 (a)(1))
1. (LS)Aretherewaievi i&ity standards
applicable to the (oflnwmg pollutant, for
which • mochficathea Is requaste&
- ical yg demand mdsm’ol’ved
—Suspended solids. tiabidity. bgbt
u’anamison hgha acatlarmg.. or
maintenance of the eaphooczonel
—pH of the recscemg wec ?
Z4LSI II yes. what 1a the wirer me
cias.nfIcatmon r yma ’dscharge area? What
are the applicable standard. for yoie
discharge are. for each of the parmnetar, far
which a m is megines d? Pruwdas
copy of all appitcablo water quality
standards or a citation is wham’ they con be
found.
3. (L 5) If there are no directly
corresponding numerics) applicable wat s
quality standard. approved by EPA. psiwide
data tedamarasrute thai water quality
criteria entabllatted under ,ecticn, 3Ot a ((1) of
the Clean Waler Act are met at and beyond
the boundary’o( the ZID nuiderainca
envir n.,.ii l end te , eeW plant
condition. In the water, sues.i.dki er
ad)ac is the pulse at wisth alguen. ie
discharged. 1 ,40 CF 123.82 (s)(1) )
4. (L S) WilL the modified dacharge (40
CFR 12S.59(b)(3 )
—Be consiarent with applicable Stare coasra
zone management program(s) approved
under the Consist Zone Munngemersr Act
a,omemkd i&IISC 1467 et ,eq? (See IS
US Cr4se1c f3J (AR
—Be located isa maz macuiary
designated under title ill of tie- .lsrme
Pr,t,eti 2es.urch, sod S eu.ney Act
(MPRSA)as amended. Ia U.S.C. x i i
sei . or in an aatuartne san.cnuacy
desi ated eader the Coastal Zor.a
Management Act as amended. 26 U S.C.
1481? [ (located in a marine sanctuary
designated under title 11? of the MPRSA.
attach a copy of any certification orpernnf
required under regulations govemin seth
marinesaicasery. (See 1S 7S.C 1 2Ø) )
—Be consistent with the Endangered Species
Act ae amended. 1$ U.S.C. t 53s cC seq.?
Provide the names of any threatened or
endsegered svamea that iahab.t or olita aa
nutrients from watem hat nay ha’ affecied
by the mood ifw4 cflacharge.JdenuFj any
critical habitat that maybe affectedby the
modified discharge and evaluate whether
the modified discharge wifl affect
threatened orendimgened or
modify cnfical habitat (See 1 5 USC
1538(a)(Z))
5. IL S) Are you aware of any State or
Federal raws or regulations (other than the
Clean Water Act or the three statutes
identified in item 4 above) or an Executive
Order which is applicable to yourdlscbarge!
If yes. pinvada sufficient nn2orm .. i. m in
demonatrate I.ba* your mniIifla di.ec.liar e
will comply wmthaicwsiLthon (sfr.
or order (s ). (40 1 QD,l 4 (3 ) )
/12 Tedin,cd L ’aAiotwn
A. Physical Cliaraciens tics of Dmach.irge t ’ t1
CFR 125.8 2 (a))
1 (L53Whaemthec ibcslnaaa)d$Junon
(or your c’ eai and med diicharge( s)
during (1) the periml ($ at maximum
strauflcszxaslaad (2.7 say other critical
period(s) of discharge’ vaLianelcaaspouolon.
water quality. husleçaaJ scas.nis. or
ocean aphic i a I1oee7
2. (L SI What ma the dimenimons 04 the
zone of lnit aJ dilution yciwmothfled
discharge(s)?
3. (14 What a ma the effect. of amhar,t
cu s.d ateanficanon on ap om and
transport 04 the argrpluaze wastefleId?
t(S )W illthmeb,stgndieaat
sedimentation 04 mapended ealidi in the
vicinity of the niorialed diachargs?
5. (14 Sedh utatioa04 .miparnd ,d solid,.
a. What fraction of the mothflsel
discharges eua solids will aecamufar..
within the vicinity of the modified thacliarge?
b. Whas are the calnds area(s) and
rate(s1, 04 sediment accumulation within the
vicinity 04th. nswdlflsd discharge(s) (gt&t
yr)?
c. What .th. fat. of ,eid able solid.
troneportsd bcyond the caiculatrd ardiment
accumulation ameat
-------
Federal Register I VoL 56. No. 16 I Thursday. January 24. 1991 I Proposed Rules
B Compliance With Applicable Water
Quality Standards (40 ‘R 125.81(b) and
125.62 )a lj
1. ILS) What ‘a the concentration of
dissolved oxygen immediately following
initial dihilion for the period(s) of max.imurn
stratification and any other critical period(s)
of discharge Volume ! composition, water
quality biological seasons, or oceanographic
conditions?
2. IL B) What is the farfleld dissolved
oxygen depression and resulting
concentrOtiOn due to ROD exertion of the
wastefleld during the period(s) of maximum
stratification and any other critical period(s)’
3. (L) What are the dissolved oxygen
depressions and resulting concentrations
near the botiom due to steady sediment
demand and resuspension of sediments?
4 (L 5) What is the increase ui receiving
water suspended solids concentration
immediately following initial dilution of the
modified discharge(s)?
5 (L) What is the change in receiving water
pH immediately following initial dilution of
thb modified discharge(a)?
6 IL S( Does (will) the modified d.scharge
comply with applicaole water quality
standards for
—Dissolved oxygen?
—Suspended solids or surrogate standards?
—p h?
7 FL SF Provide he determination required
by 40 CFR 125 61(b)(:) or. if the dete-rninacion
has not et been received, a copy of a letter
to the appropriate agenc )s) requesting the
required determination
C Impact on Public Water Supplies (40 CFR
125. 02(b))
1. (L S) Is there a planned or existing
public water supply (desalir.izauori facihty(
intake in the vicinity of the current or
modified diacharge’
2. (L S) Il yes.
a What is the location of the ntake(,)
(latitude and longitudel?
b Wtcl the modified dischargejs) prevent
the use of intake(s) for nublic wa er supply?
c Will the modified dcscharge(sl cause
increased treatment requiremenis fcr public
water scippl>(s) to meet local. state, and EPA
dnnxing water standards?
D Biological Impact of Discharge (40 CFR
125 62 (c t )
I L S) Does (will) a balanced indigenous
population of anelifish. fish, and wildlife
exist
—Immediately beyond the ZID of the current
and modified discharge(s)?
—In all other areas beyond the ZID where
marine life is actually or potentially
affected by the current and modified
discharge(s)?
2. (L SI Have duutincnve habitats of limited
distribution been impacted adversely by the
current discharge end will such habitats be
impacted adversely by the modified
discharge?
3 (L S) Hate conimercial or recreational
fisheries been impacted adversely by the
current discharge (e.g. warnings, restrictions,
closures, or mass mortalities) or wtli they be
impacted adversely by the modified
discharge?
4 (LI Does the current or modified
discharge cause the following within or
beyond the ZID (40 CFR 125.62(c)(3)):
—Mass mortality of fishes or invertebrates
due to oxygen depletion, high
concentrations of toxics, or other
conditions?
—An increased incidence of disease in
marine organisms?
—An abnormal body burden of any toxic
material in marine organisms?
—Any other extreme, adverse biological
impacts?
5 (L S) for discharges into saline estuarine
waters (40 CFR 125 62(cJ(4))
—Does or will the current or modified
discharge cause substantial differences in
the berithic population within the ZID and
beyond the ZID?
—Does or will ihe current or modified
discharge interfere with migratory
pathways wltnin the ZID?
—Does or will the current or modified
discharge result in bioaccurntdation of
toxic pollutants or pesticides at levels
which exert adverse effects on the bzoia
within ZID?
No section 301(h) modified permit shall be
issued where the discharge enters into
stressed saline estuanne waters as stated in
40 CFR 125 59(b)(4)
6 IL S) For improved discharges, will the
proposed improved discharge(s) comply with
the requirements of 40 CFR 125 62(a) through
125 62td)? (40 CFR 125 62te()
‘ IL S) For eltered discharge(s) will the
altered dlschdrge(s) comply with the
requirements of 40 CFR 125 62(a) through
125 62(d)? (40 CFR 125 62(e))
8 IL S) If your current discharge is to
stressed ocean waters, does or will your
current’or modified d.scharge (40 CFR
1 2562( 0)
—Contribute to increase, or perpetuate such
stressed condition?
—‘Contribute to f.j’tner deeradation of the
buota or water quslily if the level of human
per urba’ion from O’tier sources increases?
—Retard the recovery of the buota or water
qualty .1 human perturbation From ocher
sources dcrcrrases?
E. Impacts of Discharge on Recreational
Activities t40 CTR 125 62 )dl)
I (L SI Describe the existing or potential
recreational activities likely to be efferte by
the modcfied discharge(s) beyond the zone of
Initial dilution
2. IL SI Whet arc the existing and potential
impacts of the modified discharge(s) on
recreational activities? Your answer should
include, but not be timited to a discussion of
fecal colif rm bacteria
3 (L S) Are there any Federal Stale, or
local resmctlons on recreational activities in
the vtcinity uf tr.e modified discharge(s)? If
yes. describe .t’e restrict uris and provide
citetians to a aclab)e references
4 (I.. 5) If recreational restrCtiong exist
would such restrtc’ions cc lifted or mnodif.ed
if you were d’schargi’tg a secondary
tred nient e flucnt?
F Establishment of a Monutor.ng Program (40
CFR 12583)
1 IL S) Describe the biologicaL water
quality, and effluent monitoring programs
2833
which you propose to meet the criteria of 40
CFR 125.63. Only those scientific
investigations that are necessary to study the
effects of the proposed discharge should be
included in the scope of the 301(h) monitoring
program (40 CFR 125 83(a)(1)(i)(b))
2. IL S) Describe the sampling techniques
schedules. and locations. analytical
techniques, quality control and verification
procedures to be used.
3, (L S) Describe the personnel and
financial resources available to implement
the monitoring programs upon issuance of a
modified permit ar,d to carry It out for the life
of the modified permit
C Effect of Discharge on Other Point nd
Nonpoint Sources (40 CFR 125 64)
I IL S) Does (will) your ‘odifisJ
discharge(s) cause additional tre ,t,-icnt or
control requirements or any oincr poir.t or
nonpoint pollution source(s)’
2. (L S) Provide the determination required
by 40 CFR 125 64(b) or if the determination
has not yet been received, a copy of a letter
to the appropriate agency(s) requesting the
required deternunation
H Toxics Control Program (40 CFR 125 66!
1 a (L S) Do you have any known or
suspected Industrial sources of toxic
pollutants or pesticides?
b IL S) IF no provide the certification
required by 40 CFR 12.5 68la) )
cli) If yes provide the results of wet and
dry weather effluent analyses for toxic
pollutants and pesticides
d (L) Provide an analysis of known or
suspected industrial sources of toxic
poilutants and pesticides identified ,n (loG)
above
2. (S)a Are there any known or suspected
water quality, sediment accumulation or
biological problems related to toxic
pollutants or pesitcides 1’om your rrodif’ed
discharge(s)
b If no. provide the centificition required
by 40 CFR 125 66 1 d)(2 1 ogcircer tth
available supporting data
c. If yes pros ide a schedule for
dev elopment and imnplemeoistion of
noninCusiria! toxic, control proarams to creel
the requirements of 40 CFR 126 co(d)(31
3 (L S ( Provioe the results of wet and d”y
weather effluent analyses for toxic pollutants
and pesticides as required by 40 CrR
12.5 C8 a)(1),
4. (L. S ) Provide and ar.al)sts of kno’,vri or
suspe-ted industrial sources of toxic
pollutants and pesticides identified in 2
above
5. (L S) Do ou have en approved
industnal preu’eaunent program?
a. If yes, provide the date of EPA approval
b 11 no. and if required by 4.0 CFR pail 403
to have an industrial pretrea:ment program.
provide a proposed sched.cle Icr development
and implementation of sour industrial
pretreatlr.ent program to meet the
requiremeots of 40 CFR part 403
B Urban area pretreatment requirement 40
CFR 125 65)
Diachargers serving a population rI 50000
or moore must respond.
To the extent pr.ctii.ablr
-------
2834
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 16 / Thursday, January 24. 1991 I Proposed Rules
a. Provide data on all toxic pollutant,
introduced into the treatment work, from
lndustilaj sources (cate oi1caj and
noncategoncal).
b. Note whether applicable pretreatment
requirements are in effect for every Industrial
source of each toxic pollutant Are the
industrial aources uitroducing such toxic
pollutant, in compliance with all of their
pretreatment requirements? Are these
pretreatment requirements being enforced?
(40 CFR 123 85(bl(2))
C. If applicable pretreatment requirements
do not exist for each toxic pollutant In the
POTW effluent Introduced by Indusniel
source,.
—Provide a descrIption and a schedule for
your development and implementation of
applicable pretreatment requirements (40
CFR 125.85(c)), or
—.Oeacnbe how you propaoe to demonstrate
secondary removal equivalency for each of
those toxic pollutants. induding a schedule
for compliance, by using a secondary
treatment pilot plant. (40 CFR 125 85(d))
7 (1,, SI Describe the publIc education
program you propose to miniml2n the
entrance of nomndu,trfal toxic pollutants and
pesticide, Into your treatment system. (40
R 125.88(d)(1)).
8. (L) Provide a schedule for developmen
and Implementation of a nonmdustnal to,w.
control program to meet the requirements of
40 CFR 125 88(dJ(3J.
(FR Doc. 91-1397 Filed 1-23-01, 845 am)
mujeo co esse
-------
1990
-------
Friday
November 16, 1990
Part II
Environmental
Protection
Agency
40 CFR Parts 122, 123, and 124
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permit Application Regulations
for Storm Water Discharges Final Rule
Pmned on Recycled Paper
-------
47990 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 222 / Friday. November 16. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
ENViRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 122,123, and 124
(FRL-3$34—7I
RIN 2040-MiS
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit Application
Regulations for Storm Water
—. 5
AOINCY Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
acnosc Fir.al rule.
SUMMARY Today’s final rule begins to
implement section 402(p) of the Clean
Water Act (CWA) (added by section 405
of the Water Quality Act of 1987
(WQAfl. which requires the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to establish regulations setting forth
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit
application requirements for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity: discharges from a
municip.iI separate storm sewer system
serving a population of 2 O.O0O or more:
and discharges from municipal separate
storm sewer systems serving a
population of 100.000 or more. but less
than 250.000.
Today’s rule also clarifies the
requirements of section 401 of the WQA.
which amended CWA section 402(1)(2)
to provide that NPDES permits shall not
be required for discharges of storm
waier runoff from mining operations or
oil and gas exploration, production.
processing, or treatment operations or
transmission facilities, composed
entirely of flows which are from
conveyances (including but not limited
to pipes, conduits, ditches, and
channels) used for collecting and
conveying precipitation runoff and
which are not contaminated by contact
with, or do not come into contact with,
any overburden, raw material.
tntermediMte product, finished product,
byproduct, or waste product located on
the site of such operations. This rule sets
forth NPOES permit application
requirements addressing storm woter
discharges associated with industrial
activity and storm water discharges
From large and medium municipal
separate storm sewer systems.
oAr5s This final rule becomes effective
December 17. 1990 In accordance with
40 CFR 23 2. this rule shall be conqidered
final for purposes of judicial review on
November 30, 1990. at 1 p.m. eastern
daylight time The public record is
Icca ted at EPA I lcadquarters. EPA
Public’ Information Reference Unit, room
2402. 401 M Street SW., Washington DC
20460. A reasonable fee may be charged
for copying.
FOR FUSTHIR INFORMATION CONTACT
For further Information on the rule
contact: Thomas I. Seaton. Kevin Weiss,
or Michael Mitchell Office of Water
Enforcement and Permits (EN-.336).
United States Envjronmental Protection
Agency. 401 M Street SW., Washington.
DC 20460. (202) 475-951&
SUPPLEMENTARY tNFORMATIOIC
L Badiground and Water Quality Concerns
II. Water Quality Act of 1987
IlL Remand of 1984 RegulatIons
IV Codification Rule and Ciise.by.Case
Designation.
V Consent Decree of Ot.tober 20 1989
Vi. Today’. Final Rule and Respons. to
Comment.
A. Overview
B. Definition of Storm Water
C Responsibility for Storm Water
Discharges Associated with Industrial
Activity into Municipal Separate Storm
Sewers
L). Preliminary Permitting Strategy for
Storm Water Discharge. Associated with
Industrial Activity
I Tier 1—Baseline Permitting
2. Tier 2—Watershed Permitting
3. Tier 3—Industry Specific Permitting
4 Tier 4—Facility Specific Permitting
5. Relationship of Strategy to Permit
Application Requirement.
a. Individual Permit Application
Requirement,
b. Group Application
c. Case by.Case Requirements
E. Storm Water Discharge Sampling
F Storm Water Discharges Associated
with Induatnal Activity
1. Permit Applicability
a Storm Water Discharge. Associated with
Industrial Actwity to Waters of the
United State.
b. Storm Water Distha?ges Through
Municipal Separate Siorm Sewer,
c. Storm Water Discharges Through Non.
Municipal Storm Sewers
2. Scope of “Associated with Industrial
Activity”
3 individual Application Requirement.
4 Group Application.
a. Facilities Covered
b. Scope uf Croup Application
C. Group Application Requirements
5. Group Applicatioiu Applicability in
NPDES States
6. Group Application’ Procedural Concern,
7. Permit Applicability and Application, for
Oil. Ga. and Mining Operation.
a. Ga. end Oil Operation.
b. Use of Reportable Quantities to
Determine if a Storm Water Discharge
from an Oil or Ca. Operation is
Contaminated
c. Mining Operation.
8. Application Requirements for
Construction Activities
• Permit application requirement.
b Administrative burden.
C Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System.
1. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer.
2. Effective Prohibition on Non.Storm
Water Discharges
3. Site’Specil’ic Storm Water Quality
Management Program. for Municipal
System.
4. Large and Medium Municipal Storm
Sewer Systems
a. Overview of proposed option, and
comments
b. Definition of large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer system
c. Response to comments
H. Permit Application Requirements for
Large and Medium Municipal Systems
1. Implementing the Permit Program
2. Structure of Permit Application
a. Part 1 Application
b. Part 2 Application
3. Major Outfall.
4. Field Screening Program
5. Source Identification
6. Characterization of Discharges
a. Screening Analysis for Illicit Discharges
b. Representative Data
c. Loading and Concentration Estimates
7. Storm Water Quality Management Plans
a. Measures to Reduce Pollutants in Runoff
from Commercial and Residential Area.
b Measures for Illicit Discharges and
Improper Disposal
c. Measures to Reduce Pollutant. in Storm
Water Discharges Associated with
Industrial Activity Through Municipal
Systems
d. Measures to Reduce Pollutants in Runoff
from Construction Sites Through
Municipal Systems
5. Assessment of Controls -
I Annual Report.
Ap lication Deadlines
VII. Economic Impact
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIOPa
I. Background and Water Quality
Concerns
The 1972 amendments to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (referred to
as the Clean Water Act or CWA).
prohibit the discharge of any pollutant
to navigable waters from a point source
unless the discharge is authorized by an
NPDES permit. Efforts to improve water
quality under the NPDES program
traditionally and primarily focused on
reducing pollutants in discharges of
industrial process wastewater and
municipal sewage. This program
emphasis developed for a number of
reasons. At the onset of the program in
1972. many sources of industrial process
wastewater and municipal sewage were
not adequately controlled and
represented pressing environmental
problems In addition, sewage outfalls
and industrial process discharges were
easily identified as responsible for poor.
often drastically degraded. water quality
conditions. However, as pollution
control measures were initially
-------
Federal RegIster I Vol. 55, No 2 I Friday. November 16, 1990 / Rules and RegulatIons 47991
developed far these dIscharges. it
became evident that more diffuse
sOufCe$ (oceurring over a wide area) of
water pollution, such as agricultural and
urban runoff were also major causes of
water quality problems. Some diffuse
sources of water pollution, such as
agricultural storm water discharges and
irrigation return flows, are statutorily
exempted from the NPDES program.
Since enactment of the 1972
amendments to the CWA. considering
the rise of economic activity and
population, significant progress in
controlling water pollution has been
made, particularly with regard to
industrial process wastewater and
municipal sewage. Expenditures by
EPA. the States, and local governments
to construct and upgrade sewage
treatmcnt facilities have substantially
increased the population served by
higher levels of treatment. Backlogs of
expired permits for industrial process
wastewater discharges have been
reduced. Continued improvements are
expected for these discharges as the
NPT.JES program cunt:nue, to place
increasing emphasis on water quality.
based pollution controls, especially for
toxic pollutants.
Although assessments of Water
quality are dililcult to perform and
verify, several national assessments of
water quality are available. For the
purpose of these assessments, urban
runoff was considered to be a diffuse
source or nonpoint source pollution.
From a legal standpoint, however, most
urban runoff is discharged through
conveyances such as separate storm
sewers or other conveyances which are
point sources under the CWA. These
discharges are subject to the NPDES
program. The “National Water Quality
Inventory, 1988 Report to Congress”
provides a general assessment of water
quality based on biennial reports
submitted by the States under section
3O3(b of the CWA. In preparing the
section 305(b) Reports, the States were
asked to indicate the fraction of the
States’ waters that were assessed, as
well as the fraction of the States’ watere
that were fully supporting, pertly
supporting, or not supporting designated
usei, The Report indicates that of the
rivers, lakes, and estuaries that were
assessed by States (approximately one-
filth of stream miles, one.thlrd of lake
scree and one.half of estuanne waters),
roughly 70% to 75% are supporting the
uses for which they are designated. For
waters with use impairments, States
were asked to deteismee impacts due to
diffuse sources (agricultural and urban
runoff and other sources), municipal
sewage. Industrial pro.c ss westewetere,
combIned sewer overfiowa, and natural
and other sources, then combine
Impacts to arrive at estimates of the
relative percentage of State waters
affected by each source. In this manner.
the relative Importance of the various
sources of pollution that are causuig use
impairments was assessed and weighted
national averages were calculatcd.
Based on 37 States that provided
information on sources of pollution.
industrial process waatewaters were
cited as the cause of nonsupport for 7.5%
of rivers and streams, 10% of lakes, and
8% of estuaries, Municipal sewage was
the cause of nonsupport for 13% of rivers
and streams. 5% lakes. 48% estuaries,
41% of the Great Lake shoreline, and
11% of coastal waters. The Assessment
concluded that pollution from diffuse
sources, such as runoff from agr ultural,
urban areas, construction sites. land
disposal and resource extraction, is
cited by the States as the leading ca’:se
of water quality impairment. These
sources appear to be increasingly
important contributors of use
impairment as discharges of industrial
process wastewaters and municipal
sewage plants come under increased
control and as intensified data
collection efforts provide additional
information. Some examples of diffuse
sources cited as causing use impairment
arm for rivers and streams, 9% from
separate storm sewers. 8% from
construction and 13% from resource
extrac*ioe for lakes. 28% from separate
storm sewers and 28% from land
disposak for the Great Lakes shoreline.
10% from separate storm sewers. 34%
from resource extraction. and 82% from
land disposal: for estuaries. 28% from
separate storm sewers and V% from
land disposal: and for coastal areas. 20%
from separate storm sewers and 29%
from land disposal.
The States conducted a more
comprehensive study of diffuse pollution
sources under the sponsorship of the
Association of State and Interstate
Water Pollution Control Administrators
(ASIWPCA) and EPA. The study
resulted in the report “America’s Clean
Water—The States’ Nonpoint Source
AueumenL 1985” which indicated that
38 States reported urban runoff as a
major cause of beneficial us a
impairment. La additIon. 21 States
reported construction site runoff as a
major cause of use impairment.
To provide a better understanding of
the nature of urban runoff from
commercial and residential areas, from
1978 through 1983. EPA provided funding
and guidance to the Nationwide Urban
Runoff Program (NURP). The NURP
included 28 prolects across the Nation.
conducted separately at the local level
but centrally reviewed, coordinated, and
guided.
One focus of the NURP was to
characterize the water quality of
discharges from separate storm sewers
which drain residential, commercial
and light industrial (industrial parks)
sites. The majority of samples collected
in the study were analyzed for eight
conventional pollutants and three
metals, Data collected under the NURP
indicated that on an annual loading
basis, suspended solids in diwharges
from separate storm sewers draining
runoff from residential. commcr i il and
light industrial areas are around an
order of magnitude greater th,in solids in
discharges from municipal secondary
sewage treatment plants. In addition.
the study indicated that annual loadin q
c,f chemical oxygi’n demand (COD) are
comparable in magnitude to fflucr.t
from secondary sewage treaiment
plants. When analyzing annual loadings
assouated wilh urban runoff. itis
important to recognize that discharges
of urban runoff are highly intermittent.
and that the short-term loadings
ascociated with individual events will
be h:gh and may have shur.kloading
effects on receiving water. suLh as low
dissolved oxygen levels. NURP data
also showed that fecal colafurrn cour.ts
in urban runoff are typically in the tens
to hundreds of thousands per 100 ml of
runoff during warm weather conditions.
although the study suggested that lecal
coliform may not he the most
appropriate indicator organism for
identifying potential health risks in
storm water runoff. Although N(JRP did
not evaluate oil and grease. other
studies have demonstrated that urban
runoff is an extremely important source
of oil pollution to receiving % atcrs. wit i
hydrocarbon levels in urban runoff
typically being reported at a range of 2
to 13 mg/I. These hydrocarbons tend to
accumulate in bottom sediments where
they may persist for long per.ods of time
and exert adverse impacts on henthic
organisms.
A portion of the NURP study involted
monitoring 120 priority pollutants in
storm water discharges from lands used
for residentiaL commercial and light
industrial activities. Seventy.seven
priority polintants were detected in
samples of storm water discharges from
residentiaL commercial and light
industrial lands taken during the NURP
study. including 14 inorganic and 63
organic pollutants. Table A—I shows the
priority pollutants which were detected
in at least ten percent of the discharge
samples which were sampled for
priority pollutants.
-------
479 Federal Re*i.ter / Vol. 55. No. 222 / Friday , November 16. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
Ta i.e A..1.— Pmow v POU .UTANTS DE-
TECTED IN AT 1.z.s sy 10% oc NURP
Un urosn tI
H —
a assc
PIiei ,*s. bls(2- , lii..,l) —
Pu cyc _ .. ii ,. tUu , . uwi.
The NURP data also showed a
significant number of these samples
exceeded various EPA freshwater water
quality criteria.
The NURP study provides insight en
what can be considered background
levels of pollutant, for urban runoff. as
the study focused primarily on
monitoring runoff from residential,
commercial and light industrial areas.
However. NURP concluded that the
quality of urban runoff can be adversely
Impacted by several sources of
pollutants that were not directly
evaluated in the study and are generally
not reflected in the NURP data.
including Illicit connections,
construction site runolL industrial site
runoff and illegal dumping.
Other studies have shown that many
storm sewers contain illicit discharges
of non-storm water and that large
amounts of wastes, particularly used
oil., are improperly disposed In storm
sewers. Removal of these discharges
present opportunities for dramatic
improvements in the quality of storm
water discharges. Storm water
discharges from industrial facilities may
contain toxica and conventional
pollutants when material management
practices allow exposure to storm water.
in addition to wastes from illicit
connections and improperly disposed
wa tes
In same municipall ties. illicit
connection, of sanitary. commercial and
industrial discharges to storm sewer
systems have had a significant impact
_________ on the water quality of receiving waters.
____ Although the NURP study did not
emphasize the identification of illicit
connections to storm sewers (other than
to assure that monitoring sites used in
t3 the study were free from sanitary
sewage contamination), the study
concluded that illicit connections can
es result In high bacterial count, and
V I dangers to public health. The study also
noted that removing such discharges
, presented opportunities for dramatic
ii improvements in the quality of urban
94 storm water discharges.
Studies have shown that illicit
connection, to storm sewers can create
,i severe, wide-spread contamination
15 problems. For example, the Huron River
Pollution Abatement Program inspected
860 businesses, homes and other
is buildings located In Washtenaw County.
tO Michigan and identified 14% of the
tO buildings as having improper storm
drain connections. Illicit discharges
were detected at a higher rate of 60% for
10 automobile related businesses, including
service station,, automobile dealerships,
car washes, body shops and light
_________ industrial facilities. While some of the
problem, discovered In this study were
the result of Improper plumbing or illegal
connections, a majority were approved
connections at the time they were built.
Intensive construction activities may
result in severe localized impacts on
water quality because of high unit loads
of pollutants, primarily sediments.
Construction sites can also generate
other pollutant, such as phosphorus and
nitrogen from fertilizer, pesticides.
petroleum products, construction
chemicals and solid wastes. These
materials can be toxic to aquatic
organisms and degrade water for
drinking and water-contact recreation.
Sediment loadings rates from
construction site. are typically 10 to 20
times that of agricultural lands, with
runoff rates as high as 100 times that of
agricultural land., and typically 1,000 to
2.000 time, that of forest lands. Even a
small amount of construction may have
a significant negative impact on water
quality in localized areas. Over a short
period of time, construction sites can
contribute more sediment to streams
than was previously deposited over
several decades.
II . Water Quality Act of 1987
The WQA contains three provisions
which specifically address storm water
discharges. The central WQA provision
governing storm water discharges is
section 405, which adds section 4 0 2(p) to
the CWA. Section 402(p)(1) provides
that EPA or NPDES States cannot
require a permit for certain storm wat...
discharges until October 1. 1992, except:
for storm water discharges listed under
section 402(p)(2). Section 402(p)( 2 ) lists
five types of storm water discharges
which are required to obtain a permit
prior to October 1. 1992
(A) A discharge with respect to whiLh
a permit has been issued prior to
February 4, 1987;
(B) A discharge associated with
industrial activity:
(C) A discharge from a municipal
separate storm sewer system serving a
population of 250.000 or more:
(D) A discharge from a municipal
separate storm sewer system serving a
population of 100.000 or more, but less
than 250,00ft or
(E) A discharge for which the
Administrator or the State. as the c.ise
may be. determines that the storm water
discharge contributes to a violation of a
water quality standard or is a significant
contributor of pollutants to the waters of
the United States.
Section 402(p) (4)(A) requires EPA to
promulgate final regulations governing
storm water permit application
requirements for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity and
discharges from large municipal
separate storm sewer systems (systems
serving a population of 250.000 or more)
“no later than two years” after the dair’
of enactment (i.e.. no later than
February 4. 1989). Section 402(p)(4)(B1
also requires EPA to promulgate Iin.il
regulations governing storm water
permit application requirements for
discharges from medium municipal
separate storm sewer systems (systems
serving a population of 100.000 or more
but less than 250.000) “no later than four
year.” after enactment (i.e.. no later
than February 4. 1991).
In addition, section 402 (p )(4) pro idcs
that permit applications for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity and discharges from large
municipal separate storm sewer systams
“shall be filed no later than three y.drs”
after the date of enactment of the WQA
(i.e.. no later than February 4. 1990)
Permit applications for discharges from
medium municipal systems must be filed
“no later than five years” after
enactment (i a. no later than February 4
1992)
The WQA clarified and em nded ih.
requirements for permits for storm uter
discharges in the new CWA section
402(p)(3). The Act clarified that permuir
for discharges associated with industri
activity must meet all of the applicable
provisions of section 402 and section 301
I —
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 222 / Friday, November 18. 1990 / Rules and RegulatIons 47993
Including technology and water quality
based standards. However, the new Act
makes significant changes to the permit
standards for discharges from municipal
storm sewers. Section 402(p)(3)(B)
provides that permits for such
(i) May be issued on a system-or
jurisdiction-wide basis
(hI Shall mdudo a requirement to
effectively prohibit non-storm water
discharges into the stoqn sewers and
(iii) Shall require controls to reduce the
discharge of pollutants to the maximum
extent practIcable, laduding management
precticas, control tachmques and system.
design and engusering methods. and such
other provisions as the Administrator or the
State datasmine, appropriate for the control
of such pollutants.
These changes are discussed in more
detail later in today’s rule.
The EPA, in consultation with the
States, is required to conduct two
studies on storm water discharges that
are in the class of discharges for which
EPA and NPDFS Stales cannot require
permit, prior to October 1. 1992. The
first study will identify those storm
water discharges or classes of storm
water discharges for which permits are
not required prior to October 1. 1992.
and determine, to the maximum extent
practicable. the nature and extent of
pollutants in such discharges. The
second study is for the purpose of
estahlishing procedures and methods to
con o storm water discharges to the
extent n eanry to mitigate impacts on
water quality. Based on the two studies
the EPA. in sultation with State and
qfficiala , ii required to issue
regulations no later than October 1.
1998, which designate additional storm
water discharge, to be regulated to
prulest water quality and establish a
comp.-.hn ive program to regulate such
designated scarces. This program must,
at. Illinimum . (A) Establish priorities.
(B) e,Iahhiolt requirements for State
storm water management programs, and
(C) . .iiihll l expeditious deadlines. The
progss way lude performance
shadedi , guiidir.linims , guidance. and
practices and treatment
u appropriate.
SesSion 401 of the WQA amends
sedino 4 1X2) of the CWA to provide
that the EPA shall not require a permit
for discharges of storm water runoff
from treeing operations or oil and gas
expleratiwL production, processing, or
trea t operations or transmission
farOtifre dthe storm water discharge is
not ‘— .‘. ..—ted by contact with, or
does coom into contact with, any
uveibseden. raw material, intermediate
pro .ct 8rd product, byproduct. or
waste product located on the site of
such operations.
Section 503 of the WQA amends
section 502(14) of the CWA to exclude
agricultural storm water discharge, from
the definition of point source.
HI. Remand of 1984 Regulations
On December 4, 1987, the United
States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit vacated 40 CFR
122.28, (as promulgated on September
28. 1984. 49 FR 37998. September 28.
1984), and remanded the regulations to
EPA for further rulemaking (NRDC v.
EPA. No. 80-1607). EPA had requested
the remand because of significant
changes made by the storm water
provisions of the WQA. The effect of the
dec:sion was to invalidate the storm
water discharge regulations then found
at I 122.28.
Storm water discharges which had
been issued an NPDES permit prior to
February 4, 1987. were not affected by
the Court remand or the February 12,
1988. rule implementing the court order
(53 FR 4157). (See ection 402(p)(211A) of
the CWA.) Similar y. the remand did not
affect the authority of EPA or an NPDES
State to require a permit for any storm
water discharge (except an agricultural
storm water discharge) designated
under section 402(p)(2)(E) of the CWA.
The notice of the’ remand clarified that
such designated discharges meet the
regulatory definition of point source
found at 40 CPR 122.2 and that EPA or
an NPDES State can rely on the
statutory authority and require the filing
of an application (Form I and Form 2C)
for an NPDES permit with respect to
such discharges on a case-by.caae basis.
IV. Codification Rule and Case-by-Case
esIgnations
Codification Rule
On January 4. 1989. (54 FR 255), EPA
published a final rule which codified
numerous provisions of the WQA Into
EPA regulations. The codification rule
included several provisions dealing with
storm water discharges. The codification
rule promulgated the language found at
section 402(p) (a) and (2) of the amended
Clean Water Act at 40 CFR 122.28(a)(1).
In addition, the codification rule
promulgated the language of Section 503
of the WQA which exempted
agricultural storm water discharges from
the definition of point source at 40 CFR
1222. and section 401 of the WQA
addressing uncontaminated storm water
discharges from mining or oil and gas
operations at 40 CFR 122.26(a)(2).
EPA also codified the statutory
authority of section 402 (p)(2)IE) of the
CWA (or the Administrator or the State
Director. as the case may be. to
designate storm water discharges for a
permit on a case-by-case basis at 40
CFR 122.28(a)(1)(v).
Case by Case Designations
Section 402(p)(2flE) of the CWA
authorizes case-by-case designations of
storm water discharges for immediate
permitting if the Administrator or the
State Director determines that the storm
water discharge contributes to a
violation of a water quality standard or
Is a significant contributor of pollutants
to waters of the United States.
In determining that a storm water
discharge contributes to a violation of a
water quality standard or is a significant
contributor of pollutants to waters of the
United States for the purpose of a
designation under section 402(p)(2)(E).
the legislative history for the provision
provides that “EPA or the State should
use any available water quality or
sampling data to determine whether the
latter two criteria (contributes to a
violation of a water quality standard or
is a significant contributor of pollutants
to waters of the United States) are met,
and should require additional sampling
as necessary to determine whether or
not these criteria are met.” Conference
Report. Cong. Rec. S16443 (daily ed.
October 18, 1988). In accordance with
this legislativç history, today’s rule
promulgates permit application
requirements for certain storm water
discharges. including discharges
designated on a case-by-case basis. EPA
will consider a number of factors when
determining whether a storm water
discharge is a significant contributor of
pollution to the waters of the United
States. These factors include: the
location of the discharge with respect to
waters of the United States: the size of
the discharge: the quantity and nature of
the pollutants reaching waters of the
United States: and any other relevant
factors. Todays rule incorporates these
factors at 40 CFR 122.28(aflhJ(v).
Under today’s rule, case-by-case
designations are made under regulatory
procedures found at 40 CFR 124.52. The
procedures at 40 CFR 124.52 require that
whenever the Director decides that an
individual permit is required. the
Director shall notify the discharger in
writing that the discharge requires a
permit and the reasons for the decision.
In addition, an application form is sent
with the notice Section 124.52 provides
a 60 day period from the date of notice
(or submitting a permit application.
Although this 60 day period may be
appropriate for many designated storm
water discharges. site specific factors
may dictate that the Director provide
-------
47994 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 222 / Friday. November 16, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
additional time for submitting a permit
application. For example, due to the
complexities associated with
designation of a municipal separate
storm sewer system for a system- or
jurisdiction-wide permit, the Director
may provide the applicant with
additional time to submit relevant
information or may require that
information be submitted in several
phases.
V. Consent Decree of October 20, 1989
On April 20. 1989, EPA was served
notice of intent to sue by Kathy
Williams et a!, because of the Agency’s
failure to promulgate final storm
regulations on February 4, 1989.
pursuant to Section 4 02(p)(4) of the
CWA. A suit was filed by the same
party on July 20, 1989. alleging the same
cause of action, to wit: the Agency’s
failure to promulgate regulations under
section 4 O 2 (p)(4J of the CWA. On
October 20, 1909, EPA entered into a
consent decree with Kathy Williams et
ul, wherein the Federal District Court,
District of Oregon. Southern Division,
decreed that the Agency promu’gate
final regulations for storm water
discharges identified in sections
402(p)(2) (Bl and (C) of the CWA no
later than July 20, 1990. Kathy Williams
et ci., v. William K Reilly,
Administrator, et 0/. No. 89—6265- .E (0.
Ore.) In July 1990. the consent degree
was amended to provide for a
promulgation date of October 31.
Today’s rule is promulgated in
comoliance with the terms of the
consent decree as amended
VI. Today’s Final Rule and Response to
Comments
A. Overview
Section 405 of the WQA alters the
regulatory approach to control
pollutants in storm waler discharges by
adopting a phased and tiered approach.
The new provision phases in permit
application requirements, permit
issuance deadlines and compliance with
permit conditions for different
cniegor es of storm water discharges.
The approach is tiered in that storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity must comply with
sections 301 and 402 of the CWA
(requiring control of the discharge of
pollutants thai utilize the Best Available
Technology (BAT) and the Best
Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology (BCT) and where necessary.
water qualiiy.based controls), but
permits for discharges from municipal
separate storm sewer systems must
require controls to reduce the discharge
of pollutants to the maximum extent
practicable, and where necessary water
quality-based controls, and must include
a requirement to effectively prohibit
non-storm water discharges into the
storm sewers. Furthermore. EPA in
consultation with State and local
officials must develop a comprehensive
program to designate and regulate other
storm water discharges to protect water
quality.
This final regulation establishes
requirements for the storm water permit
application process. It also Bets forth the
required components of municipal storm
water quality management plans, as
well as a preliminary permitting strategy
for industrial activities. In implementing
these regulations. EPA and the States
will strive to achieve environmental
results in a cost effective manner by
placing high priority on pollution
prevention activities, and by targeting
activities based on reducing risk from
particularly harmful pollutants and/or
from discharges to high value waters.
EPA and the States will also work with
applicants to avoid cross media
transfers of storm water contaminants,
especially through injection to shallow
wells in the Class V Underground
Injection Control Program.
In addition. EPA recognizes that
problems associated with storm water.
combined sewer overflows (CSOsJ and
infiltration and inflow (l&I) are all inter.
related even though they are treated
somewhat differently under the law.
EPA believes that it is Important to
begin linking these programs and
activities and, because of the potential
cost to local governments, to investigate
the use of innovative, non-traditional
approaches to reducing or preventing
contamination of storm water.
The application process for
developing municipal storm water
management plans provides an ideal
opportunity between steps I and 2 for
considering the full range of
nontraditional, preventive approaches,
including municipalities, public
awareness/education programs, use of
vegetation and/or land conservancy
practices, alternative paving materials.
creative ways to eliminate I&I and
illegal hook-ups, and potentials for
water reuse. EPA has already
announced its plans to present an award
for the best creative, cost effective
approaches to storm water arid CSOs
beginning in 1991
This rulemaking establishes permit
application requirements for classes of
storm water discharges thai were
specifically identified in section
4 O 2 (p)(2) These priority storm water
discharges include storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity and discharges from a municipa’
separate storm sewer serving a
population of 100,000 or more.
This rulemaking was developed after
careful consideration of 450 sets of
comments. comprising over 3200 pages,
that were received from a variety of
industries, trade associations,
municipalities, State and Federal
Agencies, environmental groups, and
private citizens. These comments were
received during a 90-day comment
period which extended from December
7, 1988, to March 7, 1989. EPA received
several requests for an extension of the
comment period from 30-days up to 90-
days. Many arguments were advanced
for an extension including the extent
and complexity of the proposal, the
existence of other concurrent EPA
proposals, and the need for technical
evaluations of the proposal. EPA
considered these comments as they
were received, but declined to extend
the comment period beyond 90 days.
The standard comment period on
proposals normally range from 30 to 60
days In light of the statutory deadline of
February 4. 1989. additional time for the
comment period beyond what was
already a substantially lengthened
comment period would have been
inappropriate. The number and extent of
the comments received on this proposal
indicated that interested partie. had
substantially adequate time to review
and comment on the regulation.
Furthermore, the public was invited to
attend six public meetings in
Washington DC. Chicago. Dallas,
Oakland. Jacksonville. and Boston to
present questions and comments. EPA is
convinced that substantial and adequate
public participation was sought and
received by the Agency.
Numerous commenters have also
requested that the rule be reproposed
due to the extent of the proposal and the
number of options and issues upon
which the Agency requested comments.
EPA has decided against a reproposal.
The December 7. 1988. notice of
proposed rulemaking wae extremely
detailed and thoroughly identified major
issues in such a manner as to allow the
public clear opportunities to comment.
The comments that were received were
extensive, and many provided valuable
information and ideas that have been
incorporated into the regulation.
Accordingly, the Agency is confident it
has produced a workable and rational
approach to the initial regulation of
storm water discharges and a reguiaiion
thai reflects the experience and
knowledge of the public as piovided in
the comments, end which was
developed in accordance with the
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 222 / Friday. November 16. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
47995
procedures requirements of the
Administrative Procedure, Act (APA).
EPA believes that whale the number of
issues raised by the proposal was
extensive, the number of detailed
comments indicates that the public was
able to understand the issues in order to
comment adequately. Thus, a reproposal
Is unnecessary.
B. Definition of Storm Water
The December 7. 1988, notice
requested comment on defining storm
water as storm water runoff, surface
runoff, street wath waters related to
street cleaning or maintenance.
Infiltration (other than infiltration
contaminated by seepage from sanitary
sewers or by other discharges) and
drainage related to storm events or
snow melt. This definition is consistent
with the regulatory definition of “storm
sewer’ at 40 CFR 35 2005(b)(47) which is
used in the context of grants for
construction of treatment works. This
definition aids in distinguishing separate
storm water sewers from sanitary
sewers, combined sewers, process
discharge outfalls and non-storm water,
non-process discharge outfalls.
The definition of “storm water” has
an Important beating on the NPDES
permitting scheme under the CWA. The
following discusses the interrelationship
of NPDES permitting requirements for
storm water discharges addressed by
this rule and NPDES permitting
requirements for other non-storm water
discharges which may be discharged via
the storm sewer as a storm water
discharge. Today’s rule addresses
permit application requirements for
storm water discharges associated with
Industrial activity and for discharges
from municipal separate storm sewer
systems serving a population of 100.000
or more. Storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity are to
be covered by permits which contain
technology-based controls based on
BAT/BCT considerations or water
quality-based controls. if necessary. A
permit for storm water discharges from
an industrial facility may also cover
other non-storm water discharges from
the facility. Today’s rule establishes
individual (Form I and Form 2F) and
group application requirements for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity. In addition. EPA or
authorized NPDES States with
authonzed general permit programs may
issue general permits which establish
alternative application or notification
requirements for storm water discharges
covered by the general permit(s). Where
a storm water discharge associated with
industrial activity is mixed with a non-
storm water discharge. both discharges
must be covered by an NPDES permit
(this can be in the same permit or with
multiple permits). Permit application
requirements for these “combination”
discharges are discussed later in today’s
notice,
Today’s rule also addresses permit
application requirements for discharges
from municipal separate storm sewer
systems serving a population of 100,000
or more Under today’s rule, appropriate
municipal owners or operators of these
systems must obtain NPDES permits for
discharges from these systems. These
permits are to establish controls to the
maximum extent practicable (MEP),
effective’y prohibit non-storm water
discharges to the municipal separate
storm sewer system and, where
necessary, contain 8pplicable water
quality-based controls. Where non-
storm water discharges or storm water
discharges associated with industridi
activity discharge through a municipal
separate storm sewer system (including
systems serving a population of 100.000
or more as well as other systems). which
ultimately discharges to a waters of the
United States, such discharges through a
municipal storm sewer need to be
covered by an NPDES permit that is
independent of the permit issued for
discharges from the municipal separate
storm sewer system. Today’s rule
defines the term “illicit discharge” to
describe any discharge through a
municipal separate storm sewer that is
not composed entirely of storm water
and that is not covered by an NPDES
permit. Such illicit discharges are not
authorized under the CWA. Section
402(p)(3)(B) of the CWA requires that
permits for discharges from municipal
separate storm sewers require the
municipality to “effectively prohibit”
non-storm water discharges from the
municipal separate storm sewer As
discussed in more detail below, today’s
rule begins to implement the “effective
prohibition” by requiring municipal
operators of municipal separate storm
sewer systems serving a population of
100.000 or more to submit a description
of a program to detect and control
certain non.etorm water discharges to
their municipal system. Ultimately. such
non-storm water discharges through a
municipal separate storm sewer must
either be removed from the system or
become subject to an NPDES permit
(other than the permit for the discharge
from the municipal separate sto.m
sewer) For reasons discussed ‘n more
detail below, in general. municipalities
will not be held responsible for
prohibiting some specific components uf
discharges or flows listed below through
their municipal separate storm sewer
system. even though such components
may be considered non-storm water
discharges. unless such discharges are
specifically identified on a case-by-case
basis as needing to be addressed.
However, operators of such non-storm
water discharges need to obtain NPDES
permits for these discharges under the
present framework of the CWA (rasher
than the municipal operator of the
municipal separate storm sewer system).
(Note that section 518 of the Water
Quality Act of 1987 requires EPA to
conduct a study of de minimis
discharges of pollutants to waters of the
United States and to determine the most
effective and appropriate methods of
regulattig any such discharges)
EPA received numerous comments on
the proposed regulatory definition of
storm water, many of which proposed
e’iclussons or additions to the definition
Se eral cominenters suggested that the
definition should include or not include
detention and retention reservoir
releases. water line flushing. fire
hydrant flushing runoff from fire
fighting, swimming pooi drainage and
discharge, landscape Irrigition. dt%ertcd
stream flows, uncontaminated pumped
ground water, rising ground waters,
discharges from potable water sources.
uncontaminated waters from cooling
towers, foundation drains, non-contact
cooling water (such as HVAC or
heating. ventilatton and air conditioning
condensation water that POTWs require
to be discharged to separate storm
sewers rather than sanitary sewers).
irrigation water, springs. roof drains.
water from crawl space pumps. footing
drains, lawn watering. individual car
washing. flows from ripanan habitats
and wetlands. Most of these comments
were made with regard to the concern
that these were commonly occumng
discharges which did not pose
significant environmental problems. It
was also noted that, unless these flows
are classified as storm water, permits
would be required for these discharges.
In response to the comments which
requested EPA to define the term “storm
water” broadly to include a number of
classes of discharges which are not in
any way related to precipitation events,
EPA believes that this rulemaking is not
an appropriate forum for addressing the
appropriate regulation under the NPDES
program of such non-storm water
discharges. even though some classes of
non-storm water discharges may
typically contain only minimal amounts
of pollutants. Congress did not intend
that the term storm water be used to
describe any discharge that has a de
nhinimis amount of pollutants. nor did it
intend for section 402(p) to be used to
-------
47996 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 222 / Friday. November 18. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
provide a moratorium from permitting
other non-storm water discharges.
Consequently, the final definition of
storm water has not been expanded
from what was proposed, However, as
discussed In more detail later In todays
notice, municipal operators of municipal
separate storm sewer systems will
generally not be held responsible for
‘effectively prohibiting” limited classes
of these discharges through their
municipal separate storm sewer
systems.
The proposed rule Induded
Infiltration in the definition of storm
water. In this context one commenter
suggested that the term infiltration be
defined, Infiltration is defined at 40 CFR
35. 05(bj(Wj as water other than
wastewater that enters a sewer system
(including sewer service connections
and foundation drains) from the ground
through such means as defective pipes.
pipe joints, connections or manholes,
Infiltration does not include, and is
dlstingui hed from, inflow. Another
commenter urged that ground water
infiltration not be classified as storm
water because the chemical
characteristics and contaminants of
ground water will differ from surface
storm water because of a longer contact
period with materials in the soil and
because ground water quality will not
reflect current practices at the site. In
today’s rule, the definition of st’orm
water excludes infiltration since
pollutants in these flows will depend on
a large number of factors, Including
interactions with soil and past land use
pracllces at a given site. Further
infiltration flows can be contaminated
by sources that are not related to
precipitation events, such as seepage
from sanitary sewers. Accordingly the
final regulatory language does not
Include infiltration in the definition of
storm water. Such flows may be subject
to appropnate permit conditions in
Industrial permits, As discussed in more
detail below, municipal management
programs must address infiltration
where identified as a source of
pollutants to waters of the United
States.
One commenter questioned the status
of discharges from detention and
retention basins used to collect storm
water. This regulation covers discharges
of storm water associated with
industrial activity and discharges froni
municipal separate storm sewer systems
serving a population of 100.000 or more
into waters of the United States.
Therefore, discharges from basins that
‘e pail of a conveyance system for a
storm water discharge associated with
industrial activity or part of a municipal
separate storm sewer system serving a
population of 100.000 or more are
covered by this regulation, Flows which
are channeled into basins and which do
not discharge into waters of the United
States are not addressed by today’s rule.
Several commenters requested that
the term illicit connection be replaced
with a term that does not connote illegal
discharges or activity, because many
discharges of non-storm water to
municipal separate storm sewer systems
occurred prior to the establishment of
the NPDES program and in accordance
with local or State reqwrements at the
time of the connection. EPA disagrees
that there should be a change in this
terminology. The fact that these
connections were at one time legal does
not confer such status now. The CWA
prohibits the point source discharge of
non-storm water not subject to an
NPDES permit through municipal
separate storm sewers to waters of the
United States. Thus, classifying such
discharges as illicit properly identifies
such discharges as being illegal.
A commenter wanted clanficatton of
the terms “other discharges” and
“drainage” that are used in the
definition of “storm water.” As noted
above, today’s rule clarifies that
infiltration is not considered storm
water. Thus the portion of the definition
of storm water that refers to “other
discharges” has also been removed,
However, the term drainage has been
retained. “Drainage’ does not take on
en” meaning cther than the flow of
runoff into a conveyance, as the word is
commonly understood,
One commenter stated that irrigation
flows combined with storm water
discharges should be excluded from
considerat ion in the storm water
program. The Agency would note that
Irrigation return flows are excluded from
regulation under the NPDES program.
Section 402(l)(1J states that the
Administrator or the State shaU not
require permits for discharges composed
entirely of return flows from imgated
agriculture. The legislative history of the
1977 Clean Water Act, which enacted
this language, slates that the word
“entirely” was intended to limit the
exception to only those flows which do
not contain additional discharges from
activities unrelated to crop production.
Congressional Record Vol. 123 (1977),
pg. 4380, Senate Report No. 95—370.
Accordingly, a storm water discharge
component, from an industrial facility
for example, included in such “joint”
discharges may be regulated pursuant to
an NPDES permit either at the point at
which the storm water flow enters or
joins the irngation flow, or where the
combined flow enters waters of the
United States or a municipal separaIi
storm sewer.
Some commenlers expressed conrr”vi
.ibout including street wash waters us
storm water. One commenter argued
including street wash waters in the
definition of storm water should not c
construed to eliminate the need for
management practices relating to
construction activities where sediment
may simply wash into storm drains FP”I
agrees with these points and the
concerns that storm sewers may ree e
material that pose environmental
problems if street wash waters are
included in the definition Accordir, .
such discharges are no longer in the
definition as proposed. and must be
addressed by municipal management
programs as part of the prohibition on
non.storm water discharges through
munlclp3l separate storm sewer
systems.
Several com.menters requested that
the terms discharge and point source, in
the context of permits for storm water
discharge. be iJarified Several
commenters stated that the EPA should
clarify that storm water discharge doe’s
not include “sheet flow’ off of an
industrial facility. EPA interprets this as
request for clanfication on the status of
the terms “point source” and
“discharge” under these regulations In
response. this rulemaking only covers
storm water discharges from point
sources A point source is defined at 40
CFR 122.2 as “any discernible, confined.
and discrete conveyance, including but
not limited to. any pipe, ditch, channel.
tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure.
container, rolling stock, concentrated
animal feeding operation, landfill
leachate collection system, vessel or
other floating craft from which
pollutants are or may be discharged.
This term does not include return flows
From irrigated agriculture or agricultur, ,
storm water runoff.” EPA agrees with
one commenter that this definition is
adequate for defining what discharges ut
storm water are covered by this
rulemaking. EPA notes that this
definition would encompass municipal
separate storm sewers. In view of this
comprehensive definition of point
source. EPA need clarify in this
rulemaking only that a storm water
discharge subject to NPDES regulation
does not include storm water that enteis
the waters of the United State’s via
means other than a “point source.’ As
further discussed below, storm water
from an industrial facility which enters
and is subsequently discharged through
a municipal separate storm sewer is a
“discharge associated with industrial
-------
F. 1 ds. .1 R Mr 1 VoL 5 No. 22Z, FrWay. Novr nbet 18. i o / n )os and 9a ulst 4 BO7
activity” which muat be covered by an
indivldusl or general permit pursuant to
todays rule.
EPA would also note that Individual
facilities have the burden of determitung
whether a permit application should be
submitted to address a point source
discharge. Those unsure of the
classification of’ storm water flow from a
facility, should file permit applications
addressing (he flow, or prior to
submitting the application consult
permitting authonties for clarification.
One comments, stated that “point
source” for this rulemaking should be
defined, for the purposes of achieving
better water quality, as those areas
where “discharges leave the municipal
Iseparate storm sewer) system.” EPA
notes in response that “point source” as
currently defined will address such
discharges. while keeping the definition
of discharge and point source within the
framework of the NPDES program, and
without adding potentially confusing
and ambiguous additional definitions to
the regulation. if this comment is
asserting that the term point source
should not include discharges from
sources through the municipal system.
EPA disagrees, As discussed in detail
below, discharges through municipal
separate storm sewer systems which are
not connected to an operable treatment
works are discharges sub ect to NPDES
permit requirements at (40 CFR 122.3(c)).
and may properly be deemed point
sources.
One industry argued that the
definition of “point source” should be
modified for storm water discharges so
as to exclude discharges from land that
is not artificially graded and which has
a propensity to form channels where
precipitation runs oIL EPA Intends to
embrace the broadest possible definition
of point source consistent with the
legislative intent of the CWA and court
interpretations to include any
identifiable conveyance from which
pollutants might enter the water, of the
United State,. In most court cases
intcrprellng the term “point source”, the
term ha, been Interpreted broadly For
example, the holding In Sierro Club v.
Abston Constructwn Co., Inc., 620 Fld
41 (5th Cir. 1980) IndIcate, that changing
the surface of land or establishing
grading patterns on land will result In a
puint source where the runoff from the
site is ultimately discharged to waters of
the United States’
Simple croasco over lbs rasienal surface.
resulting In the discharge or water and other
materials into navigable waters, does .01
onstilules pmmt . dtaclissgs. ab,sai
soms e 1 to change sinfoce. to d roct
the water flow or otherwise impede iii
prograes ’ • Crevity flow. Iesulhng as
dmcharge lab a eavigeble body of water,
may be pert ole point source discharge If d i.
(dlschargerl it least of tally collected or
ch .dm . kd the water and other . whii .M , A
point seu 01 pollution may sles be p . , . . . ,i
where ( d dia,gr,sI design spoil piles from
discarded overb ,ideu such that. dariag
penmia of piemptauca, eros s of spot) pile
walls resuh, in discharges Into a osvigable
body of water by means of ditches, gullies
and similar conveyances, even if the
(dlsthsrgaes) have doria noh.rig beyo ..d the
mei.collect1onofr and other materials
Nothing In the Act relisycs
(diachaigers) from (lability simply because
th. operators did not actually coasthict those
conveyances, so long as they ate reasonably
likely to be the means by which pollutants
are utthnntety deposited Into a navigable
body of water Conveyances of pollution
formed either as a result of natvrs i erosion or
by material means. and which miwiltutos
component of.’ ‘ ‘drainage system. may
fit the statutory definition and thereby
subpeci the operators to liability imder the
ACL 620 F.d at 45 (emphasis added).
Under this approach, point source
discharges of storm water result from
structures wluth increase the
imperviousness of the ground which acts
to collect runoff, with rinoff being
conveyed along the resulting drainage or
grading patterns.
The entire thrust of today’, regulation
is to control pollutants that enter
receiving water from storm water
conveyances. It is these conveyances
that will carry the largest volume of
water and higher levels of pollutants.
The storm water permit application
process and permit conditions will
address circumstances and discharges
peculiar to individual facilities.
One industry commented that the
definition of waters of the State under
some State NPDES programs included
municipal storm sewer systems The
commenter was concerned that certain
Industrial facilities discharging thraugh
municipal storm sewers in these states
would be required to obtain an NPDES
permit, despite EPA’s proposal not to
require permits from such facilities
generally. In response. EPA notes that
section 510 of the CWA. approved
States are able to have stricter
requirements in their NPDFS program. In
approved NPDES States, the definition
of waters of the State controls with
regard to what cons tutes a discharge to
a water body. However, EPA believes
that this will have Little impact, since, as
discussed below. aU industrial
dischargers. inriudjng those discharging
through municipal separate storm sewer
systems. wiU be subiect to general or
individual NPDES peruuls, regardless of
any additional State requirements.
One municipality commented teat
neither the term “point source” nor
“discharge” should be used in
com luathoa with thdissbial r” ge ”’ into
urban storm water systems because that
gives the lwpiassstm that such systems
are navigable waters. B A disagrees
that any confusion shoiald result from
the use of these terms in this contest. In
this rulemaking. EPA always addresses
such discharges as “discharges through
municipal separate storm sewer
systems” as opposed to “discharge, to
waters of the United States.”
Nonetheless, such lndustri l discharges
through municipal storm sewer systems
are sub Juct to the requirements of
today’s ruie, as discussed elsewhere.
One commenter desired clarification
with regard to what constituted an
outfall, and if an outfall could be a pipe
that connected two storm water
conveyances. This rulemaking defines
outfall as a point of discharge mb the
waters of the United States, and not a
con eyance which connects to Section,,
of municipal separate storm sewer. In
response to another comment, this
rulemaking only addresses discharges to
waters of United States, cunsequently
discharges to ground waters are not
covered by this rulemaking (unless there
is a hydrological connection between
the ground water and a nearby surface
water body. See, e.q_ Exxon Corn. v.
Train. 554 F.24 1310, 1312 n.1 (5th Cir.
1977). McClellan Ecological Seepoge
S,tuaLwn v. Weinberger. 707 F Supp.
1182.1195-96 (ED. CaL 1988)),
In the WQA and other places, the
term “siorm water” is presented as a
single word, Numerous comments were
received b) EPA as to the appropriate
spelling. Many of these comments
recommended that Iwo words for storm
water is appropriate. EPA has decided
to use an approach consistent with the
Government Printing Office’s approved
form where storm water appears as two
words
C Responsibility for Store, Waler
Discharges Associated With Indualnol
Activity Thrnugh Municipal Separate
Storm Sewers
The December 7. 1988. notice of
proposed rulemaking requested
comments on the appropriate permitting
scheme for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
through municipal separate storm
sewers. EPA proposed a permittu
scheme that would define the
cequirement to obtain coverdge under en
NPDES permit for a storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity through a municipal separate
storm sewer in terms of the
classiiic.a Lion of the municipal separate
storm sewer EPA proposed holding
municipal operators of large or medium
-------
47990 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 222 / Friday. November 16, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
municipal separate storm sewer systems
primarily responsible for applying for
and obtaining an NPD permit
covering system discharges as well as
storm water discharges (including storm
water discharges associated with
Industrial activity) through the system.
Under the proposed approach. operators
of storm water discharges associated
with Industrial activity which discharge
through a large or medium municipal
separate storm sewer system would
generally not be required to obtain
permit coverage for their discharge
(unless designated as a significant
contributor of pollution pursuant to
section 402(p)(2)(E)) provided the
municipality was notified of: The name,
location and type of facility and a
certification that the discharge has been
tested (if feasible) for non-storm water
(including the-results of any testing). The
notification procedure also required the
operator of the storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity to
determine that: The discharge is
composed entirely of storm water the
discharge does not Contain hazardous
substances in excess of reporting
quantities; and the facility is in
compliance with applicable provisions
of the NPDES permit issued to the
municipality for storm water.
In the proposal. EPA also requested
comments on whether a decision on
regulatory requirements for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity through other municipal
separate storm sewer system, (genera By
those serving a population of less than
1’ .0OO ) should be postponed until
completion of Iwo studies of storm
water discharges required under section
(pfl5) of the CWA.
EPA favored these approaches
because they appeared to reduce the
potential administrative burden
ociated with prepanng and
proc r.uiug the thousands of permit
applications associated with the
rulemaking and provide EPA additional
flexibility in developing permitting
requirements for storm water discharges
-“iated with industrial activity. EPA
alsu expressed Its belief, based upon an
analysis of ordinances controlling
construction site runoff in place in
omtain aties, that municipalities
generally possessed legal authonty
sufficient to control contnbujion , of
Industria l storm water pollutants to their
separate storm sewers to the degree
necessary to implement the proposed
rule. EPA commented that municipal
controls on industrial sources
lmpI n,nted to comply with en NPDES
permit issued to the municipality would
likely result in a level of storm water
pollution control very similar to that put
directly on the Industrial source through
its own NPDES permit. This was to be
accomplished by requiring municipal
permitees, 10 the maximum extent
practicable, to require Industrial
facilities in the municipality to develop
and implement storm water controls
based on a consideration of the same or
similar factor. as those used to make
BAT/ncr determinations. (See 40 CFR
125.3 (d)(2) and (d)(3)J.
The great majonty of cornmenters on
the December 7, lg8 notice addressed
this aspect of the proposal. Based on
consideration of the comments received
on the notice, EPA has decided that it is
appropriate to revise the approach in its
proposed rule to require direct permit
coverage for all storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity,
Including those that discharge through
municipal separate storm sewers. In
response to this decision. EPA has
continued to analyze the appropnate
manner to respond to the large number
of storm water discharges subject to this
rulemaking. The development of EPA’s
policy regarding permitting these
discharges is discussed in more detail in
the section V ii) of today’s preamble.
EPA note, that the status of
discharges associated with industrial
activity which pass through a municipal
separate storm sewer system under
section 402(p) raises difficult legal and
policy questions. EPA believes that
treating these discharges under permits
separate from those issued to the
municipality will most fully address
both the legal and policy concerns
raised in public comment.
Certain comnienters supported EPA’s
proposal. Some commentere claimed
that EPA lacked any authority to permit
industrial discharges which were not
discharged immediately to waters of the
U.S. Other commenters agreed with
EPA’s statements in the proposal that its
approach would result in a more
manageable administrative burden for
EPA and the NPDES states. However.
numerous comments also were received
which provided various arguments in
support of revising the proposed
approach. These comments addressed
several areas including the definition of
discharge under the CWA. the
requirements and associated statutory
time frames of section 402(p), as well as
the resource and enforcement
constraints of municipalities EPA is
persuaded by these comments and has
modified its approach accordingly The
key comments on this issue are
discussed below.
EPA disagrees with commenters who
suggested that EPA lacks authonty to
permit separately industrial discharge-
through municipal sewers. The CWA
prohibits the discharge of a pollutant
except pursuant to an NPDES permit.
Section 502(12)(A) of the CWA defines
the “discharge of a pollutant” as “any
addition of any pollutant to navigable
waters from any point source.” i There
Is rio qualification in the statutory
language regarding the source of the
pollutants being discharged. Thus.
pollutants from a remote location which
are discharged through a point source
conveyance controlled by a different
entity (such as a municipal storm sewer)
are nonetheless discharges for which a
permit is required.
EPA’s regulatory definition of the term
“discharge” reflects this broad
construction. EPA defines the term to
include
additIons of pollutant, into waters of the
United States from surface runoff which ii
collected or channelled by man: discho ’yes
through pipes, sewers, or other conveyances
owned by a State. municipality, or other
person which does not lead to a treatment
works, and discharges through pipes, sewers.
or other conveyances, leading into privately
owned treatment work,
40 CFR * 122.2 (1989) (emphasis added).
The only exception to this general rule’
the one contemplated by section 307(b 1
of the CW& i.e.. the introduction of
pollutant, into publicly-owned
treatment works. EPA treats these as
“indirect discharges.” subject not to
NPDES r quirements. but to
pretreatment standards under section
307(b).
In light of its construction of the term
discharge. EPA has consistently
maintained that a person who sends
pollutants from a remote location
through a point source into a water of
the U.S. may be held liable for the
unpermitted discharge of that pollutant.
Thus, EPA asserts the authority to
require a permit either from the opera tot
of the point source conveyance. (such as
a municipal storm sewer or a privately-
owned treatment works), or from any
person causing pollutants to be present
in that conveyance and discharged
through the point source. or both. See
Decision of the Generol Counsel (of
EPA) No. 43 (“In re Fnendswood
Development Co.”) (June 11. 1976)
(operator of pnvately owned treatment
work and dischargers to it are both
subject to NPDES permit requirements).
See also, 40 CFR 122.3(g). 122.44(m)
‘indeed, the DC Cutuul ha. held, in th. storm
wal.r canuszt that EPA may not ea.mpt any point
saute, duscJi.r ,. at poiiui.nt. irom the
requirement to obtain an NPVES permit NROC v.
Co . :!. 5 5 5 Ezd 1359 1377 (DC Cur tg,7
-------
Federal Regtst& / Vol. 55 No. 222 I Friday, November 161990 / Rules and Regu1aflo e
(NPOES permit writes has discretion to
permit contributors to a privately owned
treatment works as direct discharger,).
In other words, where pollutants are
added by one person to a conveyance
owned/operated by another person, and
that conveyance discharges those
pollutants through a point soulne, EPA
may permit either person or both to
ensure that the discharge is properly
controlled. Pollutants from industrial
sites discharged through a storm cower
to a point source are appropriately
treated in this fashion.
Furthermore. EPA believes that storm
water from an industrial plant which is
discharged through a municipal storm
sewer is a “discharge associated with
industrial actIvity.” Todays rule. as in
the proposal, defines discharges
associated with industrial activity solely
in terms of the origin of the storm water
r4noff. There is no distinction for how
the storm water reaches the waters of
the U.S. In other words, pollutants in
storm water from an industrial plant
which are discharged are “associated
with industrial activity,” re ardlesa of
whether the industrial facility operates
the conveyance discharging the storm
water or whether the storm water is
ultimately discharged through a
municipal storm sewer) Indeed, there Is
rio distinction in the “industrial” nature
of these two types of discharges. The
pollutants of concern in an industrial
storm water discharge are present wi &n
the storm water leaves the facility.
either through an in usfflal or municipal
storm water conveyance. EPA has no
data to suggest that the pollutants in
industrial storm water entering a
municipal storm sewer are any different
than those In storm water discharged
immediately to a water of the U.S. Thus,
industrial storm water in a municipal
sewer is properly classified as
“associated with industrial activity.”
Although EPA prnpoaed not to cover
these discharges by separate permit, the
Agency believes that It Is clearly not
precluded from doing so.
Many continents also supported the
proposed approach, noting that holding
municipalities primarily responsible for
obtaining a permit which covers
industrial storm wafer discharges
through inimicipal systems would
reduce the administrative burden
associated with preparing and
processing thousands of permit
applications—permit applications that
would be submitted if each industrial
discharger through a large or medium
municipal separate storm sewer system
had to apply individually (or as part of a
group application).
EPA appreciates these concerns. Yet
EPA also recognizes that there are also
significant problems with putting the
burden of controlling these sources on
the municipalities (except for designated
discharges) which must be balanced
with the concerns about the permit
application burden on Industries. The
industrial permitting strategy discussed
in section VLD below attempts to
achieve this balance.’
EPA also does not believe that the
administrative burden will be nearly as
significant as originally thought. for
several reasons, First, as discussed in
section tLF.2 below and in response to
significant public comment, EPA has
significantly narrowed the scope of the
definition of “associated with industrial
activity” to focus in on those facilities
which are most commonly considered
“industrial” and thought to have the
potential for the highest levels of
pollut.anLs in their storm water
discharges. EPA believes this is a more
appropriate way to ensure a
manageable scope for the industrial
storm water program in light of the
statutory language of section 40Z(p}.
since it does not attempt to arbitrarily
distinguish industrial facilities on the
basis of the ownership of the
conveyance through which a facility
discharges its storm water Second,
EPA’s industrial permitting strategy
discussed in section VLD is designed
around aggressive use of general permits
to cover the vast ma ority of industrial
sources These general permit. will
require industrial facilities to develop
storm water control plans and practices
similar to those that would have been
required by the municipality. Yet
general permits will eliminate the need
fur thousands of indivduak or group
permit applications, greatly reducing the
burden on both industry EPA/States.
Finally, even asides the proposal. EPA
believes that a Large number of
industrial disthargers would have been
appropriate for designation for
individual permitting under section
402IpW2J1E). with the attendant
individual application requirements.
Today’, ap . .,adi will actually decrease
the overall burden on these facilities.
rather than filing an individual permit
application upon designation, these
facilities will generally be covered by a
general pernut
By contrast, several commenters
asserted that cot only does EPA have
the authority to cover these discharges
by separate permit, It is required to by
the language of section 402(p). As
dt’,,...,,’..d above storm waler from an
industrial plant which passes through a
municipal storm sewer to a point source
and is discharged to waters of the U.S Is
a “discharge associated with Industrial
activity.” Thmfur .. ft is sab eet to the
appr 1 ,riate requirements of section
402(p), The operator of the discharge (or
the Industrial facility wheie the storm
water originates) must eppiy for a
permit within three years of the 1987
amendments (i.e.. Feb. 4. 1990k’ EPA
must issue a permit by one year later
(Feb 4. 1991); arid the permit must
require compliance within three years of
permit issuance. That permit must
ensure that the discharge is in
compliance with all awruprlate
prov:sions of sections 301 and 402.
Cornmenters asserted that EPA’.
proposal would violate these two
requirements of the law. FIrst, the
statute requires all industrial storm
water discharges to obtain a permit in
the first round of permitting (i.e_
February 4. 1990). However. Congress
established a different framework to
addres. discharges from small municipal
separate storm sewer systems. Section
402(p) requires EPA to complete two
studies of storm water discharges, and
based on those studies, promulgate
additional regulations. including
requirements for state storm water
management programs by October 1,
1992. EPA is prolubited from issuing
permits for storm water discharges from
small municipal system . until October 1.
1992 unles, the discharge is designated
under section 402(pfl2flE). Thus.
industrial storm water discharges from
these systems would not be covered by
a permit until later than contemplat l
by statute. Second. permits for
mui;iapal storm sewer systems requirv’
controls on storm water discharges 1.
the maximum extent practicable.” as
opposed to the BATfBCT requirements
of section 301 (bU2). Yet, all industrial
storm water discharges must comply
with section 301(b)(2). Thea. covering
lnduitnal storm water under a
municipal star?!? waler permit will not
ensure the legally-required level of
control of industrial storm water
d i scharg
In addition to comment, on the
requirements of section 402(p). EPA
received several comments questlosurig
whether EPA’. pvupoaal to cover
industrial pollutants m mtmiapal
separate storm sewers solely In the
permit issued to the mnnacipahty would
ensure adequate control of these
pollutants due to both inadequate
‘ft should tie noted hot d sot p osd ite
the roq.i rsd wsirv es U e b ? ssry.
iSes. .. Iaied by p5IMl A.
disci .st b . fr4.y. i 55 1h1
iei .th L .loe ws è.chv 5el so t . s ps*
•ppficafIon in outs yer
-------
48000 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 222 / Friday,_November 16, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
resourceit and enforcement. Some
municipalities stated that the burdens of
thi, responsibility would be too great
with regard to source identification and
general admmistration of the program.
These commenters daimed they lacked
the necessary technical and regulatory
expertise to regulate such sources.
Commenters also noted that additional
resources to control these sources would
be difficult to obtain given the
resthctiona on local taxation in many
states and the fact that EPA will not be
providing funding to local governments
to implement their storm water
programs.
Municipalities also expressed
concerns regarding enforcement of
EPA’s proposed approach. Some
municipalitie, remarked that they did
not have appropriate legal authority to
address these discharges. Several
commenters also stated that requiring
municipalitie, to be responsible for
addressing storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
through their municipal system would
result in unequal treatment of industries
nationwide because of different
municipal requirements and
enforcement procedures. Several
municipal entities expressed concern
with regard to their responsibility and
liability for pollutants discharged to
their municipal storm sewer system, and
further asserted that it was unfair to
require municipalities to bear the full
cost of controlling such pollutants Other
municipalities suggested that overall
municipal storm water control would be
impaired, since municipalities would
spend a disproportionate amount of
resources trying to control industrial
discharges through their sewers, rather
than addressing other storm water
problems in a related vein. certain
commenter, suggested that, where
industrial storm water was a significant
problem in a municipal sewer. EPA’s
proposed approach would hamper
enforcement at the federal/state level,
since all enforcement measure, could be
directed only at the municipality, rather
than at the most direct source of that
problem.
in response to all of these concerns,
EPA has decided to require storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity which discharge through
municipal separate storm sewers to
obtain separate individual or general
DES permits EPA believes that this
criange will adequately address all of
the key concerns raised by comirenters.
The Agency wa particularly
influenced by concerns that many
municipalities lacl ed the authority
under state law to address industrial
storm water practices. EPA had
assumed that since several cities
regulate construction site activities, that
they could regulate other industrial
operations in a similar manner. Several
commenters suggested otherwise. In
light of these concerns, EPA agrees with
certain commenters that municipal
controls on indu nal facilities, in lieu of
federal control, might not comply with
section 402(p)(3)(A) for those facilities.’
This calls into question whether EPA’s
proposed approach would have
reasonably implemented Congressional
intent to address industrial storm water
early and stringently in the permitting
process.
EPA also agrees with those
cornmenters who argued that municipal
controls on industrial storm water
sources were not directly analogous to
the pretreatment program under section
307(b), as EPA suggested in the
preamble to the proposal. The authority
of cities to control the type and volume
of industnal pollutants into a POTW is
generally unquestioned under the laws
of most states, since sewage and
industrial waste treatment is a service
provided by the municipality Thus. EPA
has greater confidence that cities can
and will adopt effective pretreatment
programs. By contrast, many cities are
limited in the types of controls they can
impose on flows into storm sewers,
cities are more often limited to
regulations on quantity of industrial
flows to prevent flooding the system. So
too, the pretreatment program allows for
federal enforcement of local
pretreatment requirements Enforcement
against direct discharger, (including
dischargera through municipal storm
sewers) is possible only when the
municipal requirements are contained in
an NPDES permit.
Although today’s rule will require
industrial discharges through municipal
storm sewers to be covered by separate
permit, EPA still believes that municipal
operators of large and medium
municipal systems have an important
role in source identification and the
development of pollutant controls for
Industries that discharge storm water
through municipal separate storm sewer
systems is appropriate. Under the CWA.
‘EPA note. it., the ieg.i issue rslsed by
Comifientera regarding whether fndu.inai storm
water would be coniroli.d 10 8AT it c ver,d by.
municipal permit ii the M Ie eI a prim ,nly a
uteorotical issue Au enolained above he proposci
assumed that ctI u wouid esusbi,,h controls on
Induatry very similar to iho.e e ,tabhshed in an
NPOES permit using best professional iudgment
EPA 5 hey concern. rains, is sefleitier cities can. in
Fact eiiablish such controls Thu. today. Anal rut.
should no, sppreciabiy change the requirements to
b. imposed on tndu.ir,aI .ou,ce, onip how ho.,
requstemsnt$ are enfor d
targe end medium municipalities are
responsible for reducing pollutants in
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewers to the maximum extent
practicable, Because storm water from
industrial facilities may be a major
contnbutor of pollutants to municipal
separate storm sewer systems,
municipalities are obligated to develop
controls for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
through their system in their storm
water management program (See
section VI.H.7, of today’s preamble ) The
CWA provides that permits for
municipal separate storm sewers shall
require municipalities to reduce
pollutants to the maximum extent
practicable. Permits issued to
municipalities for discharges from
municipal separate storm sewers will
reflect terms, specified controls, and
programs that achieve that goal. As with
all NPDES permits, responsibility and
liability is determined by the
diacharger’8 compliance with the terms
of the permit A municipality’s
responsibility for industrial storm water
discharged through their system is
governed by the terms of the permit
issued. If an industrial source discharges
storm water through a municipal
separate storm sewer in violation of
requirements incorporated Into a permit
for the industrial facility’s discharge.
that industrial operator of the discharge
may lie subject to an enforcement action
instituted by the Director of the NPDES
program
Today’s rule also requires operators of
storm water discharges associated with
industnal activity through large and
medium municipal systems to provide
municipal entities of the name, location,
and type of facility that is discharging to
the municipal system. This information
will provide municipalities with a base
of information from which management
,lans can be devised and implemented.
This requirement is in addition to any
requirements contained in the industrial
facility’s permit. As in the proposal, the
notification process will assist cities in
development of their industrial control
programs.
EPA intends for the NPDES program,
through requirements in permits for
storm water discharges associated with
Industrial activity, to work in concert
with municipalities in the industrial
component of their torr’t waler
management program efforts EPA
believe, that p ’mrmittlng of municipal
storm sewer systems and the industrial
discharges through them will act in a
complementary manner to fully control
the pollutants in those sewer systems
This will fully implement the intent of
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 222 I Friday. November 16. 1990 I Rules and Regulations 48001
Congress to control industrial as well as
large and medium municipal storm
water discharges as expeditiously and
effectively as possible. This approach
will also address the concerns of
municipalities that they lack sufficient
authority and resources to control all
industrial contributions to their storm
sewers and will be liable for discharges
outside of their control.
The pernut application requirements
for large and medium municipal
separate storm sewer syetema,
discussed in more detail later in todays
preamble, address the responsibilities of
the municipal operators of these systems
to identify and control pollutants in
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity Permit applications
for large and medium municipal
separate storm sewer systems are to
Identify the location of facilities which
discharge storm water associated with
industrial activity to the municipal
system (see section Vl.H.7. of the
preamble) in addition, municipal
applicants will provide a description of
a proposed management program to
reduce, to the maximum extent
practicable, pollutants from storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity which discharge to the
municipal system (see section VLH.7.c
of this preamble). EPA notes that each
municipal program wilt be tailored to
the conditions in that city. Differences in
regional weather patterns, hydrology.
water quality standards, and storm
sewer systems themselves dictate that
storm water management practices will
vary to some degree in each
municipality. Accordingly, similar
industrial storm water discharges may
be treated differently in terms of the
requirements imposed by the
municipality, depending on the
municipa’ program. Nonetheless, any
individual or general permit issued to
the industrial facility must comply with
section 402(p)(3)(A) of the CWA.
EPA intends to provide assistance and
guidance to municipalities and
permitting authorities for developing
storm water management programs that
achieve permit requirements. EPA
Intends to issue a guidance document
addressing municipal permit
applications in the near term.
Controls developed in management
plans For municipal system permits may
take a variety of forms. Where
necessary, municipal pernuttees can
pursue local remedies to develop
measures to reduce pollutants or halt
storm water discharges with high levels
of pollutants through municipal storm
sewer systems. Some local entities have
already implemented ordinances or laws
that are designed to reduce the
discharge of pollutants to municipal
separate storm sewers, while other
municipalities have developed a variety
of technique. to control pollutants in
storm water. Alternatively, where
appropriate, municipal permittees may
develop end.of.pipe controls to control
pollutants in these discharges such as
regional wet detention ponds or
diverting flow to publicly owned
treatment works. Finally, municipal
applicants may bring individual storm
water discharges. which cannot be
adequately controlled by the municipal
permittees or general permit coverage.
to the attention of the permitting
authority. Then, at the Directors
discretion. appropriate additional
controls can be required in the permit
for the facility generating the targeted
storm water discharge.
One commenter suggested that
municipal operators of municipal
separate storm sewers should have
control over all storm waler discharges
from a facility tha’ discharges both
through the munic’ ial system and to
waters of the United States. In response,
under this regulatory and statutory
scheme, industries that discharge storm
water directly into the waters of the
United States, through municipal
separate storm sewer systems, or both
are required to obtain permit coverage
for their discharges. However,
municipalities are not precluded from
exercising control over such facilities
through their own municipal authorities.
it is important to note that EPA has
established effluent guideline limitations
for storm water discharges for nine
subcategories of industrial dischargers
(Cement Manufacturing (40 CFR part
411). Feedlots (40 CFR part 412).
Fertilizer Manufacturing (40 CFR part
418), Petroleum Refining (40 CFR part
419). Phosphate Manufacturing (40 CFR
part 422). Steam Electric (40 CFR part
423). Coal Mining (40 CFR part 434), Ore
Mining and Dressing (40 CFR part 440)
and Asphalt (40 CFR part 441)). Most of
the existing facilities in these
subcategories already have individual
permits for their storm water discharges.
Under todays rule, facilities with
existing NPDES permits for storm water
discharges through a municipal storm
sewer will be required to maintain these
permits and apply for an individual
permit. under 122.20(c). when existing
permits expire. EPA received numerous
comments supporting this decision
because requiring facilities that have
existing permits to comply with today’s
requirements immediately would be
inefficient and not serve improved water
quality.
Sections 402(p) (1) and (2) of the CWA
provide that discharges from municip.il
separate storm sewer systems serving a
population of less than 100.000 are it
required to obtain a permit prior to
October 1. 1992. unless designated on a
case by-case basis under section
402(p)(2)(E). However, as discusscd
above, storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
through such municipal systems are rot
excluded. Thus, under today’s rule, all
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity that discharge throigh
municipal separate storm sewer systi ma
are required to obtain NPDES perm:t
coverage, including those which
discharge through S) sterns serving
populations less than 100.000 EPA
believes requiring permits will address
the legal concerns raised by commentcr!
regarding these sources. In addition, it
will allow for control of these significunt
sources of pollution while EPA
continues to study under section
402(p)(O) whether to require the
development of municipal storm water
management plans in these
municipalities If these municipalities (10
ultimately obtain NPDES permits for
their municipal separate storm sewer
systems. early permitting of the
industrial contributions may aid those
cities in their storm water management
efforts.
In the December 7. 1988. proposal.
EPA recognized that storm water
dischargcs associated with industrial
acti ity from Federal facitities through
municipal separate storm sewer systems
may pose unique legal and
administrative situations EPA received
numerous comments on this issue. with
most of these comments coming from
cities and counties. The comments
reflected a general concern with respect
to a municipality’s ability to control
Federal storm water dischargee through
municipal separate storm sewer
systems. Most municipalities stated that
they do not have the legal authority to
adequately enforce against problem
storm water discharges from Federal
facilities and that these facilities should
be required to obtain separate storm
water permits. Some commentere stated
that they have no Constitutional
authority to regulate Federal facilities or
establish regulation for such facilities.
Some commenters indicated that
Federal facilities could not be inspected.
monitored, or subjected to enforcement
for national security and other
punsdictional reasons Some
commenler. argued that without clearly
stated legal authority for the
municipality, such discharger. should be
required to obtain permits One
-------
AA()O? Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 222 / Friday, November 16. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
municipality pointed out that Federal
facilities within city limits are exempted
from their Erosion and Sediment Control
Act and that permits for these facilities
should be required.
Under today’s rule. Federal facilities
which discharge storm water associated
with industrial activity through
municipal separate storm sewer systems
will be required to obtain NPDES permit
coverage under Federal or State law
EPA believes this will cure the legal
authority problems at the local level
raised by the comnienters. EPA notes
that this requirement is consistent with
section 313(a) of the C’WA.
D. Preliminary Permitting Stretegy for
Storm Water Discharges Associated
With Industrial Activity
Many of the comments received on
the December 7, 1988. proposal Focused
on the difficulties that EPA Regions and
authorized NPDES States. with their
finite resources, will have in
implementing an effective permitting
program for the large number of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity. Many comnienters
noted that problems with implementing
permit programs are caused not only by
the large number of industrial facilities
subject to the program, but by the
difficulties associated with identifying
appropriate technologies for controlling
storm water at various sites and the
differences in the nature and extent of
storm water discharges from different
types of industrial facilities.
EPA recognizes these concerns: and
based on a consideration of comments
from authorized NPDES States.
municipalities, industrial facilities and
environmental groups on the permitting
framework and permit application
requirements for storm water discharge,
associated with industrial activity, EPA
Is In the process of developing a
preliminary strategy for permitting storm
water discharges associated with
industhal activity. In developing this
strategy, EPA recognizes that the CWA
provides flexibility in the manner in
which NPDES permits are issued.’ EPA
Tb. ona in NR v T,ern. 395 F Supp. 1395
(D.D C I97s) aff’S NRDC , Coed,. 5 55 Fad i
tDC Cr i977 . have .c1nowl ,d ,d lb.
ad unis .tive burden placed oo the A enq, by
rvquInn individual perTyiti. for. Iar e numbcT of
atone ai,, dipch. ,ge.. The., Is ha ..
reco ntzed ‘A a di.a i,on Co sa l cenain
admuni .ir.jiv, d vic... auth u .me peront. or
ensmi peneit. to help ataitape it. wcr load, to
addition. lb. cowl. ha .. recoqnlz.d O.zib ,Iiiy in
lb. type of ponmi coe 1i1o,, . thai a ,, eatabftsh,d.
Inch,dn , ‘ qvineeont . f b i ala
practice.
in tends to use this flexibility in
designing a workable and reasonable
permitting system. In accordance with
these considerations, EPA Intend, to
publish in the near futures discussion of
its preliminary permitting strategy for
implementing the NPDES storm water
program.
The preliminary strategy is intended
to establish a framework for developing
permitting priorities, and includes a four
tier set of priorities for issuing permits to
be implemented over timer
a Tier I—baseline permzwng. One or
more general permits will be developed
to initially cover the majority of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity;
• Tier if—waters hod permitting:
Facilities within watersheds shown to
be adversely impacted by storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity will be targeted for permitting.
a Tier Ill—industry specific
permiwng: Specific industry categories
will be targeted for individual or
industry-specific permits, and
• Tier fl/—facility specific
pennluing: A variety of factors will be
used to target specific facilities for
individual permits. -
Tier 1—Baseline Permitting
EPA intends to issue general permits
that initially cover the majority of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity in States without
authorized NPDES programs. These
permits will also serve as models for
States with authonzed NPDES
programs.
The consolidation of many sources
under one permit will greatly reduce the
otherwise overwhelming administrative
burden associated with permitting storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity. This approach has a
number of additional advantages.
including:
• Requirements will be established
for discharges covered by the permit
• Facilities whose discharges are
covered by the permit will have an
opporlunity for substantial compliance
with the C NA
• The public, including municipal
operators of municipal separate storm
sewers which may receive storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity, will have access under section
308(b) of the CWA to monitoring data
and certain other information developed
by the pernuttee
• EPA will have the opportunity to
begin to collect and review data on
storm water discharge. from pnority
industries, thereby supporting the
development of subsequent permitting
activities:
a Applicable requirements of
municipal storm water management
programs established in permits for
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewer systems will be enforceable
directly against non-complying
industrial facilities that generate the
discharges;
a The public will be given an
opportunity to comment on permitting
activities:
• The baseline permits will provide a
basis for bnnging selected enforcement
actions by eliminating many issues
which might otherwise arise in an
enforcement proceeding, and
• Finally, the baseline permits will
provide a focus for public comment on
the development of subsequent phases
of the permitting strategy for storm
water discharges. including the
development of priorities for State storm
water management programs deveoped
under section 402 (p)(6) of the CWA
Initially, the coverage of the baseline
permits will be broad, but the coverage
is intended to shrink as other permits
are issued for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activities
pursuant to Tier II through IV activities
2 Tier 11—Watershed Permitting
Facilities within watersheds shown to
be adversely impacted by storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity will be targeted For individual
and general permitting This process can
be initiated by identifying receiving
waters (or segments of receiving warersl
where storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity have
been identified as a source of use
impairment or are suspected to be
contributing to use impairment
3. Tier Ill—Industry Specific Permitting
Specific industry categories will be
targeted for individual or industry.
specific general permits. These permits
will allow permitting authorities to focus
attention and resources on industry
categories of particular concern andfor
industry categories where tailored
requirements are appropriate. EPA will
work with the States to coordinate the
development of model permits for
selected classes of industrial storm
water discharges. EPA is also working
to identify priority industrial categories
in the two reports to Congress required
under section 4 02(p)(5) of the CWA. In
addition, group applications that are
received can be used io develop model
permits for the appropriate industries
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55. No. 222 / Friday. November 18. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
48O
4. Tier IV_Facility Specific Permitting
Individual permits will be appropriate
for some storm water discharges in
addition to those identified under Tier II
and ill activities. Individual permits
should be issued where warranted by:
the pollution potential of the discharge;
the need for individual control
mechanisms: and in cases where
reduced administrative burdens exist.
For example, individual NPDES permits
for facilities with process discharges
should be expanded during the normal
process of permit reissuance to cover
storm water discharges from the facility.
5. Relationship of Strategy to Permit
Applications Requirements
The preliminary lcng-term permalt:ng
strategy described above identifies
several permit schemes that EPA
anticipates will be used in addressing
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity. One issue that arises
with this strategy is determining the
appropriate information needed to
develop and issue permits fur these
discharges. The NPDES regulatory
scheme provides three major options for
obtaining permit co erage for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity: (1) Individual permit
applications: (2) group applications; and
(3) case-by-case requirements developed
for general permit coverage.
a. Individual permit application
requirements. Today’s notice
establishes requirements for individual
permit applications for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity These application requirements
are applicable for all storm watcr
discharges associated with industrial
activity, except where the operator of
the discharge is participating in a group
application or a general permit is issued
to cover the discharge and the general
permit provides alternative means to
obtain permit coverage. Information in
individual applications is intended to be
used in developing the site-specific
conditions generally associated with
Individual permits.
Individual permit applications are
expected to play an important role in all
tiers of the Strategy. even where general
permits are used. Although general
permits may provide for notification
requirements that operate in lieu of the
requirement to submit individual permit
applications, the individual permit
applications may be needed undei
several circumstances. Examples
include’ where a general permit requires
the submission of a permit application
as the notice of intent to be covered by
the permit: where the owner or operator
authorized by a general permit requests
to be excluded from the coverage of the
general permit by applying for a permit
(see 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)(iii) for EPA
issued general permits); and where the
Director requires an owner or operator
authonzed by a general permit to apply
for an individual permit (see 40 CFR
122.28(b)(2)(ii) for EPA issued general
permits).
b. Cmup applications. Today’s rule
also promulgates requirements for group
applications for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity.
These applications provide participants
of groups with sufficiently similar storm
water discharges an alternative
mechanism for applying for permit
co erage.
The group application requirements
are primarily inter.ded to provide
information for developing industry
specific general permits (Group
applications can also be used to issue
individual permits in authorized NPDES
Slates without general permit authority
or where otherwise appropriate) As
such, group application requirements
correlate well with the Tier Ill
permitting activities identified in the
long-term permitting Strategy.
c Case-by-case requirements. 40 CFR
122.21(a) excludes persons covered by
general permits from requirements to
submit individual permit applications.
Further, the general permit regulations
at 40 CFR 122.28 domot address the
issue of how a potential permittee is to
apply to be co ered under a general
permit Rather, conditions fur
notification of intent (NO!) to be
covered by the general permit are
estcblished in the permits on a case-by.
case basis, and operate in lieu of permit
application requirements. Requirements
for submitting NOh to be covered by a
general permit can range from full
applicatrnns (this would be Form I and
Form 2F for most discharges composed
entirely of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity), to
no notice. EPA recommends that the
NO! requirements established in a
general permit for storm water
discharges associa ted with industrial
activity be commensurate with the
needs of the permit writer in
establishing the permit and the permit
program. The baseline general permit
described in Tier I is intended to support
the development of controls for storm
waler discharges associated with
industrial activity that can be supported
by the limited resources of the
permitting Agency In this regard. the
burdens of receiving and reviewing
NOl’s from the large number of facilities
covered by the permit should also be
considered when developing NOl
requirements. In addition. NO!
requirements should be developed in
conjunction with permit conditions
establishing reporting requirements
during the term of the permit.
NOl requirements in general permits
can establish a mechanism which can
be used to establish a clear accounting
of the number of permittees covered by
the general permit. the nature of
operations at the facility generating the
discharge. their identity and location.
The NO! can be used as an initial
screening tool tu determine discharges
where individual permits are
appropriate Also. the NO! can be used
to ident’fy classes of discharges
appropnate for more specific general
permits. as well as provide information
needed to notify such discharger’s of the
issuance r.f a more specific general
permit In addition, the NO! can provide
for the identification of the perntittee to
pro ide a basis for enforcement and
compliance monitoring strategies. EPA
will further address this issue in the
context of specific general permits it
plans to issue in the near future
Today’s rule requires that individual
permit applications for storm water
d:scharges associated with industrial
activity be submitted within one yeur
from the date of publication of this
not:ce EPA is considering issuing
general permits for the majority of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity in those States and
territories that do not have authorized
State NPDES programs (MA. ME. NH,
FL LA. TX. OK. NM, SD. AZ. AK. ID.
District of Columbia. the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Guam.
American Samoa. the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands, and the
Trust Temtory of the Pacific Islands)
before that date to enable industrial
discharger’s of storm water to ascertain
whether they are eligible for coverage
under a general permit (and subject to
any alternative notification
requirements established by the general
permit In lieu of the individual permit
application requirements of today’s rule)
or whether they must submit an
individual permit application (or
participate in a group application)
before the regulatory deadlines for
submitting these applications passes.
Storm water application deadlines are
discussed in further detail below.
E Storm Water Discharge Sampht: 5
Storm water discharges are
intermittent by their nature, and
pollutant concentrations in storm water
discharges will be highly variable Not
only will variability arise between given
events, but the flow and pollutant
-------
49004 Fed 1 Register / Vol. 55, No. 222 I Friday, November 16. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Concentrations of such discharges will
vary with tints during an event. This
variability raises two technical
problems: how best to characterize the
discharge associated with a single storm
event: and how best to characterize the
variability between discharges of
different events that may be caused by
seasonal changes and changes in
material management practices. for
example.
Prior to todays rulemaking. 40 CFR
122.21(g)(7) required that applicants for
NPDES permits submit quantitative data
based on one grab sample taken every
hour of the discharge for the first four
hours of discharge. EPA has modified
this requirement such that, instead of
collecting and analyzing four grab
samples individually. applicants for
permits addressing storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity will provide data as indicators
of two sets of conditions: data collected
during the first 30 minutes of discharge
and flow-weighted average storm event
concentrations, Large and medium
municipalities will provide data on flow-
weighted average storm event
concentrations only.
Data describing pollutants in a grab
sample taken during the first few
minutes of the discharge can often be
used as a screen for non-storm water
discharges to separate storm sewers
because such pollutants may be flushed
out of the system during the initial
portion of the discharge. In addition.
data from the first few minutes nf a
discharge are useful because much of
the traditional structural technology
used to control storm water discharges.
including detention and retention
devices, may only provide controls for
the first portion of the discharge, with
relatively little or no control for the
remainder of the discharge. Data from
the first portion of the discharge will
give an indication of the potential
usefulness of these techniques to reduce
pollutants in storm water discharges.
Also, such discharges may be primarily
responsible for pollutant shocks to the
ecosystem in receiving waters.
Studies such as NURP have shown
that flow-weighted average
concentrations of storm water
discharge. are useful for estimating
pollutant loads and for evaluating
certain concentration.based water
quality impacts The use of flow.
weighted composite samples are also
consistent with comments raised by
various industry representatives during
previous Agency rulemakirigs that
continuous monutonng of discharges
from storm events is fleCesser ‘0
adequately characteriz, such
discharges.
EPA requested comment on the
feasibility of the proposed modification
of sampling procedure, at 122.21(g)(7)
and the ability to characterize pollutants
in storm water discharges with an
average concentration from the first
portion of the discharge compared to
collecting and separately analyzing four
grab samples. It was proposed that an
event composite sample be collected, as
well as a grab sample collected during
the first minutes of runoff, Comments
were solicited as to whether or not this
sampling method would provide better
definition of the storm load for runoff
characterization than would the
requirement to collect and separately
analyze four grab samples
Many commcnters questioned the
ability to obtain a 20 minute sample in
the absence of automatic samplers.
Some believed that pollutants measured
by such a sample can be accounted for
in the event composite sample. Others
argued that this is an unwarranted
sampling effort if municipal storm water
management plans are to be geared to
achieving annual pollutant load
reductions Many commenter, advised
that problems accessing sampling
stations and mobilizing sampling crews.
particularly after working hours. miide
sampling during the first 20 minutes
impractical. These comments were
made particularly with respect to
municipalities, where the geographical
areas could encompass several hundred
square miles Several alternatives were
suggested including’ the collection of a
sample in the first hour. and
representative grab sampling in the next
three hours, one per bouri or perform
time pmoport oned sampling for up to
four hours. -
Because of the logistical problems
associated with collecting samples
during the first few minutes of discharge
from municipal systems. EPA will only
require such sampling from industrial
facilities. Municipal systems Will be
spread out over many square miles with
sampling locations potentially several
miles from public works departments or
other responsible government agencies
Reaching such locations in order to
obtain samples during the first few
minutes of a storm event may prove
impossible For essentially the same
reasons, the requirement has been
modified to encompass the first 30
minutes of the discharge, instead of 20
minutes. for industnal discharges The
rule also darthe, that the sample should
be taken durina the first 30 minutes or as
soon thereafter as practicable. Where
appropriate, characterization of this
portion of the discharge from selected
outfalls or sampling points may be a
condition to permits issued to
municipalities. With regard to protocols
for the collection of sample aliquots for
flow-weighted composite samples.
§ 12L21(g)(7) provides that municipal
applicants may collect flow-weighted
composite samples using different
protocols with respect to the time
duration between the collection of
sample aliquots, subject to the approval
of the Director or Regional
Administrator. In other words, the
period may be extended from 15 minutes
to 20 or 25 minutes between sample
aliquots, or decreased from 15 to 10 or 5
minutes.
Other comments raised issues that
apply both to the impact of runoff
characterization and the first discharge
representation. These primarily
pertained to regions that have well
defined wet and dry seasons. Comments
questioned whether or not it is fair to
assume that the initial storm or two of a
wet season, which will have very high
pollutant concentrations, are actually
representative of the runoff
concentrations for the area
In response. EPA believes that it is
important to represent the first part of
the discharge either separately or as a
part of the event composite samples
This loading is made up primarily of the
mass of unattached fine particulates and
readily soluble surface load that
accumulates between storms. This toad
washes off of the basins directly
connected paved surfaces when the
runoff velocities reach the level required
for entrainment of the particulate load
into the surface flow It should be noted
that for very fine particulate, and
soluble,, this can occur very soon after
the storm begin, and much sooner than
the peak flow. The first few minutes of
discharge represent, a shock load to the
receiving water, in terms of
concentration of pollutants. because for
many constituents the highest
concentrations of the event will occur
during this initial period Due to the
need to properly quantify this load, it is
not necessary to represent the first
discharge from the upper reache, of the
outfall’s tributary area. In runoff
characterization basins, the assumption
is that the land use in the basin is
homogeneous. or nearly so. and that the
first discharge from the lower reaches
for all intents and purposes is
representative of the entire basin If a
sample is taken during the first 30
minutes of the runoff, it will be
composed primarily of first discharge It
the sample is taken at the outfall an
hour into th event it may contain
-------
Federal Re ster / VoL 55 No. 222/ Friday. 1O 1990! Rules and Regulalioiis 4 65
discharge from the remote portions of
the barn. It will not be i p caentat vu of
the diwkw v because It will also
coatala later wasboft from the lower
reaches of the basin, resulting to a low
estimation of the first discharge load of
most constituents. C ,.teely, larger
suspended partlaulates that normally
are not present in first discharge due to
Inadequate velocities will appear in this
later sampling scenario because of the
Infineace of higher runoff rates in the
lower basin. Many commonly used
management practices sin designed
based on their ability to treat a volume
of water defined by the first discharge
phenomenon. It is important to
charactenze the first discharge load
because most management practices
effectively treat only, or prunartly, this
load.
It should be noted that first discharge
runoff is some times contaminated by
non.etorru water related pollutants. In
many urban catchments. contaminants
that result from Illicit connections and
illegal dumping may be stored in the
system until flushed” during the Initial
storm penod. This does not negate the
need For information on the
characteristic first discharge load, but
does indicate that the first phase field
screen resells for Illicit connections
should be used to help define those
outfall, where this problem might exist
Several methods can be used to
develop an event average concentration.
Either automatic or manual sampling
techniques can be used that sample the
entire hydropraph. or at least the first
four bonus of it, that will result in
several discrete samples and associated
flow rates that represent the various
flow regimes of an event These
procedures have the potential for
providing either an event average
concentration, in event mean
concentration, or discrete definition of
the washoff process. Automatic
sampling procedures are aLso available
that collect a single composite sample.
either on a lime-proportioned or flow
proportioned basis.
When discrete samples are collected.
an event average composite sample can
be produced by the manual composite of
the discrete samples In equal volumes.
Laboratory analysts of time
proportioned composite samples will
directly yield the event average
concentration. Mathematical averaging
of discrete sample analysis results will
yield an event average concentration.
When discrete samples are cuLlecied.
a flow.weighted mp.,slte sample can
be produced based on the discharge
record . ‘flu, is dorm by manually flow
proportioning the volumes of the
individual samples. Laboratory analysis
of flow weighted composite samples will
directly yield an event mean
concentration. Mathematical integration
of the change In concentrations and
mass flux of the discharge for dismete
sample data con produce an event mean
concentration. This procedore ‘was used
during the NURP program.
EPA wishes to emphascre that the
reason for sampling the type of storm
event Identified in 12221(g)(7) is to
provide information that represents
local conditions that will be used to
create sound storm water management
plans. Based on the method to be used
to generate systeTn.wide estimates of
pollutant loads, either method. discrete
or event average concentrations, may be
preferable to the other. If simulation
models will be used to generate loading
estimates, analysis of discrete samples
will be more valuable so that calibration
of water quality and hydrology may be
performed. On the other hand, simple
estimation methods based on event
average or event mean concentrations
may not Justify the additional cost of
discrete sample analysis.
EPA believes that the first discharge
loading should be represented in the
permit application from Industrial
facilities and, if appropriate. permitting
authorities may require the same In the
discharge characterixation component of
permits issued to municipalities. The
first discharge load should also be
represented as part of an event
composite sample. This requirement will
assist industrie, in the development of
effective storm water managel ’Iwnt
plans.
EPA requested comments on the
appropriateness of the proposed rules
and of proposed amendments to the
rules regarding discharge sampling.
Comments were received which
addressed the appropriateness of
imposing uniform national guidelines.
Several commenters are coneerued that
imiform national guidelines may not be
appropriate due to the ographic
variations in meteorology, topography.
and pollutant sources. While some
assert that a uniform guideline will
provide consistency of the sample
results, others prefer a program based
on rrgivnal or State guidelines that more
specifically address their situation.
Several conunenters, addressing
Lndustrlal permit epphcstiori
requirements. preferred that the owner!
operator be allowed to set art individual
sampling protocol with appniv.il of the
permit writer. Some commenters were
concerned that one event may not be
sufficient to diarecterize runoff from a
basin as this may result In gross over-
estima iron or underestimation of the
pollutant loads. Others Indicated
confusion with regard to sampling
procedures. lab analysis .O.2thfles .
and the purpose of the piuar m .
In response. todays reghlatium
establish certain minimum requirements
Municipalities and industries may vary
from these requirements to the extant
that their implementation Is at least as
stringent as outlined in today’s rule.
EPA views today’s rule as a means to
provide assurance as to the quality of
the data collected; and to this end. it is
important that the minimum level of
sampling required be well defined.
in response to EPA’s proposal that the
first discharge be induded in
‘representative” storm sampling.
several commenters made their
concerns known about the possible
equipment necessary to meet this
requirement. Several commenters are
concerned that in order to get a first
discharge sample. automatic sampling
equipment will be required. Concerns
related to the need for this equipment
surfaced in the comments frequently
most advised that the equipment is
expensive and that the demand on
sampling equipment will be too Large for
suppliers and manufacturers to meet.
Although equipment can be leased.
some coiwnentars maintained that not
enough rental equipment is available to
make this a viable option In many
instances.
EPA is not promoting or requiring the
use of automated equipment to satisfy
the eampling requirements. A
community may find that in the ‘song run
it would be more convenient to have
such equipment since sampling is
required not only during preparation of
the application, but also may be
required during the term of the permit to
assure that the program goals are being
mel Discharge measurement is
necessary in order for the sample data
to have any meaning. If unattended
automatic sampling is to be performed.
then unattended flow measurement will
be required too.
EPA ror fl,.oa that equipment
availability is a legitimate concern.
However, there is no practical
rein ’t”ndaUon that can be made
relative to the availabthty of equipment.
if automatic sampling equipment is not
available, manual sampling is an
appropriate alternative.
F. Storm Water Dtschorges Ai sociatcd
Wit’i Industrial Acfivrfv
1. Permit Applicability
a. Storm water dischorges associated
with industrial activity to waters of the
United Stales. Under today’s rule
thschargers of storm water associated
-------
48006 Federal Register I Vol. 55. No. 222 / Friday. November 16, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
with Industrial activity are required to
apply for an NPDES permit. Permit, are
to be applied for in one of three ways
depending on the type of facility
Through the Individual permit
application process: through the group
application process or through a notice
of intent to be covered by general
permit
Storm water discharges associated
with the industrial activities identified
under 122.28(b)(14) of today’s rule may
avail themselve, of general permits that
EPA intends to propose and promulgate
In the near future. The general permit
will be available to be promulgated in
each non-NPDES State, following State
certification, and as a model for use by
NPDES States with general permit
authority. It is envisioned that these
general permits will provide baseline
storm water management practices. For
certain categorie, of industries, specific
management practices will be
preacibed in addition to the baseline
management practices. As information
on specific types of industrial activities
is developed, other, more industry-
specific general permits will be
developed.
Today’s rule requires facilities with
existing NPDES permits for storm water
discharges to apply for individual
permits under the individual permit
appbcation requirements found at
122.28(c) 180 days before their current
permit expires. Facilities not eligible for
coverage under a general permit are
required to file an individual or group
permit application in accordance with
today’s rule. The general permits to be
proposed and promulgated will indicate
what facilities are eligible for coverage
by the general permit.
b. Storm water discharges through
municipal storm sewers. As discussed
above, many operators of storm water
discharge, associated with industrial
activity are not required to apply for an
individual permit or participate in a
group applIcation under * 122.26(c) of
today’s rule if covered by a general
permit Under the December 7, 1988.
proposal, dischargers through large and
medium municipal separate storm sewer
systems were not required, as a general
rule, to apply for an individual Qerriut or
as a group applicant. Today’s rule is a
departure from that proposal. Today’s
rule requires all diechargers through
municipal separate storm sewer systems
to apply for an individual permit, apply
as part of a group application, or seek
coverage under a promulgated general
permit for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity.
Municipal operators of large and
medium municipal separate storm sewer
system, are responsible for obtaining
system-wide or area permits for their
system’s discharges.’The ,e permits are
expected to require that controls be
placed on storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity which
discharge through the municipal system.
It is anticipated that general or
individual permits covering Industrial
storm water discharger, to these
municipal separate storm sewer systems
will require industries to comply with
the terms of the permit issued to the
municipality, as well other terms
specific to the permittee.
c. Storm water thsciiarges through
non-municipal storm sewers. Under
today’s rulemaking all operators of
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity that discharge into a
privately or Federally owned storm
water conveyance (a storm water
conveyance that is not a municipal
separate storm sewer) will be required
to be covered by art NPDES permit (eg.
an individual permit, general permit, or
as a co-permittee to a permit issued to
the operator of the portion of the system
that directly discharges to waters of the
United States). This is a departure from
the “either/or” approach that EPA
requested comments on in the December
7, 1988, notice. The “either/or” approach
would have allowed either the system
discharges to be covered by a permit
issued to the owner/operator of the
system segment that discharged to
waters of the United States, or by an
individual permit issued to each
contributor to the non-municipal
conveyance,
EPA requested comments on the
advantages arid disadvantages of
retaining the “either/or” approach for
non-municipal storm sewers. An
abundance of comment was received by
EPA on this particular part of the
program. A number of industrial
commentere and a smaller number of
municipalities favored retaining the
“either/or” approach as proposed, while
most municipal entities, one industry,
and one trade association favored
requiring permits for each discharger.
Two commenters stated that private
owner’s of conveyances may not have
the legal authority to implement controls
on discharges through their system and
would not want to be held responsible
for such controls. EPA agree. that this is
a potential problem. Therefore, today’.
rule will require permit coverage for
each storm water discharge associated
with industrial activity
One comznenter supported the
concept of requiring all the facilities that
discharge to a non-municipal
conveyance to be co-permitter,. EPA
agrees that this type of permitting
scheme, along with other permit
schemes such as area or general
permits, is appropriate for discharges
from non-municipal sewers, as long as
each storm water discharge through the
system I. associated with industrial
activity and thus currently subject to
NPDES permit.covernge.
One State agency commented that in
the interest of uniformity, all industries
that discharge to non-municipal
conveyances should be required t 9
conform to the application requirements,
One industry stated that the rules must
provide a way for the last discharger
before the waters of the U.S. to require
permits for facilities discharging into the
upper portions of the system. EPA
agrees with these comments. Today’s
rule provides that each discharger may
be covered under individual permits, as
co-permittees to a single permit, or by
general permit rather than holding the
last discharger to the waters of the
United States solely responsible.
In response to one commenter. the
term “non-municipal” has been clarified
to explain that the term refers to non-
publicly owned or Federally-owned
storm sewer systems.
Some comznenters supporting the
approach as proposed, noted that
industrial storm water’ dischargers into
such systems can take advantage of the
group application process. EPA agrees
that in appropriate circumstances, such
as when industrial facilities discharging
storm water to the same system are
sufficiently similar, group applications
can be used for discharges to non-
municipal conveyances. However. EPA
believes that it would be inappropriate
to approve group applications for those
facilities whose only similarity is that
tl ey discharge storm water into the
same private conveyance system. The
efficacy of the group application
procedures is predicated on the
similarity of opera lions arid other
factors. The fact that several industries
discharge storm water to the same non-
municipal sewer system alone may not
make these discharges sufficiently
similar for group application approval,
One commenter suggested that EPA
has not established any deadlines for
submission of permit applications for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity through non-
municipal separate storm sewer
systems. EPA wants to clarify that
industrial storm water dischargers into
privately owned or Federally owned
storm water conveyances are required
to apply for permits in the same time
Crame as individual or group applicants
(or as otherwise provide .1 for in a
general permit).
-------
Fad al 9. I VoL 55. No. V2 / Fiiday. November 1 iggo I Lelea and Re ilatloim 4 W
One c ftd that the
opeesiorof the that accepto
into Ito has control
and palicli thoas that
dlsthat e into by virtue of
the abthiy to mo iot dincharges Into the
sys . ‘Tbs . —— ni stated that
these tadIifi - i dd he the entity
reqeised to stha . u the t hi all
oases. Aunmia that thin statement is
true in all resp i1s . the larger problem Is
that i theosetical ability to restrict
dinobargos is es iw. uarlly tied to the
reality of enfor g these resirietinen or
even t ig problem harges when
they exist. hi a stmilar vein one
commoster orged that a private operator
will net beinusy Wu 5 position than
a municipal entity to determine who is
the of pollution resin. EPA
agrees thai fr a hydrolOgicaL
standpoint thin amy be tue. However.
from the standpoint of detection
resources. police pacr . enforoenient
remedies, and ud facets of muzuci pal
power that may be bzm t to bear cpon
problem private systems
are in a far mase pracanous pcnibon
with respect to controlling disdiarges
from other private .
in light of the comments received.
EPA has dc .cid.d that the either/or
approach as prup a d is inappropnate.
Operators of non-municipal systems will
generally be in a poorer position to gain
knowledge of pollutant, In storm water
discharges and to impose controls on
storm water discharge, from other
facilities than will municipal system
operator,. In addition, best management
pr8Ctlces and o r site ’.peciflc controls
are often most apy .,u.ate for reducing
pollutants in storm water disdwges
associated with lad*istriaJ activity and
can often only be effectively addressed
in a irgulatory , t holds each
industr ial facility operator directly
responsible. 1 mtberl,x approach as
proposed is ant condecive to
establialung these types of prathoes
unless onch i-h. . , dobarging
under. permit. Also. some non.
munirtpel opemtcra of storm water
Coflevyanees. which receive storm water
runoff from in hia1 faali lies, may not
be gener.th storm wa discharges
aii ii’iated with l i 1 ,..ksial activity
themselves and. therefore, they would
otherwise not to obtain a permit
prior to obrr 1. i9 , unless
specifically designated under section
4O p)(2 )(E). Accordingly. EPA disagrees
with osmme that diasthargera to non-
municipal mmveyni s shonld have the
flexibility to be ,v sd by thmr permit
or by the p t ssued to the
Operator of the outfall to wates to the
Untied States,
2. Scope of “Assoclate f with Industrial
Acttvity
The September 25,1994, final
regulation divided those dlschar es that
met the regulatory definition of storm
water point sotnve Into two groups. The
term Group I storm water discharges
was defined In an attempt to Identify
those storm water discharges which had
a higher potential to contribute
significantly to environmental impacts.
Group I included those discharges that
contained storm water drained (rain an
industrial plant or plant aseocla ted
areas. Other storm water discharges
(such as those from parking lots and
administrative buildings) located on
lands used for industrial activity were
classified as Group II discharges The
regulations defined the term “plant
associated areas” by listing several
examples of areas that would be
associated with industrial activities.
However, the resulting definition led to
confusion among the reguLited
community regarding the distinctions
between the Group 1 and Group II
classifications.
In amending the CWA in 1987.
Congress did not explicitly adopt EPA’s
regulatory dassification of Group I and
Group U discharge,. Rather, Congress
required EPA to address “storm water
discharges associated with induntrial
activity” in the first round of storm
water permitting. In light of the adoption
cf the term ‘as ocaated with industrial
activity” In the CWA, arid the ongoing
conuuston surrounding the previous
regulatory definition, EPA has
eliminated the regulatory terms “Group I
storm water discharge” and ‘Group U
storm water discharge” pursuant to the
December 7, 1987, Court remand and has
not revived it. in addition, today’s notice
promiilgiites a definition of the term
“storm waler discharge associated with
industrial activity”at i22 2fl(b)(14p and
clarified the scope of the term.
In describing the scope of the term
“atsociated with industrial activity”,
several members of Congress explained
in the legislative history that the term
applied if a discharge was “directly
related to manufacturing. processing or
raw materials storage areas at an
industrial plant” (Vol. 13Z Cong. Rec.
H1 3z, H10e30 (daily ed. October 15,
1988): Vol. 133 Cong. Rec. H170 (daily
ed January 8, 1987)1. SeveraL
commenters cited this Language in
arguing for a more expansive or less
expansive definition of “associated with
indi ’iaI activity.” EPA believes ibat
the legislative history supports the
decoron to exdude from the definition
of industrial activity, at 12L28(bl(14)
of todays ride, those facilities that are
generally dassifled under the Office of
Management and Bedget Standard
Industrial Ctassiflcatioos (SIC) a.
wholesale, retell, ucrikis , or wniaiuescisl
activities,
Two orne . .ters , ci mmended that
all wuuuervial entei ’psises should be
reqiired to obtain a permit wider this
regulation. Another commenter
recommended that all the facilities listed
in the December 7,1968. proposaL
including those listed in paragraphs (xi)
through (xvi) on page 49432 of the
December?, ig , proposal should be
included, ‘A disagrees since the intent
of Congress was to establish a phased
and tiered approach to storm water
permits, and that only those facilities
having discharges associated with
industrial activity should be included
initially. The studies to be conducted
pursuant to section 402 pfl5) will
examine sources of pollutants
associated with commercial retail, and
other light business activity. If
appropriate, additional regulations
addressing these sources can be
developed under section 4O2fpM6 ) of the
CWA. As further discussed below, EPA
believe, that the facilities identified in
paragraphs (xi) through (xvi) are more
properly characterized as commercial or
retail facilities, rather than indutrial
facilities.
Today’s rule clarifies the regulatory
definition of “associated with industrial
activity” by adopting the language used
in the legislstrve lustory and
supplementing it with a description of
various types of areas that are directly
reldted to an industrial process (eg..
industrial plant yards. immediate access
roads and rail lines, drainage ponds,
material handling sites, sites used for
the application or disposal of process
waters, sites used for the storage and
maintenance of material handling
equipment, and known sites that are
presently or have been used in the past
for residaal treatment, storage or
disposal). The agency has also
incorporated some of the suggestions
offered by the public in comments.
Three commenters suggested that the
permit application should focus only on
storm water with the potential to come
into contact with indu ,tnal-relaied
pollutant sources, rather than focusing
on how plant areas are utilized. These
commenters suggested that facilities
that are wholty enclosed or have their
operations eniwely protected from the
elements should not be subject to permit
requirements under today’s nile EPA
agrees that these comments have merit
with regard to certain type, of facilities
Today’s nile define, the term “storm
water discharge ussociated with
-------
4eOOP Federal Re2Jster / VoL 55, No. 222 / FrIday , November 18 9o / Rule. and Regulations
Industrial activity” to include storm
wuter discharges from facilities
Ident ified In today’s rule at 40 R
122.21(b)(14)(,d) (facilities classified as
Standard Industrial ClassIfication, 20,
21.21,23.2434,25,285.287,27, 283. 285.
30, 31 (except 311). 323.34 (except 3441).
35. 38, 37 (except 373), 38, 39. 4221—25)
only if
areas where material handling equipment or
activitIes, raw materIals, Intermediate
products, final products, waste material,, by-
products. or lndustaai machinery St these
facilities are exposed to storm water. Such
are’s Iaclude material k.ndling sites: refuse
site, cite, used for the application or
disposal of process waste water, (as defined
it 40 CFR iOi sites used for the storage and
maintenance of material handling eqWpmen
site, used for residual treatment storage or
dlaposak shipping sod receiving ares.;
manufacturing buildings: material storage
areas for raw materials, and Intermediate
and finished product, and areas where
industrial sctivlty has taken place In the past
and significant materials remain and are
exposed to storm water.
The autical distinction between the
facilities Identified at 40 CFR
122.26(b)(14)(xJ) and the facilities
identified at 40 CFR 122.28(b)(14)(i) —(x)
is that the former are not classified as
having “storm water discharge.
associated with Industrial activity”
unless certain materials or activities are
exposed to storm water. Storm water
discharges from the latter set of
facilities are considered to be
“associated with industrial activity”
regardless of the actual exposure of
these same materials or activities to
storm water.
EPA believes this distinction is
appropriate because, when considered
as a dass. most of the activity at the
facilities in 122.28(bJ(14)(xlJ Is
undertaken in building, emissions from
stacks will be minimal or non-existent
the use of unhoused manufacturing and
heavy industrial equipment will be
minimal. outside material storage.
disposal or handling generally will not
be a part of the manufacturing process
and generating significant dust or
particulates would be atypical. As such.
these indus tiles are more akin or
comparable to businesses, such as retail,
commercial. or service industries, which
Congress did not contemplate regulating
before October 1. 1992, and storm water
discharges from these facilities are not
“associated with industrial activity.”
Thus, these industries will be required
to obtain a permit under today’s rule
only when the manufacturing processes
undertaken at such facilities would
result in storm water contact with
industrial materials associated with the
facility.
.Industr1aLcat gorie , Ir a .
1222R(b)(24)(, 0 ) all tend to engage In
production activities In the manner
desalbed In the paragraph abovs.
Facilitie, under SIC 20 proceu foods
Including meata, dairy food, fruit and
flour, Facilities classified under SIC 21
make cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco
and related products, Under SIC 22.
facilities produce yarn, etc.. and/or dye
and finish fabrics. Facilities under SIC
23 are in the business of producing
clothing by cutting and sewing
purchased woven or knitted textile
products, Facilities under SIC 2434 and
25 are establishments engaged In
furniture making. SIC 285 and 287
address facilities that manufacture
paper board products. Facilities under
SIC 27 perform services such as
bookbinding, plate making, and printing.
Facilities under SIC 283 manufacture
pharmaceuticals and facilities under 285
manufacture paints, varnishes, lacquers.
enamels, and allied products, Under SIC
30 establishments manufacture products
from plastics and rubber. Those
facilities under SIC 31 (except 311), 323,
34 (except 3441). 35, 38, and 37 (except
373) manufacture industrial and
commercial metal products, machinery,
equipment computers. electrical
equipment, and transportation
equipment, and glass products made of
purchased glass. Facilities under SIC 38
manufacture scientific and electrical
instruments and optical equipment.
Those under SIC 39 manufacture a
variety of items such as jewelry,
silverware, musical instruments, dolls.
toys. and athletic goods. SIC 4221—25 are
warehousing and storage activities.
In contrast, the facilities identified by
SIC 24 (except and 2434), 28 (except 285
and 287). 28 (except 283 and 285), 29,
311, 32 (except 323), 33, 3441. 373 when
taken as a group, are expected to have
one or many of the following activities.
processes occurring on-site: storing raw
materials, intermediate products. fInal
products, by-products, waste products,
or chemicals outsid smelting refining
producing significant emissions from
stacks or air exhaust system, loading or
unloading chemical or hazardous
substances: the use of unhoused
manufacturing and heavy Industrial
equipment and generating significant
dust or particulates. Accordingly, these
are classes of facilities which can be
viewed as generating storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity requiring a permit.
Establishment, identified under SIC 24
(except 2434) are engaged in operating
sawmills, planing mills and other mills
engaged in producing lumber and wood
basic materials, SIC 28 facilIties are
paper mills Under SIC 28. Iscilities
prodilcetasIc chemical product. by
predominantly chemical processes. SIC
29 desa’lbes facilities that are engaged
In the petroleum lndustsy. Under SIC
311, facilIties are engaged in fanning ,
currying, and finishing hides and skins.
Such processes use chemicals such as
sulfuric acid and sodium dlchromate,
and detergents, and a variety of raw and
intermediate material ,, SIC 32
manufacture glass, clay, stone and
cona’ete products form raw materials in
the form quarried and mined stone, clay,
and sand. SIC 33 Identifies facilities that
smelt, refine ferrous and nonferrous
metals from ore, pig or scrap, and
manufacturing related products. SIC
3441 identifies facilities manufacturing
fabricated structural metal. Facilities
under SIC 373 engage in ship building
and repairing. The permit application
requirements for storm water discharges
from facilIties in these categories are
unchanged from the proposal.
Today’s rule darifies that the
requirement to apply for a permit
applies to storm water discharges from
plant areas that are no longer used for
industrial activities (if significant
materials remain and are exposed to
storm water) as well as areas that are
currently being used for industrial
activities. EPA would also clarify that
all discharges from these areas including
those that discharge through municipal
separate storm sewers are addressed by
this rulemaking.
One cornmenter questioned the use of
the word “or” instead of the word “and”
to describe storm water “which is
located at an industrial plant ‘or’
directly related to manufacturing.
processing, or raw material storage
areas at an industrial plant.” The
comment expressed the concern that
discharges froni areas not located at an
Industrial plant would be subject to
permitting by this language and
questioned whether this was EPA’s
Intent, EPA agrees that this is a
potential source of confusion and has
modified this language to reflect the
conjunctive Instead of the alternative.
This change has been made to provide
consistency In the rule whereby some
areas at industrial plants. such as
administrative parking lots which do not
have storm water discharges
commingled wDh discharges from
manufacturing areas, are not included
under this rulemaking
Two comrnuiiters wanted clarification
of the term “or process water,” in the
definition of discharge associated with
industrial activity at 122.28(bJ(14) , This
rulemaking replaces this term with the
term “process waste waler” which Is
defined at 40 CFR part 401.
-------
Federal Register I VoL 55. No. 222 f Friday, November 16. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 48009
On. commenter took Issue with the
decisIon to Include drainage ponds,
refuse sites. sites for residual treatment.
storage. or disposaL as areas associated
with Industrial activity, because It was
the coinmenter’s view that such areas
are unconnected with Industrial activity.
EPA disagrees with this comment If
refuse and other sites are used in
conjunction with manufacturing or the
by-products of manufacturing they are
clearly associated with Industrial
activity. As noted above, Congress
intended to include discharges directly
related to manufacturing and processing
at Industrial plants. EPA is convinced
that wastes, refuse, and residuals are
the direct result or consequence of
manufacturing and processing and.
when located or stored at the plant that
produces them, are directly related to
manufacturing and processing at that
plant. Storm water drainage from such
areas, especially those areas exposed to
the elements (e.g. rainfall) has a high
potential for containing pollutants from
materials that were used in the
manufacturing process at that facility.
One commenter supported the inclusion
of these areas since many toxins
degrade very slowly and the mere
passage of time will not eliminate their
effects. EPA agrees and finalizes this
part of the definition as proposed. One
commenter requested clarification of the
term “residual” as used in this context
Residual can generally be defined to
Include material that is remaining
subsequent to completion of an
industrial process. One commenter
noted that the current owner of a facility
may not know what areas or sites at a
facility were used in this manner in the
past. EPA has clarified the definition of
discharge associated with industrial
activity to include areas where
industrial activity has taken place In the
past and significant materials remain
and are exposed to storm water. The
Agency believes that the current owner
will be in a position to establish these
facts.
One commenter suggested including
material shipping and receiving areas.
waste storage and processing areas.
manufacturing buildings, storage areas
for raw materials, supplies.
Intermediates, and finished products.
and material handling facilities as
additional areas “associated with
industrial activity.” EPA agrees that this
would add clarification to the definition.
and has incorporated these areas into
the definition at 122.26(b)(14)
One commenter stated that the
language “point source located at an
industrial plant’ would Include outfalls
located at the facility that are not owned
or operated by the facility, but which
are municipal storm sewers on
easements granted to a municipality for
the conveyance of storm water. EPA
agrees that If the Industry does not
operate the point source then that
facility Is not required to obtain a permit
for that d1scha e. A point source is a
conveyance that discharges pollutants
into the waters of the United States. If a
facility does not operate that point
source, then It would be the
responsibility of the municipality to
cover It under a permit issued to them.
However, If contaminated storm water
associated with industrial activity were
Introduced into that conveyance by that
facility, the facility would be subject to
permit application requirements as is all
industrial storm water discharged
through municipal sewers.
EPA disagrees with several comments
that road drainage or railroad drainage
within a facility should not be covered
by the definition. Access roads and rail
lines (even those i t used for loading
and unloading) areas that are likely
to accumulate extraneous matenal from
raw materials, intermediate products
and finished products that are used or
transported within, or to and from, the
facility. These areas will also be
repositories for pollutants such as oil
and grease from machinery or vehicles
using these areas. As such they are
related to the industrial activity at
facilities. However, the language
describing these areas of industrial
activity has been clan fled to include
those access roads and rail lines that
are ‘used or traveled by camera of raw
materials, manufactured products. waste
material, or by-products used or created
by the facility.” For the same reasons
haul roads (roads dedicated to
transportation of Industrial products at
facilities) and similar extensions are
required to be addressed in permit
applications. Two industries stated that
haul roads and similar extensions
should be covered by permits by rule.
EPA is not considering the use of a
permit by rule mechanism under this
regulation, however this issue will be
addressed In the section 402(p)(5)
reports to Congress and in general
permits to be proposed and promulgated
in the near future. EPA would note
however that facilities with similar
operations and storm water concerns
that desire to limit administrative
burdens associated with permit
applications and obtaining permits may
want to avail themselves of the group
application and/or general permits.
In response to comments. EPA would
also like to clarify that it intends the
language “Immediate access rnads”
(Including haul ioadi) to refer to roads
which are exclusively or primarily
dedicated for use by the Industrial
facility. EPA does not expect facilities to
submit permit applications for
discharges from public access roaos
such as state, county, or federal roads
such as highways or BLM roads which
happen to be used by the facility. Also.
some access roads are used to transport
bulk samples of raw materials or
products (such as prospecting samples
from potential mines) in small-scale
prior to industrial production. EPA does
not Intend to require permit applications
for access roads to operations which are
not yet industrial activities.
EPA does agree with comments made
by several industries that undeveloped
areas, or areas that do not encompass
those described above, should generally
not be addressed in the permit
application, or a storm water permit. as
long as the storm water discharge From
these areas is segregated from the storm
water discharge associated with the
industrial activity at the facility
Numerous commenters stated that
maintenance facilities. if covered.
should not be included in the definition
EPA disagrees with this comment.
Maintenance facilities will invariably
have points of access and egress. and
frequently will have outside areas
where parts are stored or disposed of
Such areas are locations where oil.
grease. solvents and other materials
associated with maintenance activities
will accumulate. In response to one
commenter. such areas are only
regulated in the context of those
facilities enumerated in the definition at
122.28(b)(14). and not similar areas of
retail or commercial facilities.
Another commenter requested that
“storage areas” be more clearly defined
EPA disagrees that this term needs
further clarification in the context of this
section of the rule. However, in response
to one comment, tank farms at industrial
facilities are included. Tank farms are in
existence to store products arid
materials created or used by the facility.
Accordingly they are directly related to
manufacturing processes.
Regarding storage areas, one
commenter stated that the regulations
should emphasize that only facilities
that are not totally enclosed are
required to submit permit applications
EPA does not agree with this
interpretation since use of the generic
term storage area indicates no
exceptions for certain physical
characteristics. Thus discharges from
enclosed storace areas are also coveted
by today’s rule texcept as discussed
abovel. EPA also disagrses with one
-------
48010 Federal REgister I Vol. 55, No. 222 I Friday. November 16, 1990 I Rules and R ulations
comment asserting that small outside
storage areas of finished products at
industrial facilities should be excluded
under the definition of associated with
industrial activity. EPA believes that
such areas are areas associated with
industrial activity which Congress
intended to be regulated under the
CWA. As noted above, the legislative
history refers to storage areas, without
reference to whether they are covered or
uncovered, or of a certain size.
The same language, in the legislative
history cited above, was careful to state
that the term “associated with industrial
activity” does not include storm wdter
“dischargec associated with parking lots
arid admiiustrat ve and employee
bwldings.” To accommodate legislative
intent, segregated storm water
discharges from these areas will riot be
required to obtain a permit prior to
October 1. 1992. Many commenters
stated that this was an appropriate
method in which to limit the scope of
“associated with industrial activity.”
However, if a storm water discharge
from a parking lot at an industrial
facility is mixed with a storm water
discharge “associated with industrial
activity.” the combined discharge is
subject to permit application
requirements for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity. EPA
disagrees with some comnienters who
urged that office buildings and
administrative parking lots should be
co ered if they are located at the plant
site EPA agrees with one commenter
that inclusion of storm water discharge
from these areas would be overstepping
Congressional intent unless such are
commingled with storm water
discharges from the plant site. Ses era!
commenters requested that language be
incorporated into the rule which
establishes that storm water discharges
from parking lots and administrative
areas not be included in the definition of
associated with industnal activity. EPA
agrees and has retained language used
in the proposal which addresses this
distinction.
Storm waler discharges from parking
lots and administrative buildings along
with other discharges from industrial
lands that do not meet the regulatory
definition of “associated with industrial
activity” and that are segregated from
such discharges may be required to
obtain an PDES permit prior to
October 1, 1992. under certain
conditions For example. large parking
facilities, due to their Impervious nature
may generate large amounts of runoff
which may contain significant amounts
of oil and grease and heavy metals
liirli ray have adverse Impacts on
receiving waters. The Adm stratot’ or
NPDES State has the authority wider
section 402(p)(2)(E) of the amended
CWA to require a permit prior to
October 1. 1992. by designating storm
water discharges such as those from
parking lots that are significant
contributors of poljutant.s or contribute
to a water quality standard violation.
EPA will address storm water
discharges from lands used for
industrial activity which do not meet the
regulatory definition of “associated with
industrial activity” in the section
4 O 2 (p)(5) study to determine the
appropriate manner to regulate such
discharges.
Several commenters requested
clarification that the definition does not
include sheet flow or discharged storm
%vater from upstream adjacent facilities
that enters the land or comrngles witb
discharge from a facility submitting a
permit application. EPA wishes to
clarify that operators of facilities are
generally responsible for its discharge in
its entirety regardless of the initial
source of discharge. However, where an
upstream source can be identified and
permitted, the liability of a downstream
facility for other storm water entering
that facility may be minimized. Facilities
in such circwnstances may be required
to develop management practices or
other run-on/run-off controls, which
segregates or otherwise prevents outside
runoff from comingling with its storm
water discharge. Some commenters
expressed concern about other
pollutants which may arrive on a
facility’s premises from rainfall. This
continent was made in reference to
runoff with a high or low pH. If an
applicant has reason to believe that
pollutants in its storm water discharge
are from such sources, then that needs
to be addressed in the permit
application and brought to the attention
of the permitting authority, which can
draft appropriate permit conditions to
reflect these circumstances,
EPA requested comments on
clarifying the types of facilities that
involve industrial activities and
generate storm water. EPA preferred
basing the darificat,ion, in part, on the
use of Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) codes, which have been suggested
in comments to prior storm water
rulernakings because they are commonly
used and accepted and would provide
definitions of facilities involved in
industrial activity. Several commenters
supported the use by EPA oF Standard
Industrial Classifications for the same
reasons identified by EPA as a generally
used and understood form of
classification It was also noted that
using such a r6.iiFi tio. woridd allow
targeting for speaal notification and
educational maihn . Three
municipalities and three S ste
authorities commented that SICs were
appropriate and endorsed their use as a
sound basis for determining which
Industries are covered.
One municipality questioned how SIC
classifications will be assigned to
particular industries. SICa have
descriptions of the type of industrial
activity that is engaged in by facilities.
Industries will need to assess for
themselves whether they are covered by
a listed SIC and submit an application
accordingly Another commenter
questioned if Federal facilities that do
not have an SIC code identification are
required to file a permit application.
Federal facilities will be required to
submit a permit application if they are
engaged in an industrial activity that is
described under 122.26(bJ(14). The
definition of industrial activity
incorporates language that requires
Federal facilities to submit permit
applications in such circumstances. The
language has been further clarified to
include State and municipal facilities.
EPA requested comments on the
scope of the definition (types of facilities
addressed) as well as the clarity of
regulation. EPA identified the following
types of facilities in the proposed
regulation as those facilities that would
be required to obtain permits for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity:
(,) Facilities subject to swmi woter
effluent limitations guidelines, new
source peI ormance standards, or toxic
pollutant effluent standards under 40
CFR subchapter N (except facilities
with toxic pollutant effluent standards
which ore also identified under category
(xi) of this paragrnph/. One corn men ter
(a municipality) agreed with EPA that
these industries should be addressed in
this rulemaking. No other comments
were received on this category. EPA
agrees with this comment since these
facilities are those that Congress has
required EPA to examine and regulate
under the CWA with respect to process
water discharges. The industries in
these categories have generally been
identified by EPA as the most significant
dischargers of process wastewaers in
the country. As such, these facilities are
likely to have storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity for
which permit applications should be
required.
One commenter stated that because
oil and gas producers are subject to
effluent guidelines. EPA is d.isregurding
the intent of Congress to exclude
-------
Federal Register I VoL 55, No. 222 I Friday. November 16, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
on
fanilitle. pursuant to section 402 (1). EPA
disagrees with this comment EPA Is not
prohibited from requiring permit
applications from Industrie, with storm
water discharge associated with
Industrial activity. EPA I . prohibited
only from requiring a permit for oil and
gas exploration, production. processing.
or tseahnent operations, or transmission
facilities that discharge storm water that
Is not contaminated by contact with or
has not come into contact with, any
overburden. raw material, intermediate
products, finished products, byproducts
or waste products located on the site of
such operations such discharges. In
keeping with this requirement. EPA is
requiring permit applications from oil
and gas exploration, production,
processing, or treatment operations. or
transmission facilities that fall into a
class of discharger. as described in
122..28(c)(iii).
( v i Facilities classified as Standard
fndustnal C/ass/f ica Lions 24 (except
24341.28 (except 285 and 267). 28 (except
283 and 285). 29, 311. 32 (except 323), 33,
3411. 37 ’J and (xi). Facilities classified
as Standard Industrial Classifications
29 21. 22,23,2434, 25,265,267,27,283.
285 30. 31 (except 311). .323. 34 (except
3441). 35 36,37 (except 373/, 38.39.
4221—25. One large municipality and one
Industry agreed with EPA that facilities
covered by these SIC. should be
covered by this rulemaking. Many
comznentere, however, took exception to
including all or some of these industries.
Hcwever as noted alsewhere these
Facilities are appropriate for permit
applications.
One commenter stated that within
certain SIC. Industries, such as textile
manufacturers use Few chemicals and
that there Is little chance of pollutants in
their storm water discharge. EPA agrees
that some industries In this category are
less likely than others to have storm
water discharges that pose eigmflcant
risks to receiving water quality.
However, there are many other
activities that are undertaken at these
facilities that may result In polluted
storm water. Further, the CWA is clear
in Its mandate to require permit
applications for discharges associated
wlth lndustr1al activity. Excluding any of
the facilities under these categories.
except where the facility manufacturing
plant more closely resembles a
commercial or retail outlet would be
contrary to Congressional intent.
One State questioned the inclusion of
facilities identified in SIC codes 20—39
because of their temporary and transient
nature or ownership. Agency disagrees
that simply because a facility may
transfer ownership that storm water
quality concerns should be ignored. If
constant ownership was a condition
precedent to applying for and obtaining
a permit. few If any facilities would be
subject to this rulemaking.
One State estimated that the proposed
definition would lead to permits for
18,000 facilities in Its State.
Consequently this commenter
recommended that the facilities under
SIC 20—39 should be limited to those
facilities that have to report under
sectIon 313 of title III . Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act.
However, as noted by another
commenter. limiting permit requirements
to these facilities would be contrary to
Congressional intent. While use of
chemicals at a facility may be a source
of pollution in storm water discharges
other every day activities at an
industrial site and associated pollutants
such as oil and grease. also contribute to
the discharge of pollutants that are to be
addressed by the CWA and these
regulations. While the number of permit
applications may number in the
thousands, EPA intends for group
applications and general permits to be
employed to reduce the administrative
burdens as greatly as possible.
Two cornmenters felt the permit
applications should be limited to all
entities under SIC 20-39. EPA disagrees
that all the industrial activities that need
to be addressed fall within these S1Cs.
Discharges from facilities under
paragraphs (i) through (xi) such as
POTWs, transportation facilities, and
hazardous waste facilities, are of an
industrial nature and clearly were
intended to be addressed before
October 1. 1992.
Two commenters stated that SIC 241
should be excluded in that logging is a
transitory operation which may occur on
a site for only 2—3 weeks once in a 20—30
year period. It was perceived that
delays In obtaining permits for such
operations could create problem. in
harvest schedule and mill demand. This
comnienter stated that runoff from such
operations should be controlled by
BMPs in effect for such industnes and
that such a permit would not be
practical and would be cost prohibitive.
EPA agrees with the commenter that
this provi8ion needs clarification. The
existing regulations at 40 CFR 122.27
currently define the scope of the NPOES
program with regard to silvicultural
activities. 40 CFR 122.27(b)(1) defines
the term “silvicultural point source” to
mean any discrete conveyance related
to rock crushing. gravel washing. log
sorting, or log storage facilities which
are operated in connection with
silvicultural activities and from winch
pollutants are discharged Into waters of
the United States. Section 1 .Vlbfl1)
also excludes certain sources. The
definition of discharge associated with
industrial activity does not include
activities or facilities that are currently
exempt from permitting under NPDES.
EPA does not intend to change the scope
of 40 CFR 122.27 in this rulemaking.
Accordingly, the definition of ‘storm
water discharge associated with
Industhal activity” does not include
sources that may be included under SIC
24. but which are excluded under 40
CFR 122.27. Further. EPA Intends to
examine the scope of the NPDES
silvicultural regulations at 40 CFR 122.27
as it relates to storm water discharge . in
the course of two studies of storm water
discharges required under section
402(p)(5) of the CWA.
In response to one comment. EPA
intends that the list of applicable SICa
will define and identify what industrial
facilities are required to apply Facilities
that warehouse finished products under
the same code at a different facility from
the site of manufacturing are not
required to file a permit application.
unless otherwise covered by this
rulemaking.
(iii) Facilities classified as Standard
Industrial ClassificaLrons 10 through 14
(mineral industry) inciudin.g aclive or
inactive mining operations (except ft,r
areas of coal mining operations no
longer meeting the definition of a
reclamation area under 40 CFR 434.11(1)
because the performance bond issued to
(lie facility by the appropriate SMCRA
authority has been re/eased. or except
for areas of non’cool mining operations
which have been released from
applicable State or Federal reclamation
requirements after December 17. 19%
and oil and gas exploration, production.
processing, or treatment operations. or
transmission facilities that discharge
storm water contaminated by contact
with or that has come into contact with.
any overburden, row material,
intermediate products, finished
products, byproducts or waste products
located on the site of such operations.
Several commeriters urged that
Congress intended to require permits or
permit applications only for the
manufacturing sector of the oil and gee
industry (or those activities that
designated in SIC 20 through 39) EPA
disagrees with this argument. The fact
that Congress used the language cited
above and not the appropnate the SIC
definition explicitly does not indicate
that a broader definition or less
exclusive definition was contemplated
According to these comments, all storm
water discharges from oil and gas
-------
1 13 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 222 / Friday, November i , 1 9O f Rules and Regulations
explarstion and production facilities
woujd be exempt from regulation.
However, EPA Is convinced that a
facility that Is angaged In finding and
extracting orude oil and natural gas from
subswface formations, separating the oil
and gas from formation water, and
preparing that anile oil for
transportation to a refinery for
manufactunng and processing into
refined products, will have discharges
directly relating to the processing or raw
material storage at an industrial plant
and ore therefore discharges associated
with industrial activity.
For further darifiestlon EPA is
Intending to focus only on those
facilities that are in SIC 10-14.
Furthermore, in response to several
r.omjflen(s. this rulemaking will require
permit applications for storm water
discharges from currently inactive
petroleum related facilities within SIC
codes 10-14. if discharges from such
facilities meet the requirements as
described in section VLF.7.a. and
I 122.28(c)(1)(iji), Inactive facilities will
have storm water associated with
industrial activity irrespective of
whether the activity is ongoing.
Congress drew no distinction between
active and inactive facilities in the
statute or in the legislative history.
(iv) Hazardou, waste treatment.
St orage. or disposal focjht,es that are
operuting under interim status or a
permit under Subtitle C of the Resource,
Conse,vot,on and Recovery Act. One
comn’ienter believed that all RCRA and
Comprehensive nvironi ienta1
Response. Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) facilities should be
specifically identified using SIC codes
for further darificahon. EPA considers
this to be unnecessarily redundant.
since the RCRA/CERCL Identification
is sufficient.
Several industries asserted that storm
water discharge from landfills, dumps.
and land application sites, properly
dosed or otherwise subject to corrective
or remedial actions under RCRA. should
not be included In the definition. One
commente, noted that the runoff from
these area, is like runoff from
undeveloped areas. One commenter also
concluded that landfills, dumps, end
land application sites should also be
exduded If they are properly maintained
under RCRA.
One commenter also rejected the ides
of requiring permits from all active end
inactive landfills and open dumps that
have received any industrial wastes.
and subtitle C facilities. This comnienter
felt that these fscilitie, were already
adequately covered under RCRA.
Two Industry commenter, felt that it
would be redundant to have hazardous
waste facilities regulated by RQ A and
the NPD s storm water pro -.m. One
felt thi, was especially so If there are
cwvant pretreetnient stv,dai’ds,
The Agency disagrees that all
activities that may contr*bvte to storm
water discharges at RQ A subtitle C
facilities are being fully controlled and
that requiring NPDES permits for storm
water discharges at R A subtitle C
facilities is redundant. First, the vast
majority of permitted hazardous waste
management facilities are industrial
facilities Involved in the manufacture or
processing of products fo, distribution in
commerce. Their hazardous waste
management activities ate incidental to
the production-related activities. While
RCRA subtitle C regulations impose
controls in storm water runoff from
hazardous waste management units and
require cleanup of releases of hazardous
wastes, they generally do not control
non-systematic spills or process. These
releases, from the process itself or the
storage of raw materials or fInished
products are a potential source of storm
water contam1n tion, In addition, RCRA
subtitle C (except via corrective action
authority) does not address management
of “non hazardous” indu8tnal wastes.
which nevertheless could also
potentially contaminate storm water
runofL
Second, at commercial hazardous
waste management facilities, the RCRA
subtitle C permitting requirements and
management standards do not control
all releases of potentially toxic
materials. For example. some permitted
commercial treatment facilities may
store and use chemicals in the treatment
of RCRA hazardous wastes. Releases of
these treatment chemicals from storage
areas are a potential source of storm
water contamination.
Finally, many RCRA subtitle C
facilities have inactive Solid Waste
Management Units (SWMU’s) on the
facility property. These SWMU’I may
contain areas on the land surface that
are contaminated with hazardous
constituents. RCRA requires that
hazardous waste management facilities
must investigate these areas of potential
contamination, and then perform
corrective action to rernediate any
SWMLJ’e that are of concern. However,
the corrective action process at these
facilities will not be completed for a
number of year, due to the complexity
of the cleanup decision,, and due to the
fact that many hazardous waste
management facilitie, do not yet have
RCRA permit,. Until corrective action
has been completed at all such subtitle
C facilities. SWMU’e are a potential
source of storm water contamination
that should be addressed under the
NPDES pn F m. Finally, ends, section
1004(27) of R( A, all point source
discharges, hiduding those at RC A
regulated facilities, are to be regulated
by the NPOES program. Thus, there Is no
concern of regulatory overlap, and to the
extent that the storm water regulations
are effectively implemented, It will help
address these units in a way that
alleviates the need for expensive
corrective action in the future.
(v) Landfills, land application sites.
and open dumps that receive or hove
received industrial wastes and that are
subject to regulation under subtitle D of
EPA received numerous
comments supporting the regulation of
municipal landfills which receive
Industrial waste and are subject to
regulation under subtitle D of RCRA.
EPA agrees with these comments. These
industries have significant potential for
storm water discharges that can
adversely affect receiving water.
Two States argued that landfills
should be addressed under the non-
point source program. EPA disagrees
that the non-point source program is
sufficient for addressing these facilities.
Further, addressing a class of facilities
under the non-point source program
does not exempt storm water discharges
from these facilities from regulation
under NPDES. The CWA requires EPA
to promulgate regulations for controlling
point source discharges of storm water
from industrial facilities. Point sources
from landfills consisting of storm water
are such discharges requiring an NPDES
permit Several commenters argued that
these discharges are adequately
addressed by RCRA and that regulating
them under this storm water rule would
be redundant. However, as discussed
above. R .A expressly does not
regulate point source discharges subject
to NPDES permits. Given the nature of
these facilities and of the material
stored or disposed. EPA believes storm
water permits are necessary. Similarly
EPA rejects the comment that storm
water discharges from these facilities
are already adequately regulated by
State authority. Congress has mandated
that storm waler discharges associated
with industrial activity have an NPDES
permit.
One cornmenter wanted EPA to define
by size what landfills are covered. In
response, it is the intent of these
regulations to require permit
applications from all landfills that
receive industrial waste Storm water
discharges from such facilitie, are
addressed because of the nature of the
material with which the storm water
comes in contact. The size of facility
-------
Fodeisi Re / VoL 55. No. 2 I Friday. November 16. 1990 1 Rules and Pegulations 4 O13
will net dictate what type of waste is
exposed to the elements.
One comotenter requested that the
definition of industrial wastes be
cla -ifled. For the purpose of this rule.
Industrial waste consists of materials
delivered to the landfill for disposal and
whese ongin is any of the facilities
described under 12.Z.2 (bfl14) of this
regulation.
(vi) Facilities involved in the
recycling of materials. irsciuding metal
scmpywds. baueiy recioimers. salvage
yards. and automobile junkyards.
including but limited to those classified
as &andardlndustnal Classification
5015 and 5 One commenter
suggested that the recycling of materials
such as paper, glass. plastics. etc..
should not be classified as an industrial
activity. EPA disagrees that such
facilities should be excluded on that
basis. These facilities may be
considered industrial, as are facilities
that manufacture such products absent
recycling.
Other facilities exhibit traits that
Indicate industrial activity In funkyards
the condition of materials and junked
vehicles and the activities occumrg on
the yard frecfuently result in significant
losses of fluids. which are sources of
toxic metals, oil and grease and
polychlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons.
Weathering of plated and non-plated
metal surfaces may result in
contributions of toxic metals to storm
water. Clearly such facilities cannot be
classified as commercial or retail.
One municipality felt that “significant
recycling” should be defined or clarified.
EPA agrees that the proposed angliage
is ambiguous. it has been clarified to
require permit applications from
facilities mvolved in the recycling of
materials, including metal acrapyards.
battery reclaimers, salvage yards. and
automobile juakyarda. induding but
limited to those classified as Standard
Industrial Classification 5013 and 5093.
These S C codes describe fadhitiei
engaged in dismantling breaking up,
sorting and wholesale distribution of
motor vehicles and parts and a variety
of other materials. The Agency believes
these SIC codes clarify the term
significant recycling.
One municipality stated that
regulation of these facilities wider
NPDES would be duplicative if they are
publicly owned facilities. One State
expressed the view that automobile
punkysrds, salvage yards could not
legitimately be consalered Industrial
activity. As noted above. EPA disagrees
with t comments. Facilities that are
actively engaged in the storage and
recycimg of products including metals.
oil. rubber, and .y thetics ass in the
business of storing and recycling
matenala assoaated with or once used
in industrial activity. These activities
are not commercial or retail because
they are engaged in the di n .ialing of
motors for distribution in whoLesale or
retail. and the assembling. breaking up.
sorting and wholesale distribution of
scrap and waste materials. which EPA
views as industrial activity. Further.
being a publicly owned facility does not
confer nan-,ndustnal status.
(viii Steam electric power generat.uig
facilities, including cool handling sites.
and onsile and offsite ancillary
transformer storage areas. Most of the
comments were against requiting permit
applications for onsite and offsite
ancillary transformer facilities. One
commenler stated that these
transformers did not leak in storage and
11 there were leakage problems in
handling transformers, such leaks were
subject to Federal and State spill clean-
up procedures. The same commenter
suggested that if EPA required
applications from such facilities that it
exclude those that have regular
inspections, management practices in
place. or those that store 50
transformers at any one tune.
EPA agrees that such facilities should
not be covered by todays rule. As one
commenter noted, the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) addresses
pollutants associated with transformers
that may enter receiving water through
storm water discharges EPA has
examined regulations under TSCA and
agrees that regulation of storm water
discharges from these facilities should
be the subject of the studies being
performed under secliori 402fp}(5j,
rather than regulations established by
today’s rule. Under TSCA. transformers
are required to be stored in a manner
that prevents rain water from reaching
the stored PCBs or PCB items. 40 CFI 1
761.65(b)(1)(i). EPA consider,
transformer storage to be more akin to
retail or other light commercial
activities, where items are inventoried
In buildings for prolonged periods for
use or sale at some point in the future.
and where there is no ongoing
manufacturing or other industrial
activity within th. structure.
One commenier stated that this
category of industries should be
loosened so that all steam electric
facilities ate addressed—oil fired and
nuclear. EPA believe, that the Language
as proposed broadly defines the tyne of
industrial activity addressed without
specifying each mode of steam electric
production. One cam merle? noted that
the EPA has no authority under the
CWA (Train v. CPLR lni . 428 U.S I
(IVOI to regulate the disd aip of
source, special a l. r and by-product
materials which are regulated under lb.
Atomic Energy Act. EPA awees permit
applications may net addres. those
aspects of such Iambuses, however the
facility in its entirety may not
necessarily be exempt. A permit
application will be appropriate fat
discharges from non-exempt categories.
(i .i,,) TrunsportoLron facilities
classified as Standard Industrial
Classifications 40. 41. 42 (except 4Z21—
25/. 43.44. 43, ond 5177 which have
vehicle maintenance shape. material
handling foc:li aes. equipment cleaning
operations or airport deic:r g operot.ions.
Only those portions of the facility that
are either involved in vehicle
maintenance (including vehicle
rehabilitation, mechanical repairs.
pointing, fueling. and lubrication)
equipment cleaning operations or
which are identified in another
subcotego,y of facilities under EPA ‘s
definition of storm water thschar es
oscoc:oted with industrial activity One
comrnenter requested clarification of the
terms “vehicle maintenance” Vehicle
maintenance refers to the rcP ’ab,litaiion
mechanical repairing. painting Fueling.
and lubricating of instrumentalities of
transportation located at the described
facilities EPA is declining to write this
definition into the regulation however
since “vehicle marntenarice” should not
cause confusion as a descriptive term.
One commer.ter wanted railroad tracks
where rail cars are set aside for minor
repairs excluded from regulation In
response. if the activity involves any of
the above activities t ’ien a permit
applicatior is required Train arrls
i here repairs are undert.kcn arc
associated v.uh industrial activity Train
yards generally have trains wh.ch. in
and of themselves, can be classified as
heavy industrial equipment. T:ains.
concentrated in train yards. a:e diesel
fueled, lubricated, and repaired in
volumes that connote industrial activity.
rather than retail or ccimctercial activity
One comineriter argued that if
gasoline stations are not coiiqidered for
pernutting. then all transportation
faciliiies should be exempt. EPA
disagrees with the thrust of th.s
comment. Transportation facilities such
as bus depots, train yards. taxi stations.
and airports are generally larger ihan
indi idual repair shops. and generally
engage in heavier more expansive forms
of industrial activity. In keeping with
Congressional intent to cover all
industrial facilities, permit appi caiions
from such facihiies are appropriate. In
contiast. EPA views gas stouoos a.
retail commercial facilities not covered
-------
48014 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 222 I Friday. November 18 , 1990 / Rules and Regulation.
by this regulation. It should be noted
that SIC classifies gas stations as retail.
(lxi POTW lands used for land
application treatment technology/
sludge disposal, handling or processing
areas, and chemical handling ond
storage areas. One commenter wanted
more danflcatjon of the term POTW
lands. Another commenter requested
clarification of the terms sludge
disposal, sludge handling areas, and
sludge processing areas. One State
recommended that a broader term than
POTW should be used. EPA notes that
on May 2. 1989. it promulgated NPDES
Sewage Sludge Permit Regulations: State
Sludge Management Program
Requirements at 40 CFR part 501. This
regulation identified those facilities that
are subject to section 405(fl of the CWA
as “treatment works treating domestic
sewage.”
In response to the abov’ comments.
EPA has decided to use this language to
define what facilities are required to
apply for a storm water permit Under
this rulemaking “treatment works
treating domestic sewage,” or any other
sewage sludge or wastewater treatment
device or system used in the storage
treatment, recycling, and reclamation of
municipal or domestic sewage, induding
land dedicated to the disposal of sewage
sludge, with a design flow of 1.0 mgd or
more, or facilities required to have an
approved pretreatment program under
40 CFR part 403. will be required to
apply for a storm water permit.
However, permit applications will not
be required to address land where
sludge is beneficially reused such as
farm lands and home gardens or lands
used for sludge management that are not
physically located within the confines
(offsite facility) of the facility or where
sludge is beneficially reused in
compliance with section 405 of the
Clean Water Act (proposed rules were
published on February 6. 1989. at 54 FR
5746). EPA believes that such activity is
not “industrial” since it is agricultural or
domestic application (non-industrial)
unconnected to the facility generating
the matenaj.
EPA received many comments on the
.iecessity and appropriateness of
requiring permit applications for storm
water discharges from PO’flN lands. It
was anticipated by numerous
commenters that the above cited sludge
regulations would adequately address
storm water discharges from lands
where sludge is applied However, the
sewage sludge regulations do not
directly address NPDES permit
requirements for storm water discharges
from POTW lands and related areas to
the extent required by today’s
rulema king: the regulation, cover only
permits for use or disposal of sludge.
Also, the regulations proposed on
February 4. 1989, cover primarily the
technical standards for the composition
of sewage sludge which is to be used or
disposed. They do not indude detailed
permitting requirements for discharges
of storm water from lands where sludge
has been applied to the land. To that
extent. EPA is not persuaded by these
commenters that POTWa and POTW
lands should be excluded from these
storm water permit application
requirements.
Two commenters noted that some
States already regulate sludge use or
disposal activities substantially and that
EPA should refrain from further
regulation EPA disagrees that this is a
basis for excluding facilities from
Federal requirements. Notwithstanding
regulations in existence under State law.
EPA is required by the CWA to
promulgate regulations for permit
application for storm water associated
with industrial activity Under the
NPDES program. States are able to
promulgate more rigorous requirements.
However a minimum level of control is
required under Federal law. One
commenter also indicated that a State’s
sludge land application sites must
follow a well defined plan to ensure
there is no sludge related runoff.
Notwithstanding that a State may
require storm water controls for sludge
land applications, as noted above, EPA
is required to jrz mulgate re t . ations
requinng permit applications from
appropriate facilities. EPA views’
facilities such as waste treatment plants
that engage in on.site sludge
composting. storage of chemicals such
as ferric chloride, alum, polymers, and
chlorine, and which may experience
spills and bubbleovers are suitable
candidates for storm water permits.
Facilities using such materials are not
charactenstic of commercial or retail
activities. Use and storage of chemicals
and the production of material such as
sludge. with attendant heavy metals and
orgarncs. is activity that is industrial in
nature. The size and scope of activities
at the facility will determine the extent
to which such activities are undertaken
and such materials used and produced
at the facility. Accordingly. EPA
believes limiting the facilities covered
under this category to those of 1.0 mgd
and those covered under the industrial
pretreatment program is appropriate.
To the extent that permit applicants
are already required to employ certain
management practices regarding storm
water, these may be incorporated into
permits and permit conditions issued by
Federal and State permitting authoritlei’
EPA has selected facilities identified
under 40 CFR part 501 (i.e. those with a
design flow of 1.0 mgd or more or those
required to have an approved
pretreatment program) since these
facilities will have largest contribution
of industrial process discharges. Sludge
from such facilities will contain higher
concentrations of heavy metal and
organic pollutants.
One commenter stated that sludge
disposal is a public activity that should
be addressed in a public facility’s storm
water management program under a
municipal storm water management
program. EPA disagrees. Industrial
facilities, whether publicly owned or
not, are required to apply for and obtain
permits when they are designated as
industrial activity
Another comment stated that a permit
should not be required for facilities that
collect all runoff on site and treat it at
the same POTW EPA believes that a
permit application should be required
from such facilities However, the above
practice can be incorporated as a permit
condition for such a facility. One
commenter stated storm water from
sludge and chemical handling areas can
be routed through the headworks of the
POTW The agency agrees that this may
be an appropriate management practice
for POTWs as long as other NPDES
regulatory requirements are fulfilled
with regard to POTWi,
(x/ Construction activities, including
clearing. grading and excavation
activities except operations that result
in the disturbance of less I/ ian five acre
total land area which ore not part of a
larger common plan of development or
sole. EPA addresses whether these
facilities should be covered by today’.
rule in section Vl.F.8.
The December 7, 1988. proposal also
requested comments on including the
following other categories of discharges
in the definition of industrial activities.
(xii) Automotive repair shops classified
as Standard Industrial Classification 751
or 753: (xiii) Gasoline service stations
classified as Standard Industrial Code
5541. (xiv) Lands other than POTW
lands (offsite facilities) used for sludge
management: (xv) Lumber and building
matenals retail facilities classified as
Standard Industrial Classification 5211;
(xvi) Landfills, land application sites.
and open dumps that do not receive
industrial wastes and that are subject to
regulation under subtitle D of RCRA:
(xvii) Facilities classified as Standard
Industrial Classification 46 (pipelines,
except natural gas), and 492 (gas
production and distribution). (xviii)
Major electrical powerline corridors.
-------
Fe’ I Register I VoL 55 No. 222! Friday. November 16. 1990! Rules and Regulation8 O15
EPA seesteed aumero ceromeota on
whether to reqane permit applicatlorm
for these partiunlar facilities. The
Desembe, 7. 1 8. osa1 reflected
EPA ’s talent not to lequne permits for
these facibties, bet esther to adsfreu
these facilities the two s ies
required by CWA section, 4O pfl5) and
(6). After reviewing the onm ta on
this issue. EPA believe, that these
facilities should be .dd 4 under
these section, of the CWA. Moat of
these facilities are dasaified as light
conunerclsl and retail banuiess
estabtisbment%. agriculturaL facilities
whese residential or domestic waste is
received, or land use activities where
there is no manufactuzuzg. It should be
noted that although EPA is not requiring
the facilities identified as categories (xiii
to (xbiii). in the December 7. 1988.
proposal to apply for a permit
application under this rulemaking, such
Facilities may be designated under
section 40Z(.p)(2)(F.) of the CWA.
Three commenters recommended that
EPA clarify that non-exempt
Department of Er.ergy and Department
of Defense facilities should be covered
by the storm water reg.ilation The
regulation clearly states that Federal
Facilities that are engaged in industrial
activity I: a. those activities in
f 1Z2.Z bJ(14 (i)—(xi)) are required to
submit permit applications. Those
ap iymg for permits covering Federal
facilities should consult the Standard
Industrial Classzficat:ons for further
c!ariflcat l esa.
One coinmenter questioned how EPA
intended to regulate municipal facilities
engaged in industrial activities
Municipal Facilities that are engaged in
the type of industrial activity described
above end which discharge into waters
of the Umted Slates or municipal
separate storm systems are
required to apply for permits. These
facilities will be covered in the same
manner a, other industrial Facilities. The
fact that they are municipally owned
does not hi any way exclude them from
needing permit applications under this
rulemaking.
One commenter suggested exempting
those facilitie, that have total annual
sales less than five mIllion dollars or
occepy las, then five aaes of land.
Another commenter thought that all
minor permitter. should be exempt EPA
believes that the quality of storm water
and the es tent to which thacbarges
i t le vmg water Is not
necessarily related to ie size of the
facility or the cloflarvaloe of it S
business. What Is important in this
regard. is the to which steps are
taken at facilities to b the quantity
and type of material that may pollute
storm water discharges from these
facilities. Therefore EPA has not
exdeded facilities from permitting on
such a bash,. This same commenter
stated that th,p ,opoeed rules should
not address facilities with multiple
functions (industrial and retail). EPA
disagree., lie facility engages in activity
that is defined in paragraph. (iJ through
(xi) above, it I. required to apply fore
permit regardless of the fact that it also
has a retail element. Such facilities need
only submit a permit application for the
industrial portion of the facility (as long
as storm water from the non ’mdustr,al
portion is segregated. as discussed
above). This commenter also felt that
more studies needed to be undertaken to
determine the best way to regulate
industries. EPA agrees that storm water
problems need further study and for that
reason EPA has de oted substantial
ma.’ipower and resources to complete
comprehensive studies under section
4O2)p (5 ). while also addressing
industrial sources that need immediate
attention under this rulemaking.
One corumenter requested thai EPA
gwe examples of storm water discharges
from each of the facaiiti.es that hate
been designated for sobeutting permit
applications. Agency believes that this
is unnecessary and impractical since
every facility, regardless of the type of
indLstry, will have different terrain.
hydrology, weather pattern.s.
management practices and control
techniques. However. EPA intends to
issue guidance on filing permit
applications for storm water discharges
from industrial facilities which detais
how art industry goes about filing an
industrial permit and dealing with storm
water discharges.
Today’s rulemaking For storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity at f l .26(cj 1)(l) includes
special conditions for storm water
discharges originating from mining
operations, oil or gas operations
(I 122.28 (c)(1)(iii)J. end from the
constructIon operations listed above
(* 1fl.20(cfll)(uifl These requirements
are discussed in more detail In section
VLF 7 and section Vl.F 9 of today’s
notice.
3. Individual Application equsrements
Today’s rule establishes individual
and group permit application
requirement, for storm water discharge,
associated with mdustrsal activity
These requirements will address
facilities precluded from coverage wider
the general permits to be p. otxi.u.ed sad
promulgated by EPA in the near futur e.
EPA considers It nvccssafy to obtain the
information required in Individual
permit applicanoes fimu certain
facilities becaisseof the nature of their
industrial activity and because of
existing institutional medianisiris for
issuing and tracking NPD permits.
Furthermore, some States will not have
general permitting svthoiityFadhlties
located in such Slate, will be required
to submit individual applications or
participate in a group application. The
following response to comments
received on these requirements pertains
to these facilities.
Under the September 26. 1984.
regulation operators of Group I storm
water discharges were required to
submit NPDES Form 1 and Form ZC
permit applications, lii response to post-
regulation comments received on that
rule. EPA proposed new permit
application requirements (Mardi 7. 1985.
(50 FR 9382) and Aumist 111985. (50 FR
32548)) which would have deaeesed the
analytical sampling requirements of the
Form ZC and provided procedures For
group applications Passage of the WQA
in 1987 gave the EPA additional tune to
consider the appropriate permit
application requirements for storm
isater discharges On December7. 1988.
application requirements were proposed
and numerous comments were received
Based upon these comments,
modifications and refinements hive
been made to the industnal storm water
permit applicatiolL
Some commenters expressed the view
that the permit application requtrementr
sic too burdensome, require too much
paperwork. are cf dubious utility, and
focus too greatly on the collection of
quantitative data EPA disagrees In
comparison to prior approaches for
permitting storm water discharges and
other existing permitting programs. EPA
has streamlined the permit application
process. limited the quantitative data
requirements. and required narrative
information that will be used to
determine permit conditions that relate
to the quality of storm water discharge.
To the extent that EPA needs non-
quantitative information to develop -
appropriate permit conditions. EPA
dis igrees with the view of sonic
conimenters that the information
required is excessive. In response to
comment, on esrlier rulemakings and a
comment received on the December?.
1988. proposal (stressing that the
emphasis should be on site
management, rather than monitoring.
sampling. and reporting) EPA has
shifted the emphasis of the permit
application requirements for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from the existing
requirements for collectIon o’
-------
48016 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 222 I Friday, November 18, 1990 I Rules and Reguli . .ions
quantitative data (sampling data) in
Form 2C towards collection of less
quantitative data supplemented by
additional information needed for
evaluation of the nature of the storm
water discharges.
The permit application requirements
proposed for storm water discharges
reduce the amount of quantitative data
required In the permit application and
exempt discharges which contain
entirely storm water (i.e. contain no
other discharge that, without the storm
water component, would require an
NPDES permit), from certain reporting
requirements of Form 2C. The proposed
modifications also would exempt
applicants for discharges which contain
entirely storm water from several non-
quantitative information collection
provisions currently required in the
Form 2C. The proposed modifications
would rely more on descriptive
information for assessing impacts of the
storm water discharge. One commenter
proposed that information that the
applicant has submitted for other
permits be incorporated by reference
into the storm water permit application.
EPA disagrees that Incorporation by
reference is appropriate. The permitting
authority will need to have this
information readily available for
evaluating permit application and permit
conditions, Furthermore, EPA feels that
the applicant is in the best position to
provide the information and verify its
accuracy. However, if the applicant has
such information and it accurately
reflects current circumstances, then the
applicant can rely on the information for
meeting the information requirements of
the application. Mother comznenter
suggested that EPA should only require
the information in 122.28(c)(1) (A) and
(B) (i.e.. the requirement for a
‘opographic map indicating drainage
areas and estimate of impervious areas
and material management practices). As
explained in greater detail below, EPA
is convinced that some quantitative data
and the other narrative requirements are
necessary for developing appropriate
permit conditions.
Form ZF addressing permitS
applications for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity is
included in todays final rule. A
complete permit application for
discharges composed entirely of storm
water, will be comprised of Form ZF and
Form 1. Operators of discharges which
are composed of both storm water and
non-storm water will submit where
required, a Form 1. an entire Form ZC (or
Form ZD) and Form 2F when applying. In
this case, the applicant will provide
quan’itative data describing the
discharge during a storm event in Form
2F and quantitative data desmiblng the
discharge during non-storm events In
Form 2C. Non-quantitative information
reported In the Form ZC will not have to
be reported again in the Form 2F.
Under todays rule. Form IF for storm
water discharges associated with
Industrial activity would not require the
submittal of all of the quantitative
Information required in Form 2C. but
would require that quantitative data be
submitted for
• Any pollutant limited in an effluent
guideline for an industrial applicant’s
subcategory
• Any pollutant listed In the facility’s
NPDES permit for its process
waetewatei-
• Oil and grease, TSS. COD. pH,
BOD5. total phosphorus, total Kjeldah,
nitrogen: nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen:
and
• Any information on the discharge
required under 40 CFR 127_21(g)(7) (iii)
and (iv).
In order to characterize the
discharge(s) sampled, applicants need to
submit information regarding the storm
event(s) that generated the sampled
discharge. including the date(s) the
sample was taken, flow measurements
or estimates of the duration of the storm
event(s) sampled, rainfall measurements
or estimates from the storm event(s)
which generated the sampled runoff,
and the duration between the storm
event sampled and the end of the
previous storm event. Information
regarding the storm event(s) sampled is
necessary to evaluate whether the
discharge(s) sampled was generally
representative of other discharges
expected to occur during storm events
and to characterize the amount and
nature of runoff discharges from the site.
One commenter stated that the
quantitative information should be
limited to those pollutant. that are
expected to be known to the applicant.
EPA believes this would be
lnapprupn ate since there will be no way
of determining initially whether these
pollutants are present despite the
expectations of the applicant. Once the
data is provided, permits can be drafted
which address specific pollutants. This
rulemaking requires that the applicant
test for oil and grease, COD. pH. 80D5,
TSS. total K eldahl nitrogen, nitrate plus
nitrite nitrogen and total phosphorus.
Oil and grease and TSS are a common
component of storm water and can have
senous impacts on receiving water,.
Oxygen demand (COD and 90D5) will
help the permitting authority evaluate
the oxygen depletion potential of the
discharge. BOD5 is the most commonly
used Indicator of potential oxygen
demand. COD is considered a more
inclusive indicator of oxygen demand.
especially where metals Interfere with
the BOD5 test The pH will provide the
permitting authority with important
information on the potential availability
of metals to the receiving flora, fauna
and sediment. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen,
nitrate plus nithte nitrogen and total
phosphorus are measures of nutrients
which can impact water quality.
Because this data is useful in developing
appropriate permit conditions, EPA
disagrees with the argument made by
one commenter that quantitative data
requirements should be a permit
condition and not part of the application
process.
In the proposed rule, the Agency used
total nitrogen as a parameter. This has
been changed to total Xjeldahl nitrogen
and nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen for
clarity.
Today’s rule defines sampling at
industrial sites in terms of sampling for
those parameters that have effluent
limits in existing NPDES permits, as well
as for any other conventional or
nonconventional parameter that might
be expected to be found at the outfall.
Comment. on the appropriateness of the
defined parameters were solicited by
the proposal. Numerous commenter.
maintained that either the parameter list
be made industry specific, or that
pollutant categories not detected in the
initial screen be exempted from further
testing. Some suggested that only
conventional pollutants, tnorganics. and
metals be sampled unless reason for
others is found,
In terms of specific water quality
parameters, it wag recommended that
surfactants not be tested for unless foam
ii visible. One cominenter also
suggested that fecal coliform sampling is
inappropriate for industrial permits
applications. One coinmenter favored
testing for TOC instead of VOC. In
response. VOC has been eliminated
from the list of parameters because it
will not yield specific usable data. VOC
Is not specifically required in any
sampling in today’s rule, except where
priority pollutant scans are required.
Some recommended that procedures
be modified to facilitate quicker, less
expensive lab analyses. Concern was
also raised that industry might be
required to collect its own rainfall data
if there is no nearby observation station.
Some commenters stated that EPA
should not allow automatic sampling for
either biological or oil and grease
sampling due to the potential for
contamination in sampling equipment.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55. No. 222 1 Fsiday. November 18. 1990 I Rules and Regulations 48017
In response. EPA believes that the
sampling requirements for Industry in
today’s rule are reasonable and not
burdensome. These requirements
address parameters that have effluent
limits In existing NPDES permits, as well
as for any other conventional or
nonconventional parameter that might
be expected to be found at the
applicants outfall. Under this procedure
both industry-specific and site-specific
contaminants are already identified in
the existing permit. Whether all these
parameters need to be made a part of
any discharge characterization plans.
under the terms of the permit. will be a
case-by-case determination for the
permitting authority. EPA maintains that
the test for surfactants (if in effluent
guidelines or in the facility’s NPDES
permit for process water) is justifiable
even when a foam is not obvious at the
outfall. The presence of detergents in
storm water may be indicated by foam,
but the absence of foam does not
indicate that detergents are not present.
EPA requested comments on fecal
coliform as a parameter. Fecal coliform
was included on the list as an indicator
of the presence of sanitary sewage in
large concentrations, fecal coiiform may
be an effective indicator of sanitary
sewage as opposed to other animal
wastes. EPA believes that sanitary cross
connections will also be found at
industnal facilities. Furthermore, the
test for lecal coliform is an inexpensive
test and its inclusion or exclusion
should make little impact financially on
the individual application costs
Sampling for volatile organic carbon
shall be accomplished when required. as
it is an appropriate indicator of
industrial solvents and organic wastes
In response to comments. EPA
acknowledges that there are certain
pollutants that are capable of leaving
residues in automatic sampling devices
that will potentially contaminate
subsequent samples. In these cases,
such as (or biological monitoring. if such
a problem is perceived to exist and it is
expected that the contaminant will
render the subsequent samples
unusable, manual grab samples may be
needed. This would include grab
samples for pH. temperature, cyanide.
total phenols. residual chlorine, oil and
grease. fecal coliform, and lecal
streptococcus EPA is not disallowing
the use of automatic sampling because
of possible contamination, as this type
of sampling may be the best method for
obtaining the necessary samples from a
selected storm events
In addition to the conventional
pollutants listed above, this final rule
require, applicants, when appropriate.
to sample other pollutants based on a
consideration of site-specific factors.
These parameters account for pollutantr
associated with materials used for
production and maintenance. inlshed
products, waste products and non-
process materials such as fertilizers and
pesticides that may be present at a
facility. Applicants must sample for any
pollutant limited in an effluent guideline
applicable to the facility or limited in the
facility’s NPDES permit. These
pollutants will generally be associated
with the facility’s manufacturing process
or wastes. Other process and non.
process related pollutants, will be
addressed by complying with the
requirements of 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7) (iii)
and (iv).
Section 122.Z1(g)(7)(ui) requires
applicants to indicate whether they
know or have reason to believe that any
pollutant listed in Table IV
(conventional and nc’iconventional
pollutants) of append x D to 40 CFR part
122 is discharged. Ii such a pollutant is
either directly limited or indirectly
limited by the terms of the applicant’s
existing NPDES permit through
limitations on an indicator parameter.
the applicant must report quantitative
data. For pollutants that are not
contained in an effluent limitations
guideline, the applicant must either
report quantitative data or describe the
reasons the pollutant is expected to be
discharged. With regard to pollutants
listed in Table II (organic pollutants) or
Table Ill (metals, cyanide and total
phenol) of appendix D, the applicant
must indicate whether they know or
have reason to believe such pollutants
are discharged from each outfall and, if
they are discharged in amounts greater
than 10 parts per billion (ppb). the
applicant must report quantitative data.
An applicant qualifying as a small
business under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(8). (eg..
coal mines with a probable total annual
production of less than 100.000 tons per
year or. for all other applicants, gross
total annual sales averaging less than
5100.000 per year (in second quarter
1980 dollars)). is not required to analyze
for pollutants listed in Table II of
appendix D (the organic toxic
pollutants)
Section 122.21(g)(7 iv) requires
applicants to indicate whether they
know or have reason to believe th8t any
pollutant in Table V of appendix 0 to 40
CFR part 122 (certain hazardous
substances) is discharged For every
pollutant expected to be discharged. the
applicant must briefly describe the
reasons the pollutant us expected to be
discharged and report any existing
quantitative data it has for the pollutant.
When collecting data for permit
applications. applicants may make use
of 40 CFR 122.2l(g)(7). which provides
that ‘when an applicant has two or
more outfalls with substantially
Identical effluents, the Director may
allow the applicant to test only one
outfall and report that the quantitative
data also applies to the substantially
identical outfalls.” Where the facility
has availed itself of this provision, an
explanation of why the untested outfalls
are “substantially identical” to tested
outfalls must be provided in the
application. Where the amount of flow
associated with the outfalls with
substantially identical effluent differs.
measurements or estimates of the total
flow of each of the outfalls must be
provided. Several cornmenters stated
that the time and expense associated
with sampling and analysis would be
saved if the applicant was able to pick
substantially identical outfails without
pnor approval of the permitting
authority EPA disagrees that this would
be an appropriate devolution of
authority to the permit applicant The
permitting authority needs to ensure that
these outfalis have been grouped
according to appropriate criteria (for
example do the outfalls serve similar
drainage areas at the facility)
Furthermore. EPA is not requiring that
the permit applicant engage in sampling
to demonstrate that the outfalis are
indeed substantially identical. because
that would of course defeat the purpose
of § 122 21(g)(7) The procedure for
establishing identical outfalls is not ihdt
onerous and provides a means for
industry to save substantially on time
and resources for sampling
EPA proposed and requested
comment on a requirement that the
facility must sample a storm event that
is typical for the area in terms of
duration and severity The storm event
must be greater than 0 1 inches and must
be at least 96 hours from the previousl
measurable (greater than 0.1 inch
rainfall) storm event. In general.
vanance of the parameters (such as the
duration of the event and the total
rainfall of the event) should not exceed
50 percent from the parameters of the
average rainfall event in that area. EPA
also requested comments on addressing
snow melt events under this definition
Commenters stated that median or
average rainfall is not an acceptable
approach. the minimum depth and
duration of rainfall must be specified
the allowable 50% variation is
questionalile. the total depth of the
storm us irrele% ant. and the storm should
be viewed based on the average
intensity of the storm. One c’ommenter
-------
41018 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 222 / Friday, November 16. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
suggested that using the median rainfall
event would be a better approach than
the average rainfall event.
Others Insisted that lepreeentative
or typical storms do not exist in semi-
arid climates and that representa five
rainfall must be site-specific (regional)
and seasonaL Several comnienters
r.ontended that the requirement for 98
dry hours between events is not
acceptable, with 48 and 72 hours
identified as possible alternatives.
One commenter believed that a
typical standard design storm, such as
the I-year. 24-hour. or 10-year. 1-hour.
would be preferable. Another
commenter felt that the storm event
should be based on the rainfall required
to generate a minimum discharge level.
One commenter questioned whether the
storm is to be sampled at all sites
simultaneously.
To clarify its decision on what storm
event should be sampled. EPA notes
that its selection of the storm event
considers both regional and seasonal
variation of precipitation This is
evidenced in the rule with regard to
sites in the municipal application (three
events sampled), and in the
requirements for industrial group
applications (a minimum of two
applicants, or one applicant in groups of
less than 10. to be represented in each
precipitation zone (see section Vl.F 4
below).
The definition of a 0.1 inch minimum
was determined by NIJRP and other
studies to be the minimum rainfall depth
capable of producing the rainfall/runoff
characteristics necessary to generate a
sufficient volume of runoff for
meaningful sample analysis EPA
believes by requiring the a erage storm
to be used as the basis for sampling that
depth. duration, and therefore average
rainfall intensity are being regionally
defined. The Agency has also added the
option of using the mediar rainfall et ent
instead of the average The potential for
monitoring events that may not meet
this specification should be minimized
by allowing the proposed 50 percent
variation in rainfall depth and/or
duration from event statistics. Howe er
the 50 percent variation need only be
met when possible Further, there is
flexibility in the rule where the Director
may allow or establish site specific
requirements such as the minimum
duration between the previous
measurable storm event and the storm
event sampled, the amount of
precipitation from the storm event to be
sampled, and the form of precipitation
sampled (snowvnelt or rainfall) If data is
obtained from a rain event that does not
meet the crzter a above, the Director has
the discretion to accept the data as
valid.
The December?, 1988. proposal called
for a 98-hour period between evenis of
measurable rainfall, here defined as 0.2
Inch. which provided a four day
minimum for the accumulation of
pollutants on the surface of the outfalls’
tributary areas. The key word in the
definition is “measurable”, which means
that the 96-hour period did not
necessanly have to be dry, only that no
cleansing rainfall (:e. 0.1 inch rain
event) has occurred. However, after
reviewing comments on this Issue EPA
has decided to change the period to 72
hours. Many commenters indicated that
98 hours is too restrictive and that
securing a sample under such
circumstances would be unnecessarily
difficult. EPA agrees that the quality or
representativeness of the sample would
not be adversely affected by this
change.
EPA does not agree with comments
that the requirement of a particular
‘design storm would be appropriate
Many commenters have expressed
concern that they might sample an event
not meeting the requirements for
industrial group applications as defined.
Because there is no way to know with
sufficient certainty beforehand that an
upcoming event will approximate a one-
year. twenty.four hour storm, many
events would be unnecessarily sampled
before this event is realized
EPA does not intend that a
municipality or industry be required to
sample all required outfalls For a single
storm This would represent a
unmanageable Investment in equtpment
and manpower In some areas, it may be
necessary to sample multiple sites for a
single event due to the irregularity of
rainfall, but not all sites.
EPA described parameters for
selecting storm events for sampling of
municipal and industrial outfalls in the
December 7. 1988, proposal EPA has
received several comments regarding
the problems that rainfall measurement
in general presents A recumng
comment relative to reporting rainfall
and in verifying that the storm itself is
representatIve, deals with the spatial
distnbution of rainfall The rainfall
measured at an airport does not always
represent rainfall at the site particularly
in summer months when thunderstorms
are prevalent One commenter stated
that it would be easier to b .4se the
selected storm on either a minimum
discharge. oron a discharge duration
other than on the total precipiiat,cn
because these parameters are easily
measured at the site and are not
dependent on the airport gauge,
receiving the same rainfall as the site. A
few commenrers questioned how to
determine typical storm characteristics.
One commenter advised that NOAA
rainfall reporting stations provide data
that represent only daily rainfall totals.
not storm event data. One comnienter
pointed out that the time frame of the
sampling requirement does not consider
that a particular region may be in the
midst of a multi-year drought cycle, and
that what little rainfall occurs may have
uncharacteristically high levels of
pollutants.
The type of rain event sampled is an
important parameter in any attempt to
characterize system-wide loads based
on the sampling results. Rainfall gauges
that report only event total depth wilt
provide the information necessary to
characterize most events, provided that
a reasonable estimate of the event
duration can be made If simulation
models are to be used in estimating
system-wide loads, rainfall
measurement based on time and depth
of rainfall will be needed If the
recording stations are not believed to
accurately reflect this distribution, then
the data will need to be collected by the
applicant at a location central to the
tributary area of the outfall
The rainfall data collected by NOAA
are in most cases available in the form
of hourly rainfall depths This
information can be analyzed to develop
characteristic storm depths and
durations In some cases, this
information has already been analvred
for maiy long term reporting stations by
various municipalities states, and
universities The results of these
investigations should be available to the
applicants
EPA realizes thai prolonged rainless
periods occur for both semi.arid areas
and areas experiencing droughts and
that the tlrst storm after a prolonged dry
period may well not be representative of
“normal” runoff conditions In order for
the appropriate system-wide
characterization of loads to be made.
data must be collected With regard to
the municipal permit application.
today s rule states that runoff
characterization data wilt be collected
during three events at from five to ten
sties The rule gives the Director the
flexibility of modifying these
requirements
EPA has defined the parameters for
selecting the storm event to be sampb ’.J
such that at the discretion of the
Director seasonal including winter
sampling might Lw requ’r d EPA has
rec ited severjl comments regarding
the problems that sno snnclt sampling
may present Set rral camment.’r ‘r’
-------
Federal ReØiter I Vol. 55. No. 222 I Fziday. November 16. 1990 I Rules and Regulations 48019
opposed to monitoring of snowmelt
events. The reasons cited include
equipment problems and the
unreasonableness of expecting this
sampling, because of temperatures and
the time required for personnel to be
waiting for events. A few comments
addressed the issues of snow pack
depth, ambient temperature. and solar
radiation levels, and that the snow pack
may filter suspended solids or rafreeze
such that final melting is
uncharacteristically over-polluted
relative to normal conditions. Another
commenter contended that it is
impossible to manage the melting
process and therefore unreasonable to
expect controls to be implemented
relative to snowinelt. In essence, it is
contended that there is no first
discharge unless the snow pack depth is
low and melts quickly.
A few commenters favor monitoring
eriowinelt. for precisely the same reason
that most oppose it: that the runoff from
snowmelt is the most polluted runoff
generated In some areas on an annual
basis. Where this is the case, sampling
snowmelt should be undertaken in order
to accurately assess impacts to receiving
streams. EPA is confident that in areas
where automated sampling cannot be
relied upon, grab sampling can probably
be performed because the nature of the
snowmelt process tends to make the
timing of samples less of a problem
when compared to typical rainfall
events. EPA disagrees that management
practices, either at industrial facilities or
with regard to municipalities, cannot
address snowmeit. Some areas may
need to reassess their salt application
procedures. In addition retention and
detention devices may address
snowmelt. as well as erosion controls at
construction sites. Thus, obtaining
samples of .nowmelt is appropriate to
allow development of such permit
conditions.
Today’s rule also modifies the Form
2C requirement. by exempting
applicants from the requirements at
I 122.21 (j)(2) (line drawings). (g)(4)
(intermittent flows), (g)(7) (i), (ii). and (v)
(venous sampling requirements to
characterize discharges) if the discharge
covered by the application is composed
entirely of storm water. Permit
applications for discharges containing
storm water associated with industrial
activity would require applicants to
provide other non-quantitative
information which will aid permit
writers to identify which storm water
aisdharges are associated with
industrial actibity and to characterize
the nature of tti discharge.
Numerous comments were received
regarding the requirement to submit a
topographic map and site drainage map.
Many of these comments offered
alternatives to EPA’s proposal Two
coinnienters suggested that a simple
sketch of the si te would be sufficient.
Two commenters stated that one or the
other should be adequate. One
commenter believed that the drainage
map was a good idea, but that the
topographic map should be optional
Several commenters submitted that a
topographic map was suffIcient and that
only SPCC plans or SARA submittals
should supplement that. Another
commenter argued that information
relating to the location of the nearest
surface water or drinking wells would
be sufficient. Other commeriters
believed that a drainage map alone
would indicate all relevant site specific
information. Numerous cornmenters
expressed concern that the drainage
area map would be too detailed and that
one which depicts the general direction
of flow should be sufficient.
Clarification was requested on whether
the final rule would require the location
of any drinking water wells One
commenter stated that a U.S.G.S. 7.5
quadrangle map will not illustrate
drainage systems in all cases, and that
therefore the requirement should be
optionaL
Several commenters agreed with
EPA’s proposaL One commenter
maintained that drainage maps should
be required from developments greater
than three acres and from all individual
applicants. Several comsneriters agreed
with EPA’s proposal that both maps
should be provided, with arrows
indicating site drainage and entering
and leaving points. It was advised that
drainage maps are useful in locating
sources of storm water contamination.
and it is useful to identify areas and
activities which require source controls
or remedial action. One cornrnenter
recommended that the map should
extend far enough offsite to demonstrate
how the privately owned system
connects to the publicly owned system.
After considering the merits of all the
comments and the reasons supporting
EPA’. proposal EPA is convinced that a
topographic map and a site drainage
map are necessary components of the
industnal application. Existing permit
application regulations at 40 CFR
122..21 (f)(7) require all permit applicants
to submit as part of Form I a
topographic map extending one mile
beyond the property boundaries of the
source depicting the facility and each
intake and discharge structure: each
hazardous waste treatment. storage. or
disposal facility each well where fluids
from the facility are injected
undergroundi and those wells, springs.
other surface water bodies, and drinking
water wells listed in the map area in
public records or otherwise known to
the applicant within one-quarter mile of
the facility property boundary. (See 47
FR 15304, April 8. 1982.) However, as
indicated by the comments the
information provided under
§ 122.21(f )(7) is generally not sufficient
by itself for evaluating the nature of
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity.
As stated in comments, a drainage
map can provide more important site
specific information for evaluating the
nature of the storm water discharge in
comparison to existing requirements.
which require a larger map with only
general information. The volume of
storm water discharge and ice
pollutants associated with it will depend
on the configuration and activities
occurring at the industrial site. One
commenter suggested that it would be
appropriate to submit an aerial
photograph of the site with all the
topographic and drainage information
supenmposed on the photograph EPA
agrees that this may be an appropriate
method of providing this information.
EPA is not requiring a specific format for
submitting this information.
EPA is also requiring that a narrative
description be submitted to accompany
the drainage map. The narrative will
provide a description of on-site features
including: existing structures (buildings
which cover materials and other
material covers; dikes; diversion ditches,
etc.) and non-structural controls
(employee training, visual inspections.
preventive maintenance. and
housekeeping measures) that are used to
prevent or minimize the potential for
release of toxic and hazardous
pollutants; a description of significant
materials that are currently or in the
past have been treated, stored or
disposed outside: and the method of
treatment. storage or disposal used. The
narrative will also include: a description
of activities at materials loading and
unloading areas: the location, manner
and frequency in which pesticides.
herbicides, soil conditioner, and
fertilizers are applied. a description of
the soil: and a description of the areas
which are predominately responsible for
first flush runoff. This requirement is
unchanged from the proposal.
Some commenters believed that
information on pesticides. herbicides.
and fertilizers and similar products is
irrelevant, incidental to the facility’s
production activities, and should not be
-------
) 21 FJ .I Regis / VoL 55, No V2/ PrIday, November iØ 1g / Rules end Regulations
addressed by this rulemaking. E PA
disagrees. As these materials are
applied outside and hence subject to
storm events, they are significant
sources of pollutant, In storm water
discharge, whether applied In
residential or Industrial settings. By
provl ding this Information In the permit
application the permit writer will be
able to determine whether such activity
Is associated with industrial activity and
the subject of appropriate permit
conditions, Nominal or Incidental
application of these materials at
industrial facilities and non-detects In
sampling of storm water discharges for
the permit application will result, in
mast cases, in these materials not being
addressed specifically in storm water
permits.
Todays rule also requires that permit
applicants for storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity
certify that all of the outfalls covered in
the permit application have been tested
or evaluated for non-storm water
discharges which are not covered by an
NPDES permit. (The applicant need not
test for noristorm water if the
certification of the plant storm water
discharges can be evaluated through the
use of schematics or other adequate
method). Section 405 of the WQA added
section 40 2(p)(3fl8J(ij) to the CWA to
require that permits for municipal
separate storm sewers effectively
prohibit non-storm water discharges to
the storm sewer system. As discussed in
part Vl.F.7.b of today’s preamble.
untreated non-storm water discharges to
storm sewers can create severe, wide-
spread contamination problems and
removing such discharges presents
opportunities for dramatic
Improvements in the quality of such
discharges. Although section
402(p )(3 )(B)(ii) specifically addresses
municipal separate storm sewers. EPA
believes that illicit non-storm water
discharges are as likely to be mixed
with storm water at a facility that
discharges directly to the waters of the
United States as it is at a facility that
discharges to a municipal storm sewer.
Accordingly, EPA feels that It is
appropnate to consider potential non-
storm water discharges in permit
applications for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity. The
certification requirement would not
apply to outfalls where storm water is
intentionally mixed with process waste
water streams which are already
identified in and covered by a permit.
This rulemaking requires applicants
for individual permits to submit known
information regarding the history of
significant spills at the facility. Several
commenters Indicated that the extent to
which this Information I . required
should be modified. One commenter
stated that the r qulrement should be
limited to those spills that resulted hr a
complaint or enforcement action. EPA
disagrees. EPA believe, that significant
spills at a facility should generally
include releases of oil or hazardous
substance, tn excess of reportable
quantities under section 311 of the Clean
Water Act (see 40 CFR 110.10 and 40
CFR 117.21) or section 102 of CL.A
(see 40 CFR 302.4). Such a requirement is
consistent with these regulations and
the perception that such spills are
significant enough to mandate the
reporting of their occurrence. Some
commenlers stated that industries have
already submitted this Information in
other contexts and should not be
required to have to do it again. For the
same reason another commenter felt
that submittal of this information
represents a waste of manpower and
resources. EPA disagrees that requiring
this information is unduly burdensome.
If this information has already been
provided for another purpose it follows
that it is readily available to the
industrial applicant. Thus, the burden of
providing this information cannot be
considered undue Furthermore, the
permit authority will need to have this
available in order to determine which
drainage areas are likely to generate
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity, evaluate pollutants of
concern, and develop appropriate permit
conditions. However, to keep this
information requirement within
reasonable limits and limited to
information already available to
individual facilities, EPA has declined to
expand the reporting requirements to
spills of other materials, such as food as
one commenter has suggested. However.
EPA has decided to add raw materials
used in food processing or production to
the list of significant materials.
Materials such as these may find their
way into storm water discharges in such
quantities that serious water quality
impacts occur. These materials may find
there way into storm water from
transportation vehicles carrying
materials into the facility, loading docks,
processing areas, storage areas, and
disposal sites.
One commenter urged that any
information requested should be limited
to a period of three years, which is the
general NPDES records retention
requirement wider 40 R 122.21(p) and
40 CFR 11Z ,7(d)(8). EPA agrees with this
comment and has limited historical
information requurements to the 3 years
prior to the date the apphcatlon is
submitted. In this maimer this regulation
will be consistent with records keeping
practices under the NPDES aid Oil Spill
Prevention programe except sludge
programs.
The December 7, 1988. proposal
required the applicant to submit a
description of each past or present ares
used for outdoor storage or disposal of
significant materials. One comnienter
felt that the definition of significant
material was too imprecise. EPA
disagrees that the language should be
made more precise by delineating every
conceivable material that may add
pollutants to storm water. Rather the
definition is broad, to encourage permit
applicants to list those materials that
have the potential to cause water
quality impacts. Stating what materials
are addressed in meticulous detail may
result in potentially harmful materials
remaining unconsidered in permits.
However, EPA has decided to add
“fertilizers, pesticides, and raw
materials used in the production or
processing of food’ to the definition in
response to the comment of one State
authority that such matenal8 need to be
accounted for due to their potential
danger to storm water discharge quality
This same commenter recommended
that “hazardous chemicals” should be
added. EPA agrees, and will delineate
those chemicals as “hazardous
substances’ which are designated under
section 101(14) of CERCLA. Further
clarification has been added by
requiring the listing of any chemical the
facility is required to report pursuant to
section 313 of title Ill of SARA.
Another commenter felt that EPA
should not require information of past
storage of significant materials. EPA
agrees that this proposed requirement is
overbroad and has limited the time
frame to those materials that were
stored in areas 3 years or fewer from the
date of the permit application. The 3-
year limit is consistent with other
Agency reporting requirements as
discussed above,
One commenter questioned EPA’s
proposal not to provide for a waiver
from the requirement to submit
quantitative data if the applicant can
demonstrate that it is unnecessary for
permit issuance. Another commenter
said that a waiver is inappropriate EPA
believes relevant quantitative data are
essential to the process. but in this
rulemaking the number of pollutant,
that must be sampled and analyzed is
reduced compared to previous
regulations. The proposed rvqwrements
for quantitative data are limited to
pollutants that are appropriate for gwen
-------
Fedorol Register / VoL 55. No. 2 I Friday, November 16. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 4 1
slta..pedflc operations, thereby making
$ waiver unsecessaty.
Aithoagh thec n . pt ofawaiverls
sttractlve be ,e of the perceived
poh...11t r dnition In burtlesis for
=at- EPA believes that because
the storm wt discharge testing
i . .ti have already been
streamlined, a waiver would not in
practice provide significant reductions
in burden for either applicants or permit
Issuing authorities. Requirements to
provide and verify data demonstrating
that. Walvcr Is appropriate for a storm
water discharge may prove to be more
of. burden to the applicant and the
permitting authorities. Establishing such
a waiver procedure would be
administratIvely complex and time-
consumingfor both EPA and the
applicants, without any justifiable
benefit Therefore, this rulemaking does
not include a waiver provision.
In response to one commenter. EPA
wishe, to emphasize that if a facility has
zero storm water discharge because It is
di.chaigmg to a detention pond only. a
permit application is not required. Only
those discharges to the waters of the
United States or municipal systems need
submit notifications. individual or group
permit applications, or notices of intent
where applicable. However, if the
detention pond overflows or the
discharger anticipate, that it may
overflow, then a permit application
should be submitted.
Two commenters agreed with EPA’.
proposed requirement to have a
desaiption of past and present moterial
management practices and controls.
EPA believe, that this is important
information directly relating to the
quality of storm water that can be
expected at a particular facility and this
requirement 1. retained in today’s rile.
as with other historical
Information requirements, EPA as
limiting past practice, to those that
urt d within three years of the date
that the application is submitted. One
n .I iter argued that past practices
thould not be cons” 4 red unless there is
evidence that past practices cause
un t storm water quality problems.
EPA antinipates that the information
submitted by the applicant will be used
to make this determination and that
appropriate permit conditions can be
developed accordingly.
One commenter requested
dariiicaiion on the certification
requirement that the data and
information In the application Is true
end complete to the best of the
Lertilying officer’s knowledge. This is a
fim inental and Integral part of all
•‘IPO permit applications. It
essentially requires the signatory to
assure the permit writer, based upon his
or her personal knowledge, that the
information has been submitted WithOUt
a negligent. reckless, or purposeful
misrepresentation. EPA Intends to
Interpret this requirement in the same
mariner for storm water applications as
other applications.
4. Group Applications
Today’s final rule provides some
Industries with the option of
participating In a group application, In
lieu of submitting individual permits.
There are several reasons for the group
application. FIrst, the group application
procedure provides adequate
information for issuing permits for
certain classes of storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity. Second. numerous commenters
supported the concept of the group
application as a way to reduce the costs
and administrative burdens associated
w th storm water permit applications.
Third. group applications will reduce the
burden on the regulated community by
requiring the submission of quantitative
data from only selected members of the
group. Fourth. the group application
process will reduce the burden on the
permit issuing authority by
consolidating information for reviewing
permit applications and for developing
general permits suited to certain
industflal groups. Where general permits
are not appropriate or cannot be issued.
a group application can be used to
develop model individual pernuts. which
can significantly reduce the burden of
preparing individual permits.
As noted above in today’s preamble.
EPA intends to promulgate • general
permit that will cover many types of
industrial activity. Industrial discharger.
eligible for such permits will generally
be required to seek coverage by
submittal of a notice of intent Facilities
that are Ineligible for coverage under the
general permit will be required to submit
an individual permit application or
submit a group application. The group
application process promulgated today
will serve as an important component to
Implement Tier LU of EPA’. industrial
storm water permitting strategy
discussed above. The general permit
which EPA intends to promulgate in the
near future shall set forth what types of
facilities are eligible for coverage.
Some cominenters criticized the group
application procedure as an abdication
of EPA’. responsibility to effectively
deal with pollutants in storm water
discharges. One commeuter stated that
every facility subject to these
regulations should be required to submit
quantitative data. In response EPA
believas, as do numerous cominenters,
that the group 4 pp1ir n4i pzoce’ 4 ”e Isa
legitimate and effective way of dealing
with a large volume of ctanently
uncontrolled discharges. Th. only
difference between the groop
application procedure and Issuing
Individual permits based on Individual
applications is that the quantitative data
requirements from indivulual facilities
will be less if certain procedures are
followed. EPA Is convinced that marked
improvements in the process of issuing
permits will be achieved when these
procedures are followed. Where the
storm water discharge from a particular
facility is identified as posing a special
environmental risk, it can be required to
submit individual applications and
therefore separate quantitative data. It
should also be noted that submittal of a
group application does not exempt a
facility from suboutting quantitative
data on its storm water discharge durins
the term of the permit.
The final rule refines and clarifies
some of the requirements of the group
application approach set forth in the
December 7. 1988 proposal. Several
commentere requested that EPA add a
provision which would allow a facility
that becomes subject to the regulations
to “add on” to a group application after
that group application has already been
submitted. One commenter indicated
that some trade associations are
prohibited from engaging in an activity
which would not apply to all its
members, end that an “add on”
provision was needed an the event such
a prohibition was invoked. Another
commenter noted that where a group Is
particularly large, forexample one that
consists. of several thousand members,
that it would be a logistical feat to
ensure that all facilities eligible as
members of the group are properly
identified and lasted on the application
within the 120 day deadline for
submitting part 1A of the application.
EPA believes that a group applicant
should have a limited ability to add
facilities to the group after part IA has
been submitted and that a provision
which allows a group or group
representative an unbridled ability to
“add on” Is impractical for a number of
reasons. First. 10% of the facilitie, must
submit quantitative data. Adding
facilities alter the group has been
formed and approved would change the
number of facilities that have to submit
quantitative data on behalf of the group.
This would result in an unwarranted
administrative burden on the reviewing
authority, which is in the position of
having to examine the quantitative data
and determine the appropriateness of
group members (and those that are
-------
48 Federal Register I Vo’. 55, No. 222 c Friday, November 16, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
required to submit quantitative data)
within 2 months of receiving part I of
the group application. Further, during
the permit application process
permitting authorities will be developing
permit conditions for an Identified and
pre-determined group of facilities.
Allowing potentially significant numbers
of permit applicants to suddenly inject
themselves into a group application
could unnecessarily hamper or disrupt
the timely development of general and
model permits. In addition, if a facility
were “added on” the number of facilities
having to submit quantitative data may
drop below 10%. Thus the facility
desiring to “add on” may be put in the
position of having to submit the
quantitative data themselves, which
would clearly defeat the purpose of
being a part of the group application.
Nevertheless. EPA has added a
provision to 122.26(e) which enables
facilities to add on to a group
application at the discretion of the
EPA’s Office of Water Enforcement and
Permits, end upon a showing of good
cause by the group applicant. For the
reasons noted above. EPA anticipates
this provision will be invoked only in
limited cases where good cause is
shown. Facihties not properly identified
in the group application, and which
cannot meet the good cause test will be
required to submit individual permit
applications. EPA will advise such
facilities within 30 days of receiving the
request as to whether the facility may
add on.
However, the “add on’ facility must
meet the following requirements- The
application for the additional facility is
made within 15 months of the final rule:
and the addition of the facility does not
reduce the percentage of the facilities
that are required to submit quantitative
data to below 10% unless there are over
100 facilities that are submitting
quantitative data. Approval to become
part of a group application is obtained
from the group or the trade association
and is certified by a representative of
the group: approval for adding on to a
group is obtained from the Office of
Water Enforcement and Permits.
Several commenters stated that the
application requirements for groups are
so burdensome that the advantages of
the process are undermined These
concerns are addressed in greater detail
below. Among the requiremenis which
commenters obtected are the
requirements to list every group
member’, company by name and
address. EPA is convinced that a
condition precedent to approving a
group application is at least identifying
the nember. of the group Without such
Information It would be impossible to
determine if all the facilities are
sufficiently similar. EPA disagrees that
industrie, will be dissuaded from using
the group application process because
the advantages of the process are
undermined. Although commenlers
perceived many burdens associated
with individual permit applications, by
far the most significant burden
identified by the comments is the
requirement for obtaining and
submitting quantitative data. The group
application significantly reduces this
burden by requiring onlyio% of the
facilities to submit quantitative data if
the number in the group is over 100. If
the number I tt the group is over 1000.
then only 100 of the facilities need
submit quantitative information. If group
applicants develop cost sharing
procedures to reduce the financial and
administrative burdens of submitting
quantitative data, it is evident that
utilizing the group application could
save industries as much as 90% on the
most economically burdensome aspect
of the application.
Several commenters perceived that
the group application procedure did not
offer them significant savings because
under the proposal their particular
industry would only be required to test
for COD, BOD5. pH. TSS, oil and grease.
nitrogen. and phosphorous. These
commenters stated that sampling for
these pollutants is not particularly
expensive. EPA believes that even if a
group is required cnly to submit minimal
quantitative data on particular
pollutants, substantial savingscan
accrue to a particular industry if the
group has many members. This is
particularly true when the number of
outfall, to be sampled, the information
on storm events, and flow
measurements are factored into the cost
analysis. An additional benefit for
members of the group as welt as for
permit issuing agencies is that the
process of developing a permit,
including drafting and responding to
public comments on the permit, is
consolidated by the group application
process. Accordingly. it is less resource
intensive for the group to work with
permit issuance authorities to develop
well founded permit conditions.
One commenter raised a concern
about the situation where one of the
facilities that is designated for
submitting quantitative data drops out
of the group If this happened, then
another facility would have to submit
quantitative data. In response. EPA
notes that one approach would be for
the group to have one or two more
facilities submit quantitative data than
needed to avoid problems from such a
departure or to account for new
additions to the group. Certainly this
Issue goes directly to the facility
selection process which Is a critical
component of the group application: the
facilities need to be carefully selected
and reviewed by the group to prevent
such difficulties.
Several comments indicated a
confusion over what facilities are
eligible to take advantage of the group
application procedure. Any industry or
facility that is required to submit a
storm water permit application under
these regulations is eligible to
participate in 8 group application.
However, whether a facility can obtain
a storm water permit under a group
application procedure will depend upon
whether that facility is a member of the
same effluent guideline subcategory. or
is sufficiently similar to other members
of the group to be appropriate for a
general permit or individual permit
issued pursuant to the group application
Accordingly, group applications are not
limited to national trade associations
The agency believes that the language in
§ 122.28(c)(2) adequately addresses
these concerns. The process does not
prohibit a particular company with
multiple facilities from filing a group
application as long as those facilities are
sufficiently similar.
One commenter expressed concern
that a single company would not be able
to lake advantage of the group
application benefits unless the company
had more than ten facilities Under such
circumstances the company would have
to become integrated with a larger group
of facilities owned by other companies
in order to take advantage of the
benefits afforded by the group
application procedure In response. the
Agency is providmg for a group
application of between four and ten
members, however at least half the
facilities must submit daia One
commenter stated that the number of
facilities required to submit quantitative
data should be determined on a case by
case basis. EPA believe, that 10 percent
for groups with over ten members will
be easiest to implement for both
industry and EPA. and will ensure that
adequate representative quantitative
data are obtained so that meaningful
determinations of facility similarity can
be made and appropriate permit
conditions in general or model permits
can be developed
Another commenter suggested that
one facility with a multitude of storm
water discharge points should be able to
use the group permit application to
reduce the amount of quantitative data
-------
Federal Reg st.s/Vo1. 55, No. 222 I Friday. November 18. 1990 I Rules and Re ulafions
that it is required to submit. This I . an
accurate observation but only to the
extent that the facility combines with
several other facilitie, to form a group.
in which case only 10% of the facilities
ueed submit quantitative data. The
group application procedure in today’s
rule is desIgned for use by multiple
facilities only. However. if an individual
facility has 10 outfall. with ten
substantially identical effluents the
discharger may petition the Director to
sample only one of the outfall,, with
that data applying to the remaining
outfalls. See 122.21(g)(7). Thus.
existing authority already allows for a
“group-like” process for sampling a
subset of storm water outfeils at a single
facility.
Concern was expressed that the spill
reporting requirement from each facility
in part lB would preclude any group
from demonstrating that the facilities
sampled are “representative.” because
the incidence of past spills is very site-
specific. EPA notes that since it has
dropped the part lB requirements for
other reasons discussed below, this
comment is now moot.
Numerous commenters noted that if a
facility is part of a group application and
is subsequently rejected as a group
applicant, such an entity would not have
a full year to submit an individual
permit application. EPA agrees that this
is a significant concern. Accordingly,
those facilities that apply as a member
of a group application will be afforded a
full year from the time they are notif ed
of their re ection as a member of the
group to file an individual application.
EPA notes that it intends to act on group
application requests within 60 days of
receipt thus this approach will only
provide facilities that are rejected from
a group application a short extension of
the deadline for other indhldual
applications.
One commenter complained that the
cost of defending a group’s choice of
representative facilities may exceed the
cost of submitting an individual permit
application, thereby reducing the
incentive to apply as group The agency
anticipates that the selection process
will be one open to negotiation between
the affected parties and one that will
end in a mutually satisfactory group of
facilities. It is the intent of EPA to
reduce the costs of submitting a permit
application as much a. possible, while
providing adequate information to
support permitting activities.
Another commenter argued that the
use of model permits wi1 create a
di4incentive for participating in a group
because model permits may be used by
the permit iss unM authority to issue
individual permit. for discharges from
similar facilities that did not harticipate
in the group application. EPA does not
agree. The benefit of applying as a group
applicant is to take advantage of
reduced representative quantitative data
reqwrements. This incentive will exist
regardless of whether or how model
permits are used. Further, technology
transfer can occur during the
development of permits based on
individual applications as well as those
based on group applications.
One comnmenter suggested moving
some of the facility specific information
requirements of part I of the group
application to part 2 of the group
application in order to provide more
incentive to apply as a group. EPA has
considered this and believes such a
change would be inappropnate. Part I
information will be used to make an
informed decision about whether
individual facilities are appropriate as
group members and appropriate for
submitting representative quantitative
data. Furthermore, information burdens
from providing site specific factors in
part I is relatively minimal, and the
information requirements in the
proposed part lB application hate been
eliminated.
One cominenter suggested that trade
associations develop model permits
since they have the most knowledge
about the characteristics of the
industries they represent As noted
above. EPA expects that the industries
and trade aasoc ations will have input.
through the permit application process.
as to how permit conditiors for storm
waler discharges are developcd While
the applicant can submit proposed
permit conditions w th any type of
application. EPA ho ever cannot
delegate the drafting of model permits to
the parmittees. EPA is developing and
publishing guidance in conpunction with
this rulemaking for developing permit
conditions.
One commenter suggested that new
di .chargera should be able to take
advantage of general permits developed
pursuant to group applications. As with
other general permits, EPA anticipates
that such discharges will be able to Fall
within the scope of a general permit
based on a group application where
appropriate.
One commenter stated that the group
application doe . not benefit
municipalities since there is no
requirement for industrial discharges
through mw ’iicipal sewers to apply for a
permit. As noted in a previous
discussion, industrial discharges through
municipal sewers must be covered by an
NPDES permit. Such Facilities ‘nay avail
themselves of the group application
procedure. Also. municipalities are not
precluded front developing a group
application procedure under their
management plan for industries that
discharge into their municipal system . in
order to streamline developing controls
for such industries.
One industry wanted clarification that
Facilities located within a municipality
would be eligible to participate in a
group application. All industrial
activities required to submit an
individual peniut are entitled to submit
as part of group application, except
those with existing NPDES permits
covering storm water. Those facilities
that discharge through a municipal
separate storm sewer systems required
to submit an individual application
(because they do not fall within a
general permit) are not precluded from
using the group application procedure ii
appropriate.
Other municipalities expressed
confusion over the industrial group
application concept The following
responds to these comments. First.
municipalities are not eligible for
participation in a group application
because the group application process Is
des:gned for industrial activities
Sampling requirements for municipal
permit applications are already limited
to a small subset of the outfalis From the
system, as discussed below
Furthermore, permits for municipal
separate storm sewer systems will be
issued on a system-wide or jurisdiction-
wide basis, rather than individuall for
each ot.t(all. Thus, toddy’s rcgulaiion
aireddy incorporates a “gro’ipliks”
permit application process for
municipalities. Furthermore, it Is highI
unlikely that various municipal storm
sewer systems would be “substzint’aPy
similar’ enough to justify group
treatment in the same way as induqirta!
fdciliues. In response to another
comment, this regulation does not
directly give the municipality
enforcement power over members of an
industrial group who may be dischiirging
through its system. Only the permitting
authority and private citizenc and
organizations (including the
municipality acting in such a capaci yj
sill have enforcrme it puw. ’r over
members of the group once permits are
issued to those members
One commenter believed that the
Staies with author.zed NPDES program’
rather than EPA should establish permit
terms for permits based on group
applications In response to this
comment, EPA wishes to clarify its role
in the group application process. Group
applications will be submitted to EPA
headquarters where they will be
reviewed and summarized. The
-------
48 4 Federal Register I VoL 55. No. 222 / Friday. November 16. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
summaries of’ the group application will
be distributed to authorized NPDES
States. EPA wishes to emphasize that
NPDES States are not bound by draft
model permits developed by EPA. States
may adopt model permits for use In their
particular area, making adjustments for
Local water quality standards and other
regional characteristics. Where general
permit coverage is believed to be
inappropriate, facilities may be required
to apply (or individual permits. One
commenter objected to the group
application procedure because it is not
Consistent with existing Federal
permitting procedures, which will lead
to confusion in the regulated community.
The agency disagrees with this
assessment. The group application s a
departure from established NPDES
program procedures. However, the
comments, when viewed in their
entirety, reflect widespread support
from the regulated community for a
group application procedure. Further.
the comments reflect that those affected
by this rulemaking understand the
components of the group application and
the procedures under which permits will
be obtained pursuant to the group
ipplication.
One commenter expressed concern
regarding how BAT limits for groups of
similar industries will be developed.
Technology based limits will be
developed based on the information
received from the group applicanis, If
ilie group applicants possess similar
characteristics in terms of their
discharge. BAT/BCT limitations and
controls will be developed accordingly
for those members of the group If the
discharge characteristics are not similar
then applying industries are not
appropriate for the group.
One commenter has suggested that
e proposed group application is too
complex with regard to the part IA. part
lB. and part 2 group application
requirements and that EPA should
repropose these provisions. As
discussed below. EPA has simplified the
industrial group application
requirements by eliminating the part 18
application. Thus. reproposal is
unnecessary.
One commenler crilicized the group
application concept as not achieving
any type of reduction in aJi mnistrative
burden for NPOES States EPA disagrees
with this assessment If industries take
advantage of the group application
procedure. EPA will have an opportunity
to review information describing a large
number of dischargers in an organized
manner. EPA wilt perform much of the
initial review and analysis of the group
application, and provide NPDES Slates
with summaries of the applications
thereby reducing the burden on the
States. Furthermore, the procedure
encourages a potentially large number of
facilitie, to be covered by s general
permit, which will clearly reduce the
administrative burden of issuing
individual permits.
The final rule establishes a regulatory
procedure whereby a representative
entity, such as a trade association. may
submit a group application to the Office
of Water Enforcement and Permits
(OWEP) at EPA headquarters, in which
quantitative data from certain
representative members of a group of
industrial facilities is supplied.
Information received in the group
application will be used by EPA
headquarters to develop models for
individual permits orgeneral permits
These model permits are not issued
permits, but rather they will be used by
EPA Regions and the NPDES States to
issue individual or general permits for
participating facilities in the State In
developing such permits, the Region or
NPDES State will, where necessary.
adapt the model permits to lake into
account the hydrological conditions arid
receiving water quality in their area.
One commenter expressed the view that
having this procedure managed by EPA
l’eadquarters would cause delays and it
should be delegated to the States and
Regions. EPA disagrees that delay will
ensue using this procedure Furthermore.
consistency in development of model
and general permits can be achieved if
application review is coordinated at
EPA headquarters.
a Facilities Covered Under this rule
tt e group application is submitted for
only the facilities specificalk listed in
the application and not necessanly for
an entire industry. The facilities in the
group application selected to do
sampling must be represenlati e of the
group. not necessarily of the industry
Facilities that are sufficiently similar
to those covered in a general permit
(issued pursuant to 8 group application)
that commence discharging after the
general permit has been issued, must
refer to the provisions of that general
permit to determine if they are eligible
for coverage. Facilities that have
already been issued an individual
permit for storm water discharges will
not be eligible for participation in a
group application. Several commenters
believed that this restriction is
inequitable since they have experienced
the administrative burden of submitting
a permit application. EPA disagrees.
lr.du,iries that have already obtained a
permit for storm water discharges have
developed a storm waler management
program. engaged in the collection of
quantitative data, and possess
familiarity and experience with
submitting storm water permit
applications. The Agency sees no point
to instituting an entirely new permit
application process for facilities that
have storm water permits issued
individually. It makes little sense for
these industries to be involved with
submitting another permit application
before their current permit expires.
As noted above, once a general permit
has been issued to a group of
dischargers. a new facility may request
that they be covered by the general
permit. The permitting authonty can
then examine the request in light of the
general permit applicability
requirements and determine whether the
facility is suitable or not.
b. Scope of Group Applications
Numerous comments were received on
how facilities should be evaluated as
members of a group application. Several
commenters stated that effluent
limitation guideline subcategories are
not relevant to pollutants found in storm
water, but rather to the facilitys
everyday activities, sad therefore
similarity should be based on each
facility’s discharge or the similarity of
pollutants expected to be found in a
facility’s discharge. Other conimenters
Felt that similarity of operations at
facilities should be the cnteria Others,
,betieved that sri examination of the
facility’s impact on storm water quality
should be the applied criteria Other
commenters suggested that EPA provide
more guidance as to how broadly groups
can be defined and that a failure to do so
would discourage facilities from going to
the trouble and expense of entering into
the group application process. Some
commeniers were concerned that
facilities would be retected as a group
because of variations in processes and
process wastewater characteristics.
EPA does not agree that effluent
limitation guideline subcategories are
inappropriate as a method for
determining group applications. EPA
guideline subcategories are functional
classifications, breaking down facilities
into groups. for purposes of setting
effluent limitations guidelines The use
of EPA subcategories will save time For
both applicants and permitting
authorities in determining whether a
particular group is appropriate for a
group application. Furthermore. EPA
believes that this method of grouping
provides adequate guidance for
determining what facilities are grouped
together. Establishing groups on the
cx lent to which a facility s discharge
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55. No. 222 I Friday. November 16 1990 / Rules and Regulations
affects storm water quality would not
provide applicants with sufficient
guidance as to the appropriateness of
Individual Industries for group
applications and would not provide
Informadon needed to draft appropriate
model permIt conditions for potentially
different types of industries. industrial
processes, and material management
practices.
However. EPA recognizes that the
subcategory designations may not
always be available or an effective
methodology for groupfngqappllcants.
Alas. there are sitMations where
processes that are subject to different
subcategories are combined. EPA agrees
that the group application option should
be flexible enough to allow groups to be
reated where subcategories are too
rigid or otherwise inappropriate for
developing group applications or where
facilities are integrated or overlap into
other subcategories. For these reasons.
this ruleniaking does not limit the
submission to EPA subcategories alone.
but rather allows groups to be formed
where facilities are similar enough to be
appropriate for general permit coverage
In determining whether a group is
appropriate for general permit coverage.
EPA intends that the group applicant
use the factors set forth in 40 CFR
122.28(aJ(2J(u). the current regulations
governing general permits, as a guide. If
facilities all involve the same or similar
types of operations, discharge the same
types of wastes, have the same effluent
limitation and same or similar
monitoring requirements. where
applicable, they would probably be
appropriate for a group application. To
that extent facilities that attempt to
form groups where the constituent
makeup of its process wastewater is
dissimilar may run the risk of not being
accepted for purposes of. group
application.
Some cominenters expressed the view
that categories formed using general
permit Factors are too broad or that the
language is too vague. One commenter
expressed the view that the standard is
too subjective and that permit writers
will be evaluating th. similarity of
discharge too subtectively. while othes
commenters felt that the aiteria should
be broad and flexible. Other
commenters stated that the effluent
guideline subcategory or general permit
coverage factors are not related to atom
water discharges. because much of the
criteria are based upon what is
occumrig inside the plant rather thai ’
activities outside of the plant EPA
believe, that these criteria are
reasonable for defining the scope of a
group application. F.PA disagree. that
the procedure, which is adequate for the
issuance of general permits, is
inadequate for the development of a
group application. EPA believes that the
activities Inside a facility will generally
correspond to actlvibea outside of the
plant that are exposed to storm events.
including stack emissions, material
storage. and waste products.
Furthermore. If facilities are able to
demonstrate their storm water discharge
has similar characteristics, that is one
element in the analysis needed for
establishing that the group is
appropriate. EPA disagrees that the
criteria are too vague. If facilities are
concerned that general permit criteria is
insufficient gvidance. then subcategories
under 40 CFR subchapter N should be
used. EPA believes that the program will
function beat if flexibility for creating
groups is maintained.
If a NPDES approved State feels that a
tighter grouping of applicants is
appropriate individual permit
applications can be requested from
those permit applicants. One commenter
indicated that it was not clear whether
the group application procedure could
be used for all NPDES requirements
E1’i would clarify that the group
application is designed only to cover
storm water discharges from the
industrial Facilities identified in
122.28(b)(14).
As noted above. EPA wishes to clanf
that facilities with existing individual
NPDES permits for storm water are not
eligible to participate in the group
apl.lication process From an
administrative s:andpoint EPA is not
rrepared to create an entirely different
mechanism for permitting industries
which already ha’.e such permits
c. Group Apphcolwn Requ:remen
The group application, as proposed.
included the following requirements in
three separate parts. Part 1A of a group
application included. (A) Identification
of the participants in the group
application by name and location. (B) a
narrative description summarizing the
industrial activities of participant.. (C) a
list of significant material, stored
outside by participants: and (D)
identification of 10 percent of the
discharger. participating in the group
application for submitting quantitative
data A proposed part lB of the group
application included the following
information from each participant in the
group application. (A) A site map
showing topography (or indicating the
outlinc of drainage areas served by the
outfall(s) and related information: (B) an
estimate of the area of impervious
surfaces (including paved areas and
budding roofs) and the total area
drained by each outfall and a narrative
description of significant materials: (C) a
certification that all outfails that should
contain storm water discharges
associated taith industrial activity have
been tested for the presence of non-
storm water discharges: (D) existing
information regarding significant leaks
or spills of toxic or hazardous pollutants
at the facility: (E) a narrative description
of industrial activities at the facility that
are different from or that are in addition
to the activities described under part
IA: and (F) a list of all constituents that
are addressed in a NPDES permit issued
to the facility for any of non-storm water
discharge. Part 2 of a group application
required quantitative data from 10
percent of the facilit’es identified
Some commenters felt that spiit
histories, drainage maps. material
management practices. and information
on significant materials stored outside
are too burdensome or meaningless for
evatuating similarity of dischnrges
among group applicants. Several
cornmenters stated that such
requirements where the group may
consist of several thousand faciI.!ie
were impractical and would cot i’ssic t
EPA in develop ng model permits Man
conimenters insisted that the
requirements imposed in part lB would
eFfectively discourage use of the group
application procedure. EPA agrees in
large part ivit t i these comments. After
reevaluating t ie ccmponents ci part i
arid the entire rationcle fur instituting
the group application procedure. [ ‘PA
iwS decided o excise part lB from the
requirements. and rely on part IA and
part 2 for developing appropriate permit
condition. Where appropriate. EPA may
require facilities to submit the
information, formerly in part 18. during
the term of the permit In other cases.
EPA will establish which facilities must
submit individual permit appl cations
where more site specific permits are
appropriate.
Under the revised part I and part 2.
EPA will receive information pertaining
to the type, of industrial activity
engaged in by the group, materials used
by the facilities, and representative
quantitative data. EPA can use such
information to develop management
practu.es that address pollutants in
storm water discharges from such
faci!ities For most facilities, general
good housekeeping or management
practices will eliminate pollutants in
storm water Such requirements can be
further refined by determining the
nature of a group s industrial activity
and by obtaining information on
material used at the facility and
representative quantitative data iroci a
-------
48 6 Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 222 / Friday. November 18. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
percentage of the facibties. Thus. EPA Is
cunfident that model permits and
general permits can be developed from
the Information to be submitted under
part I and part 2.
One commenter felt that more
guidance on what makes a facility
representative for sampling as part of a
group is needed, lt response, the
Agency believes the rule as currently
drafted provides adequate notice.
Another commenter asked how much
sampling needed to be done and how
much monitoring will transpire over the
life of the permit for members of a
group. This will vary from permit to
permit and will be determined in permit
proceedings. This rulemaking only
covers the quantitative data that is to be
submitted in the context of the group
permit application
One commeriter indicated that
because of the amount of diversity in the
operations of a particular industry.
obtaining a sample that could be
considered representative would be
extremely difficult EPA recognizes that
obtaining representative quantitative
data through the group application
process will prove to be difficult.
hiwever. EPA has sought to minimize
these perceived problems. Under the
group application concept, industries
must be sufficiently similar to qualify.
Industries which have significantly
different operation, from the rest of the
group that affects the quality of their
storm water discharge may be required
to obtain an individual permit Use of
the nine precipitation zones will enable
the data in the permit application to be
more easily analyzed and patterns
observed on the basis of hydrology and
other regional factors How EPA will
evaluate the representativenegs of the
sample is discussed below.
- Several commenters asked why the
precipitation zone of group members is
relevant to the application. The need to
identify precipitation zones arises
because the amount of rainfall is likely
to have a significant impact on the
quality of the receiving water.
According to en EPA study
Methodology for Analysis of Detention
Basins for Control of Urban Runoff
Quality’. Office of Water. Nonpoint
Source Branch. Sept 1986) the United
States can be divided into nine general
precipitation zones. These zones are
characterized by differences in
precipitation volume. precipitation
intensity, precipitation duration, and
precipitation intervals. Industrial
facilities that seek general permits via
the group application option may show
significantly different loading rates as a
result of these regional precipitation
differences. As an example.
precipitation In Seattle, Washington.
located in Zone 7. approaches the mean
annual storm intensity of .024 inchesf
hour with a mean annual storm duration
of 20 hours for that Zone. In contrast.
precipitation In Atlanta, Georgia.
located in Zone 3 approaches the mean
annual storm intensity of .102 inches!
hour and a mean storm duration of 6.2
hours for that Zone. Atlanta. receives on
the average four times more
precipitation per hour with storms
lasting one-third as long. As a result of
these differences, if identical facilities
within a group application were situated
in each of these areas, their storm water
discharges would likely exhibit different
pollutant charactenstics. Accordingly,
data should be submitted from facilities
in each zone.
One commenter felt that the EPA
should abandon or modify its rainfall
zone concept. because storm water
quality will depend more on what
materials are used at the facility than
rainfall. EPA disagrees. Because storm
water loading rates may differ
significantly as a result of regional
precipitation differences, it is necessary
that for each precipitation zone
containing representatives of a group
application, the group must provide
samples from some of those
representatives. In comments to
previous rulemakings it was argued that
the amount of rainfall will affect the
degree of impact a storm water
discharge may have on the receiving
stream
One commenter stated that the
precipitation zones illustrated in
appendix E of the proposed rulemaking
do not adequately reflect regional
differences in precipitation and that in
some cases the zones cut through cities
where there are concentrations of
Industrie, without differences in their
precipitation patterns. The rainfall zone
map is a general guide to determining
what areas of the country need to be
addressed when determining
representative rainfall events and
quantitative data. When dealing with
rainfall on a national scale, it is near
impossible to make generalized
statements with a great deal of
accuracy. In the case of rainfall zones.
rainfall patterns may be similar for
facilities in close proximity to each
other but none the less in different
rainfall zones In response. EPA has
created these zones to reflect regional
rainfall patterns as accuiately as
possible Because of the variable nature
of rainfall such circumstance, are sure
to arise However, in order to obtain a
degree of representativeness EPA is
convinced that the use of these rainfall
zones as described is appropnate for the
submittal of group applications and (he
quantitative data therein.
The second arid third requirements of
part I of the group application instruct
the applicant to describe the industrial
activity (processes) and the significant
materials used by the group. For the
significant materials listed, the applicant
is to discuss the materials management
practices employed by members of the
group. For example, the applicant should
identify whether such materials are
commonly covered, contained, or
enclosed, and whether storm water
runoff from materials storage areas is
collected in settling ponds prior to
discharge or diverted away from such
areas to minimize the likelihood of
contamination. Also, the approximate
percentage of facilities in the group with
no practices in place to minimize
materials stored outside is to be
identified.
EPA considers that the processes and
materials used at a particular facility
may have a bearing on the quality of the
storm water Thus, if there are different
processes and materials used by
members of the group, the application
must identify those facilities utilizing the
different processes and materials, with
an explanation as to why these facilities
should still be considered similar.
One commeriter felt that a facility
should be able to describe in its permit
application the possibility of individual
materials entering receiving waters. EPA
supports the applicant adding site
specific inform ion which will assist
the permit writer making art informed
decision about the nature of the facility,
the quality of its storm water discharge.
and appropnate permit conditions.
The fourth element of part I of the
group application is a commitment to
submit quantitative data from ten
percent of the facilities listed. EPA
proposed that there must be a minimum
of ten and a maximum of one hundred
facilities within a group that submit
data. Comments reflected some
dissatisfaction with this requirement.
Some commenters asserted that ten
percent was too high a number and
would discourage group applications.
while one commenter suggested a lesser
percentage would be appropriate where
the group can certify that facilities are
representative One commenter
suggested that EPA have the discretion
to allow for a smaller percentage
Several commenters argued that EPA
should be satisfied with fewer than ten
percent because EPA often relies on
data from less than ten percent of the
plants in a subcategory when
promulgating effuent guidelines and that
EPA should rely on data collection goals
-------
Federal RegIster / Vol. 55, No. 222 I Friday, November 16. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
with affected groups as was done in the
1985 storm water proposal. Other
co inmenters pointed out that an
anomalous situation could arise where
the group was small and facilities were
scattered throughout the precipitation
zones. For example. If a group consisted
of 20 members where a minimum of ten
facilities had to submit samples, and
two or more members were in each
precipitation zone a total of 16 facilities
(90% of the group) would have to submit
quantitative data. EPA believes that
there must be a sufficient number of
facilitie, submitting data for any
patterns and trends to be detectable.
However, in light of these comments
EPA ha, decided to modify the language
in I 122.25(c) to allow I discharger in
each precipitation zone to submit
quantitative data where 10 or fewer of
the group members are located in a
particular precipitation zone EPA
believes, howe er. that one hundred
facilities would in most cases be
sufficient to characterize the nature of
the runoff and thus 100 should remain
the maximum. lithe data are
insufficient. EPA has the authority to
request more sampling under section 308
of the CWA.
One commenter suggested that the ten
facility cutoff was unreasonable, and
that instead of cutting off the group at
ten. allow a smaller number in the group
and allow the facilities to sample ten
percent of their outfalls instead. EPA
agrees. in part, and will allow groups of
between four and ten to submit a group
application. However, the ten percent
rule would not be effective in such
cases. Therefore, at least half the
facilities in a group of four to ten will be
required to provide quantitative data
from at least one outfall, with each
precipitation zone represented by at
least one facility.
For any group application, in addition
to selecting a sufficient number of
facilities from each precipitation zone.
facilities selected to do the sampling
should be representative of the group as
a whole in terms of those charactenstice
Identifying the group which were
desaibed in the narrative. i.e. number
and range of facilities, types of
processes used, and any other relevant
factors, if there is some variation in the
processes used by the group (40 percen’
of the group of food processors are
canners and 60 percent are canners and
freezers, for example). the different
processes are to be represented. Also.
samples are to be provided from
tacilitits utilizing the materials
management practices identified.
induding those facilities which use no
materials management practices. The
representation of these different factors.
to the extent feasible, is to be roughly
equivalent to their proportion in the
group.
EPA wishes to emphasize that the
provision that ten percent of the
facilities need to submit quantitative
data only applies to the permit
application process. The general or
Individual permit itself may require
quantitative data from each facility.
Submittal of Part 20! the Group
Application. As with part 1, part 2 of the
Group Application would be submitted
to the Office of Water Enforcement and
Permits, in Washington. DC. If the
information is incomplete, or simply is
found to be an inadequate basis for
establishing model permit limits. EPA
has the authority under section 308 of
the Clean Water Act to require that
more information be submitted, which
may include sampling from facilities that
were part of the group application but
did not provide data with the initial
submission. lithe group application is
used by a Region or NPDES State to
issue a general permit, the general
permit should specify procedures for
additional coverage under the permit.
If a part 2 is unacceptable or
insufficient. EPA has the option to
request additional information or to
require that the facilities that
participated in the group application
submit complete individual applications
(e.g. facilities that have submitted Form
1 with the group application may be
required to submit Form ZF. or facilities
which have submittea complete Form I
and Form 2F informationin the group
application generally would not have to
submit additional information)
Once the group applications are
reviewed and accepted. EPA will use
the information to establish draft pei ’mit
terms and conditions for models for
individual and general permits. NPDES
approved States and EPA regional
offices will continue to be the permit.
issuing authority for storm water
discharges. The NPDES approved States
accepting the group application
approach and the EPA Regions may then
take the model permits and adapt them
for their particular area, making
adjustments for local water quality
standards and other localized
characteristics, and making
determinations as to the need for an
individual storm water permit where
general permit coverage is felt to be
inappropriate Permits would be
proposed by the Region or NPDES
approved State in accordance with
current regulations for public comment
before becoming final In NPDES States
wihout general permit authonty. or
where an individual permit Is deemed
appropriate, the model permit can serve
as the basis for issuing an Individual
permit.
The group application is an NPDES
permit application just like any other
and, as such, would be handled through
normal permitting procedures, subject to
the regulatory provisions applicable to
permit issuance Incomplete or
otherwise inadequate submissions
would be handled in the same manner
as any other inadequate permit
application. The permit issuing authority
would retain the right to require
submission of Form 1. Form 2C and
Form 2F from any individual discharger
it designates
Some cornm niers offered other
procedures for developing a group
application procedure: however, these
were frequently entirely different
approaches or so novel that a
reprciposal would be required. One
comrnenter suggested that those
industries that are identified as being
likely to pollute should be required to
submit qudntitati.e data Numerous
commer.ters contended that a generic
approach for meeting the required
information requirements for group
applications would allow EPA to
develop adequate general permits EPA
does not view these approaches as
appropriate.
5 Group Application: Applicability in
NPDES States
Many commenters expressed concern
about how the group application
procedure will work within the
framework clan NPDES approved State
The relationship between EPA and he
States thai are authorized to administer
the NPDES program. including
implementation of the storm water
program. is a complicated aspect of this
rulemaking. Approved States (t 1 ere are
38 States and one territory so approved)
must have requirements that are at least
as stringent as the Federal program: they
may be more stringent if they choose.
Authonty to issue general permits is
optional with NPDES States.
EPA has determined that ten percent
of the facilities must provide
quantitative data in the permit
application as noted above
Furthermore, these applications are
submitted to EPA headquarters
Consequently States, whether NPDES
approved or not, are not in a position to
reject or modify this requirement Such
States may determine the amount of
sampling to be done pursuant to permit
conditions If they choos2 to issue
general permits they may include such
authorit , in their NPDES program and.
-------
6 Federal Register I Vol. 55 No. 222 / Fnday , November 16, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
upon approval of the program by EPA.
may then issue general permits. Within
the context of the NPDES provisions of
the CWA. If States do not have general
permitting authority, then general
permits are not available in those
States.
In response to one comment. EPA
does not have authority to issue general
or individual permits to facilities in
NPDES approved states. Today’s rule
provides a means for affected industries
to be covered by general permits
developed via the group application
procedure as well as from general
permits developed independently of the
group application process. Accordingly,
today’s rule anticipates that most
NPDES States will seek general permit
issuance authority to implement the
storm water program in the most
efficient and economical way. Without
general permit issuance authority
NPDES States will be required to issue
individual permits covering storm water
discharges to potentially thousands of
industrial facilities.
One commenter recommended that
Slates with approved NPDES programs
should be involved in determining what
industries are representative for
submitting quantitative data. EPA
recognizes that States will have an
interest in this determination and may
possess insight as to the
appropriateness of using some facilities.
However. EPA may be managing
hundreds of group applications and
approving or disapproving them as
expeditiously as possible EPA believes
that involving the States in this already
administratively complex and time
consuming undertaking would be
counterproductive In any event. NPDES
approved States are not bound by the
determinations of EPA as to the
appropriateness of groups or the
issuance of permits based on model
permits or individual permits. However,
States will be encouraged to use model
permits that are developed by EPA. EPA
will endeavor to design general and
model permits that are effective while
also adaptable to the concerns of
different States. Again. States are able
to develop more stringent standards
%yhere they deem it to be appropriate.
There are currently seventeen States
that have authority to issue general
permits: Arkansas. Colorado. Illinois.
Kentucky. Minnesota. Missouri,
Montana. New Jersey. North Dakota.
Oregon. Rhode Island. Utah,
Washington. West Virginia and
Wisconsin. A. suggested in the
ccimments. EPA is encouraging more
S’etes to develop general permit issuin.
authority in order to facilitate the
permitting process.
One commenter advised that the rules
should state that a NPI)ES approved
State may accept a group application or
require additional Information. EPA has
decided not to explicitly state this in the
rule. However, this comment does raise
some points that need to be addressed.
Because the group application option is
a modification of existing NPDES permit
application requirements, the State is
free to adopt this option, but is not
required to. If the State chooses to adopt
the group application and It does not
have general permit authority, the group
application can be used to issue
individual permits. If an approved
NPDES State chooses to not issue
permits based on the group application.
facilities that discharge storm water
associated with industrial activity that
are located in that State must submit
individual applications to the State
permitting authority. Before submitting a
group application, facilities should
ascertain from the State permitting
authority whether that State intends to
issue permits based upon a group
application approved by EPA for the
purpose of developing general permits.
For facilities that discharge storm water
i ssociated with industrial activity which
are named in a group application, the
Director may require an individual
facility to submit an individual
application where he or she determines
that general permit coverage would be
inappropriate for the particular facility.
One commenter stressed that EPA
should streamline the procedure for
States desiring to obtain general permit
coverage. EPA has, over the last year.
streamlined this procedure and
encourages States to take advantage of
this procedure. EPA recommends that
States consider obtaining general permit
authority as a means to efficiently issue
permits for storm water discharges.
These States should contact the Office
of Water Enforcement and Permits at
EPA Headquarters as soon as possible.
6. Group Application: Procedural
Concerns
One ccmrnenter claimed tnat the
proposed group application process and
procedures violated federal law. This
cornmenter daimed that EPA was
abrogating its responsibility by allowing
a trade association to design a data
collection plan in lieu of completing an
NPDES application form designed by
EPA. thus violating the Federal
Advisory Committee Act. The
commenter stated that EPA would be
improperly influenced by special
interests if trade associations were able
to desigr. their own storm water data
gathering plans. The comnienter further
asserted that any decisions by EPA on
the content of specific group
applications would be rulemakings and
thus subject to the provisions of the
Administrative Procedure Act
EPA disagrees with the comment that
the group application violates the
Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA). FACA govern.s only those
groups that are established or “utilized”
by an agency for the purpose of
obtaining “advice” or
“recommendations.” The group
application option does not solicit or
involve any “advice” or
“recommendations.” It simply allows
submission of data by certain members
of a group in accordance with specific
regulatory criteria for determining which
facilities are “representative” of a group.
As such, the group application is merely
a submission in accordance and in
compliance with specific regulatory
requirements and does not contain
discretionary uncircumscnbed “advice’
or “recommendations” as to which
facilities are representative of a group
Thus, the determination of which
facilities should submit testing data in
accordance with regulatory criteria is
little different from many other
regulatory requirements where an
applicant must submit information in
accordance with certain criteria. For
example, under 40 CFR 122.21 all
outfalls must be tested except where
two or more have “substantially
identical” effluents. Similarly.
quantitative data for certain pollutants
are to be provided where the applicant
knows or “has reason to believe” such
pollutants are discharged. Both of these
provisions allow the applicant to
exercise discretion in making certain
judgments but such action is
circumscribed by regulatory standards.
EPA further has authority to require
these facilities to submit individual
applications. In none of these instancec
are “recommendations” or “advice”
Involved, EPA also notes that it is
questionable whether, in providing for
group applications, it is “soliciting”
advice or recommendations from groups
or that such groups are being “utilized ’
by EPA as a “preferred source” of
advice. See 48 FR 19324 (April 28, 19831.
Furthermore, this data collection effort
may be supplemented by EPA if, after
review of the data. EPA determines
additional data is necessary for permit
issuance Other information gathering
may act as a check on the group
applications received.
EPA also does not agree with thib
commenter’s claim that the group
application scheme represents an
-------
Federal Register I VoL 55, No. 222 I Friday. November 16. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 4 O29
tmpermlsifb!e delegation qfjbe
Mnthii’frator’s function In violation of
the CWA regarding data gathering. The
Administrator hai the broadest
discretion In determining what
Information is needed for permit
davelcpmeet as well as the manner In
which such Information will be
collected. Tb. CWA does not require
every discharger required to obtain a
permit to file an application. Nor does
the CWA require that the Administrator
obtain data on which a permit Is to be
based through a formal application
process (see 40 CTR 12221). For years
‘ appIicat1ons ” have not been required
from discharger. covered by general
permits. EPA currently obtains much
Information beyond that provided in
applications pursuant to section 308 of
the CWA. Thi, Is especially true with
respect to general permit and effluent
limitations guidelines development The
group application optIon I . simply
another means of data gathering. The
Administrator may always collect more
data should he determine it necessary
upon review of a groups’ data
submission. And, he may obtain such
additional data by whatever means
permiuible under the Statute that he
deems appiupriate. Thus, it can hardly
be said that by this In itial data gathering
effort the Administrator has delegated
hi, data gathering responsibilities, In
addition, since groups are required to
select “representative” facilities. etc.. In
accordance with specific regulatory
requirements established by the
Administrator and because EPA will
scrutinize part I of the group
applications and either accept or reject
the group as appropriate for a group
application, no impermissible delegation
ha. occurred. EPA will make an
Independent determinatioii of the
acceptability of a group application In
view of the information required to be
submitted by the group applicant, other
Information available to EPA (such as
Information on Industrial subcategories
obtained in developing effluent
limitations guideline, as well as
individual storm water applications
received as a result of today’s rule) and
any further information EPA may
request to supplement part I pursuant to
section 305 of the CWA. Moreover, any
concerns that a general permit may be
based upon biased data can be dealt
with in the public permit issuance
process.
Finally. EPA also does not agree that
the group application option violates the
Mmini ,itzative Procedure. Act. Again.
the group application scheme is simply 0
data gathering device. EPA could very
well have determined to gather data
Informally via specific requests pursuant
to section 308 of the CWA. In fact,
general permit and effluent limitations
guideline development proceed along
these lines. It would make little sense If
the latter informal data gathering
process were somehow illegal simply
because It I, set forth In a rule that
allows applicants some relief upon
certain showings. In this respect, several
of EPA’s existing regulations similarly
allow an applicant to be relieved from
certain data submission requirements
upon appropriate demonstrations. For
example, testing for certain pollutants
and or certain outfalls may be waived
under certain circumstances. Most
Importantly, the operative action of
concern that impacts on the public is
Ind ividual or general permit issuance
based upon data obtained. As
previously stated, ample opportunity for
public participation is provided in the
permit Issuance proceeding,
7. Permit Applicability and Applications
for Oil and Gas and Mining Operations
Oil, gas and mining facilities are
among those Industrial sites that are
likely to discharge storm water runoff
that is contaminated by process wastes.
toxic pollutants, hazardous substances.
or oil and grease. Such contamination
can Include disturbed soils and process
wastes containing heavy metals or
suspended or dissolved solids, salts,
surfactants. or solvents used or
produced In oil and gas operations.
Because they have the potential for
serious water quality impacts. Congress
recognized, throughout the development
of the storm water provisions of the
Water Quality Act of 1987. the need to
control storm water discharges from oil.
gas. and mining operations. as well as
those associated with other industrial
activities.
However, Congress also recognized
that there are numerous situations In the
mining and oil and gas industries where
storm water Is channeled around plants
and operations through a series of
ditches and other structural devices in
order to prevent pollution of the storm
water by harmfui contaminants. From
the standpoint of resource drain on both
EPA as the permitting agency and
potential permit applicants. the
conclusion was that operators that use
good management practices and make
expenditures to prevent contamination
must not be burdened with the
requirement to obtain a permit. Hence.
section 402(1)(2) creates a statutory
exemption from storm water permitting
requirements for uncontaminated runoff
from these facilities.
To implement section 402(13(2). EPA
intends to require permits for
contaminated storm water discharges
from oil, gas and mining operations.
Storm water discharge. that are not
contaminated by contact with any
overburden, raw material. Intermediate
products, finished product. byproduct or
waste products located on the site of
such operations will not be required to
obtain a storm water discharge permit.
The regulated discharge associated
with industrial activity is the discharge
from any conveyance used for collecting
and conveying storm water located at
an industrial plant or directly related to
manufacturing, processing or raw
materials storage areas at an industrial
plant. Industrial plants include facilities
classified as Standard Industnal
Classifications (SIC) 10 through 14 (the
mining industry), including oil and gas
exploration, production. processing, and
treatment operations, as well as
transmission facilities. See 40 CFR
1.22.28(b)(14)(ui). This also includes
plant areas that are no longer used for
such activities, as well as areas that are
currently being used for industrial
processes
a. Oil and Gas Operations. In
determining whether storm water
discharges from oil and gas facilities are
“contaminated”, the legislative history
reflects that the EPA should consider
whether oil, grease. or hazardous
materials are present in storm wattr
runoff from the sites described above in
exce’s of reportable quantities (RQs)
under section 311 of the Clean Water
Act or section 102 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response.
Compensation. and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA). (Vol. 132 Cong. Rec. H10574
(daily ed. October 15. 19883 Conference
Reportj.
Many of the comments received by
EPA regarding this exemption focused
on the concern that EPA’. test for
requiring a permit Is and would subject
an unnecessarily large number of oil and
gas facilities to permit application
requirements. Specific comments made
In support of this concern are addressed
below.
A primary issue raised by cornmenters
centered on how to determine when a
storm water discharge from an oil or gas
facility is “contaminated”, and therefore
subject to the permitting program under
section 402 of the CWA. Many of the
comments received from industry
representatives objected to the Agency’s
intent as expressed in the proposal to
use past discharges as a trigger for
submitting permit applications.
The proposed rule provided that the
notification requirements for releases in
excess of RQs established under the
CWA and CERCLA would serve as a
-------
I Federal Regsstar / Vol 55, No. 222 / Friday , November 16, 19g0 / Rules and Regulations
basis for triggering the submittal of
permit applications for storm water
discharges from oil and gas facilities. As
described in the proposal, oil and gas
operations that have been required to
notify authorities of the release of either
oil or a hazardous substance via a storm
water route would be required to submit
a permit application. In other words, any
facility required to provide notification
of the release of an RQ of oil or a
hazardous substance in storm water in
the past would be required to apply for a
storm water permit under the current
rule. In addition, any facility required to
provide notification regarding a release
occurring from the effective date of
todays ruie forward would be required
to apply for a storm water permit.
Commenters maintained that the use
of historical discharges to require permit
applications is inconsistent with the
language and intent of section 402(1)(2)
of the CWA. and relevant legislative
history, both of which focus on present
contamination. Requiring storm water
permits based solely on the occurrence
of past contaminated discharges, even
where no present contamination is
evident, would go beyond the statutory
requirement mat EPA not issue a permit
absent a finding present contamination.
Commenters also noted that the
proposal did not take into account the
fact that past problems leading to such
releases may have been corrected, and
that requiring an NPDES permit may no
longer be necessary. The result of such a
requirement. commenters maintained,
would be an excessive number of
unnecessary permit applications being
submitted, at significant cost and
minimal benefit to both regulated
1acilities and regulating authorities.
Commenters also indicated that using
the release of reportable quantities of
oil, grease or hazardous substances as a
permit trigger would identify discharges
of an isolated nature, rather than the
continuous discharges, which should be
the focus of the NPDES permit program
under section 402. Such an approach.
commenters maintained, is inconsistent
with existing regulations wider section
311 of the CWA. and would result in
permit applications from facilities that
are more appropriately regulated under
section 311.
Despite these criticisms, many
commeriters recognized that the Agency
is left with the task of determining when
discharges from oil and gas facilities are
contaminated, in order to regulate them
ur.der section 402(1J(2). It was suggested
by numerous coinmenters that the EPA
adopt an approach similar to that used
under section 311 of the-CWA for Spill
Prevention Control and Countermeasure
(SPCC) Plans. Unaer SPCC, facilities
that are likely to discharge oil into
waters of the United States are required
to maintain a SPCC plan. In the event
the facility has a spill of 1.000 gallons or
2or more reportable quantities of oil in
a 12 month period, the facility is
required to eubmi its SPCC plan to the
Agency. The triggering events proposed
by the commenters for storm water
permits for oil and gas operations are
six reportable sheen. or discharges of
hazardou, substances (other than oil) in
excess of section 311 or sectIon 102
reportable quantities via a storm water
point source route over any thirty-six
month period. It was suggested that if
this threshold is reached, an operator
would then file a permit application (or
join a group application) based upon the
presumption that its current storm water
discharges are contaminated.
In response to these comments, the
Agency believes that past releases that
are reportable quantities can be a valid
indicator of the potential for present
contamination of discharges. The
legislative history as cited above
supports this conclusion. EPA would
note that the existence of a RQ release
would serve only as a triggering
mechanism for a permit application.
Under the proposed rule, evidence of
past contamination would merely
require submission of a permit
application and would not be used as
conclusive evidence of current
contamination. The determination as to
whether a permit would be actually
required due to current contaminated
discharge would be made by the
permitting authority after reviewing the
permit application. The fact of a past RQ
release does not necessarily imply a
conclusive finding of contamination,
only thai sufficient potential for
contamination exists to warrant a
permit application or the collection of
other further information. Today’s rule
does not change the proposed approach
in this respect. Thus, EPA does not
believe that today’s rule exceeds the
authority of section 402(1)(zJ.
EPA believes that there is no legal
impediment to using past RQ discharges
as a trigger for requiring a storm water
permit application. EPA notes that, as
mentioned above, even those
comnienters who oblected to the
proposed test on legal authority grounds
merely offered an alternate test that
requires more releases to have occurred
within a shorter period of time before a
permit application is required.
Therefore, the only disagreement that
remains is over what constitutes a
reasonable lest that will identify
facilities with the potential for storm
water contam inatioo .-EPA notes that
neither the statute nor the legislative
history provides any guidance on this
question. Furthermore, EPA disagrees
with the commenters who suggested that
8 releases in the pest 3 years or 2
releases In the past year are necessarily
more valid measures of the potential for
current contamination than EPA’s
proposed test. There is no statistical or
other basis for preferring one test to the
other. However. EPA does agree with
those commanters that suggest that a
single release in the distant past may
not accurately reflect current conditions
and the current potential for
contamination.
EPA has therefore amended today’s
rule to provide that only oil and gas
facilities which have had a release of an
RQ of oil or hazardous substances in
storm water in the past three years will
be required to submit a permit
application. EPA believes that limiting
the permit trigger to events of the past
three years will address commenters’
concerns regarding the use of “stale
history” in determining whether an
application is required. EPA notes that
the three year cutoff is consistent with
the requirement for industrial facilities
to report significant leaks or spills at the
facility in their storm water permit
applications. See 40 CFR
122.28(c)(1)(i)(D).
Comthenters asserted that EPA and
the States must have some reasonable
basis for concluding that a storm water
discharge is contaminated before
requiring permit applications or permits.
Conunenters believed that
* 122.28(c)(1)(iii)(B) as proposed implied
that the Agency’s authority In this
respect is unresthcted. In response, EPA
may collect such data by whatever
appropriatemèans the statute allows, in
order to obtain information that a permit
is required. Usually, the most practical
tool for doing so is the permit
application itself. However, if necessary
to supplement the Information made
available to the Agency. EPA has broad
authority to obtain information
necessary to determine whether or not a
permit is required, under section 308 of
the Clean Water Act. Given the plain
language of the CWA and the
Congressional intent as manifested in
the legislative history, the Agency is
convinced that the approach desaibec
above is appropriate Yet, as further
discussed below. EPA has also deleted
as redundant 122.26(c)(1J(iu)(B).
Regarding the types of facilities
included in the storm water regulation, a
number of commenters suggested that
the Agency has misconstrued the
meaning of facilities “associated with
-------
Federal kanjetar I VoL 55, No. 222 I Friday. November 18. 1990 I Rules and Regulations 4 $1
Industrial activity”, and has proposed an
overly broad definition of such facilities
in the oil and gas industry. Speciftcafiy, -
conunenters suggested that only the
manufacturing sector of the oil and gas
lndustiy should be subject to storm
water permit application requirements.
and that exploration and production
activities, gas stations, terminals, and
bulk plants should sU be exempted from
storm water permitting requirements.
Cominenters maintain that this broad
Interpretation would subject many oil
and gas facilities to the storm water
permit requirements, when these were
not intended by Congress to be so
regulated. As a second point related to
this issue, some commenters felt that
transmission facilities were not intended
to be regulated under the storm water
provisions, and should be exempted
from permit requirements. This would be
consistent, it was argued. with
legislative history which concluded that
transmission facilities do not
significantly contribute to the
contamination of water.
The Agency disagrees that these
facilities do not fall under the storm
water permitting requirements as
envisioned by Congress. SIC 13, which
is relied upon by EPA to identify these
oil and gas operations, describes oil and
gas extraction industries as including
facilities related to crude oil and natural
gas. natural gas liquids, drilling oil and
gas wells, oil and gas exploration and
field services. Moreover, legislative
history as it applies to industrial
activities, and thus to oil and gas
(mining) operations, expressly includes
exploration, production, processing.
transmission, and treatment operations
wiThin the purview of storm water
permitting requirements and
exemptions. EPA’, intent is for storm
water permit requirements (and the
exemption at hand) to apply to the
activities listed above (exploration,
production, processing, treatment, and
transmission) as they relate to the
categories listed in SIC 13.
Commenteri requested clarification
from the Agency that storm water
discharges from oil and gas facilities
require a permit or the lThng of a permit
application only when they are
contaminated at the point of discharge
into walere of the United States.
Commenters noted that large amounts of
potentially contaminated stormwater
may not enter waters of the United
Slates, or may enter at a point once the
discharge is no longer contamuiated.
In these cases. it should be clear that no
permit or permit application is required,
EPA agrees that oil and gas
exploration, production. processing, or
treatment operations or transmission
facilities mail only obtain a storm water
permit ‘when a discharge to waters of
the U.S (iecluding those discharges
through municipal separate storm
sewers Is conthminiited, A permit
application will be required when any
discharge in the past three year, or
henceforth meets the test discussed
above.
Under the proposed rule, the Agency
stated at I 122,28(c)(llliii)(B) that the
Director may require on a case.by-case
basis the operator of an existing or new
storm water discharge from an oil or gas
exploration, production, processing, or
treatment operation, or transmission
facility to submit an individual permit
application. The Agency has removed
this section since CWA section 402111(2),
as codified in 122.28(c)(1)(ui)(A),
adequately addresses every situation
where a permit should be required for
these facilities.
b. Use of Reportable Quantities to
Determine if a Storm Water D,schor e
from on Oil or Gas Operotion is
Contaminated Section 311(b)(5) of the
CWA requires reporting of certain
discharges of oil or a hazardous
substance into waters of the United
States (see 44 FR 50768 (August 29.
1979fl. Section 304(b)(4) of the Act
requires that notification levels for oil
and hazardous substances be set at
quantities which may be harmful to the
public health or welfare of the United
Slates, including but not limited to fish.
shellfish, wildlife, and public or private
property, shorelines and beaches.
Facilitie, which discharge oil or a
hazardous substance in quantities equal
to or in excess of an RQ, with certain
exceptions, are required to notify the
National Response Center (NRC).
Section 102 of CERCLA extended the
reporting requirement for releases equal
to or exceeding an RQ of a hazardous
substance by adding chemical. to the
list of hazardous substances, and by
extending the reporting requirement
(with certain exceptions) to any releases
to the environment, not just those to
waters of the United Slates.
Pursuant to section 311 of the CWA.,
EPA determined reportable quantities
for discharges by correlating aquatic
animal toxicity range. with 5 reporting
quantities. i.e.. 1-, 10-. 100-, 1000-, and
5000- pounds per 24 hour period levels.
Reportable quantity adiustments made
under CERCLA rely on a different
methodology. The strategy for adjusting
reportable quantities begins with an
evaluation of the intrinsic physical.
chemical, and toxicological properties of
each designated hazardous substance.
The intrinsic properties examined.
called “primary criteria,” are aqaalic
toxicity, mainmaLiaa toxicity (orel,
dernial. and inhalation). igeitabilily.
reactivity, and chronic toidnity. In
addition, substances that were
identified as potential carcinogens have
been evaluated For their relative activity
as potential carcinogens. Each intrinsic
property is ranlied on a five-tier scale.
associating a specific range of values on
each scale with a particular reportable
quantity value. Alter the primary criteria
reportable quantities are assigned. the
hazardous substances are further
evaluated for their susceptibility to
certain extrinsic degradation processes
(secondary criteria). Secondary criteria
consider whether a substance degrades
relatively rapidly to a less harmful
compound, and can be used to raise the
primary criteria reportable quantity one
level.
Also pursuant to section 311. EPA has
developed a reportable quantity for oil
and associated reporting requirements
at 40 CFR part 110. These requirements,
known as the oil sheen regulation.
define the RQ for oil to be the amount of
oil that ‘ .iolates applicable water quality
standard.s or causes a film or sheen
upon or discoloration of the surface of
the water or adjoining shorelines or
causes a sludge or emulsion to be
deposited.
Reportable quantities developed
under the CWA and CERCLA were not
developed as emuent guideline
limitations which establish allowable
limits for pollutant discharges to surface
waters Rather, a major purpose of the
notification requirements is to alert
government officials to releases of
hazardous substances that may require
rapid response to protect public health,
welfare, and the environment.
Notification based on reportable
quantities serves as a trigger for
informing the government of a release so
that the need for response can be
evaluated and any necessary response
underla ken in a timely fashion. The
reportable quantities do not themselves
represent any determination that
releases of a particular quantity are
actually harmful to public health.
welfare, or the environmenL
EPA requested comment on the use of
RQs for determining contamination in
discharges from oil and gas facilities. As
noted above numerous cemmenteri
supported the concept of using
reportable quantities under certain
circumstances. Comment., on the
measurement of oil sheens for the
purpose of triggering a permit
application were divided. Some
commented that it is much too stringent
because the amouat of oil creating a
-------
48032 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 222 / Friday. November 16, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
sheen may be a relatively small amount.
Others viewed the test as a quick, easy.
practical method that has been effective
in the past.
In relying on the reporting
requirement, associated with releases in
excess of RQs for oil or hazardous
substances to trigger the submittal of
permit applications for oil and gee
operations, the Agency believes that the
use of the reporting requirements for oil
will be particularly useful. The Agency
believes that the release of oil to a storm
water discharge In amounts that cause
an oil sheen is a good indicator of the
potential for water quality impacts from
storm water releases from oil and gas
operations. In addition, given the
extremely high number of such
operations (the Agency estimates that
there are over 750.000 oil wells alone in
the United States), relying on the oil
sheen test to determine if storm water
discharges from such sites are
“contaminated” will be a far easier test
for operators to determine whether to
file a storm water permit application
than a test based on sampling. The
detection of a sheen does not require
sophisticated instrumentation since a
sheen is easily perceived by visual
observation. EPA agrees with those
comments cailing the oil sheen test an
appropriate measure for triggering a
storm water permit application. In
adopting this approach. EPA recognizes,
as pointed out by many cominenters that
an oil sheen can be created with a
relatively small amount of oil.
One commenter suggested that
contamination must be caused by
contact with on-site material before
being subject to permit application
requirements. The Agency agrees with
this comment. Those facilities that have
iad releases in excess of reportable
quantities will generally have
ontamjnation from contact with on-site
material as described in the CWA. Thus.
ise of the RQ test is an appropriate
ngger. As discussed above.
ietermination of whether contamination
a present to warrant issuance of a
permit will be made in the context of the
,ermit proceeding.
One comnienter believed that the use
‘,f RQs is inappropriate because “the
itatute intended to exempt only oil and
ae runoff that is not contaminated at
all ‘ The Agency wishes to clarify that
reportable quantities are being used to
determine what facilities need to file
permit applications and to describe
what is meant by the term
“contaminated:’ The Director may
require a permit for any discharges of
storm water runoff contaminated by
contact with any overburden, raw
material. intermediate product, finished
product, by product or waste product at
the site of such operations, Ths use of
RQs is solely a mechanism for
identifying the facilitie, most likely to
need a storm water permit consistent
with the leRislative history of section
402(l)(2).
c. Mining Operations. The December
7, 1988 proposal would establish
background levels as the standard used
to define when a storm water discharge
from a mining operation is
contaminated. When a storm water
discharge from a mining site was found
to contain pollutants at levels that
exceed background levels, the owner or
operator of the site was required to
submit a permit application for that
operation. The proposal was founded
upon language in the legislative history
stating that the determination of
whether storm water is contaminated by
contact with overburden, raw material.
intermediate product, finished product,
byproduct, or waste products “shall take
into consideration whether these
materials are present in such
Btomiwater runoff . . . above natural
background levels”. (Vol. 132 Cong. Rec.
H10574 (daily ed. Oct. 15, 1988)
Conference ReportJ.
Comments received on this
component of the rule suggested that
background levels of pollutants would
be very difficult to calculate due to the
complex topography frequently
encountered in alpine mining regions.
For example, if a mine is located in a
mountain valley surrounded on all sides
by hills, the site will have innumerable
slopes feeding flow towards it. Under
such circumstances. determimng how
the background level is set would prove
impractical. Commenter, indicated thit
It is very difficult to measure or
determine background levels at sites
where mining has occurred for
prolonged periods. In many instances.
data on original background levels may
not be available due to long-term site
activity. As a result, any background
level established will vary based on the
type and level of previous activity. In
addition, mining sites typically have
background levels that are naturally
distinct from the surrounding areas. This
is due to the geologic characteristics
that makes them valuable as mining
sites to begin with. This also makes it
difficult to establish accurate
background levels.
Because of these concerns EPA has
decided to drop the use of background
levels as a measure for determining
whether a permit application is required.
Accordingly, a permit application will
be required when discharges of storm
water runoff from mining operations
come into contact with any overburden.
raw material, intermediate produc.,
finished product, byproduct. or waste
product located on the site. Similar to
the RQ test for oil and gas operations,
EPA Intends to use the “contact” test
solely as a permit application trigger.
The determination of whether a mining
operation’s runoff is contaminated will
be made in the context of the permit
Issuance proceedings.
lithe owner or operator determines
that no storm water runoff comes into
contact with overburden, raw material,
intermediate product, finished product.
byproduct. or waste products, then there
is no obligation to file a permit
application. This framework is
consistent with the statutory provisions
of section 402(1)(2) and is intended to
encourage each mining site to adopt the
best possible management controls to
prevent such contact
Several commenters stated that EPA’s
use of total pollutant loadings for
determining permit applicability is not
consistent with the general framework
of the NPDES program Their concern is
that such evaluation criteria depart from
how the NPDES program has been
administered in the past, based on
concentration limits. In addition,
commenters requested that EPA clarify
that information on mass loading will be
used for determining the need for a
permit only Since the analysis of
natural background levels as a basis for
a permit application has been dropped
from this rulemaking. these issues are
moot,
Commenters noted that the proposed
rule did not specify what impact this
rulemaking has on the storm water
exemptions in 40 CFR 440.131. The
commenters recommended not changing
any of these provisions. Some
comnienter , indicated that mining
facilities that have NPDES permits
should not be subject to additional
permitting under the storm water rule.
EPA does not intend that today’s rule
have any effect on the conditional
exemptions in 40 CFR 440.131. Where a
facility has an overflow or excess
discharge of process-related effluent due
to stormwater runoff, the conditional
exemptions in 40 CFR 440.131 remain
available.
Several comrrienters note that the
term overburden, as used in the context
of the proposed storm water rule, is not
defined and recommended that this term
should be defined to delineate the scope
of the regulation. EPA agrees that the
term overburden should be defined to
help properly define the scope the storm
water rule. In today’s rule, the terai
-------
Federal Register! VoL 55 No. 2 I Friday. November 1O 1990 / Rules arid Regulations 4
overburden has been danfied to mean
any material of any nature overlying a
mineral deposit that is removed to gain
a ess to that deposit. excluding topsoil
or similar naturelly-occurruig surface
materials that are not disturbed by
mining operations. This definition Is
patterned after the overburden
definition in SMCRA. and I . designed to
exclude undisturbed lands from permit
coverage as industrial activity.
However, the definition provided In this
regulation may be revised at a later
date, to achieve consistency with the
promulgation of RCRA Subtitle D mining
waste regulations in the future.
Numerous commenters raised Issues
pertaining to the inclusion of inactive
mining areas as subiect to the
stormwater rule. Some comnienters
indicated that including inactive mine
operations in the rule would create an
unreasonable hardship on the industry.
EPA has included inactive mining areas
in today’s rule because some mining
sites represent a significant source of
contaminated stormwater runoff. EPA
has clarified that inactive muung sites
arc those that are no longer being
actively mined, but which have an
identifiable owner/operator. The rule
also clarifies that active and inactive
mining sites do not include sites where
mitung claims are being maintained
prior to disturbances associated with
the extraction. beneficiation, or
processing of mined material., nor sites
where minimal activities required for
the sole purpose of maintaining the
mining claim are undertaken. The
Agency would clarify that claims on
land where there has been past
extraction. beneficiatlon, or processing
of mining matenals, but there is
currently no active mining are
considered inactive sites. However, in
such cases the exclusion discussed
above for uncontaminated discharges
wiLl still apply.
EPA’. defuutlon of active and inactive
mining operations also excludes those
areas which have been reclaimed under
SMCRA or. for non-coal mining
operation.., under similar applicable
State or Federal laws. EPA believes
that. u a general matter, areas which
have undergone reclamation pursuant to
such law, have concluded .11 industrial
activity in such a way as to minimize
contact with overburden, mine products.
etc. EPA and NPDES States, of course.
retain the authonty to designate
particular reel.. unea areas for permit
coverage under section 4O2(p 2J(E).
The proposed rule had included an
exemption for areas which have been
reclaimed under SMCR.A. although the
•ngvage of the proposed rule
Inadvertently Identified the wrong
universe of coal mining areas. The final
rule language has been revised to clarify
that areas which have been reclaimed
under SMCR.A (and thus are no longer
subject to 40 CFR part 434 subpart E) are
not subject to today’s rule. Today’s rule
thus Is consistent with the coal mining
effluent guideline in its treatment of
areas reclaimed under SMCRA..
In response to comments, EPA has
also expanded this concept to exclude
front coverage as industrial activity non-
coal mines which are released from
similar Slate or Federal reclamation
requirements on or after the effective
date of this rule. EPA believes it is
appropnate. however, to require permit
coverage for contaminated runoff from
inactive non-coal mines which may have
been aubiect to reclamation regulations.
but which have been released from
those requirements prior to today’s rule,
EPA does not have sufficient evidence
to suggest that each State previous
reclamation rules and/or ,ederal
requirements. If applicable, were
necessarily effective in controlling
future storm water contamination.
8. AppLication Requirements for
Construction Activities
As discussed above, EPA has
included storm water discharges from
activities involving construction
operations that result in the disturbance
of five acres total land in the regulatory
definition of storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity.
This is a departure from the proposed
rule which required permit applications
for discharges from activities involving
construction operations that result in the
disturbance of less than one acre total
land area and (which are not part of a
larger common plan of development or
sale: or operations that are for single
family residential projects. including
duplexea. triplexee. or quadruplexee.
that result in the disturbance of less
than five acre total land areas and
which are not part of a larger common
plan of development or sale). The
reasons for this change are noted below.
Many commentere representing
muxuclpalities, States, and industry
requested that clearing. grading, end
excavation activities not be included in
the definition of storm water discharges
associated with industrial actIvity. It
was suggested that EPA delay including
construction activities until after the
studies mandated in section 4OZjp)(5) of
the CWA are completed. Other
commenters felt that NPOES permits are
not appropriate far construction
discharges due to their short term,
intermediate and seasonal nature,
Another commeriter felt that only the
construction activities on the sates of the
induetrinl facilities identified in the
other subsections of the definition of
“associated with industrial activity”
should be included.
EPA believes that storm water penn its
are appropriate for the construction
industry for several reasons.
Construction activity at a high le’ ’el of
intensity is comparable to other activity
that is traditionally viewed as industrial,
such as natural resource extraction.
Construction that disturbs large tracts of
land will involve the use of heavy
equipment such as bulldozers, cranes.
arid dump trucks Construction activity
frequently employs dynamite and/or
other equipment to eliminate trees.
bedrock, rockwork, and to fill or level
land, Such activities also engage in the
installation of haul roads, drainage
s ’steme, and holding ponds that are
typical of the industrial activity
identified in 122 26(b) (14)(i .x). EPA
cannot reasonably place such activity in
the same category as light commercial
or retail business
Further, the runoff eneratcd wh le
construction activities are occ4rrlng h is
potential for senous water quality
impacts and reflects ai activity that is
industrial in nature. Where construction
activities are intensive, the loca!ized
impacts of water quality may be severe
because of high unit loads of pollutants.
primarily sediments. Construction sites
can also generate other pc utants such
as phosphorus. nitrogen and nutrients
from fertilizer. pest.cides. petroleum
products. construction chemicals and
solid wastes. Thete maieiiuls can be
toxic to aquatic organisms and degrade
water for drinking and water.contact
recreation. Sediment runoff rates from
con3truction sites are typic y 10 to 20
times that of agricultural lands, with
runoff rates a. high as 100 times that of
agricultural lands, and 1.000 to 2.000
times that of Forest lands Even small
construction sites may have a sigr.ificaiit
negative impact on water quality in
localized areas. Over a short period of
time, construction sites can contribute
more sediment to streams than v as
previously deposited over several
decades.
EPA is convinced that because of the
impacts of construction discharges that
are directly to waters of the United
States. such discharges should be
addressed by permits issued by Federal
or NPDES State permitting authorities Ii
is evident from numerous studies and
reports submitted under section 319 of
the CWA that discharges from
construction sites continue to be a mapor
source of water quality problems and
water quality standard violations.
-------
48034 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 222 / Friday. November 16 . 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Accordingly EPA ii compelled to
address these source under these
regulations and thereby regulate these
sources under a nationally consistent
program with an appropriate level of
nforvement and oversight.
Techniques to prevent or control
pollutants in storm water discharges
from construction are well developed
and understood. A primary control
technique is good site planning. A
combination of noristructural and
structural best management practices
are typically used on construction sites.
Relatively inexpensive nonstructural
vegetative controls, such as seeding and
mulching, are effective control
techniques. In some cases, more
expensive structural controls may be
necessary, such as detention basins or
diversions. The most efficient controls
result when a comprehensive storm
water management system is in place.
Another reason that EPA has decided to
address this class of discharges is that it
is part of the Agency’s recent emphasis
on pollution prevention. Studies such as
NURP indicate that it is much more cost
effective to develop measures to prevent
or reduce pollutants in storm water
dunng new development than it is to
correct there problems later on. Many of
these prevention and control practices,
which can take the form of grading
patterns as well as other controls,
generally remain in place after the
cnristruction activities are completed.
a Permit Applicotion Reqwremejus.
In today’s rulemaking. EPA has set forth
distinct permit application requirements
for these construction activities, at
122.28(c )(1J(u). to be used where
weneral permits to be developed and
promulgated by EPA are inapplicable.
Such facilities will be required to
provide a map indicating the site’s
location and the name of the receiving
water and a narrative description of:
• The nature of the construction
activity;
• The total area of the site and the
area of the site that is expected to
undergo excavation during the life of the
permit;
• Proposed measures, including best
management practices, to control
pollutants in storm water discharges
during construction, including a
description of applicable Federal
requirements and State or local erosion
and sediment control requirements;
• Proposed measures to control
pollutants in storm water discharges
triat will occur after construction
operations have been completed.
including a description of applicable
State or local requirements, and
• An estimate of the runoff coefficient
(fraction of total rainfall that will appear
as runoffl of the site and the Increase in
impervious area after the construction
addressed in lhe permit application is
completed, a description of the nature of
fill material and existing data describing
the soil or the quality of the discharge.
Permit application requirements for
construction activitie, do not include the
submission of quantitative data, EPA
believes that the changing nature of
construction activities at a site to be
covered by the permit application
requirements generally would not be
adequately described by quantitative
data. The comments received by EPA
support this determination. One State
commented that a program they
instituted has been based on
quantitative data for the past 10 years
and has proven to be very awkward,
even unworkable.
Twenty commenters responded to the
issue of appropriate construction site
application deadlines including: Three
towns (<100,000 population); one
medium municipality; one large
municipality; one agency associated
with a large municipality: three agencies
associated counties: three agencies
associated with States, two industries.
five industrial associations; and one
private organization representing
industry. The commenters primarily
focused on actual deadlines and
permitting authonty response time.
Applicants for permits to discharge
storm water into the waters of the
United State, from a construction site
would normally be required to submit
permits in the same time frame as new
source, and new discharges This
rul. vtaking requires permit applications
from such sources to be submitted at
leasi 180 days prior to the date on which
the discharge is to commence. Four
commenters agreed with the application
deadline of 180 days prior to
cnmlnaalremen , of discharge Three
ccmI1 ?enter, felt it would be difficult to
apply 180 days prior to when the
discharge was to begin. Three
cnmw Iprs recommended shortening
the thus period to 90 days. Numerous
other were concerned over
delays during the permitting authority’s
m. of the permit application. The
c im.. . . teys requested that a maximum
r’ ji s time be set in the regulation.
maximum response times
were 90 and 30 days.
In response to these comments. EPA
has diariged the application deadline for
con csion permits from at least 180
days gmor to discharge to at least 90
day, iefmr to the date when construction
is to ence. This change reflects
EPA’s cujgniiion of the nature of
coasta on operations in that
deveL .../builders may not be aware
of prolects 180 days before they are
scheduled to begin.
Numerous commenters expressed
concern over who should be responsible
for applying for the permit. Two
commenters felt the owner should be
responsible so that construction bid
documents can include the storm water
management requirements arid to avoid
confusion among multiple
subcontractors. One commenter thought
that either the owner/developer, or
general contractor should be
responsible. Another commenter
suggested that the designer should
obtain the permit which would allow all
necessary erosion controls to be part of
the project plan Several commenters
requested that the responsibility simply
be more clearly defined.
In response to these comments, EPA
would clarify that the operator will
generally be responsible for submitting
the permit application Under existing
regulations at § 122 21(b). when a
facility e owned by one person but
operated by another then it is the duty
of the operator to apply for the permit
Due to the temporary nature of
construction activities, EPA believes
that the operator is the most appropriate
person to be responsible for both short
and long term best management
practices included on the site EPA
considers the term “operator” to include
a general contractor, who would
generally be familiar enough with the
site to prepare the application or to
ensure that the site would be in
cornplidnce with the permit
requirements General contractors, in
many cases, will often be on site
coordinating the operation among his/
her staff and any subcontractors
Furthermore, the operator/general
contractor would be much more familidr
with construction site operations than
the owner and should be involved in the
site planning from its initial stages. The
application requirements in today’s rule
are designed to provide flexibility in
developing controls to reduce pollutants
in storm water discharges from
construction sites. A significant aspect
to this is the role of State and local
authorities in control of construction
storm water discharges Sixty.three
commenters addressed the question of
what the role of State and local
authorities shou’d be Most of these
commenters supported local government
control of construction discharges and
that qualified State programs should
satisfy Federal requirements
Many comrnenters representing
municipalities. States, and industry, felt
that local government should have ful!
control o%erconstruelicn storm water
-------
Federal Register I Vo 1 . 55. No. 2 I Friday. November 16. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
discharges. either under existing
programs or those required by their
municipal permit. EPA agrees with these
comments as far as discharges through
municipaL storm sewers we concerned
Is requiring municipalities that are
required to submit municipal permit
applications under this regulation to
describe their program for controlling
storm water discharges from
construction activities Into tho4r
separate stortn sewers. It is envisioned
that municipalities will have primary
responsibility over these discharges
through NPDES municipal storm water
permits. However. EPA also plans to
cover such discharges under general
permits to be promulgated in the near
future.
In response to several comments that
the regulation should provide flexibility
for qualified State programs to satisfy
Federal requirements, the application
requirements recognize that many States
have implemented erosion and sediment
control programs. The permit
application requires a brief description
of these programs. This is intended to
ensure consistency between NPDES
permit requirements and other State
controls. Permit applicants will be in the
best position to puss on this site-specific
informatIon to the permitting authority.
States or Federal NPDES authorities will
have the ability to exercise authority
over these discharges as will other State
and local authorities responsible for
construction. EPA envisions NPDES
permitting efforts will be coordinated
with any existing programs.
The proposed rule requested
comments on appropriate measuies to
reduce poliutants in consaruction site
runoff. Numerous cominenters
representing murucipalities. States, and
industry responded. Some commenters
recommended specific best management
practices (EMPs) whereas others
suggested ways in which the measures
should be incorporated into the program.
One commenter suggested that EPA
establish design and performance
standards for appropriate BMP. One
State commenter recommended
requiring a schedule or sequence for use
of BMPs. A municipality suggested
developing guidance on erosion control
at construction sites and disseminating
the guidance to educate contractors and
construction workers in proper erosion
control techniques. The Agency is
continuing to review these
recommendations for the purposes of
permit development and issuance.
Another commenter suggested that
further research be done to determine
the effectiveness of particular BMPs in
reducing pollutants in construction site
runoff. EPA agrees that more research
and studies can be undertaken to
develop methodologies for more
effective storm water controls and will
continue to lookat these concerns
pursuant to section 402(pfl5) studies.
However. EPA is convinced that enough
information. technology, and proven
BMrs are available to address these
discharges in this regulation.
Specific BMPa suggested by the
commenters include: wheel washing;
locked exit roadways. street deaning
methods which exclude sheet washing.
clearing and grading codes; construc:ion
standards: riparian corridors: solids
retention basins, soil erosion bamers;
selected e,.cavation adequate collection
systems vegetate disturbed areas.
proper application of fertilizers: proper
equipment storage: use of straw bales
and fiiter fabrics: and use of di’. ersions
to reduce effecti’. e length of slopes. EPA
is continuing to evaluate these
suggestions for developing appropriate
permit conditions for construct;on
activity.
b. Admuustral:ve Burdens. Many
commenters representing municipalities.
States, and industry commented on the
administrative burdens of andivid.ially
permitting each construction site
di&.harging to waters of the Urn ted
States. The extensive use of general
permits for storm water discharges from
construction activities that are subject
to NPDES requirements is anticipiited to
minimize administrative delays
associated with permit issuance. Many
comnienters strongly endorsed
extonsibe use of general permits In
addition the Agency will provide as
much assistance as possible fur
developing appropriate permit
conditions.
Many commeriters responded to the
use of acreage limits in4etermin ing
which construction sites are required to
submit a permit application. including
several cities. counties and States. Some
coinusentars generally supported the use
of art acre linuL Many commenlers
suggested increasing (he acreage limit.
Several suggested using a five acre limit
for both residential and nonresidential
development. Others suggested greater
acreage as the cutoff. Two coasmenters
concurred with the proposed limit of one
acre/five acres and one commenter
suggested lowering the renidential limit
to one acre.
Other factors were suggested as a
means to create a cutoff for requiring
permit applicatIons. Several commenters
suggested exempting construction that
would be completed with a certain time
frame. such as consl.rucXsoo of less than
12 months. EPA believes that thea is
inappropnate because some
construction can be intensive and
expansive, but nonetheless take place
over a short period of time, such as a
parking lot. One commenter suggested
basing tbe limit on the quantity of soil
moved. i.e.. cubic yards. La response.
this approach would not be particularly
helpful since removal of soil will not
necessarily relate to the amount of land
surface disturbed and exposed to the
elements. Another cornmenter suggested
that where there is s.ngle family
detached housing construction that
should trigger applications as well as
the proposed acreage limit. This would
not be appropriate since EPA is
attempting to locus only on those
construction activities that resemble
industrial activiiy. After considering
these and similar commer.ts EPA has
limited the definition of “storm water
discharge associated iiith industrial
acti’.ity” by exempting from the
definition those construction operationu
that result in the disluibance of less
than five acres of total land area which
are not part of a larger common plan of
development or sale. In considering the
appropriate scope of the definition of
storm water discharge associated with
industrial activity as it relates to
construction activities. EPA recognized
that a wide variety of factors can afferi
the i ater quality impacts associated
with construction site runoff. inciudin
tl’e quality of receiving waters, the size
of the area disturbed, soil conditions.
seasonal rainfall patterns. the,slope of
area disturbed, and the intensity of
construction activities. These factors
is ill br considered by the permit writer
when issuing the permit. However, as
notod above, EPA views such s;te.
spec:fic factors to be too difficult to
define in a regulatory framework that is
national in scope. For example.
attempting to adjust permit application
triggers based upon a myriad of regional
rainfall patterns is not a practical
solution. However, permit condition.
adjusted for specific geographical areas
may be appropriate.
Under the December 7. 1988. proposal
the definition of industrial activity
exempted. construction operations that
resulted in the disturbance of less than
one acre total land area which was not
part of a Larger common plan of
development or sale: or operations for
single family residential protects.
induding duplexes. triptexes. or
quadruplexes. that result in the
disturbance of less than five acre total
land areas which were not part of a
larger common plan of development or
sale. EPA distinguished between single
family residential development and
-------
4 O36 Federal Register I Vol. 55. No. 222 I Friday. November 16, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
other commercial development because
ntiter commercial development is more
likely to occur in more densely
developed areas. Also, It was reasoned
that othei’ commercial development
provides a more complete opportunity to
develop controls that remain in place
after the construction activity Is
completed, since continued maintenance
after the permit has expired. is more
feasible.
However,EPA has decided to depart
from the proposal and use an
unqualified five acre area In today’s
final rule. This limit has been selected.
in part, because of administrative
concerns. EPA recognizes that State and
local sediment and erosion controls may
address construction activities
disturbing less five acres for residential
development; the five acre limit in
today’s rule is not intended to supersede
more stringent State or local sediment
and erosion controls. In light of the
comments, EPA is convinced that the
acreage limit is appropriate for
identifying sites that are amount to
industnal activity Several comments
suggested higher acreage limits without
giving a supporting rationale except
administrative concerns. Several
commenters agreed that the five acre
limit is suitable, but again without
specifying why they agreed. EPA is
convinced, however, that the acreage
limits as finalized in todays rule reflect
an earth disturbance andlor removal
effort that is industrial in magnitude.
Disturbances on large tracts of land will
employ more heavy machinery and
industrial equipment for removing
egetatton and bedrock.
For construction facilities that are not
included in the definition of storm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity. EPA will consider the
eppropnate procedures and methods to
reduce pollutants in construction site
runoff under the studies authorized by
section 402(p)(5j of the CWA. EPA will
also consider under section 402 (p)(S)
appropnate procedures and methods
during post-construction for maintaining
structural controls developed pursuant
to NPDES permits issued for storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity from construction
sites.
Numerous commeriters requested
clarification as to whether permits for
storm water discharges from
construction activities at an industrial
facility are required EPA is requiring
permits for all storm water discharges
from construction activities where the
land disturbed meets the requirements
established in 122.26(b)(14)(xj and
which discharge into waters of the
United States. The locatIon of the
construction actIvity or the ultimate
land use at the site does not factor Into
the analysis.
C. Munic,pol Separate Storm Sewer
Systems
1. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer,
Today’s rule defines “municipal
separate storm sewer” at 122.26(b)(8)
to include any conveyance or system of
conveyances that is owned or operated
by a State or local government entity
and is designed for collecting and
conveying storm water which is not part
of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTW) as defined at 40 CFR 122.2. It is
important to note that today’s permit
application requirements for discharges
from municipal separate storm sewer
systems serving a population of 100.000
or more do not apply to discharges from
combined sewers (systems designed as
both a sanitary sewer and a storm
sewer). For purposes of calculating
whether a municipal separate storm
sewer system meets the large or medium
population criteria, a municipality may
petition to have the population served
by a combined sewer deducted from the
total population. Section 122.26( 1) of
today’s rule describes this procedure.
EPA requested comments on whether
different language for the definition of
municipal separate stornf sewer would
clarify responsibility under the NPDES
permit system. Comments were also
requested an whether the definition
needed to be clarified by explicitly
stating that municipal streets and roads
with drainage systems (curb and gutter.
ditches. etc.) are part of the municipal
størtn sewer system, and that the
owners or operators of such roads are
responsible for such discharges.
Numerous comments were received by
EPA on this issue. Some commenters
questioned whether road culverts and
road ditches were municipal separate
storm sewers, while others specifically
recommended that further clarifying
language should be added so that
owners and operator. of roads and
streets understand that they are covered
by this regulation. In light of these
comments, EPA has clarified that
municipal streets, catch basin,, curbs.
gutters, ditches. man.inade channels, or
storm drains that discharge into the
waters of the United States are
municipal separate storm sewers One
commenter asked if “other wastes” in
the proposed definition of municipal
separate storm sewer (40 CFR 122.26
(b)(8)(,)) included storm waler. In
response. EPA has added “storm water”
to this definition in order to clarify that
the rule addresses such systems.
EPA requested comments on whether
legal classifications such as “storm
sewers that are not private (e.g. public.
district or joint district sewerer would
provide a clearer definition of municipal
separate storm sewer than an owner or
operator criterion, especially for the
purpose of determining responsibility
under the NPDES program. Most
commerlters agreed that the owner!
operator concept, and the additional
language noted above, is sufficient for
this purpose. EPA also requested
comments on to what extent the owner/
operator concept should apply to
municipal governments with land-use
authority over lands which contribute
storm water runoff to the municipal
storm sewer system, and how the
responsibility should be clarified. In
response to comments on this point.
EPA has addressed these concerns in
the context of clarifying what municipal
entities are responsible for applying for
a permit covering storm water
discharges from municipal systems in
section VI H. below
One commenter expressed a desire for
clarification as to whether conveyances
that were once used for the conveyance
of storm water, but are no longer used in
that manner, are covered by the
definition. EPA emphasizes that this
rulemaking only addresses conveyances
that are part of a separate storm sewer
system that discharges storm water into
waters of the United States.
One cornmenter stated that if EPA
intends to regulate roadside collection
systems then EPA must repropose since
these were not considered by the public.
EPA disagrees with this comment since
one of the options specifically addressed
the inclusion of roadside drainage
systems and roads in the definition of
municipal separate storm sewer system.
In addition, the public recognized the
issue in comments on the proposal. EPA
would note that several commenters
specifically endorsed EPA’s inclusion of
these conveyances.
2. Effective Prohibition on Non-Storm
Water Discharges
Section 402(p)(3ffBflii) of the amended
CWA requires that permits for
discharges from municipal storm sewers
shall include a requirement to
effectively prohibit non-storm water
discharges into the storm sewers. Based
on the legislative history of section 405
of the WQA. EPA does not interpret the
effective prohibition on non-storm water
discharges to municipal separate storm
sewers to apply to discharges that are
not composed entirely of storm water,
as long as such discharge has been
issued a separate NPDES permit. Rather,
-------
Federal Register I VoL 55, No. 222 I FrIday, November 16, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 4 O37
an “effective prohibition” would require
separate NPDES permits for non-storm
water discharges to municipal storm
sewers. In many cases In the past.
applicants for NPDES permits for
process wastewaters and other non-
storm water discharges have been
granted approval to discharge into
municipal separate storm sewers.
provided that the permit conditions for
the discharge are met at the point where
the discharge enters into the separate
storm sewer. Permits for such discharges
must meet applicable technology-based
and water-quality based requirements of
Sections 402 and 301 of the CWA. if the
permit for a non-storm water discharge
to a municipal separate storm sewer
contains water-quality based
limitations, then such limitations should
generally be based on meeting
applicable water quality standards at
the boundary of a State established
mixing zone (for States with mixing
zones) located in the receiving waters of
the United States.
All options will be considered when
an applicant applies for a NPDES permit
for a non-storm water discharge to a
municipal separate storm sewer. In
some cases, permits will be denied for
discharges to storm sewers that are
causing water quality problems in
receiving waters. However, not all
discharges present such problems; and
in these cases EPA or State permit
writers may allow such discharges to
municipal separate storm sewers within
appropriate permit limits.
Todays rule has two permit
application requirements that are
designed to begin implementation of the
effective prohibition. The first
reqwrement discussed in VLH.6.a.,
below, addresses a screening analysis
which is intended to provide sufficient
Information to develop priorities for a
program to detcct and remove illicit
discharges. The second provision.
discussed in VLH.7.b.. requires
municipal applicants to develop a
recommended site-specific management
plan to detect and remove illicit
discharges (or ensure they are covered
by an NPDES permit) and to control
Improper disposal to municipal separate
storm sewer systems.
Several comznenters suggested that
either the definition of “storm water”
should include some additional classes
of nonprecipitation sources, or that
municipalities should not be held
responsible for ‘effectively prohibiting’
some classes of nonstorm water
discharges into their municipal storm
sewers. The various types of discharges
addressed by these comments include
detention and retention reservoir
releases. water line flushing. fi
hydrant flushing, runoff from fire
fighting, swimming pool drainaqe and
discharge, landscape Irrigation, diverted
stream flows, uncontaminated pumped
ground water, rising ground water,
discharges from potable water sources.
uncontaminated waters from cooling
towers, foundation drains, non-contact
cooling water (such as heating,
ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC)
water that POTWs require to be
discharged to separate storm sewers
rather than sanitary sewers), irrigation
water, springs, roofdrains, water from
crawl space pumps, footing drains, lawn
watering, i.ndividual car washing, flows
from riparian habitats and wetlands.
Most of these comments were made
with regard to the concern that these
were commonly occurring discharges
which did not pose significant
environmental problems.
EPA disagrees that the above
described flows will not pose, in every
case, significant environmental
problems At the same time, it is
unlikely Congress intended to require
municipalities to effectively prohibit
individual car washing or discharges
resulting from efforts to extinguish a
building fire and other seemingly
Innocent flows that are characteristic of
human existence in urban environments
and which discharge to municipal
separate storm sewers, It should be
noted that the legislative history is
essentially silent on this point.
Accordingly. EPA is clarifying that
section 402(p)(3)(B) of the CWA (which
requires permits for municipal separate
storm sewers to ‘effectively’ prohibit
non-storm water discharges) does not
require permits for municipalities to
prohibit certain discharges or flows of
nonstorm water to waters of the United
States through municipal separate storm
sewers in all cases. Accordingly.
122.28(d)(2)(iv)(B)(i) states that the
proposed management program shall
indude: “A description of a program.
including inspections, to implement and
enforce an ordinance, orders or similar
means to prevent illicit discharges to the
municipal separate storm sewer system:
the program description shall address
the following categories of non-storm
water discharges or flows only where
such discharges are identified by the
municipality as sources of pollutants to
waters of the United States: Water line
flushing. landscape lmgation. diverted
stream flov ,’s, rising ground waters.
uncontaminated ground water
infiltration (as defined at 40 CFR
35.2OO5( )) to separate storm sewers.
uncontaminated pumped ground water
discharges from potable water sources.
foundation drains. air conditioning
condensation, irrigation water, springs.
water from craw’ space pumps. footing
drains, lawn watering. Individual
residential car washing. flows from
nparian habitats and wetlands.
dechlorinated swimming pool
discharges. and street wash waters.
Program descriptions shall address
discharges front fire fighting only whsre
such discharges or flows are identified
as significant sources of pollutants to
waters of the United States.”
However, the Director may include
permit conditions that either require
municipalities to prohibit or otherwise
control any of these types of discharges
where appropriate In the case of lire
fighting it is not the intention of these
rules to prohibit in any circumstances
the protection of life and public or
private property through the use of
water or other fire retardants that flow
into separate storm sewers. However.
there may be instances where specified
management practices are appropriate
where these flows do occur (controlled
blazes are one example)
Conveyances which continue to
accept other “non-storm water”
discharges (e g discharges without an
NPDES permit) with the exceptions
noted above do not meet the definition
of municipal separate storm sewer and
ar not subject to section 402(p)(3)(B) of
the CWA unless the non-storm water
discharges are issued separate NPDES
permits. Instead, conveyances which
continue to accept non-storm water
discharges which have not been issued
separate NPDES permits are subject to
sections 301 and 402 of the CWA. For
example. combined sewers which
convey storm water and sanitary
sewage are not separate storm sewers
and must comply with permit
application requirements at 40 CFR
12L21 as well as other regulatory
criteria for combined sewers.
3. Site-Specific Storm Water Quality
Management Programs for Municipal
Systems -
Section 402(p)(3)(iu) of the CWA
mandates that permits for discharges
from municipal separate storm sewers
shall require controls to reduce the
discharge of pollutants to the maximum
extent practicable (MEP). including
management practices, control
techniques and systems. design and
engineering methods, and such other
provisions as the Director determines
appropriate for the control of such
pollutants.
When enacting this provision.
Congress was aware of the difficulties in
regulating discharges from municipal
-------
4I 8 Fed d Register / VoL 55. o. 222 / Friday , November 16. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Separate storm sewer, solely through
traditional end-of-pipe treatment and
intended for EPA and NPDES States to
develop permit requirements that were
much broader In nature than
requirements which are traditionally
found in NPD permits for industrial
process discharges or POTWe. The
legislative history indicates, municipal
storm sewer system “permits will not
necessarily be like Industrial discharge
permits. Often, an end-of-the-pipe
treatment technology is not appropriate
for this type of discharge.” [ Vol. 132
Cong. Ran. S164 (daily ed. Oct. 16,
1986)).
A .hift towards comprehensive storm
water quality management programs to
reduce the discharge of pollutants from
municipal separate storm sewer systems
is appropriate for a number of reasons.
First, discharges from municipal storm
sewers are highly intermittent, and are
usually characterized by very high flows
occurring over relatively short time
intervals. For this reason, municipal
storm sewer systems are usually
designed with an extremely high number
of outfall. within a given municipality to
reduce potential flooding. Traditional
end.of-pipe controls are limited by the
materials management problems that
arise with high volume, intermittent
flows o ing at a large number of
outfall.. Second. the nature and extent
of pollutants i n discharges from
municipal sysimus will depend on the
activities o iing on the lands which
contribute tucog to the system.
Municipal separate storm sewers tend to
discharge runoff drained from lands
used for. wide variety of activities.
Given the maiwial management
problems Ics.ri ted with end-of-pipe
controls. I am g.. nent programs that are
directed at cflnL nt sources are often
more pract cat than relying solely on
end-of .pipe control..
In past gut. Li gq _ , much of the
r,rtticism of ehr concept of subjecting
discharge, frees municipal separate
storm i E to the NPDES permit
program focused on the perception that
the rigid r laroiy program applied to
industrial waters and effluents
from publicly owned treatment works
was not ypmii iiiete for the site-specific
nature of tin sesir which are
responsible for the discharge of
pollutants frees municipal storm sewers.
The water cpzality impacts of
discharges h municipal separate
storm se systems depend on a wide
range of fieum Including: The
magnitude arid duration of rainfall
events, the t penod between events,
soil condi the fraction of land that
is impervi. to rainfall, land use
activities, the presence of illicit
connections, and the ratio of the storm
water discharge to receiving water flow.
In enacting section 405 of the WQA.
Congress recognised that permit
requirements for municipal separate
storm sewer systems should be
developed in a flexible manner to allow
site-specific permit conditions to reflect
the wide range of impacts that can be
associated with these discharges. The
legislative history accompanying the
provision explained that “(pjernuts for
discharges from municipal separate
stormwater systems • must include
a requirement to effectively prohibit
non-stormwater discharges into storm
sewers and controls to reduce the
discharge of pollutants to the maximum
extent practicable. ‘ ‘ These
controls may be different in different
permits. All types of controls listed in
subsection ((p)(3)(C)] are not required to
be incorporated into each permit” (Vol.
132 Cong. Rec. 1-110576 (daily ed. October
15. 1986) Conference ReportJ. Consistent
with the intent of Congress, this rule sets
out permit application requirements that
are sufficiently flexible to allow the
development of site-specific permit
conditions.
Several commenters agreed with this
approach. One municipality
recommended that there be as much
flexibility as possible so that the
permitting authority can work with each
municipality in developing meaningful
long-term goals with plans for improving
storm water quality. This cornmenter
noted that too many specific regulations
that apply nationwide do not take into
consideration the climatic and
governmental differences within the
Slates. EPA agrees that as much
flexibility as possible should be
incorporated into the program However.
flexibility should not be built into the
program to such an extent that all
municipalities do not face essentially
the same responsibilities and
commitment for achieving the goals of
the CWA. EPA believes that these final
regulations build in substantial
flexibility in designing programs that
meet particular needs, without
abandoning a nationally consistent
structure designed to create storm water
control programs.
4. Large and Medium Municipal Storm
Sewer Systems
During the 1987 reauthorization of the
CWA. Congress established a
framework for EPA to implement a
permit program for municipal separate
storm sewers and establishing phased
deadlines for its implementation. The
amended CWA establishes priorities for
EPA to develop permit application
requirements and issue permits for
discharges from three classe, of
municipal separate storm sewer
systems. The CWA requires that NPD
permit. be issued for discharges from
large municipal separate storm sewer
systems (systems serving a population
of more than 250,000) by no later than
February 4. 1991. Permits for discharges
from medium municipal separate storm
sewer systems (systems serving a
population of more than 100.000, but less
than 250,000) must be issued by
February 4, 1992. After October 1. 1992.
the requirements of sections 301 and 402
of the CWA are restored for all other
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewers.
The priorities established in the Act
are based on the size of the population
served by the system Municipal
operators of these systems are generally
thought to be more capable of initiating
storm water programs and discharges
from municipal separate storm sewers
serving larger populations are thought to
present a higher potential for
contributing to adverse water quality
impacts. NURP and oj.lier studies have
verified that the event mean
concentration of pollutants in urban
runoff from residential and commercial
areas remains relatively constant from
one area to another, indicating that
pollutant bails from urban runoff
strongly depend on the total area and
imperviousness of developed land,
which in turn is related to population.
The term “municipal separate storm
sewer system” is not defined by the Act
By not defining the term. Congress
intended to provide EPA discretion to
define the scope of municipal systems
consistent with the objectives of
developing site-specific management
programs in NPDES permits. EPA
considered two key issues in defining
the scope of municipal separate storm
sewer system: (1) What is a reasonable
definition of the term “system.” and (2)
how to determine the number of people
“served” by a storm sewer system. EPA
found these two issues to be
intertwined. Different approaches to
defining the scope of a system allowed
for greater or lesser certainty in
detenning the population served by the
system.
In the December 7, 1988. proposal.
EPA described seven options for
defining ‘municipal separate storm
sewer system.” In developing these
options the EPA considered:
• The inter-jurisdiction complexities
associated with municipal governments;
• The fact that many municipal storm
water management programs have
traditionally focused on water quantity
-------
Federal Register I VoL 55, No. 222 / Friday, Nàvemberl6. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
concerns, and have not evaluated water
quality Lmpacts of system discharges or
developed measures to reduce
pollutants In such thschargea
• The advantages of developing
system.wide storm water management
programs for municipal systemr,
• The geographic basis necessary for
planning of comprehensive management
programs to reduce pollutants in
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewers to the maximum extent
practicable;
• The geographic basis necessary to
provide flexibility to target controls on
areas where water quality impacts
associated with discharges from
municipal systems are the greatest and
to prnvide an opportunity to develop
cost effective controls;
• The need to establish a reasonable
number of permits for municipal systems
during the initial phases of program
development that will provide an
adequate basis for a storm water quality
management program for over 13.000
municipalities after the October 1. 1992
general prohibition on storm water
permits expires. and
• Congressional intent to allow the
development of jurisdiction-wide,
comprehensive storm water
management programs with priorities
given to the most heavily populated
areas of the country.
a. Overview of Proposed Options and
CommenLs. The December 7, 1988.
proposal requested comment on seven
options for defining large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer system.
With the addition of a watershed.based
approach suggested by certain
commenters. eight options or
approaches were addressed by the over
200 commenters on this issue’ Option
i—systems owned or operated by
incorporated places augmented by
integrated discharges; Option 2—
systems owned or operated by
incorporated places augmented with
significant other municipal discharges:
Option 3—systems owned or operated
by counties; Option 4—systems owned
and operated by States or State
departments of transportation: Option
5—.eyetems within the boundaries of an
incorporated place; Option 0—systems
within the boundaries of counties;
Option 7-systems in census designated
urbanized areas: and Option 8.—systems
defined by watershed bouridanes.
Generally, these options can be
classifled into two categories. The first
category of options. Options 1. 2 and 3.
define municipal systems in terms of the
municipal entity which owns or operates
storm sewers within municipal
boundaries of the requisite population.
The second c ’tegory of options would
define municipal systems on a
geographic basis. Under Options 4. 5. 6.
7 and 8all municipal separate storm
sewers within the specified geographic
area woi4d be part of the municipal
system. regardless of which municipal
entity owns or operates the storm sewer.
EPA did not.propose to define the scope
of a municipal separate storm sewer
system in engineering terms because of
practical problems determining the
boundaries of and the populations
served by “systems” defined in such a
manner. In addition an engineering
approach based on physical
interconnections of storm sewer pipes
by itself does not provide a rational
basis for developing a storm water
program to improve water quality where
a large number of individual storm
water catchments are found within a
municipality.
In the December 7. 1988. proposal.
EPA favored those options that relied
primarily on the municipal entity which
owns or operates or otherwise has
jurisdiction over storm sewers. These
options were preferred because it was
anticipated that the administrative
complexities of developing the permit
programs would be reduced by
decreasing the number of affected
municipal entities. However, most
comrnenters were not satisfied that such
an approach would reduce
administrative burdens or complexities.
The diversity of arguments and
rationales offered in comments
justifying the selection of particular
option. or combinations thereof were
generally a function of geographic.
climatic, and institutional differences
around the country As such, there was
little substantive agreement with how
this program should be implemented as
far as defining large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer
systems. Of all the options. Option 1
generally received the most favorable
comment. However, the overwhelming
majority of comments suggested
different options or other alternatives.
Having reviewed the comments at
length. EPA is convinced that the
definition of municipal separate storm
sewers should possess elements of
several of the options enumerated above
and a mechanism that enables States or
EPA Regions to define a system that
best suits their venous political and
geographical conditions.
The following comments were the
most pervasive, and represent those
issues and concerns of greatest
importance to the public: (1) The
approach chosen initially must be
realistic and achievable
administratively: (2) the definition must
be flexible enough to accommodate
development of the program on a
watershed basis. and incorporate
elements of existing programs and
frameworks and regional differences in
climate, geography. and political
InstitutIons: (3) permittees must have
legal authority arid control over land
use; (4) discharges from State highways.
identified as a significant source of
runoff and pollutants, should be
included in the program and combined
in some manner with one or more of the
other options: (5) the definition should
address how the inclusion of
interrelated discharges into the
municipal separate storm sewer system
are timed. decided upon. dealt with. etc.
(6) any approach must address the
major sources of pollutants. (7)
development of co-permittee
management plans must be coordinated
or developed on a regional basis and in
the same time frame—fragmented or
balkaruzed programs must be avoided,
(8) municipalities should be regulated as
eqwtnb i.es possible. (9) flood control
districts should be addressed as a
system or part of a system. 110) the
definition must conform to the legal
requirements of the Clean Water Act.
and (11) the definition should limit the
number of co-permittees as much as
possible
b. Definition of large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer system
A combination of the options outlined in
the 1988 proposal would address most of
these concerns, while achieving a
realistic and environmentally beneficial
storm water program. Accordingly. EPA
has adopted the following definition of
large and medium municipal separate
storm sewer systems. Large and medium
separate storm sewer systems are
municipal separate storm sewers that
(i) Are located in an incorporated
place with a population of 100.000 or
more or 250.000 or more as determined
by the latest Decennial Census by the
Bureau of Census (see appendices F and
C of part 122 for a list of these places
based on the 1980 Census).
(ii) Are located within counties having
areas that are designated as urbanized
areas by latest decennial Bureau of
Census estimates and where the
population of such areas exceeds
100.000. after the population in the
incorporated places, townships or towns
within such counties is excluded (see
appendices H and I for a listing of these
counties bdsed on the 1980 census)
(incorporated places. towns, and
townships within these counties are
excluded from permit application
requirements unless they fall under
paragraph (i) or are designated under
paragraph (iii)). or (iii) are owned or
-------
ian o Fadaral Register I Vol. 55, No. 222 / Friday . November 18, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
operated by a municipality other than
those described in paragraph (I) or (ii)
that are designated by the Director as
part of the large or medium municipal
separate storm sewer system due to the
Interrelationship between the discharges
of the designated storm sewer and the
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewers described under
paragraphs (i) or (ii). In making this
determination the Director may consider
the following factors:
(A) Physical interconnections
between the mumcipal separate storm
sewers
(B) The location of discharges from
the designated municipal separate storm
sewer relative to discharges from
municipal separate storm sewers
described in subparagraph (i);
(C) The quantity and nature of
pollutants discharged to waters of the
United States;
(0) The natw’e of the receiving waters;
or
(E) Other relevant factors.
(iv) The Director may, upon petition.
designate as a system, any municipal
separate storm sewers located within
the boundaries of a region defined by a
storm water management regional
authority based on a jurisdictional,
watershed, or other appropriate basis
that includes one or more of the systems
descnbed in paragraphs (i), (ii), and (iii).
Under today’s rule at 4 122.28(a)(3J(iii)
the regional authority shall be
responsible for submitting a permit
application under the following
guidelines. The regional authority
together with co-applicants shall have
authority over a storm water
management program that is in
existence, or shall be in existence at the
time part l’of the application is due, the
permit applicant or co-applicants shall
establish their ability to make a timely
suomission of part I and part 2 of the
municipal application: each of the
operators of municipal separate storm
systems described in paragraphs
122.28(b}(4p (i), (ii), and (iii) and (7)(i),
(ii), and (iii ). that are under the purview
of the designated regional authority.
shall comply with the application
requirements of 4 122.28(d).
As noted above, the finalized
definition of large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer system
is combination of the approaches as
proposed. (In the following discussion
“paragraph (i)” refers to §4 122.28
(bH4)(i) and (bH7fli l. “paragraph (ii)”
refers to §4 122.28(b)(4)(iij and (b)(7)(iij;
“paragraph (iii)” refers to 44 122.28
(b)14)(iii) and (b)(7 )(iii): and “paragraph
(ivl” refers to §4122.28 (b) (4)(ivl and
(bJ(7Miv)). Paragraph (u) originates from
proposed Option S (boundaries of
incorporated places) paragraph (ii)
originate, from Option 8 (boundaries of
counties) and Option 7 (urbanized
areu) paragraph (iii) originates front
Options I and 5; and paragraph ( iv) Is an
outgrowth of comments on all options.
especially Option 4 (State owned
systems/State highways) and Option 8
(watersheds). —
This definition creates a system by
virtue of the (act that storm sewers
within defined geographical and
political areas, and the ownerf operators
of separate storm sewers in those areas,
are addressed or required to obtain
permits. Although within these systems,
different segments and discharges of
storm water conveyances may be
owned or operated by different public
entities, EPA is convinced by comments
that discharges from such conveyances
are interrelated to such an extent that
all of these conveyances may be
properly considered a “system.” These
comments are identified and discussed
in greater detail below.
c. Response to comments. Many
comrnenters urged that the approach
taken must be administratively
achievable. Option 5 of the proposal
(boundaries of incorporated places),
which can be equated to paragraphs ()
and (iii) above, was identified by
several commenters as the most
workable of all the options. Many
commenters stated that Option I
(systems owned or operated by
incorporated places) was inappropriate
because of special districts and other
owners of systems within the
incorporated area, and although EPA
proposed a designation provision for
interrelated discharges in Option I,
cominenters advised that it would be
impossible to identify these systems.
account for their discharges. and
exclude or include them in a timely
manner if Option I was selected (Option
I only addresses those systems owned
or operated by the incorporated place).
The final rule would obviate these
concerns, since all the publicly owned
sewers within the boujidanes of the
municipality will be required to be
covered by a permit.
Other commenters noted that cities
sometimes have storm water
conveyances owned or operated by
numerous entities. One municipality
commented that these problems could
be more easily resolved using a unified
permit/district wide approach, which
the final approach outlined above can
accomplish. One county stated that
Option I of the proposal would result in
s permanent balkamuzation of
atormwater programs and that a
regional approach focusing on the entire
system should be established. Another
municipality rs ’ominrnded that all the
systems of conveyances within the
incorporated city boundaries be issued a
permit. In rejecting Option I of the
proposal, one municipality stated that
program inef ciende. would result from
implementing a piecemeal program in a
contiguous urban environment with
different owners arid operators. One
State conveyed similar concerns. Using
a geographical approach, as described in
paragraph (I) of the final definition, will
best address all of these concerns.
One comntenter criticized proposed
Option I as being contrary to the legal
requirements of the WQA. and a further
example of EPA’s continuing attempt to
minimize the scope of a national storm
water program. It was noted that the
legislative history regarding
requirements for large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer systems
in section 402(p) of the CWA generally
does not reference incorporated cities o”
towns. As a result, the commenter
recommended that the term “municipal”
in municipal separate storm sewer
system refer to separate storm sewers
operated by municipal entities meeting
the definition of “municipality” in
section 502 of the CWA and that the
scope of the term “municipal separate
storm sewer system” be defined as
broadly as possible. This approach
would result in defining large and
medium municipal separate storm sewer
systems to include all municipal
separate storm sewers within the 410
counties with a population of 100.000 or
more EPA has adopted the commenter’s
recommendation to extend the scope of
the program to the extent that today s
rule covers all municipal separate storm
sewers within certain areas rather than
only those operated by an incorporated
place. EPA disagrees however that it
must define the term “system” to
include sewers within any municipal
boundary of sufficient population with
reference to section 502(4). By not
providing explicit definitions, section
SO2(p)(3)(B) of the CWA gives EPA
discretion to define how municipal
separate storm sewer systems are
defined. There is no indication in the
language of the CWA or the legislative
history that Congress intended that the
scope of “municipality” and the scope of
“municipal separate storm sewer
system’ to be identical, particularly
since the latter term is not defined in the
statute.’Furthermore, for the reasons
discussed elsewhere in this section, EPA
believes that today’s definition is a
reasonable accommodation of the many
conflicting concerns surrounding the
proper way to delineate the extent of a
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 222 I Friday. November 16. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
municipal separate storm sewer system
serving over 100.000 people.
Several conunanters concluded that
EPA should be flexible enough to allow
the permitting authority broad discretion
to establish system wide permits, with
flood control districts and/or counties
acting as co-permittees with the various
incorporated cities within the district
boundaries. Commenters expressed
concern that Option I would not allow
for such flexibility.
Arguments that were advanced by
commenters in support of proposed
Option I are equally applicable to
paragraph (i). above. Like proposed
Option 1. the approach outlined above
targets major cities. However, it also has
the advantage of addressing municipal
separate storm sewer systems which
may be interrelated to those owned by
the city, a benefit recognized by one
municipality that endorsed the selection
of proposed Option 5. This will also give
the permitting authority more discretion
to establish co-permittee relationships.
Paragraph (ii) of the final definition
also uses a geographical approach to the
definition of municipal storm sewer
systems to include municipal storm
sewers withirt urbanized counties. Thus.
it dosely resembles Option 7 of the
proposal. The counties identified in
paragraph (ii) have, based on the 1960
Census, a population oF 100,000 or more
in urbanized. 5 utdncorporated portions
of the county. In the unincorporated
areas of these counties (or in the 20
States where the Census recognizes
minor civil divisions, unincorporated
county areas outside of towns or
townships), the county is the primary
local government entity. In these cases,
the county performs many of the same
functions as incorporated cities with a
population of 100.000. and is generally
expected to have the riecesaary legal
and land use authority in these areas to
begin to implement storm water
management programs. Due to the
urbanized nature of their population.
discharges from the municipal separate
storm sewers in these counties will have
many similarities to discharges from
municipal systems in incorporated cities
with a population of 100,000 or more.
Addressing these counties in this
fashion will not adversely affect small
municipalities (incorporated places,
• The Bureau of Ceniu. del’rnes urbanized .reu
to provide • delaiption of high.denstiy
development Urbanized em. ire compneed of.
central n .y to, Otiel) with a sur,ound.rt$ closely
iiled atu The popalatson of the anus, .vbaniz.d
are, must be greater than p . 5 10.1 5. end thu
closely settled steu outsid, of the city, the urban
truns, mutt 5eiwraIIy haves popeiat.on density
ç,.ter thsn 1 . 500 peraun . per equate mall host ovo,
1.5 person, per .ael lob, uuclud.d
towns and townships) Within the county.
as municipal separate storm sewers that
are located in the small incorporated
places, townships or towns within these
counties are not automatically induded
as part of the system.
EPA has focused on the
unincorporated areas because permit
applications cannot be required from
systems that serve a population less
than 100.000. unless designated. EPA
received the comment that if the sewers
in incorporated places within such
counties were included as part of the
system for that county, there would be
the potential for systems serving a
population less than 100,000 to be
improperly subject to permit
requirements. EPA egrees with the
comment, except that EPA reserves the
authority to designate sewers in small
incorporated places as part of the
system sublect to permitting. pursuant to
paragraph (ui) of the final definition.
Incorporated areas within the identified
counties will be required to file permit
applications if the population served by
the municipal separate storm sewer
system is 100,000 or more.
As one commenter noted, the counties
addressed by the definition will
generally be areas of high growth with a
growing tax base that can finance a
storm water management program.
Numerous counties affected by
paragraph (ii) commented on the
proposaL Several of these indicated a
preference for the county government as
the permittee. Others indicated that
their county had the ability to perform
the functions of the permit applicant and
permittee. One county brought to EPA’s
attention that the county bad laid plans
for a storm water utility scheduled to be
in operation in 1989. Several of the
counties supported the use of
watersheds, or flexible regional
approaches, as the basis for the
definition of municipal separate storm
sewer systems. The modified definition
should satisfy these concerns.
EPA recognizes that some of the
counties addressed by today’s rule have.
in addition to areas with high
unincorporated urbanized populations,
areas that are essentially rural or
uninhabited and may not be’the subject
of planned development. While permits
issued for these municipal systems will
covet municipal system discharges in
unincorporated portions of the county. it
is the intent of EPA that management
plans and other components of the
programs focus on the urbanized and
developing areas of the county.
Undeveloped lands of the county are not
expected to have many, if any.
municipal separate storm sewers.
Paragraph. (I) and (ii) above will help
resolve the problems associated with
permittees not having adequate land use
controls. the legal authority to
Implement controls. and the ownership
of the conveyances. This factor was
mentioned by numeroun coinmenters on
the proposed op&ions, especially county
governments. Under paragraphs (i) and
(ii). all publicly owned separate storm
sewers within the appropriate municipal
boundaries will be defined as part of the
municipal system. In many cases, a
number of municipal operators of these
storm sewers will be responsible for
discharges from these systems. Since a
number of co-permittees may be
addressed in the permits for these
discharges, problems associated with
the ability to control pollutants that are
contributed from interrelated discharges
will be minimized. Stale highways or
flood control districts, which may have
no land use authority in incorporated
cities, will be co.permiltees with the city
which does possess land use authority.
EPA envisions that permit conditions for
these systems will be wntten to
establish duties that are commensurate
with the legal authonties of a co-
permiltee For example. under a permit.
a flood control district may be
responsible for the maintenance of
drainage channels that they have
jurisdiction over, while a city is
responsible for implementing a sediment
and erosion ordinance for construction
sites which relates to discharges to the
drainage channel. Confusion over
ownership of conveyances or systems,
at least for the purposes of determining
whether they require a permit. will be
minimized since all conveyances will be
covered. Similarly, under paragraph (ii),
the affected counties are expected to
have the necessary legal and land use
authority to iniplement programs and
controls in unincorporated, urbanized
areas because the county government is
the primary political or governing entity
In these geographical areas,
Many commenters from all levels of
State and local government expressed
concern about controlling pollutants
from State highways. Paragraphs (a) and
(ii) will result in discharges from
separate storm sewers serving State
highways and other highways through
storm sewers that are located within
incorporated places with the
appropriate population or highways in
unincorporated portions of specified
counties being included as part of the
large or medium municipal separaie
storm sewer system, since all municipal
separate storm sewers within the
boundanes of these political entities are
included. Paragraph (iv) can facilitate
-------
4 O42 Federal Register I VoL 55, No. 222 / Friday, November 16. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
the submission of a permit application
for storm sewers operated as part of an
entire State highway system. Paragraph
( Iv) would allow an entire system In a
geographical region under the purview
of a State agency (such as a State
Department of Transportation) to be
designated, where all the permit
application requirements and
teqmrements established under
122.23(a)(iii)(C) can be met.
Paragraphs (i) and (ii)tan effectively
deal with many of the major sources of
pollutants. One municipality noted that
OptIon 5 (paragraph (I)) would require
all systems In the Incorporated
boundaries to obtain permits and
Institute control measures, rather than
just the few owned or operated by
Incorporated cities. Another
municipality noted that this approach
could deal with many of the regional
variations ui sources of pollution. Many
commenters, including environmental
groups, believed that proposed Option 3
(systems owned or operated by
counties), Option 0 (system, within the
boundaries of counties), and Option 7
(system in urbanized areas) were good
approaches because more sources of
pollution would be addressed. It was
also maintained that Options 3. 0 and 7
could incorporate watershed planning
which, In the view of some commenters,
is the only effective way to address
pollutants in storm water.
Corninenters noted that addressing
counties and urbanized areas would
focus attention on developing areas
which wuuld otherwise be left out in the
initial phases of permitting. One
commenter noted that most new
development in large urbanized areas
occurs outside of core cities
(incorporated cities with a population of
100,000 or more). Newly developing
areas provide opportunities for installing
pollutant controls cost effectively. EPA
agrees with these comments and notes
that paragraph (ii) addresses a
significant number of counties with
highly developed or developing areas.
However, EPA is convinced that
addressing all counties or urbanized
areas in the initial phases of the storm
water program is ill-advised.
Cominenters noted that some counties
have inappropnate or nonexistent
governmental structures, and that a
program that addressed all countie, in
the country with a population of 100.000
or more would be unmanageable,
because too many municipal entities
nationwide would be involved in the
program initially. Commenters advised
that defining municipal storm sewer
systems solely in terms of the
boundaries of census urbanized areas
(OptIon 7) would result In system.
which did not correspond to
jurisdictions that ar in a position to
implement a storm water programs.
Thua, EPA baa modified Option 7 and
combined it with Option 8 to create
paragraph (ii ) above.
Paragraph (lii) Incorporates a
designation authority such that
municipalities that own or operate
discharges from separate storm sewers
systems other than those described In
paragraph (i) OF (II) may be designated
by the Director as part of the large or
medium municipal separate storm sewer
system due to the interrelationship
between the other discharges of the
designated storm sewer and the
discharges from the large or medium
murucipal separate storm sewers. In
making this determination the physical
interconnections between the municipal
separate storm sewers, the location of
discharges from the designated
municipal separate storm sewer relative
to discharges from large or medium
municipal separate storm sewers, the
quantity and nature of pollutants
discharged to waters of the United
States, the nature of the receiving
waters, or other relevant factors may be
considered.
Comments indicated that the
designation authority as proposed and
described above should be retained.
One State noted that this approach gives
the most flexibility in making the case-
by-case designations, while also
delineating in sufficient detail what
criteria are used to make the
determination. This commenter was
concerned about being able to regulate
many of the interrelated discharges from
counties surrounding incorporated
cities.
Paragraph (iv) of the final definition
allows the permitting authority, upon
petition. to designate as a medium or
Large municipal separate storm sewer
system, municipal separate storm
sewer, located within the boundaries of
a region defined by a storm water
management regional authority based
on a jurisdictionaL watershed, or other
appropriate basis that includes one or
more of the systems described in
paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii).
Paragraph (iv) was added to the final
definitions to respond to a variety of
concerns of commenters. One of the
prime concerns of commenters was that
the definition of large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer systems
must be flexible enough to
accommodate: Programs on a watershed
basis, existing storm water programs
and frameworks and regional
differences in climate, geography, and
political institutions. Some States were
particularly expressive regarding this
concern. One State maintained that an
Inflexible program could totally disrupt
ongoing State efforts. Other conimenters
urged that the regulation encourage the
establishment of regional storm water
authorities or other mechanisms that
can deal with storm water quality on a
watershed basis. One State proposed
defining the municipal separate storm
sewer system to include all municipal
separate storm sewers within a core
incorporated place of 100.000 or more.
and all surrounding incorporated places
within the State defined watershed. One
of the State water districts advised that
the regulations should be flexible
enough to allow regional water quality
boards to apply the regulations
geographically. One national association
expressed concern that existing
institutional arrangements for flood
control and drainage would be ignored.
while another warned against fostering
a proliferation of inconsistent
patchwork programs based on arbitrary
definitions and jurisdictions which bear
no relationship to water quality
EPA is convinced that the mechanism
described in paragraph (iv) provides a
means whereby the mechanisms and
concepts identified above can be
utilized or created in appropriate
circumstances. In addition, 122.26(f)(4)
provides a means for State or local
government agencies to petition the
Director for the designation of regional
authorities responsible for a portion of
the storm water program For example.
some States or counties may currently
or in the near future have regional storm
water management authorities that have
the ability to apply for permits under
today’s rule and carry out the terms of
the permit. Some of these authorities
may encompass within their jurisdiction
large or medium municipal separate
storm sewer systems as defined in
today’s rule. EPA wishes to encourage
such entities to assume the role as
permittee under today’s rule. That is the
purpose of paragraph (iv). Such
authorities may petition the Director to
assume such a role.
Many commenters expressed the view
that municipal management plans must
be coordinated or developed among co-
permittees on a regional basis and in the
same timeframe Paragraphs (i). (iii) and
(iv ) would bring in all appropriate
municipal entities with jurisdiction over
a specified geographical area in the
same timeframe. Several commenter,,
including one State. noted proposed
Option I would lead to fragmented, ill.
coordinated programs Paragraphs (i).
(iii). and (iv) do not suffer this drawback
-------
Fedezul Register I VoL 55, No. 222 I Friday, November 16, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
to the same extent since all the
municipal separate storm sewers are
addressed within the incorporated
place, instead of only those owned or
operated by the incorporated place.
Equal treatment of municipalities
within a watershed or other specified
area was a major subject of comment.
Many coinmenters urged that a degree
of fairness could be achieved by
requiring permit applications, and the
concomitant expenditure of municipal
dollars and resources, from all
municipalities within an entire urban
area that contributes to storm water
pollution, rather than from a discrete
system within an arbitrary political
boundary. Paragraph (i), especially
when coupled with paragraphs (ii). (iii).
and (iv), can best accomplish a more
equitable approach, because all owners
and operators of municipal separate
storm sewers within a system have
responsibilities. In addition, some of the
areas outside the incorporated city
limits which are engaged in expansive
urban or suburban development will be
brought into the program. Paragraph (iv)
will provide a means for State or
regional authorities to use existing or
emerging mechanisms to set up storm
water management programs, and
would require multiple agencies either
to become regional co-perimttees or to
be subject to a regional permit.
Paragraphs (i). (ii). (iii ). and (iv) could
also require flood control districts to be
co-permittees. which was a major
concern of counties and numerous cities.
One municipality stated that the
inclusion of flood control districts would
greatly reduce the administrative burden
required to prepare a single inter-city
discharge agreement and would
establish a common legal authority to
implement the program. Numerous
county agencies believed it imperative
that flood control districts be brought
into a system-wide pernut strategy.
Paragraph. (i) and (iii) may not
accommodate the concern of several
cammenters that the number of co-
permittees be kept to a minimum. The
fact that all the municipal separate
storm sewers within the boundaries of
the appropriate incorporated place. will
be addressed dictates that some permits
will have several co-permittees. This is
a major concern since it goes directly to
achieving an effective initial storm
water program. There is concern about
being able to bring all the co-permittees
together under intra-municipal
agreements or contracts within
regulatory deadlines. This problem
would be resolved in the short term by
selecting Option 1. However, Option I
may still require inter-municipal
agreements because of the designation
authonty under § 12226 (b)(4)(ii) and
(b)(7)(li) of the proposal. In addition.
such inter-jurisdictional problems will
arise alter October 1, 1992 when the
moratorium on requiring NPDES permits
for discharges from other municipal
separate storm sewers ends. Under the
permitting goals established by the
CWA. multi-jurisdictional storm water
programs and agreements cannot be
avoided. Despite interest in limiting the
number of co-perinittees. EPA decided
not to adopt Option I for the reasons
already stated.
Section 402(p)(3)(B)(i) of the amended
CWA provides that permits for
municipal discharges from municipal
storm sewers may be issued on a
system-wide or iurisdiction-wide basis.
This provision is an important
mechanism for developing the
comprehensive storm water
management programs envisioned by
the Act.
Under the permit application
requirements of todays nile. if the
appropriate co-applicants are identified.
one permit application may be
submitted for a large or medium
municipal separate storm sewer system
(see section VI.C.4 above). System-wide
permit applications can in turn be used
to issue system-wide permits which
could cover all discharges in the system.
Where several municipal entities arc
responsible for obtaining a permit for
various discharges within a single
system, EPA will encourage system-
wide permit applications involving the
several municipal entities for a number
of reasons. The system-wide approach
not only provides en appropriate basis
for planning activities and coordinating
development, but also provides
municipal entities participating in a
system-wide application the means to
spread the resource burden of
monitoring, evaluating water quality
impacts, and developing and
implementing controls.
The system-wide approach provided
in today’s rule recognizes differences
between individual municipalities with
responsibilities for discharges from the
municipal system. Today’. applic tion
rule requires information to be
submitted that enables the permit
issuing authorities to develop tailored
programs for each permittee with
responsibility for certain components.
segments. or portions of the municipal
separate storm sewer system. The
permit application requirements allow
individual municipal entities.
participating in system-wide
applications, to submit site specific
information regarding storm water
quality management programs to reduce
pollutants in system discharges as a
whole, or from specific points within the
system.
In some cases. it may be’undeeirnble
for all municipal entities with storm
water responsibility within a municipal
system to be co-pernuttees under one
system-wide permit The permit
application requirements in today’s rule
allow individual municipal entities
within the system to submit permit
applications and obtain a permit for that
portion of the storm sewer system for
which they are responsible. Thus.
several permits may be issued to cover
various subdivisions of a single
municipal system.
In summary. EPA believes that the
definition of municipal storm sewer
system adopted in today’s rule has
several distinct advantages that were
identified in comments’
• The definition adopts features of
several options:
• The definition targets areas that
have the necessary police powers and
land use authority to implement the
program:
• The definition can utilize
watersheds or accommodate existing
administrative frameworks and storm
water programs:
• The definition provides that all
systems within a geographical area
including highways and flood control
districts will be covered, thereby
avoiding fragmented and ill-coordinated
programs.
• The definition has flexible
designation authonty, and
• The definition addresses major
sources of pollutants without being
overly broad.
H. Permit Apphcouon Requirements for
Large and Medium Municipal Systems
1. Implementing the Permit Program
Given the differing nature of
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewer systems in different paris
of the country and the varying water
quality impacts of municipal storm
sewer discharges on receiving waters.
today’s permit application requirements
are designed to lead to the development
of site-specific storm water management
programs. In order to effectively
implement this goal. EPA intends to
retain the overall structure of the
municipal permit application as
proposed in the December 7. 1988.
proposal.
L Structure of the Permit Application
EPA proposed a two-par’ permit
application designed to meet the goal of
-------
48044 Federal Register! Vol 55, No. 222 / Friday. November 18, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
developing site-specific storm water
quality management programs In NPDES
permits. In response to a request for
comments on this aspect of the proposal.
numerous comments were received.
After reviewing these comments. EPA
has decided to retain the two-part
permit application. Many comrnenters
agreed that the approach as proposed Is
appropriate for phasing in and
developing site specific storm water
management programs. One large
municipality strongly endorsed the two-
part application, stating that it would
facilitate the identification of water
quality problem areas and the
development of priorities for control
measures, thereby allowing for more
cost-effective program development.
Two State agencies expressed the same
view, and noted that the two-part
approach is reasonable and well
structured for efficient development of
programs. One large municipality noted
it would allow the permit authority and
the permit applicant the time needed to
gain the knowledge and data to develop
site-specific permits. A medium
municipality expressed similar views.
Numerous commenters submitted
endorsements of a proposal offered by
one of the national municipal
associations. This approach responded
to EPAs request for comments on
alternative, to a two-part application
process. These comments recommended
having permit applicants submit
information regarding their existing legal
authority, prepare source identification
information, describe existing
management plans, provide discharge
characterization information based on
existing data, end prepare a monitoring,
characterization and illicit discharge
and removal plan in a one-part
application. The remaining requirements
such as: implementing plans to remove
illicit connections, obtaining legal
authority. monitoring and
characterization, plans for structural
controls, preparation of control
assessments, preparation of fiscal
analysis, and management plan
implementation would be part of the
permit and take place during the
compliance period of the permit. It was
argued that this would result in a more
orderly development of stormwater
management programs while allowing
for quick implementation of efforts to
eliminate illicit discharges and initiate
some BMPs.
After careful review and
consideration of these comments. EPA is
convinced that this approach would not
meet the goals and requirements of
section 402 of the Clean Water Act.
Section 402(p)(3)(B ) of the CWA requires
that permits effectively prohibit non:
storm water discharges into storm
sewers and lncorporate controls that
reduce the discharge of pollutants to the
maximum extent practicable, Including
management practices, control
techniques. and system design and
engineering methods. The above
comments suggesting an alternative for
achieving this goal are not entirely
compatible with these requirements. In
light of the language in the statute,
permit conditions should do more than
plan for control. during the term of the
permit. A strong effort to have the
necessary police powers and controls
based on pollutant data should be
undertaken before permits are issued. In
short, the one-part application described
by these comments would result in
permits that would focus too much on
preparation and not enough on
implementing controls for pollutants.
In comparison. EPAs approach
requires municipalities to submit a two-
part application over a two year penod.
Part one of the application would
require information regarding existing
programs and the means available to the
municipality to control pollutants in its
storm water discharges. In addition, part
one would require field screening of
major outfalls to detect illicit
connections. Part two of the permit
application would require a limited
amount of representative quantitative
data and a description of proposed
storm water management plans. The
purpose of the two-part application
process is to develop information, in a
reasonable time frame, that would build
successful municipal storm water
management programs and allow the
permit writer to make informed
decisions with regard to developing
permit conditions. This will include
initiating efforts to effectively prohibit
non-storm water discharges into storm
sewers, and initially implementing
controls that reduce the discharge of
pollutants to the maxaznwn extent
practicable, tncludmg management
practice. and control techniques during
the term of the permit. Such an approach
dearly meet.s the statutory mandate of
section 40Z(p)(3J(B).
a. Part I AppllcaUon. Part 1 of the
permit application is intended to provide
an adequate basis for identifying
sources of pollutants to the municipal
storm sewer system, to preliminarily
identify discharges of storm water that
are appropriate (or individual permits.
and to formulate a strategy for
characterizing the discharges from
municipal separate storm sewer
system .. Several commenters supported
retaining these components of the
application process. The component. of
part I of the permit application include:
• General information regarding the
permit applicant or co-applicants
(t 12Z.28(dfl l)(i))
• A description of the existing legal
authority of the applicant(s) to control
pollutants in storm water discharges
and a plan to augment legal authority
where necessary (I 122.28(d)(I)(ii)).
• Source identification information
including a topographic map,
description of the historic use of
ordinances or other controls which
limited the discharge of non-storm water
discharges to municipal separate storm
sewer systems, the location of known
municipal seoarate storm sewer outfalls,
projected growth. location of structural
controls, and locatipn of waste disposal
facilities ( 122..26(d)(1)(iii)),
• Information characterizing the
nature of system discharges including
existing quantitative data, the results of
a field screening analysis to detect illicit
discharges and illegal dumping to the
municipal system, an identification of
receiving waters with known water
quality impacts associated with storm
water discharges. a proposed pian to
characterize discharges from the
municipal storm sewer system by
estimating pollutant loads and the
concentration of representative
discharges. and a plan to obtain
representative data (I 122.26(d)(1)(iv)).
and
• A description of existing structural
and non-structural controls to reduce the
discharge of pollutants from the
municipal storm sewer
(I 12L25(d)(I)(vfl
One commenter disagreed that source
identification should be made part of the
permit application process beyond the
identification of major municipal storm
sewer outfalls. In reply. EPA is
convinced that the other elements of the
source identification are critical for
identifying sources of pollutants and
creating a base of knowledge from
which informed decisions about permit
conditions and further data
requirements can be determined. One
county stated that it already had
engaged in extensive monitoring and
modeling of watersheds and that its
programs should be substituted for
EPA’s. In response, EPA anticipates that
information collected under various
State. county or city programs that
matches the information requirements in
this rulemaking may be used by the
applicants in submissions under this
rulemaking where the requirements of
the rule are met. However, because of
the divergence in data collection
techniques and information collected by
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 222 I Friday, November 18. 1990 I Rules and Regulations 48045
these programs. EPA disagrees that it
would be appropriate to accept a
substitution In its entirety without
tailoring such a program to today’s
specific information requirements. One
municipality noted that municipal
systems are not well documented and
responsibility for them is in question. In
response. EPA notes that the source
identification procedure is designed. in
part, to address such shortcomings.
Several municipalities suggested that
legal authority could be demonstrated
by providing EPA with copies of
appropriate local ordinance, to
demonstrate their legal authority and a
statement from the city attorney. EPA
agree. that these methods are
appropriate for making this
demonstration.
Several commenters noted that there
was adequate existing municipal legal
authority to carry out the program
requirements or such authority could be
obtained by the municipality. Other
commenters stated that municipalities
possess some authority over certain
activities but may not have authority
over discharges from roads and
construction. Numerous comrnenters.
however, claimed that certain
municipalities had no existing legal
authority to carry out the permit
requirements and that obtaining all the
necessary legal authority could take
several years due to cumbersome
legislative and political processes. In
response, part 1 of the permit
application will establish a schedule for
the development of legal authority that
will be needed to accomplish the goals
of the permit application and permits.
Some municipalities will have more
advanced storm water programs with
appropriate legal authonty or the ability
to establish necessary ordinances.
Providing an appropriate schedule will
not present difficulties in these
circumstances. EPA also notes that the
definitions of large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer systems
finalized in today’s nile will in many
cases result in a number of co-
applicants participating in a system
wide application. It is anticipated that
the development of adequate inter.
funsdictional agreements specifying the
vanous responsibilities of the co-
permittees may in some cases be very
complex, thereby justifying the
developmeni of a schedule to complete
the task. For example. clanfying the
authority over discharges from roads
may present difficulties where a number
of municipal entities operate different
roads in a given jurisdiction. In other
limited cases, the MEP standard for
municipal permits may translate into
permit conditions that extend the
schedule for obIaining necessary legal
authority Into the term of the permit.
These situations will be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis by permit issuing
authorities.
Numerous commenters supported the
field screening analysis as proposed.
Comments from three municipalities
noted that it would be a cost effective
means of identifying problem areas. One
municipality noted that illicit
connections can be reliably detected by
the screening method proposed. In view
of these comments EPA has decided to
retain this portion of the regulation.
However many comnienters expressed
concern over how the proposed
approach would work given the
particular circumstances under which
some municipal storm water systems are
arranged. Several commenters
questioned the effectiveness of dry
weather monitonng for several reasons.
including the shallow depth of some
cities’ water tables. Accordingly, an
alternative approach may be utilized by
the municipal permittee. and this is
discussed later in section VI.H 3.
Some comments suggested that if any
field screening is required that it be
done during the term of the permit. EPA
believes that field screening should not
be done during the term of the permit
exclusively. Unless a field screening is
accomplished during the permit
application phase there will be scant
knowledge. if any, upon which illicit
connection programs can be establishea
for the term of the permits EPA views
field screening during the application
process as an appropriate means of
beginning to meet the CWA’s
requirement of effectively prohibiting
non storm water discharges into
municipal separate storm sewers.
The submittal of part I of the permit
application will allow EPA, or approved
NPDES States, to adjust part 2 permIt
apphcation requirements to assure
flexibility for submitting information
under part 2. given the site specific
characteristic . of each municipal storm
sewer system.
EPA agrees with the concerns of
commenters regarding the estimate of
the reduction of pollutant loads from
existing management programs. EPA
agrees that sufficient data may not be
available to establish meaningful
estimates. Therefore this component of
the proposed part I is not a requirement
of todays rule.
b. Port 2 Application. Part 2 of the
proposed permit application is designed
to supplement information found in part
I and to provide municipalities with the
opportunity of proposing a
comprehensive program of structural
and non-structural control measures that
will control the discharge of pollutants.
to the maximum extent practicable. from
municipal storm sewers. The
components of the proposed part 2 of
the permit application included:
• A demonstration that the legal
authority of the permit applicant
satisfies regulatory criteria
( 122.28(d)(2)(i)):
• Supplementation of the source
identification information submitted in
part 1 of the application to assure the
identification of all major outfalls and
land use activities (* 12Z26(dJ(2llui):
• information to characterize
discharges from the municipal system:
• A proposed management program
to control the discharge of pollutants to
the maximum extent practicable. from
municipal storm sewers
(* 12126(d)(2)(ivfl:
• Assessment of the performance of
proposed controls ( 122.28(dR2llvfl;
• A financial analysis estimating the
cost of implementing the proposed
management programs along with
identifying sources of revenue
122.26(d)(2)(vi),
• A description of the roles and
responsibilities of co-applicants
[ 122.28(d)(2J(vii)).
One municipality agreed that the
assessment of the performance of
controls was a critical component of
establishing a viable program and one
that could be accomplished within the
time frame of the permit application
deadlines One commenter suggested
that the applicant describe whet
financial resources are currently
available. In response. EPA will require
applicants to describe the municipality’s
existing budget for storm water
programs in part I of the permit
application requirements This
information will be useful to evaluate
the municipality’s ability to prepare and
implement management plans. in
response to other comments, this
information will also include art
overview of the municipality’s f’inanciai
resources and a description of the
municipality’s budget. including overall
indebtedness and assets.
EPA has retained the financial
analysis in this portion of the rule on the
advice of two municipal commenters.
who agreed that this was an important
component of establishing a viable
program and c’ne that could be
accomplished within the time frame ot
the permit application deadlines
Another commenter noted that this
requirement is appropriate to justify a
municipality’s proposed management
plan.
-------
4 O48 Federal Register / VoL 55, No. 222/ Friday. November 18 , 1990 / Rules and Regulations
3. Major Outfalls
In past ruIeinak ngs. a conroversial
testis has been the appropriate sampling
requirements for municipal separate
storm sewer systems, Earlier storm
water rulernakinga ha’ e been based
primarily on the principle that all
discharges to waters of the Un&ted
States from municipal separate storm
sewers located in urban areas must be
covered by an individual permit. This
approach requires thet individual permit
applications contain qudnt In Live data to
be submitted for all such discharges.
This approach was criticized because of
a potentially unmanageable number of
outfalls in some municipal separate
storm sewer systems. Most incorporated
cities with a population of 100.000 or
more do not know the exact number of
outfalls from their municip. l systems;
but based on the comments, the number
ranges from 500 to 8.000 or mcre.
in light of the increased flexibility
provided by the VQA and the
development of EPAs system-wide
approach for regulating municipal
separate storm sewer discharges.
today’s rule will not require submittal of
individual permit applications with
quantitative data for each outfall of a
municipal system. Rather today’s rule
will encow’3ge system-wide permit
applications to provide information
swtable for developing effective storm
water management programs. Under this
approach, not all cutfalls of the
municipal system will be samp!ed. but
rather more specific and accurate
models for estini..ting pollutant Icads
and discharge concentrations will be
used. The use of these models will
reqwre the identification of sources
which are responc l lc icr disLharging
pollutants isito municipal separ.4te storm
sewers and will no: require as much
data to calibrate d .e to the source-
specific nature c! the a.odeL A number
of standard and localized models hate
been developed for estimd:ing pollutant
loads from storm water discharges.
Several commenters support the use
of models for developing management
plans and estimating pollutant loadings
and concentrations. EPA encourages
their use where applicable to particular
systems.
By adopting an approach that
incorporates source identification
measures, the amount of quantitative
data required to characterize discharges
from the municipal system will be
reduced because of the increased
accuracy of the site-specific models
which con be used. Consistent with a
system-wide permit application
approach. EPA proposed to focus source
identIfication measures on “major
outfalls.” The, proposed definition of
major outfalls includes any municipal
separate storm sewer outfall that
discharges from a pipe with a dIameter
of more than 38 Inches or its equivalent
(discharges from a drainage area of
more than 50 acres), or for municipal
separate storm sewers that receive
storm water from lands zoned for
industrial activities, art outfall that
discharges from a pipe with a diameter
of more than 12 inches or its equavaler.t
(discharges from a drair.age area of 2
acres or more).
Numerous entities offered comments
on this definition. Several commenters
concurred with this proposed definition.
One commenter maintained that the
data collected at such outfalls would be
sufficient to estimate pollutant loads as
well as concentraticns using well
calibratcc models. Mother mur.icipality
stated that 50 acres wjs an excellent
approx:niaion for the average drainage
area s”rved by a 36-inch storm sewer
Two States and one co uity supported
the duuinition as propo8ed. One large
mLnicipal entity s”ppo-ed the
definition, stating that screening major
ouifalls cot.ld be accomplished i ith
ava.lable staff ove a three month
per.od. In ltght of these ctnnments. EPA
has decided to retain, in part. the
definition as proposed.
Numerous commenters suggested
alternative definitions or otherwise
dtsagreed with the proposed definition,
Most of these comments expressed
concern about the number of outfalls
th..t would have to be tested or screencJ
if the defin.t,on was retained. For this
reason EPA has decided to limit the
total iium cr of major oi.tfulls or
equivalent sampling points that have to
be ;ested to 250 or 500 k.r medium or’
ldr2e s stems respectively. This change
is discussed in further detail below.
The following are examples of
comments that opposed the definition of
a ‘major outfall” as proposed. Several
commenlers stated that, in the
southwest, 8 to 12 foot outfalls are the
norm, and that smaller outfalls should
not be addressed unless there is a
compelling reason to suspect illicit
connections. One commeriter suggested
a size of 54 inches and 50 acres, while
another commenter suggested that 48
Inches would be appropnate. One
comrnenter suggested that the diameter
for industrial pipes should be 18 inches.
while another commenter suggested that
50 acres should be the only cntenoa,
One commenter noted that pipe size
will vary according to rainfall patterns
and that a single approach would not
work universally. This comment, and
other similar points of view as noted
herein, convinces that Agency that a
more flexible approach is needed to
identify field screening and sampling -
locations. However. EPA Is also
convinced that a universal standard is
necessary for purposes of identifying
drainage areas within the municipal
system and discrete areas of land use
that are drained by certain sized
outfalls. This information is critical
since these conveyances, and lands they
drain, are sources of pollutants to
waters of the United States from
niunicipal systems and are properly the
subject of appropriate permit conditions.
Many commenters suggested placing a
limit on the number of major outfalls
addressed during the field screening
pnase of the permit application. Two
niunicip litie.s stated that the preposeu
definition of major outfalls in terms to
the pipe diameter waa too sm U ann
that too many outfalls would be
covered. One municipality stated that
under the proposed definition, it would
have over 4700 “malor ouifails.” a
number viewed as being unacceptably
large. Set’eral municipalities argued thdl
they would be penalized for o cr-design
of their storm drain styslem One
municipality stated field screemr.g of
OutfdIlS sbould be limited to 200 ‘or
medidin c tles and 500 fur large cities.
Some c. mmenters suggested EPA set ,i
percentage of major outfalls for
sci’eening. because all pipes in some
murnc:palities meet the definition of
major outfall. One cocunenter suggasied
that a sliding scale be used to determine
tI’e num’cer of outfalls tested those with
50 test au, those with 100- ’200 teat 50%.
etc. Other commenters suggested a fiat
percentage of ouifalls or flat number
such as 100.
4. Field Screening Program
EPA also recei ed several cunumcnts
in response to the proposed field
screening methodology. Aniong the
major concerns were: End of pipe
sampling may not be practical and the
more appropriate and accessible
location is likely to be the nearest
Upstream manhole: the t pe of discharge
should be Ihe criterion for selecting
sampling points as opposed to pipe size:
a system wide evaluation is more
appropriate than checking each outfall.
within some systems. mator outfalls or
pipe size will not reflect discharges from
suspect or old land use areas, efforts
should be focused on locations where
illicit connections are expected. sites
should be determined by looking at sites
within drainage basin areas based on
land use within those basins, land use
and hydrology of the watershed should
be the criteria for selecting points.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 222 / Friday, November 18, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
48047
screening should be performed at
locaflons that will allow for the location
of upstream discharges; the focus should
he exclusively on drainage areas rather
than pipe size, since pipe size will vary
with slope: a prescribed percentage of
total flow may be more appropriate:
state water quality standards should be
utilized along with focusing on actual
quality in the reaches of a stream.
EPA is convinced by these comments
that today’s rule should allow applicants
to either field screen all major out.falls
as proposed (first procedure) or use a
second procedure to provide for the
strategic location of sampling points to
pinpoint iLlicit connections. EPA agrees
with comments that the size of the
outfall will not always reflect the
chance of uncovenng illicit connections
or discharges, and that field screening
points should be easily accessible.
This second procedure is as follows:
field screening points and/or outfails
are randomly located throughout the
storm sewer system by placing a grid
over a drainage system map and
identifying those cells of the grid which
contain a major outfall or segment of the
storm sewer system. The grid shall be
established using the following
guidelines and criteria:
(1) A grid system consisting of
perpendicular north-south and east-west
lines spaced 1/4 mile apart shall be
overlaid on a map of the municipal
storm sewer system, creating a series of
cells
(2) All cells that contain a segment of
the storm sewer system shall be
identified: one field screening point shall
be selected in each cell, major outfalls
may be used as field screening points:
(3) Field screening points or major
outfalls should be located downstream
of any sources of suspected illegal or
illicit activity:
(4) Field screening points shall be
located to the degree practicable at the
farthest manhole or other accessible
location downstream in the system,
within each cell: however, safety of
personnel and accessibility of the
location should be considered in making
this determination;
(5) The assessment and selection of
cells shall use the following criteria:
Hydrological conditions: total drainage
area of the site: population density of
the site, traffic density: age of the
structures or buildings in the area.
history of the area land use types.
(6) For medium municipal separate
storm sewer systems, no more than 250
cells need have identified field screening
points, in large municipai separate storm
sewer systems, no mote than 500 cells
need to have identified field screening
points for detecting illicit connections,
cells established by the grid that contain
no storm sewer segments will be
eliminated from consideration: if fewer
than 250 cells in medium municipal
sewers are created, and fewer than 500
In large systems are created by the
overlay on the municipal sewer map,
then all those cells which contain a
segment of the sewer system shall be
subject to field screening (unless access
to the separate storm sewer system is
unpossible):
(7) Large or medium municipal
separate storm sewer systems which are
unable to utilize the procedures
described in paragraphs (1) through (6)
above, because a sufficiently detailed
map of the separate storm sewer
systems is unavailable, shall field
screen a’ least 250 or 500 maior outfalls
respectively using the following method:
the applicant shall establish a grid
system consisting of north-south and
east-west lines spaced 1/4 mile apart
overlaid on a map of the boundaries of a
large or medium municipal entity
described at § 122.26(b), thereby
creating a series of cells: major outfalls
in as many different cells as possible
shall be selected until 500 major outfalls
(large municipalities) or 250 major
outfalls (medium municipalities) are
selected: a field screening analysis shall
be undertaken at tilese major outfalls.
The methodology outlined above is in
response to public comments which
indicated that the field screening and
sampling of major outfalls as proposed
would lead to insurmountable log.stical
problems in some municipal systems
EPA believes that the above is an
effective approach to pinpointing
suspected problem points along a given
trunkline or segment of separate storm
sewer system Jurisdictions with no
extensive or p. evious history of
monitoring, or lack of an intensive
monitoring program can utilize the
methods described in establishing a
program. Furthermore, the approach will
allow for the pnontization of outfalls,
sampling points, or areas within the
municipality where there are suspected
illicit connections or discharges. or other
circumstances creating higher
concentrations and loadings of
pollutants.
Paragraph (7) enables municipalities
to select major outfalls without regard to
the municipal sewer system map that is
required for using the procedure
described in paragraphs (1) through (6)
However, the applicant must still select
outfalls within the cells created by
overlaying a 1/4 mile grid over a map of
the boundaries of the large or medium
municipal entity defined under
I 122.26(b). and select major outfalls
within as many of those cells as
possible, up to 50’) (large municipal
systems) or 250 (medium municipal
systems). In this manner, as many
different areas and land uses within the
municipal system will be covered by the
field screening component of the
municipal application.
In order to keep the costs of the
program within the anticipated limits of
the proposed regulation. the number of
out.falls or sampling locations using the
grid system is to be limited to 500 for
large municipal separate storm sewer
systems and 250 for medium municipal
separate storm sewer systems
In response to several comments, EPA
has clarified the definition of major
outfalls with regard to the words. “pipe
with an inside diameter of 36 inches or
more or its equivalent” and “a pipe with
an inside diameter of 12 inches or more
or its equivalent.” This definition has
been modified to specify that single
pipes or single conveyances with the
appropriate diameter or equi alent are
covered
EPA’s proposal required municipal
permit appiicdnts to submit a fiscal
analysis of expenditures that will be
required in order to implement the
proposed management plans requ:red in
part 2 of the application. The description
of fiscal resources should include a
description of the source of the funds
Some commanters felt that a fiscal
analysis should only be required during
the term of the permit. In response. EPA
believes that during the two .ears of
permit application development the
permit applicant should be in a position
to submit information on the abilii and
means for financ:ng storm water
management proe’ams dur’ng the term
of the permit EPA views this
information as an imp’riant ricans of
evaluating the scope of pro8ram an
whether the permi:cee will be devoting
adequate resources to implementing the
program before that program is mapped
out in the permit itself
5 Source Identification
The identification of sources sfliCh
contribute pollutants to municip,il
separate storm sewers is a critical step
in characterizing the nature .ind extent
of pollutants in discharges and in
de eloping appropriate contriit
measures Source identtficd’lon c n be
useful for prov.ding an analysis of
pollutant source coniribution ur .d for
identifying the relationship between
pollutant sources and recei’. trig vsater
quality problems In cases whtre cnd.of-
pipe controls alone are not practicable
it is essentiul to identify the source of
pollutants into ike municip.il :orm
-------
48048 Federnl Register / VoL 5S. No. 222 / Friday. November 16, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
sewer systems to support a targeted
approach to control pollutant sources.
The relative contribution of pollutants
from various sources will be highly ute .
specific. The first step In developing a
targeted approach (or controlling
pollutants in discharges from municipal
storm sewer systems Is identifying the
various sources in each drainage basin
that witi contribute pollutants to the
municipal storm sewer system.
This rulemaking Phase. in the uurce
identification reqwrements of the permit
program by establishuig minimum
objectives in part I of the application
and by req uiruig applicants to submit a
source identification plan in part 2 of the
application to provide additional
information during the term of the
permit. The minimum source
identification requirements of part I of
the application have been designed to
provide sufficient information to provide
an initial characterization of pollutants
in the discharges from the municipal
storm sewer system. EPA realizes that
with many large. complex municipal
storm sewer systems. It may be difficult
to identify all outtalls dunng the permit
application process. Accordingly. EPA i ,.
requiring that known outfalla be
reported in part I of the application. Par
I of the application will also include: A
description of procedures and a
proposed program to identify addItional
major outlalls: the identification of the
drainage area associated with known
outfalls a description of major land use
classifications in each drainage area.
descriptions of soils, the location of
industnal Facilities, open dumps.
landfills or RCRA hazardous waste
facilities which discharge storm water t.
the municipal storm sewer systenu and
i n year projections of popul iion
growth and deveiopment activities
(population data and development
projections will be useful for future
predictions of loadings to receiving
waters from municipal storm sewer
systems, and capacities required for
treatment systems). In general.
population projections should reflect
vanous scenarios of development (high.
medium, low relative to recent trends).
Part 2 of the application will
supplement the Information reported In
part I of the application so that, at a
minimum, all major out(afls are
identified.
Under today’s rule, municipal or
public entities responsible for applying
for and obtaining an NPDES permit will
be required to identify the location of an
open dump, sanitary landfill, municipal
incinerator or hazardou, waste
treatment, storage. and disposal facility
under RCRA which may discharge ,tonn
water to the system as well as all
facilities which discharge storm water
associated with industrial actlvtty into a
large or medium municipal separate
storm sewcr system.
Requiring these source Identification
measmes is supported by the legislative
history of section 405 of the WQA.
which instructs that (i)ri writing any
permit for a municipal separate storm
sewer. EPA or the State should pay
particular attention to the nature and
uses of the drainage area and the
location of any industrial facility, open
dump, landfill, or hazardous waste
treatment, storage, or disposal facility
which may contribute pollutants to the
discharge.” (emphasis added) (Vol 133
Cong. Rec. S752 (daily ed. Jan. 14. 19871.
One municipality questioned the
purpose of the topographic map and
commented that the scale of the
topographic map Is too large to indicate
any of the required outfall, drainage.
industrial or structural control
Information. In response, the purpose of
the topographic map is to identify
receiving waters, major storm water
sewer lines that contribute discharges to
these waters, and potential sources of
storm water pollution. EPA disagree,
that a USCS 7.5 scale map is
inappropriate for identifying these
features within a municipal system. The
scale afforded by such a map provides
sufficient detail to allow specified
delineation of outfalls, whde not
requiring an overly burdensome map in
terms of size. Numerous coinmenters
noted the value of source identification
information and generally supported
submitting this Information in the permit
application.
Many commenter, questioned the
value of the source identification
information for the purpose of
characterizing pollutant loads and
concentrations. Conversely, one
commenter opined that the requirement
would provide sufficient Information to
estimate poliutant loadings From each
outfall ustng loading models to estimate
loadings by watershed. In response, the
source identification information serves
several purposes It is the first step for
identifying potential sources of
pollutants from which more in depth
analysis can be accomplished, under the
discharge characterization component of
the application. Also, where
appropriate. it may be used in
conjunction with models to estimate
loadings and concentrations EPA has
also taken note of the many comments
that question or dismiss the concept of
detemunrng pollutant loads and
concentration, solely from source
identification. Accordingly. EPA is
convinced that it least some of the
sampling requirements as roposcd are
necessary to facilitate more accurate
system specific estimates of pollutant
concentrations and loadings. These are
discussed below, in the discharge
characterization section.
One cominenter suggested that aerial
photos be submitted in lieu of
topographic maps. EPA agrees that an
aerial photograph of the appropriate
scale that communicates the same
information as a topographic map may
be substituted. Today’s final rule
reflects this flexibility.
The source identification component
of the municipal application also
requires that municipal applicants
identify the industrial activity within the
drainage area associated with each
major outfall. One commenter stated
that where multiple storm sewers
outfalls discharge to a stream reach.
municipalities should be allowed to
delineate a single sewer.shed for
identifying sources of industrial activity.
In response, the rule does not delimit an
applicants ability to identify industries
in groups according to a common series
of storm sewer outfalls. if that is an
easier or more appropriate methodology
for that particular applicant. However.
EPA would view this as appropriate
only where the land use is of one type.
such as industrial. Where land use is
m:xed within the drainage area
associated with each major outfall, such
differences need to be identified.
In response to comments, to the exteni
that EPA is requesting that applicants
identify the types of industrial facilities
operating within the municipality, the
municipality is free to use Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) or other
systems which identify the principal
products or services of the facility. One
commenter disagreed with EPA’s
decision to require a list of water bodies
that are listed under CWA sections
304(1), 319(a), 314(a), and 320. because
the States already have this information
and that requesting it from permitlees
could result in “omissions.
misunderstandings, and mistakes.” EPA
believes that these waters should be
identified in the application so thai
appropnate permit conditions can be
di veloped that address storm water
discharges that are adversely effecting
such waters EPA believes that havin 8
th:s information immedisiely at the
disposal of the municipality and the
permit writer will speed the process and
alert the municipality of storm water
discharge. to listed water bodies and
potentially polluted storm waler
discharges to those waters.
-------
Federal RegiMer I Vol. 55, No. 222 I Friday, November 10. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 48049
8. characterization of Discharges
The characterization plan and data
collection reqwred in today’s rule as
elements of Part-one and Part-two of the
municipal permit application is
comprised of several major components:
A screening analysis to provide
information to develop a program for
detecting and controlling illicit
connections and illegal dumping to the
municipal separate storm sewer system:
• Initial quantitative data to allow the
development of a representative
sampling program to be incorporated as
a permit condition;
• System-wide estimates of annual
pollutant loadings and the mean
concentration of pollutants in storm
water discharges, and a schedule to
provide estimates dunrig the term of the
permit for each major outfall of the
seasonal pollutant loadings and the
event mean concentration of pollutants
in storm water discharges: and
• An identification of receiving
waters with known water quality
impacts associated with storm water
discharges.
Se%eral commenters noted the
importance of developing and targeting
management programs based on
discharge characterization data and
monitoring. Numerous other commenters
stressed the importance of a program to
identify and eliminate illicit connections
and improper disposal. EPA agrees that
discharge characterization is an
important component of developing
management programs Most of the
discharge characterization components
of the municipal application procedure
have been retained as proposed.
However some changes and
clarifications ha%e been made, and
these are noted below
a. Screening analysis for illicit
discharges (port I of opplicolion). Illicit
discharges (non-storm water discharges
without a NPDES permit), and illegal
dumping to municipal separate storm
sewer systems occur in a relatively
haphazard manner. Due to the
unpredictability of such discharges.
todays permit applications require a
field analysis for the development of
priorities for detecting and controlling
such discharges. A field screening
approach will provide a means of
detecting high levels of pollutants in dry
weather flows, which is one indicator of
illicit connections. Results of a field test
of such discharges will provide further
information about the nature of the
discharge to determine if further
investigation is warranted Visual
observation of dry weather flows has
been shown to be one the mns’ effective
means for tracking down illicit
connection, and improper disposal
As discussed in greater detail In
section VLH.7b of today’s preamble.
EPA I. proposing to require that
municipal applicants submit a
comprehensive plan to develop a
program to detect and control illicit
connections and illegal dumping. In
order to develop appropriate priorities
for these programs, applicants shall
submit the results of a screening
analysis to be performed on major
outfalls or “field screening points” in the
systems to detect the presence of illicit
hookups and illegal dumping. The
results of the screening analysis,
referred to as the field screen, would be
reported in part I of the permit
application.
Under the requirements for a field
screen. the applicant or co-applicants
will submit a description of
observations of dry weather discharges
from major outfalla or “field screening
points” identified in part I of the
application. At a minimum, the field
screen would include a description of
visual observations made during a dry
weather period. If any flow is observed
during a dry weather penod. two grab
samples will be collected during a 24
hour period with a minimum period of
four hours between samples. For all
such samples, a description of the color.
odor, turbidity, the presence of an oil
sheen or surface scum as well as any
other relevant observation regarding the
potential presence of non-storm water
discharges or illegal dumping would be
provided. In addition, the applicant
should provide the results of a field
screen which includes on-site estimates
of pH. total chlorine, total copper, total
phenol, detergents (or surfacants) along
with a description of the flow EPA is
not requiring analytical methods
approved under 40 CFR part 138 be used
exclusively in the field screen. Rather.
the use of inexpensive field sampling
techniques such as the use of
colormetric detection methods is
anticipated. Where the field screen does
not involve analytical methods
approved under 40 CFR part 138. the
applicant is required to provide a
description of the method used which
includes the name of the manufacturer
of the test method, including the range
and accuracy of the test. Appropriate
field techniques for a field screen of dry
weather discharges are discussed in
EPA guidance for municipal storm water
discharge permit applications.
It should be clarified that data from
the field screen is generally not
appropriate for comprehensive
evaluation of water quality impacts, or
estimating pollutant loadings Rather,
the information from the field screen in
part 1 of the application will be used
along with other information, such as
the age of development and degree of
Industrial activity in the drainage basin.
to identify areas or outfalls which are
appropriate targets for management
programs and for investigations directed
at identifying and controlling non-storm
water discharges to separate storm
sewers during the term of the permit.
In the December 7, 1988. proposal,
EPA proposed a second phase of the
screening analysis requiring that wet-
weather and dry-weather samples be
collected and analyzed in accordance
with analytical methods approved under
40 CFR part 136 from designated major
outfalls for a larger set of pollutants
identified with illicit connections.
Comments es8entially viewed this
proposal as too ambitious for the permit
application. One commenter
recommended that this procedure could
best be accomplished during the term of
the permit. Some comments maintained
that the collection of analytical samples
as a follow up to an initial field screen
analysis was not the most cost-effective,
practicable or efficient method for
pinpointing illicit connections. EPA
recognizes that several municipal
programs to detect and control illicit
connections and other non-storm water
discharges have been successfully
developed and implemented without the
use of extensive analytical sampling (for
example, programs in Fort Worth, TX
and Washtenaw County. M I). After
identifying and analyzing the comments
on this aspect of the proposal EPA has
withdrawn this element of the proposal
from today’s rule. EPA believes that a
follow-up phase to the initial field
screening is more appropriate during the
term of the permit. Thus. EPA has
dropped the field screening requirement
proposed for Part 2 of the application.
b. Representative data (Port 2 of
opplicohon). The NURP study showed
that pollutant concentrations in urban
runoff can exhibit significant variation.
Pollutant concentrations in such
discharges vary during storm events and
from storm event to storm event. Given
the complex, variable nature of storm
water discharges from municipal
systems, EPA favors a permit scheme
where the collection of representative
data is primarily a task that will be
accomplished through monitoring
programs during the term of the permit.
Permit writers have the necessary
flexibility to develop monltonng
requirements that more accurately
reflect the true nature of highly variable
and complex discharges
-------
48050 Federal Register / VoL 55 . No. 222 / Friday. November 16. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Todays rule provides for an Initial
assessment of the quality of discharges
from municipal separate storm sewers
based primarily on source ident ification
measures and existing information
received In the permit application. This
Information will be med to begin to
characterize system discharges. The
analysis developed under this approach
will not rely soley on sampling data
collected during the application process.
but will also Incorporate existing data
base. such as the one developed under
the NURP study. Todays rule requires
that some quantitative data will be
collected to ensure the system
discharges can be appropriately
represented by the various existing data
bases and to provide a basis for
developing a monitoring plan to be
implemented as a permit condition.
Today’s rule requires that quantitative
data be submitted for discharges from
selected storm events at between 5 and
10 outfalls or field screening points. The
municipality will recommend and the
Director will then designate the outfalLs
or field screening points as
representative of the commercial.
residential and industrial land use
activities of the drainage area
contributing to the system, on the basis
of information received in part 1 of the
application. The applicant will be
required to collect samples of a storm
discharge from three storm events
occurring one month apart for each
designated outfall or field screening
point. This is a modification to the
December 7. 1988. proposal wherein
only one of the 5 to io outfalls was to be
sampled dimng three storm events, and
the rernatnuig sampled only once. This
requirement may be modified by the
Director if the type and frequency of
storm events reqwre different sampling.
The Director may require samples of
discharge- to be collected during snow
melts or during specified seasons. The
Director may also require additional
testing during a single event if it is
unlikely that there will be three storm
events suitable for sampling during the
year. Furthermore, the Director may
allow exemptions to the three storm
event requirement when climatic
conditions create good cause for such
exemptions: for example. arid regions or
areas experiencing drought conditions
during the period when applications are
developed could be exempted.
EPA has added requirements to
sample more storm events in respcnse to
comments that the sampling proca .lure
proposed would not necessarily yield
rep’esentative data. Commenters
indicated that: rain events of ddTerent
in.enslty may yield different levels and
types of pollutants; a rain evant after a
dry spell of several months will not be
representative when compared to rain
events occurring closer together, due to
the build up of constituents; one sample
may reflect short term effects such as
improper disposal rather than long term
effects; and that iain events are
generally too va4able to rely an the
limited sampling as proposed. Clearly
the data collected from sampling storm
water discharges has a tendency to vary
greatly. The more sampling that is
accomplished, the greater extent to
which this variability may be accounted
for and appropriate management
programs developed.
In selecting the amount of data to be
collected during the permit application
process. EPA has attempted to balance
the usefulness of this data against the
economic and logistical constraints in
actually obtaining It. In some cases the
data obtained will support initial
loading and concentration estimates
obtained using various modeling
techniques, from which appropriate
permit conditions can be developed.
Data obtained may be supplemented
with further data collection during the
term of the permit.
EPA believes that the requirement
that selected major municipal outfalls or
“field screening points” be sampled for
more than one event will provide
verification that the characterization of
discharge is valid. Where an ongoing
sampling program is defined for the term
of the permit, samples taken during the
first few years of this period can be used
to verify the application results. a
municipality or an industry questions
the conclusis,ns drawn from the
characterization sampling, it may at its
discretion choose to perform additional
sampling to either confirm or dispel
these concerns.
All samples collected will be analyzed
for all pollutants listed in Table II.
(organic pollutants), and Table ill. (toxic
metals. cyanide and total phenol) of
appendix D of 40 CFR part 122. and for
the pollutants listed in Table M—1
belowi
Table M-i
Total susead.d solids Total dijiolved solids.
COD BOO,.
Oil and so.. F.cal colatgro.
Fecal su ptonwii — pH.
Dissolved phosphorus
Total laurent. plu . Tout pphoni
or arnc alim e.
Total itpsldsot ofaosr_ Niest. p cstni..
A portion of the NURP progran.
involved monitoring 120 priority
pollutants in storm water discharges
from lands used for resIdentiaL
commercial and light Industr ial
ectivitues. The NURP program excluded
testing far a,beslos and dioxin. Results
for seven other organic priority
pollutants were not considered valid
due to changes In. or constraints on test
methods. Seventy.seven priority
pollutants were detected in samples of
storm water discharges from lands used
for residential, commercial and hght
industries taken during the NURP study.
Including 14 inorganic and 63 organic
pollutant... Table M—Z shows the priority
pollutants which were detected in at
least ten percent of the discharge
samples which were sampled for
pnonty pollutants.
TABLE M-2.—Pmoniry Pouumwrs DE.
TECTED IN AT LEAST 10% oF NURP
SAMPLES
(lii po centI
Metals and Ilorganics
:
Antimony
13
..
Arsenic
52
Be ’y lta.gil
12
.._._._. .._ .
m___ .
41
Oiromsa .
58
..

91
23
-
Cyaiades_
. .
Lead
94
. ... ..
43
11
94
Ncsot__. .
S e n iim .__
Zinc.._. ....._. .. . , ..__
Pee er
A-hesad’tovocyclohoa.n._
Alplte-nt osi4tan
20
19
.. --
ch cane
17
.. — ..__..____
Un8ane
15
—
Ha1 Qenaiod aSipilatics
Melw
I I
—
PPie. g and O ta
Phinot
14
._ -
Phenol, peni loro.
IS
Phenol. 4.1 1 50..
10
- -
Phth.ist.
Ptinaist.. he42. .ttWhsrØ)
22
.

Qvyssn._.
10
Fkao r m e ns
............
Ptw n ane
12
‘5
The NURP data also showed a
significant number of these samples
exceeded various freshwater water
quality criteria. The exceedence of
water quality criteria does not
necessarily imply that an actual
violation of standards will ex.ist in the
receiving water body in question.
Rather, the enumeration of exceedencea
serves as a screening function to
identify those constiteents whose
presence in urban storm water runoff
may warrant high priority for further
evaluation.
Members of this group represent all of
the ma jar organic chemical fractions
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55, No 222 / Friday. November 18, 1990 / Rules and Regulaüons O51
found In Table I I of appendix 0 of 40
( ‘R part 122 (volatllee, acid compounds,
base/neutrals, pesticides). Today’s rule
requires testing for all organic
constituents In Table U rather than
Limiting the sampling requirements to
the 24 toxic constituents found In the
NURP study because they will provide a
better description of the discharge at
essentially the same coat. (The cost of
analyzing samples for organic chemicals
strongly depends on the number of
major organic chemical fractions tested).
The NURP study focused on
characterizing storm water discharges
from lands used for residential.
commercial and light industrial
activities. In general, the NURP study
did not focus on other sources of
pollutants to municipal separate storm
sewer systems and, therefore, does not
reflect all potential pollutants that may
be present in discharges from municipal
separate storm sewer systems.
The sampling requirements for the
permit application address a limited
number of sampling locations but
require analysis for a wide range of
pollutants. Sampling for a wide range of
pollutants as a permit application
requirement should provide permit
writers with appropriate data to target
more specific pollutants when
developing requirements for a
monitoring program during ‘lie term of
the permit.
Numerous commenters stated that
monitoring for all priority pollutants
seemed excessive. However, EPA is
convinced that it is more appropriate for
permit conditions to focus on and
prioritize particular pollutant problems
after data covering a bread spectrum of
pollutants are developed. As noted
above, NIJRP identified 77 priorIty
pollutants in urban runoff, but only from
residential, commercial, and light
industrial (e.g. industrial parks) areas.
One municipal entity stated that thi.
approach Is a reasonable and realistic
means of providing some useful baseline
data, while others recommended
sampling a variety of parameters that
are included in Tdbles M-1 and P4.2.
Another municipal entity stated that
characterization of outfall discharge
quality during storm events is necessary
as a means of targeting source control
activities.
EPA is working with the United States
Ceological Survey (USGS) to evaluate
the availability of USGS technical
assistance to municipalities through
cooperative Funding programs to aid In
collecting representative quantitative
data of storm water discharges from
municipal systems.
USGS data collection programs with
municipalities typically include storm
water discharge samples obtained at
various times during a storm hydrograph
event. Various USGS field procedures
can be used to obtain discharge data for
pipes. culvert., etc., typically found in
urban areas. Pollutant models can be
calibrated with data and long-term
rainfall records to simulate the quality
of system discharges and compared to
other storm water models.
In addition. EPA recognizes that many
municipalities have participated in
studies, such as NURP. that involve
sampling of urban runoff as well as
other components of discharges from
municipal separate storm sewer
systems. All existing storm water
sampling data along with relevant water
quality data, sediment data, fish tissue
data or biosurvey data taken over the
last ten years is considered relevant
and, under today’s rule, must be
submitted with part I of the appLication.
Sampling data that is submitted must be
accompanied with a narrative
description of the drainage area served
by the outfall monitored, a description
of the sampling and quality control
program, and the location of receiving
water monitoring.
EPA requested comments on the use
of existing data, such as that generated
under the NURP study, to satisfy the
requirement of providing representative
sampling data, Commenters did not
agree on the value of NUBP results as an
indicator of representative data. Several
commentera expressed the view that
existing data could be used to satisfy in
whole or in part the representative
sampling requirements of the storm
water permit application. Howeirer,
commenters generally did not offer
suggested criteria that could be used to
verify the validity of existing data. One
commenter believed that intensive
sampling over a period of ten years in 12
basins, when combined with NURP
data, would be adequate.
One commenter supported the use of
data, such as that obtained from the
NURP study, to target sampling
programs. EPA supports such a
methodology and has retained this
portion of the proposed discharge
characterization component EPA
received strong support from an
nvuonmental group for retaining this
information requirement in part 1 of the
application.
In light of these comments EPA
believes it is appropriate to retain the
representative sampling requirements
without resorting to the use of existing
data exclusively. Because of the
inherent variability in reliability and
applicability of existing data. EPA is
convinced that a nationally consistent
methodology for collecting data is
appropriate. This data can then be used
in conjunction with other existing data
and models to develop appropriate site
specific management programs and
more generalized management program
strategies. Where existing data and data
collected under today’s rule varies or
does not match, further sampling under
the term of the permit will be
accomplished to more accurately assess
the discharge of pollutants..
Loading and Concentration
Estimates (part 2 of application). The
assessment of the water quality impacts
of discharges from municipal separate
storm sewer systems on receiving
waters requires the analysis of both
pollutant loadings and concentratwns of
pollutanta in discharges.
The loading and concentration
estimates in today s rule will be used to
evaluate two types of water quality
impacts: (1) Short-term impacts; and {2)
long.term impacts. Specifically, the
regulation requires estimates of the
annual pollutant load of the cumulative
discharges to waters of the United
States from municipal outfalls and the
event mean concentration of the
cumulative discharges to waters of the
United States municipal outfalls during
a storm event for BODI. COD. 1’SS ,
dissolved solids, total nitrogen. total
ammonia plus organic nitrogen. total
phosphorus, dissolved phosphorus.
cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc.
Estimates shall be accompanied by a
description of the procedures for
estimating constituent loads and
concentrations, including any modelling.
data analysis, and calculation methods.
Municipalities have options in the use of
methodologies, including those
presented in NURP for calculating loads.
Short term impacts from discharges
from municipal separate storm sewers
involve changes in water quality that
occur during and shortly after storm
events, Examples of short-term impacts
that can lead to impairments include
periodic dissolved oxygen depression
due to the oxidation of contaminants.
high bacteria levels, fish kills, acute
effects of toxic pollutants, contact
recreation impairments and loss of
submerged rnacrophytes.
Characterization of instream pollutant
concentrations based on estimated
pollutant concentrations in system
discharges are Important for evaluating
these types of impacts.
Long-term water quality impacts from
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewers may be caused by
contaminants associated with
suspended solids that settle in receiving
water sediments and by nutrients which
enter receiving water systems vith long
-------
a Federal Register I Vol. 55. No. 222 / Friday, November 16, 1990/ Rules and Regulations
retention times. Pollutant loading data
are Important for evaluation of
Impairment. tuck as loss of storage
capaäty in *ttEams. estuaries.
reservoirs, lake, and bays, lake
eutrophication caused by high nutrient
loadings. and destruction of benthic
habitat. Other examples of the long-term
water quality Impacts include depressed
dissolved oxygen caused by the
oxidation of organics in bottom
sediments and biological accumulation
of toxics as a result of uptake by
organisms in the food chain. An
estimate of annual pollutant loading
associated with discharges from
municipal storm water sewer systems is
necessary to evaluate the magnitude
and seventy of the environmental
impacts of such discharges and to
evaluate the effectiveness of controls
which are imposed at a later time.
Municipal storm water sewer systems
generally handle runoff from large
drainage area. and the sources of
pollution are usually very diffuse. The
concentrations of many pollutants in
discharges from these systems are often
low relative to many industrial process
and POTW di.,charges. The water
quality impacts of low concentration
pollution discharges tend to be
cumulative and need to be evaluated in
terms of aggregate loadings as well as
pollutant concentrations. A site-specific
loading analysis can be used to evaluate
the relative contribution of various
pollutant sources.
7 Storm Waler Quality Management
Plans
Today’s rule facilitates the
development of site-specific permit
conditions by requiring large and
medium municipal permit applicants to
submit, along with other information, a
description of existing structural and
non-structural prevention and control
measures on discharges of pollutants
from municipal storm sewers in part I of
the permit application. Section
122.26(d)(2ff iv) requires the applicant to
identify in part 2 of the application, to
the degree necessary to meet the MEP
standard, additional prevention or
control measures which will be
implemented during the life of the
permit. Although, in many cases, it will
not be possible to identify all prevention
and control measures that are
appropriate as permit conditions. EPA
believes that the process of identifying
components of a comprehensive
prevention and/or control program
should begin early and that applicants
should be given the opportunity to
identify and propose the components of
(he program thai they believe are
appropriate for first preventing or
controlling discharges of pollutants.
As noted earlier. EPA recognise. that
problems associated with storm water.
combined sewer overflows (CSOs) end
Infiltration and Inflow (l&l) are all Inter.
related even though they are treated
somewhat differently under the law
EPA believes that it is Important to
begin linking these programs and
activities and, because of the potential
cost to local governments. to investigati
the use of innovative, nontraditional
approaches to reducing or preventing
contamination of storm water. The
application process for developing
municipal storm water management
plans provides an ideal opportunity
between steps 1 and 2 for considering
the full range of nontraditional.
preventive approaches.
The permit application requirements
in today’s rule require the applicant or
co-applicants to develop management
programs for four types of pollutant
sources which discharge to large and
medium municipal storm sewer systems.
Discharges from large and medium
municipal storm sewer systems are
usually expected to be composed
primarily of: (1) Runoff from commercial
‘end residential areas; (2) storm water
runoff from industrial areas: (3) runoff
from construction sites; and (4) non-
storm water discharges. Part 2 of the
permit applicdlion has been designed to
allow the applicant the opportunity to
propose MEP control measures for each
of these components of the discharge.
Discharges from some municipal
53,stems may also contain pollutants
from other sources, such as runoff from
land disposal activities (leaking septic
tanks, landfills and land applicat.on of
sewage sludge). Where other sources.
such as land d;sposal. contribute
significant amounts of pollutants to a
municipal storm sewer system.
appropriate control measures should be
included on a site.specific basis.
Proposed management programs will
then be evaluated in the development of
permit condit&or.s.
There is some overlap in the manner
in which these pollutant sources are
characterized and their sources
identified. For instance, improper
disposal of oil into storm drains is often
associated with do-it-yourself
automobile oil changes in residential
8reas. or improper application or over-
use of herbicides and pesticides in
residential areas can also occur in
industrial areas. Also, some control
measures will reduce pollutant loads for
multiple components of the municipal
storm sewer discharge. These measures
should be identified under all
appropriate place. in the application: as
discussed below. however double
cenatingof pollutant removal must be
avoided when the total assessment of
control measures is performed.
Although many land use programs
have multiple purposes. including the
reduction of pollutants in discharges
from municipal separate storm sewer
systems, the proposed management
programs in today’s rule are intended to
address only those controls which can
be Implemented by the permit applicant
or co-applicants. EPA cannot abrogate
its responsibilities under the CWA to
implement the NPDES permit program
by relying on pollution control programs
that are outside the NPDES program. For
example. municipal permit management
programs may not rely exclusively on
erosion or sediment control laws for
implementing that portion of
management programs that address
discharges from construction sites,
unless such laws implement NPDES
permit program requirements entirely
and that such implementation is a part
of the permit
EPA anticipates that storm water
management programs will evolve and
mature over time. The permits for
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewer systems will be written to
reflect changing conditions that result
from program development and
implementation and corresponding
improvements in water quality. The
proposed permit applications will
require applicants to provide a
description of the range of control
measures considered for implementation
during the term of the permit. Flexibili’y
in developing permit conditions will be
encouraged by providing applicants an
opportunity to identify in the permit
application priority controls appropriate
for the initial implementation of
management programs. Many
comnienters endorsed the flexible site-
specific storm water program approach
as proposed as a method for addressing
regional water quality control programs
in a cost effective manner To this
extent. EPA agrees with one
municipality that management programs
should focus onniore serious problems
and sources of pollutants identified in
the municipal system. However. EPA
believes that to implement section
402(pl(3). comprehensive storm water
management programs which address a
number of major sources of pollutants tu
a system are necessary Municipal
programs should not be focused solely
on a single source of pollution, such as
illicit connections.
One comznenter maintained that
management program development
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 222 I Friday . November 16. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
should be flexible enough to allow fnr
consideration of what is attainable
based on the area’s climate. vegetation.
hydrology, and land uses, EPA agrees
with this comment. Some strategies for
reducing pollutants in the northeast will
not be practical in the southwest, such
as management programs for deicing
activities. The permit application
process will determine what strategies
are appropriate in different locations.
Several comxnenters supported
addressing storm water pollutant
problems through management practices
or programs rather than end of pipe
controls or treatment. EPA agrees with
this comment to the extent that storm
water management practices are a
general theme of this rulemaking with
regard to municipal permits. However,
there will be cases where such
discharges are best addressed through
technology such as retention, detention
or infiltration ponds.
One commenter reacted unfavorably
to the flexible site-specific management
plan approach stating that there is no
hard criteria upon which to judge the
adequacy of programs. Another
commenter felt that there should be a
BAT standard for municipal permits.
Another commenter stated that the rule
should contain specific BMPs that the
pernuttee must comply with. EPA
disagrees with these comments. The
Clean Water Act requires municipalities
to apply for permits that will reduce
pollutants in discharges to the maximum
extent practicable and sets out the types
of controls that are contemplated to deal
with storm water discharges from
municipalities. The language of CWA
section 402(p)(3) contemplates that.
because of the fundamentally different
characteristics of many municipalities,
municipalities will have permits tailored
to meet particular geographical,
hydrological, and climatic conditions.
Management practices and programs
may be incorporated into the terms of
the permit where appropriate. Permit
conditions, which require that storm
water management programs be
developed and implemented or require
specific practices, are enforceable in
accordance with the terms of the pernut.
EPA disagrees with the notion that this
regulation, which addressed permit
application requirements, should create
mandatory permit requirements which
may have no legitimate application to a
particular municipality. The whole point
of the permit scheme for these
discharges is to avoid inflexibility in the
types and levels of control. Further, to
the degree that such mandatory
requirements may be appropriate, these
requirements should be established
under the authority of section 402 (p)(8)
of the CW4 and not in this rulemaking,
which addresses permit application
requirements,
Some commenters suggested that
management programs should be
developed as part of the permit
conditions and not as part of the permit
application. EPA agrees that
management programs and their ongoing
development should be part of the
permit term. However, EPA is
convinced, and many commenters agree.
that the permit application should
contain information on what the
permittee has done to date and what it
proposes and plans to do during the
permit term based upon its discharge
characterization and source
identification data. This is a reasonable
and logical approach and one that meets
the intent and letter of section 402(p)(3)
of thc CWA. As stated above, this
would be art appropnate method for
implementing storm water management
programs that should mature and evolve
over time.
Applicants will propose priorities
based on a consideration of appropriate
controls including, but not limited to.
consideration of controls that address.
reducing pollutants to municipal
separate storm sewer system discharges
that are associated with storm water
from commercial and residential areas
( 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(A)); illicit discharges
and illegal disposal
( 122.28(d)(2 (iv)(B)): storm water from
industrial areas ( 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(C)).
and runoff from construction sites
It 122.25(d)(2)(iv)(D)). Permits for
different municipalities will place
different emphasis on controlling
various components of discharges from
municipal storm sewers. For example.
the potential for cross-connections (such
as municipal sewage or industrial
process wastewater discharges to a
municipal separate storm sewer) is
generally expected to be greater in
municipalities with older developed
areas. On the other hand, municipalities
with larger areas of new development
will have a greater opportunity to focus
controls to reduce pollutants in storm
water generated by the area after it is
developed, discharges from construction
sites, and other planning activities.
EPA requested comments on the
process and methods for developing
appropriate priorities in management
programs proposed in applications and
how the development of these priorities
can be coordinated with controls on
other discharges to ensure the
achievement of water quality standards
and the goals of the CWA.
Discharges from diffuse sources in
residential areas was recognized by
several commenters as a significant
source of pollutants. Accordingly. these
elements of the management plans have
been retained. In conjunction with the
importance of developing programs for
illicit connections, numerous
commenters stated that education
programs are a priority. Another
commenter emphasized that ordinances
prohibiting such discharges and their
enforcement is a crucial means of a
successful program in this regard. EPA
agrees with these comments and
consequently will retain those portions
of management program development
that include a description of a program
for educational activities such as public
information for the proper disposal of oil
and toxic materials and the use of
herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers
Some commenters noted that
discharge characterization is necessary
for development of appropriate
management plans EPA agrees with
these comments and has retained the
discharge characterization components
in this rulemaking However. EPA
disagrees that the results of all
discharge characterization procedures
(,e, part 1 and part 2) are necessary to
describe and propose a program as
required in part 2 of the application The
application of various models is
available to permit applicants, where
needed, to develop appropriate
management programs All a ailabIe
site specific discharge charactenzaiion
data should be available to the permit
writer to draft appropnate conditions for
the term of the permit
One commenter noted that an
important aspect of developing
management plans is establishing the
necessary legal authority to improve
water quality. EPA agrees with this
comment and has retained those aspects
of the regulation which call for
development and attainment of
8dequate legal authority in both parts of
the municipal application.
One commenter stated that programs
should address previously identified
water quality problems in other
programs that are required by section
304(1) of the CWA. EPA agrees that
identified water quality problems need
to be addressed by management
programs. and the municipal permit
application will call for an identification
of these waters However. EPA does not
endorse addressing these waters to the
exclusion of all others within the
boundanes of the municipal separate
storm sewer system. Some waters may
expenence substantial degrada lion after
rain events and still not be listed under
-------
38054 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 222 / Friday. November 18. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
section 304(1). Further, water quality
impacts in listed waters may not be
related to storm water discharges. while
nther non-listed waters do have water
quality impacts from storm water
discharges. Similarly. EPA agrees with
one commenter that It may be desirable
to focus attention and resources on
certain problem watersheds within a
municipality, and controls may be
imposed and programs prioritized on
that basis. However, such a focus
should not be to the exclusion of other
waters and watersheds that have water
quality problems (although less
troublesome) traceable to storm water
discharges. The CWA requires that
permits address discharges to waters of
the United States, not just waters
previously targeted under special
programs.
Some commenters expressed concern
that the permit application requires the
design of management programs before
knowing what will be in the permits.
EPA disagrees with the thrust of this
comment, that is that the orde; of
reql irements is inappropriate. The
permit appla.ant will ha e two years to
develop proposed plans which can be
considered by permit writers in the
development of the permit. Based upon
a consideration of the management
program proposed by the municipality
and other relevant information, permits
can be tailored for individual programs.
One commenter stated that the
cornerstone of management programs
are inspection and enforcement
programs. EPA agrees that these two
elements are important components.
Without inspection and enforcement
mechanisms the programs.will
undoubtedly falter. Accordingly these
requirements in the description of
management programs in the permit
application have been retained. In a
similar vein, one commenter emphasized
the importance of developing legal
authority, financial capability, and
administrative infrastructure. EPA
agrees with this comment and has
retained those aspects of the regulation
that call for a description of applicants
plans and resources in these areas.
One commenter stressed that control
of discharges into the municipal system
from industnes is an important goal of
municipal storm water management
programs. EPA agrees with this
comment and has retained the proposed
description of management programs to
address discharges from industrial
sources. Other commenters identified
Industrie, as the principal contnbutors
of pollutants to mumciiial separate
storm sewer sys’ems.
In addition. EPA will continue to
evaluate procedures and methods to
control storm water discharges to the
extent necessary to mitigate impacts on
water quality in the studies required
under section 402(p)(5) of the CWA. One
purpose of these studies will be to
evaluate the costs and water quality
benefits associated with Implementing
these procedures and methods. This
evaluation will address a number of
factors which impact the
implementation costs associated with
these programs. such as the extent to
which similar municipal ordinances are
currently being implemented. the degree
to which existing municipal programs
(such as flood management programs or
conslructicn site inspections) can be
expanded to address water quality
concerns, the resource intensiveness of
the control, and whether the control
program will involve public or pnvate
expenditures. This information, along
with information gained during permit
implementation will aid in the dynamic
l.r.g.term development of municipal
storm water management programs
a. Measures to reduce pollutants in
runoff from commercial and residential
areas. The NURP program evaluated
runoff from lands primarily ded:cated to
residential and commercial activities.
The areas evaluated in the study reflcct
some other activities, such as light
industry, which are commonly d spersed
among residential and coinmercidl
areas. The NURP study selected
sampling locations that were thought to
be relatively free of illicit discharges
and storm water from heavy industrial
sites including stcrm water runoff from
heavy construction sites. Of course, in a
study such as NURP it was impossible
to totally isolate various contributions to
the runoff In develop ng the permit
application requiremer.ts in today’s rule
EPA has, in general. relied on the NURP
definition of urban runoff—runoff from
lands used for residential, commercial
and light industrial activities.
NURP and numerous other studies
have shown that runoff from residential
and commercial areas washes a number
of pollutants into receiving waters. Of
equal Importance is the volume of s’orm
water runoff leaving urban areas during
storm events. Large intermittent
volumes of runoff can destroy aquatic
habitat. As the percentage of paved
surfaces increases, the volume and rate
of runoff and the corresponding
pollutant loads also increase Thus. the
amount of storm water runoff from
commercial and residential areas and
the pollutant loadings associated with
Storm water runoff increases a
development progresses: and they
remain at an elevated level for the
lifetime of the development.
Proposed 122.28(d)(2)(lv)(A) requires
municipal storm sewer system
applicants to provide in part 2 of the
application a description of a proposed
management program that will describe
priorities for implementing management
programs based on a consideration of
appropriate controls including’
• A description of maintenance
activities and a maintenance schedule
for structural controls:
• A description of planning
procedures including a comprehensive
master plan to control after construction
is completed. the discharge of pollutants
from municipal separate storm sewers
which receive discharges from new
development and significant
redevelopment after construction is
completed (in response to comment this
contemplates an engineering policy arid
procedure strategy with long term
planning).
• A description of practices for
operating i.nd maintaining public
highways and procedures For reducing
the impact on receiving waters of such
discharges from municipal storm sewer
system:
• A description of procedures to
assure that flood management projects
assess the impacts on the water quality
of receiving water bodies: and
• A description of a program to
reduce to t ,e maximum extent
practicable. pollutants in discharges
from municipal separate storm sewers
associate’d wijh the application of
pesticides. herbicides and fertilizer
which will include, as appropriate.
controls such as educational activities
and other measures for commercial
applicators and distributors. and
controls for application in public right-
of.ways and at municipal facilities.
Water quality problems caused by
municipal storm sewer discharges will
generally be most acute in heavily
developed areas. Prevention measures
may be desirable and cost effective
However, structural control measures
may also be effective, although
opportunities for implementing these
measures may be limited in previously
developed areas Commonly used
structural technologies include a wide
ariety of treatment techniques.
including first flush diversion systems.
detention/infiltration basins, retention
basins, extended detention basins.
infiltration trenches, porous pavement.
oil/grit separators, grass swales. and
swirl concentrators. A major problem
associated with sound storm water
management is the need for operating
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55. No. 222 1 FrIday, November 16. 1990 I Rules and: Regulations
and maintaining the system for Its
expected life.
The unavailability of land In highly
developed areas often makes the use of
structural controls infeasible for
modifying many existing systems. Non.
structural practices can play a more
Important role. Non-structural practices
can include erosion controL streambank
management techniques, Street cleaning
operations, vegetation/lawn
maintenance controls, debris removal,
road salt application management and
public awareness programs.
As noted above, the first component
of the proposed program to reduce
pollutants in storm water from
commercial and residential areas which
discharge to municipal storm sewer
systems is to describe maintenance
activities and schedule. The second
component of the proposed program to
reduce pollutants in storm water from
commercial and residential areas which
discharge to municipal storm sewer
systems provides that applicants
describe the planning procedures and a
comprehensive master plan that will
assure that increases of pollutant
loading associated with newly
developed areas are, to the maximum
extent practicable, limited. These
measures should address storm water
from commercial and residential areas
which discharge to the municipal storm
sewer that occur after the construction
phase of development is completed.
Controls for construction activities are
addressed later in today’s rule. One
cornmenter noted the feasibility of
developing management plans for r ewly
developing areas. EPA agrees with this
comment and has retained that portion
of the regulation that deals with a
description of controls for areas of new
development. Similarly, one
municipality stressed the importance
and achievability of addressing storm
water discharges from construction
sites.
As urban development occurs, the
volume of storm water and its rate of
discharge increases. These increases are
caused when pavement and structures
cover soils and destroy vegetation
which otherwise would slow and absorb
runoff. Development also accelerates
erosion through alteration of the land
surface. Areas that are in the process of
development offer the greatest potential
for utilizing the full range of structural
and non.structural best management
practices. If these measures are to
provide controls to reduce pollutant
discharges after the area has been
developed, comprehensive planning
must be used to incorporate these
measures as the area is in the process of
developing. These measures offer an
important opportunity to limit increases
in pollutant loads.
The third component of
* 122.28(dfl2)(iv)(A) provides a
description of practices for operating
and maintaining public roads and
highways and procedures for reducing
the impact on receiving waters of
discharges from municipal storm sewer
systems. General guidelines
recommended for managing highway
storm water runoff include litter control.
pesticide/herb icide use management,
reducing direct discharges, reducing
runoff velocity, grassed channels, curb
elimination. catchbasin maintenance,
appropriate streetcleaning. establishing
and maintaining vegetation,
development of management controls
for salt storage facilities, education and
calibration practices for deicing
application, infiltration practices, and
detention/retention practices.
The fourth component of
I 122 .26(d)(2)(iv)(A) provides that
applicants identify procedures that
enable flood management agencies to
consider the Impact of flood
management projects on the water
quality of receiving streams. A well-
developed storm water management
program can reduce the amount of
pollutants in storm water discharges as
well as benefit flood control objectives.
As discussed above, increased
development can increase both the
quantity of runoff from commercial and
residential areas and the pollutant load
associated with such discharges.
Disturbing the land cover, altering
natural drainage patterns, and
increasing impervious area all increase
the quantity and rate of runoff, thereby
increasing both erosion and flooding
potential. An integrated planning
approach helps planners make the best
decisions to benefit both flood control
and water quality objectives.
The fifth component of
I 122.28(d)(2J(iv)(A) would provide that
municipal applicants submit a
description of a program to reduce, to
the maximum extent practicable,
pollutants in discharges from municipal
separate storm sewers associated with
the application of pesticides, herbicides
and fertilizer. Such a program may
include controls such as educational
activities and other measures for
commercial applicators and distributors
and controls for application in public
nghts.of.way and at municipal facilities.
Discharges of these materials to
municipal storm sewer systems can be
controlled by proper application of these
materials. Some commenteri noted that
insecticides used in residential areas are
a probable source of pollutants in storm
water discharges from residential areas,
as well as salting and other de’.icing
activities. In response to this comment,
part of a community management plan
may include controls or education
programs to limit the impacts of these
sources of pollutants. One commentei’
noted that many communities already
have household toxic disposal programs.
Where appropriate these can be
incorporated into municipal
management programs.
Some commenters suggested
substituting the management program
description for residential and
commercial areas with a simple
identification of applicable management
practices. EPA agrees that identification
of appropriate management practices is
a critical component of a program
description for these areas. In essence.
this is what the program description is
designed to achieve However, for th.-
reasons discussed in greater detail
above. EPA is convinced that an
appropriate program must address all of
the components of the management
program for residential and commercial
areas that are outlined in today’s rule.
Further, for the purposes of writing a
permit with enforceable conditions, the
application should identify a schedule to
implement management practices. The
applicant sh uld be able to estimate the
reduction in pollutant loads as a result
of the development of certain
management practices and programs
(4 122.26(d)(2 (v). A program may also
include public education programs,
which are not necessanly viewed as
traditional BMPs.
b Measures for illicit discharges a.’id
Improper disposal. The CWA requires
that NPDES permits for discharges from
municipal storm sewers “shall include a
requirement to effectively prohibit non-
stormwater discharges into the storm
sewers.” In today’s rule, EPA will begin
to implement this statutory mandate by
focusing on two types of discharges to -
large and medium municipal separate
storm sewer systems. See
4 122.28(d)(1)(iv)(D) and (d)(2)(ivj (B)
One type of non-storm water discharges
are illicit discharges which are plumbed
into the system or that result from
leakage of sanitary sewage system. The
other class of non-storm water
discharges result from the improper
disposal of materials such as used oil
and other toxic materials
illicit discharges. In some
municipalities, illicit connection, of
sanitary, commercial and industrial
discharges to storm sewer systems have
had a significant impact on the water
quality of receiving waters Although tL
-------
48058 Federal RegiMer I VoL 55 No. 222 / Friday . November 16. 1990 1 Rules and R egula lions
NURP study did not emphasize
identifying Illicit connections to storm
sewers other than to assure that
monitoring sites used in the study were
free from sanilary sewage
contamination, the study concluded that
illicit connections can result in high
bacterial counts and dangr’rs to public
health. The study also noted that
removing such discharges presented
opportunities for dramatic
improvements in the quality of urban
storm water discharges.
Other studies have shown that illicit
connections to storm sewers can create
severe, wide-spread contamination
problems. For example, the Huron River
Pollution Abatement Progiam inspected
660 businesses, homes and other
buildings located in Waghtenaw County.
Michigan and Identified 14% of the
buidings as having improper storm
drain connections. Illicit discharges
were detected at a higher rate of 60% for
automobile related businesses, including
service stations. automobile dealerships.
car washes, body shops nd light
industrial facilities. While some of the
pruLilems discovered in this study were
tne result of improper plumbing or illegal
cor.nect ons. a ma onty were approved
r.n ’ nectiona at the lime they were built.
Many commenters emphasized the
identification and elimination of illicit
connections as a priority. inr.!uding
leakage from sanitary sewers. EPA
agrees with these comments and intends
to ct in th:s portion of the program
without modiflcat:on.
A wide vdriety of tet:inulugies exist
fur detecting illicit disch4rges The
cite. livene s at these measures i.irgdy
di —‘i.ds upon the site-speufic design of
the system. Under today’s rule, permit
appticants would develop a description
ot .j proposed managrment program.
irti_Jing priorities fur implcmcnting the
program and a schedule to implement a
pr.gram to identify illicit discharges to
the municipal storm sewer system This
rutemaktng v iil require the initial
prior ttes for analyzing vunous portiuns
of ‘he system and the appropndte
detection techniques to tie used.
Improper disposal. The permit
appliuition requiremcnts for municipal
storm sewer systems include a
requirement that the municipal permit
applicant descnbe a program to assist
and f3caliiJte in the proper management
of used oil and tO*ic rnattrials Improper
managerr.en l of used oil can lead to
di harges to municipal storm sewers
thai in iurn may have a significant
Impact on receiving waler bodies. EPA
estimates that. annuaI y. 261 million
gallons of uscd oil, including 135 million
ga!lons of used oil from do-it.yourselt
automobile oil changes. are disposed of
improperly. An additional 70 million
gallons of used oil, most coming from
service stations and repair shops, are
used for road oiling. Many commenters
emphas&zed the ehinination of
discharges composed of improperly
disposed of oil and tosic materiaL One
commenter identified motor oil as the
malor uurce of oil contamination and
that EPA needs to encourage proper
disposal of used oiL Several other
commenters emphasized the importance
of recycling programs for oil. EPA agrees
with these comments and intends to
retain this portion of the program
without modification. One commentcr
identified public awareness and timely
reporting of illegal dumping as critical
components of this portion of the
program. EPA agrees with this comment
and intends for management programs
to deal with this problem.
c. Measures to reduce pollutants in
s:nrrn it oter discharges through
municipol seporote storm sewers from
municipal lonofills. hazoriious wo cte
Irrolmeni. disposal and recoi’ely
fuc,lthes that ore subject to section 313
of title Ill of SARA. As discussed in
section VI C of today’s preamble.
mndu trial facilities that discharge storm
water through a large or medium
municipal separate storm sewer system
are required to apply for a permit under
{ 12 ,26(cl or seek coverage under a
promulgated general permit Today’s
role also requires the municipal storm
sewer permittee to describe a program
to address industrial dischargtrs th..t
are covered under the municipal storm
sewer permit. Today’s rule requires the
municipal applicant to identify such
discharges (see source identification
ri’quirements under 122.26(dl (2)(iifl.
provide a description of a program to
monitor pollutants in runoff frwi certain
industrial facilities that discharge to the
municipal separate storm sewer system.
idi ntify priorities and procedures for
inspections, and establish and
implement control measures for sucn
discharges. Should a municipality
suspect that an individual discharger is
discharging pollutants in storm water
above acceptable limits, and the owner/
operator of the S) stem has no authority
over the discharge. the municipality
should contact the NPDES permitting
authority for appropriate action Two
example of possible action are if the
facility already has an individual permit.
the permit may be reopened iir.d further
controls imposed, or if the facility is
covered by a promulgateo generai
permit. then an individual site-specific
permit application may be required.
In the December 7,1986. proposal.
EPA requested comments concerning
what storm water discharges from
industrial Facilities through municipal
systems should be monitored. One of the
proposed approaches was to require
data on portions of the municipal system
which receive storm water from
facilities vvhach are listed in the
proposed regulatory definition at
122.28(bj(14 ) of “alarm water
discharge associated with industrial
activity” (with the exception of
construction activities and
uncontaminated storm water from oil
and gas operations) which discharge
through the municipal system. However.
given the large number of facilities
meeting th s definition that discharge
through municipal systems. a monitoring
program that requires the submission of
quantitative data regarding portions of
the municipal systems receiving storm
vvater from such facilities may not be
practicable. Such a requirement could.
for some systems. potentially i.,ecome
the most resource intensive
requirements in the municipal permit
Therefore. EPA proposed various ways
to develop appropriate targeting for
monitoring programs
EPA requested comments on a
requirement that, at a minimum,
monitoring programs address dischargt -s
frnm municipal separate storm sewer
outfalls that contain storm water
d.scharges frcm municipal landfills.
ha7ardous waste treatment. d:sposal
and recovery facilities, and runo from
industrial facilities that are subject to
section 313 cf title Ill of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act
of 1986 (SARA) Section 313 of title Ill
requires that operators or ceridin
fac.ilities that rn inu!acture. import.
proiess or otherwise use certain tuxi,,
chemicals report annually the:r releases
of those chemicals to any environmental
media. Sect on 313(b) of title Ill specifli s
that a facility is covered fur the
purposes of reporting if it meets all at
the 1ullov ing criteria.
• The facility has ten or more full-
time employees:
• The facility is in Standiied Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes 20 through 3
• The facility manufactured (induding
quantities imported). processed, or
otherwise used a listed chemical in
amounts that exceed Certain threshold
quantities during the calendar year for
which reporting is required
Listed chemicals include 329 toxic
chemicals listed at 40 CFR 37145, After
1989. the threshold quantities of listed
cnemical that the facility must
manufacture, import or process lmn order
to trigger the submission of a reloase
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 222 I Friday. November 16. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
report) is 25.000 pounds per year. The
threshold for a use other than
manufacturing. importing or processing
of listed toxic chemicals is 10.000
pounds per year. EPA promulgated a
final regulation darifying these
reporting requirements on February 16.
i a . (53 FR 4500).
EPA received numerous comments
regarding limiting the types of facilities
that are initially subject to monitoring
and municipal management programs.
Numerous municipalities agreed that
focusing on the above facilities is an
apyruvriate means for setting priorities
for the development of control measures
to eliminate or reduce pollutants
associated with industrial facilities.
Commenters agreed that the potential
for toxic materials in discharges is high
because of the high volume of such
materials at these facilities and that
information regarding discharges and
material management practices will be
available through section 313 of SARA.
One commenter noted that building on
an established program will contnbute
to establishing an effective storm water
program. Accordingly. EPA has
specified at 122.28(d)(2)(ii)(C) that the
municipal applicant must describe a
program that identifies priorities and
procedures for inspections and
establishing and implementing cor.trol
measures for these facilities.
Several commenter, suggested thdt
these facilities should not be singled out
because the presence of the threshold
amounts of SARA 313 chemicals does
not indicate that significant quantities of
ihose chemicals are likely to enter the
facility’s storm water runoff. Instead it
was suggested that municipalities
should monitor storm sewers as a whole
to determine what chemicals are present
and therefore what facilities are
responsible. EPA disagrees with these
comments. The object of these
r?qwrement, is initially to set priorities
for monitoring requirements. Then, if the
situation requires. controls can be
eLoped and instituted. If a facility is
• member of this class of facilities end
èses not discharge excessive quantities
of SARA 313 chemical ., then it may not
be subjected to further monitoring and
controls. As noted above, the selection
of facilities is only a means of setting
priorities for facilities (or the
development of municipal plans
EPA agrees. however, that there will
be other facilities that are significant
sources of pollutants and should be
addressed by municipalities as soon as
possible under managemen programs.
Accordingly, those industrial facilities
that the municipal permit applicant
determines to be contributing a
substantial pollutant loading to the
municipal storm sewer system shall be
addressed in this portion of the
municipal management program.
EPA also requested comments on
monitoring program. for municipal
discharges including the submission of
quantitative data on the following
constituents:
• Any pollutants limited in an effluent
guidelines for the industry
subcategories, where applicable:
• Any pollutant listed in a discharging
facility’s NPDES permits for process
wastewater, where applicable:
• Oil and grease. pH. BOD5. COD.
TSS, total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl
nitrogen. and nitrate plus nitrite
nitrogen:
• Any information on discharges
required under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(iii)
and (iv).
These are the same constituents that are
to be addressed in individual permit
applicants for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity.
Several industries and municipalities
submitted comments on this issue. Some
commenters agreed that these are
appropriate parameters. Some
commenters athised that the ability of
municipalities to implement this aspect
of the program depended on industries
s..ibmitting this data. Several industries
provided comments suggesting that the
approach should allow the perrnittce
flexibility in determining which
parameters are chosen because of the
burdens of monitoring and the
compleiuty of materials and flows in
municipal systems
In light of these comments. EPA has
retained 12226(d)(2)(iv)(C) as
proposed requiring municipalities to
describe a monitoring progrdm whith
utilizes the above parameters.
Monitoring for these parameters
provides consistency with the individual
application requirements for industries.
provides uniformity in municipal
applications, and will narrow the
parameters to conform to the types of
industries discharging into the rriiinicipal
systems. Monitoring programs may
Consist of programs undertaken by the
municipality exclusively or requirements
imposed on industry by the
municipality, or a combination of
approaches. Appropriate procedures are
discussed in municipal permit
application guidance
EPA requested comments on
appropriate means for municipalities to
determine what facilities are
contributing pollutants to municipal
systems. Many commenters responded
with numerous methodologies. Some of
these have been addressed in guidance.
Municipalities will have options in
selecting the most appropriate
methodology given their circumstances
as described in their permit
applications.
EPA initially favors establishing
monitoring requirements to be applied to
those outfall. that directly discharge to
waters of the United States. EPA
received one comment from a
municipality with regard to this issue
which agreed that this was the most
logical approach. Monitoring of outfall.
close to the point of discharge to waters
of the United States is generally
preferable when attempting to identify
priorities for developing pollutant
control programs. However, under
certain circumstances, it may be
preferable to monitor at the point where
the runoff from the industrial facility
discharges to the municipal system For
example, if many facilities discharge
substantially similar storm water to a
municipal system it may be more
practicable to monitor discharges from
representative facilities in order to
characterize pollutants in the discharge
As noted by numerous industries, if
municipal characterization plans reveal
problems from certain industrial
dischargers. then such facilities may be
required to provide further data from
their own monitoring. As noted above.
EPA envisions that this data could then
be used to develop appropriate control
practices or techniques and/or require
individual permit applications if a
general permit covering the facility
proves inadequate.
Comments were also solicited as to
v hether end-of-pipe treatment gencr Ity
was more appropriate than source
controls for storm water from industridl
facilities which discharge to municipal
systems. Many commenters. includrng
both municipalities and industries.
stated that source controls are the only
practical and feasible means of
controlling pollutants in storm water
runoff, and specifically opposed the
concept of end-of-pipe treatment or
other controls. Some commenters
maintained that, from an economic and
env ronmentaI standpoint, end-of-pipe
treatment may be the only effective
means One advised that the prompt
cleanup of spills controlled wash down
of process areas. co’.ering of material
loading areas. storm water runoff
diversion, covered storage areas.
detention basins or other such
mechanisms would prevent storm wdter
from mixing with pollutants and
possibly discharging them into recei%Ing
waters Another noted that in the urban
areas. there is little potential for
treatment, consequently, it would seem
-------
1 SS Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 222 / Friday, November 15 1990 Rules and Regulations
that controls and! or retrofitting existing
facilities would be necessary when
viola Ion, are found and that citizens
will be better served by source controls
appropriate to the individual problem.
EPA agrees with these comments to
the extent that source controls and
management programs are the general
thruit of these regulations. However, in
some situations end-of-pipe treatment.
such as holding ponds. may be the only
reasonable alternative. EPA disagrees
with one industrial commenter that the
muniipalilies should be almost entirely
responsible for treating municipal
discharges at the end of-the-pipe
without reliance on source con’.rols by
industrial dlschargers. Municipal
programs may require controls on
industrial sources with demonstrated
storm water discharge problems. One
industrial association noted that its
member companies already have
incentive to properly handle their
material, and facilities because of other
environmental programs with spill and
erosion controls.
Numerous commenters stated that the
program address ng industrial
dischargers through municipal systems
need, to be dearly defined in order to
eliminate, as much as possible, potential
conflicts between the system operator
and discharger.. EPA has provided a
framework (or development of
management plans to control pollutants
from these particular sources. However.
because of the differences in municipal
systems and hydrology nationwide. EPA
is not convinced that program specificity
i an appropriate ap iroach The concept
of he management program is to
provide flexibility to the permit
applicant, to develop regional site
!pecific control programs.
One commenter suggested that
required controls should be limited to a
faciiity’s proportional cor.tril,ut,on
(based on concentration) of pollutants.
EPA disagrees. Most facilities
discharging through a municipal
separate storm sewer will need to be
cobered by a general or individual
permit. These permits will control the
introduction of pollutants from that
facility through the municipal storm
sewer to the waters of the U S. Any
additional controls placed on the facility
by the municipality will be at the
discretion of the municipality. EPA is
not requiring municipalities to adopt a
particular level of controls on industrial
facilities is suggested by the
commenter.
One comn%enter questioned how
discharger, that discharged both into
the waters of the United States and
through a municipal system will be
sddres,,d and whether there is a
potential for inconsistent requirements.
Industries that discharge storm water
associated with industrial activity into
the waters of the United States are
required to be covered by individual
permits or general permits (or such
discharges. Discharger. of storm water
associated with industrial activity
through municipal separate storm sewer
systems will be subject to municipal
management programs that address
such discharges as well as to an
individual or general NPDES permit for
those discharge,. EPA does not believe
there is a significant risk of inconsistent
requirements. since each industrial
facility must meet BAT/BCT-level
controls in its NPDES permit. EPA
doubts that municipalities will impose
much more stringent controls.
Many comnienters stated that if cities
and municipalities are to be responsible
for industrial storm water discharges
through their system, then municipalities
should have authority to make
determination, as to what industries
should be regulated, how they are
regulated, and when enforcement
actions are undertaken. In response.
EPA notes that the proposal has been
changed and that municipalities will not
be solely responsible for industries
discharging through their system.
Nonetheless. municipalities will be
required to meet the terms of their
permits related to industrial dischargors.
Municipalities may undertake programs
that go beyond the threshold
requirements of the permit. Some
municipal entities stated that municipal
permittees should be able to require
pemi& applications from industries in
the same manner that EPA doe. and
also require permit,. In response. if
operators of large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer 9% stems
wish to employ such a program, then
this portion of the management program
may incorporate such practices.
d. Measure, to reduce pollutants in
runoff from construction sites Into
municipal systems. Section Vl.F..8 of
todays ride discusses hPA’s proposal to
define the term ‘storin water discharge
associated with industrial activity’ to
include runoff from construction sites.
includuig preconstriiction activities
except operations that result in the
disturbance of less than 5 acres total
land area which are not part of a larger
common plan of development or sale
Under todays rule facilities that
discharge runoff from construction sites
that meet th.s definition will be required
to submit permit applications unless
they are to be covered by another
individual or general NPDES permit
Permit application requirements for roth
discharge. are at 40 CFR 1ZZ.294cJ(1 J I lt).
Section 122 ,26(d)(2)(iv)(D) of today’s
rule requires applicants for a permit for
large or medium municipal separate
storm sewer systems to submit a
description of a proposed management
program to control pollutants in
construction site runoff that discharges
to municipal systems. Under this
provision. municipal applicants will
submit a description of a program for
implementing and maintaining structural
and non-structural best management
practices for controlling storm water
runoff at construction sites. The program
will address procedures for site
planning. enforceable requirements for
nonstructural and structural best
management practices, procedures For
inspecting sites and enforcing control
measures, and educatioial and traanir.g
measures. Generally. construction site
ord:nances are effecti%e when they are
implemented. However, in many areas.
even though ordinances exist, they have
limited effectivenes, because they are
not adequately implemented
Maintaining best management practices
also presents problems Retention and
infiltration basins fill up and silt fences
may break or be overtopped. Weak
inspection and enforcement point to the
need for more emphasis on training and
education to complement regulatory
programs Permits issued to
municipalities will address these
concerns
8 Assi ssmcnt of Contiols
EPA poposed that munR.Ipdl
‘ppiicants provide an initial assessn ’.ent
c( the effectiveness of the control
method for structural or non-strui.tural
cor.trols i hich have been proposed in
the mar.agentent program. Some
commenters stated that the assesbment
of controls should be left to the term of
the permit because the effectiveness of
controls will be hard to establish, F.PA
believes that an initial estimate or
assessment is needed because the
performance of appropnate management
controls is highly dependent on site-
specific factors. The assessment will tic
used in conjunction with the
development of pollutant loading and
concentration estimates (sec Vt H.6cJ
arid the evaluation of water quality
b iit’fitg associated with implementir’g
controls. Such assessments do not hev ’
to be verified with quant tative data but
c in be based on accepted eng.neenng
design practices Further more precise
assessments based upon quantitative
data can be undertaken during the term
of the permit
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 222/ Friday. November 16. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
O59
1. Annual Reports
As discussed earlier in today’s
preamble EPA has provided for
proposed flexible permit application
requirements to facilitate the
development of site-specific programs to
control the discharge of pollutants from
large and medium municipal separate
storm sewer systems. Many
municipalities are in the early stages of
the complex task of developing a
program suitable for controlling
pollutants in discharge. under a NPDES
permit, while other municipalities have
relatively sophisticated programs in
place. In order to ensure that such site-
specific programs are developed in a
timely manner, EPA proposed to require
permittees of municipal separate storm
sewer systems to submit status reports
every year which reflect the
development of their control programs.
The reports will be used by the
permitting authonty to aid in evaluating
compliance with permit conditions and
where necessary. modify permit
conditions to address changed
conditions EPA requested comments on
the appropriate content of the annual
reports. Based on these comments EPA
has added the following in these reports:
an analysis of data, including monitoring
data, that is accwnulated throughout the
yeari new outfalls or discharges; annual
expenditures; identification of w8ter
quality improvements or degradation on
watershed basis, budget for year
following each aiinual report, and
administrative information including
enforcement activities, inspections, and
public education programs. EPA views
this information as important for
evaluating the municipal program.
Annual monitoring data and identified
water quality improvements are
important for evaluating the success of
management programs in reducing
pollutants. 11 new outfalls come into
existence during the term of the permit.
these may be sources of pollutants and
appropriate permit conditions will be
developed. Annual reports should reflect
the level of enforcement activity and
inspection. undertaken to ensure that
the legal authority developed by the
municipality is properly exercised.
Many of the management programs
depend upon an ongoing high level of
public education. Accordingly. the
undertaking of these programs on an
annual basis should be documented
J. Application Deadlines
The CWA provided a statutory time
frame for implementing the storm water
permit application process and Issuance
and compliance with permits.
The CWA requires EPA to promulgate
permit application requirements for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity and for large
municipal separate storm sewer Systems
by “no later than two years” after the
date of enactment (i.e. no later than
February 4. 1989). In conjunction with
this requirement. 4he Act requires that
permit applications for these classes of
discharges be submitted within one year
alter the statutory date by which EPA is
to promulgate permit application
requirements by providing that such
applications “shall be filed no later than
three years’ after the date of enactment
of the WQA (i.e.. no later than February
4. 1990).
The CWA also requires EPA to
promulgate final regulations governing
storm water permit application
requirements for discharges from
municipal separate storm sewer systems
serving a population of 100.000 or more
but less than 250.000 by “no later than
four years” after enactment (i.e. no later
than February 4, 1991). Permit
applications for medium municipal
separate storm sewer systems “shall be
filed no later than five years” after the
date of enactment of the CWA (i.e. no
later than February 4, 1992). The CWA
did not establish the time period
between designation and permit
application submittal for case-by-case
designations under section 402(p)(2)(E).
Comments on earlier rulemakings
involving storm water application
deadlines have established that
applicants need adequate time to obtain
“representative” storm water samples.
Many commenters have indicated that
at least one full year is needed to obtain
such samples. This is because many
discharges are located in areas where
testing during dry seasons or winter
would not be feasible. The intermittent
and unpredictable nature of storm water
discharges can result in difficult and
time.consuming data gathering.
Moreover, some operators of municipal
separate storm sewer systems have
many storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity, which can
require considerable time to identify.
analyze. and submit applications. This
creates a tremendous practical problem
for the extremely high number of
unpermitted storm water discharges.
The public’s interest in a sound storm
water program and the development of a
useful storm water data base is best
served by establishing an application
deadline which will allow sufficient time
to gather. analyze, and prepare
meaningful applications Based on a
consideration of these factors. EPA
proposed that individual permit
applications for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
which currently are not covered b) a
permit and that are required to obtain a
permit, be submitted one year alter the
final rule is promulgated.
EPA received numerous comments
from industries on the one year
requirement for submitting applications.
Several commenters supported the
proposed deadline as realistic, while
others believed more time was needed
to meet the information and quantitative
requirement.
EPA rejects the assertion by some
commenters that a year is too short a
period of time to obtain the required
quantitative data. Todays rule generally
requires applications for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity to be submitted on or before
November 18, 1991. Operators of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity which discharge
through a municipal separate storm
sewer are subject to the same
application deadline as other storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity Since final regulation
at § 122.21(,g)(7) provides considerable
latitude for selecting rain events for
quantitative data, EPA is convinced that
in most cases data can be obtained
during the one year time frame. If data
cannot be collected during the one year
time frame because of anomalous
weathe’r (eg drought conditions), then
permitting authorities may grant
additional time for submitting that data
on a case-by-case basis See
§ 122.21(g)(7)
Operators of storm water discharges
which are currently covered by a permit
will not be required to submit a permit
application until their existing permit
expires. In recognition of the time
required to collect storm water
discharge data. EPA will allow facilities
which currently have a NPDES permit
for a storm water discharge and which
must reapply for permit renewal during
the first year following promulgation of
today’s permit application requirements
the option of applying in accordance
with existing Form I and Form 2C
requirements (in lieu of applying in
accordance with the revised application
requirements)
As discussed in section VI.D 4 and
section VI.F 6 of today’s preamble. EPA
has established a two part permit
application both for both group
applications for sufficiently similar
facilities that discharge storm water
associated with industrial activity and
for operators of large or medium
municipal separate storm sewer
systems The deadlines for .ubmitti g
-------
4 fl0O Federal Register / VoL S5 No . 222 I Friday. November 10. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
permit applications In todays rule
provide adequate time for (1)
Applicants to prepare Part I of the
application (2) EPA or an approved
Slate to adequately review applications
and (3) applicant, to prepare the
contents of the part 2 application.
Part I of the group application for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity must be submitted
within 120 days from the publication of
these final permit application
regulations. This time is necessary to
form groups and for individual members
of the group to prepare the non.
quantitative information required In part
I of the application. Part I of the group
application will be submitted to EPA
Headquarters in Washington. DC and
reviewed within 60 days after being
received. Part 2 of the application would
then be submitted wi:h:n one year after
the part I application is approved. It
should be noted that many facilities
located in States in which general
permits can be issued, will be elig;ble
for coverage by a storm water general
permit to be promulgated in the near
future. Such facilities may either seek
coverage under such general permits or
participate in the group application.
Several comments were received by
EPA that indicated that a period of 120
days was too short a period for groups
to be formed. EPA disagrees with these
comments. The information that EPA is
requiring to be submitted by the group
or group representative is information
that is generally available such as the
location of the facility, its industrial
activity, and material management
practices. EPA believes thai 120 days is
sufficient to gather and submit this
information along with an identif.cation
of 10% of the facilities which will submit
quantitative data. To ameliorate any
difficulties for applicants. EPA has
provided a means fur late facilities to
“add on” where appropriate, on a case-
by-case basis, as discussed in section
Vl.F.4. above.
Several comments were received with
regard to the requirement that new
dischargets submit an application at
least 180 days before the date on which
the discharge is to commence. One
commenter noted that it will be difficult
for a facility to know when a storm
water discharge is to commence stnce
precipitation and runoff cannot be
predicted to any degree of accuracy In
response, new duschargers must apply
for a storm water permit application 180
days before that facility commences
manufacturing, processing, or raw
material storage operations which may
result In the discharge of pollutant, from
storm water runoff, and 90 days for new
construction sites.
For large municipal separate storm
sewer systems (systems serving a
population of mote than 2*000). EPA
proposed that patti of the permit
application be submitted within one
year of the date of the final regulations.
with approval oul..digapproval by the
permit issuing authority of the
provisions of the part I permit
application within 90 days after
receiving part I of the application, The
Part 2 portIon of the application was to
be submitted within two years of the
date of promulgation.
For medium municipal separate storm
sewer systems (systems serving a
population of more than 100.000, but less
than 250.000). EPA proposed that permit
applications would be required nine
months after the date of the final rule,
with approval or disapproval of the
provisions of the part I permit
application within 90 days alter
receiving the part I application. The part
2 portion of the application would then
be submitted no later than one year
after the part I application has been
approved.
Numerous comments were received
by EPA from municipalities on these
proposed deadlines. Many of these
comments reflect the sentiment that the
deadlines are too tight and that the
required information would not be
available for submission within the
required time frame. Some commenters
suggested deadlines that would add
over three years to the permit
application process. Other commenters
suggested a revamped application
process and a shorter deadline of 18
months. Some commenters explained
that additional time would be needed to
obtain adequate legal authonty. while
another stated that an inventory of
outfalls required more time. One
commenter maintained that
intergovernmental agreements will
require more time to prepare, and others
expressed the view that more time was
needed for the review of part 1 of the
application by permitting authonties.
Others felt more time was needed For
collecting data, or hiring additional staff
to accomplish the work. Most of these
commenters did not provide specific
details regarding what would be an
appropriate amount of time and why
After reviewing these comments EPA
has decided to modify some of the
deadlines as proposed. EPA is
convinced that to properly achieve the
goals of the CWA. the permit
application requirements as discussed In
previous sections are appropriate’, but
that the deadlines for medium municipal
separate storm sewer systems should be
adjusted so that the program’s goals can
be properly accomplished. After
reviewing comments, EPA believes that
medium municipalities will have fewer
resources and existing institutional
arrangements than large cities and
therefore more time should be granted to
these cities for submitting parts I and 2
of the application.
Accordingly EPA will require large
munic-.pnl systems to submit part 1 of
the permit application no later than
November10. 1991. Part I will be
reviewed and approved or disapproved
by the Director within 90 days. Part 2 of
the application will then be submitted
November 16, 1992. Medium municipal
ss’stems will submit part I of the
application on May 18. 1992. Approval
or disapproval by the Director will be
accomplished within 90 days. Part 2 of
the application will be submitted by
May 17, 1993. These deadlines will give
large systems two years to complete the
application process, and medium
systems 2 years and 6 months to submit
applications EPA is convinced that the
permit application schedule is
warranted and should provide adequate
time to prepare the application
In establishing these regulatory
deadlines EPA is fully aware that they
are not synchronized with the statutory
deadlines as established by Congress.
One commenter argued that the
deadlines as proposed were contrary to
the deadlines established by Congress
and that EPA had no authority to extend
these deadlines. (For large municipal
scparate storm sewer systems and storm
wdter discharges associated with
indistnal activity. Congress established
a deadline of February 4. 1990. for
sut.mussion of permit applications: for
medium municipal separate storm sewer
systems, the deadline is February 4.
1992.) In response. this regulation
provides c.ertaun deadlines for meeting
the substantive requirements of this
rulemaking—requirements which EPA is
convinced are necessary for the
development of enforceable and sound
storm water permits. EPA believes It is
important to give applicants sufficient
time to reasonably comply with the
permit application requirements set Out
today EPA will therefore accept
applications for storm water discharge
permits up to the dates specified in
today’s rule. By establishing these
regulatory deadlines, however. EPA is
not attempting to waive or revoke the
statutory deadlines established in
Section 402(p) of the CWA and does not
assert the authority to do so. The
statutory permit applicatIon deadlines
-------
Federal Register I VoL 55. No. 222 I Friday . November 16. 1990 1 Rules and Regulations 480S1
continue to be enforceable
requirements.
EPA wu not able to promulgate the
final application regulations for storm
water discharges before the February 4.
1090, deadline for Industrial and large
municipal discharger. despite its beat
efforts. Further, as noted above, EPA I.
not able to waive the statutory deadline.
Discharger. concerned with complying
with the statutory deadline should
submit a permit application as required
under this rulemaking as expeditiously
as poulbie.
Operators of storm water discharges
that are not specifically required to file a
permit application under today’s rule
may be required to obtain a permit for
their discharge on the basis of a case-
by-case designation by the
Administrator or the NPDES State.
The Administrator or NPDES State
may also designate storm water
discharges (except agricultural storm
water discharges), that contribute to a
violation of a water quality standard or
that are significant contributors of
pollutants to waters of the United States
for a permit. Prior to a case-by-case
determination that an individual permit
is required for a storm water discharge,
the Administrator or NPDES State may
require the operator of the discharge to
submit a permit application. 40 CFR
124.52(c) requires the operator of
designated storm water discharges to
submit a permit application within 80
days of notice, unless permission for a
later date is granted. The 60-day
deadline is consistent with the
procedures for designating other
discharges for a NPDES permit on a
case-by-case basis found at 40 CFR
124.51 The 60-day deadline recognizes
that case-by-case designations often
require an expedited response, however,
flexibility exists to allow for case-by-
case extensions.
The December 7, 1988, proposal also
proposed Part 504 State Storm Water
Management Programs. The Agency has
not Included this component in today’s
rule. The Agency believes this program
element is appropriate for addressing in
regulations promulgated under section
4 0 2(p)(6) of the CWA.
V I I. Economic Impact
EPA has prepared en Information
Collection Request for the purpose of
estimating the information collection
burden imposed on Federal. State and
local governments and industry for
revisions to NPDES permit application
requirements for storm water discharges
codified in 40 CFR part 122. EPA as
promulgating these revisions in response
to Section 402(p)(4) of the Clean Water
Act, as amended b) thc Water Quality
Act of 1987 (WQA). The revisions would
apply to Storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewer systems serving a
population of 250.000 or more and
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewer systems serving a
population of 100.000 or more, but less
than 250,000.
The estimated annual cost of applying
for NPDES permits for discharges from
municipal separate storm sewer systems
is $4.2 million. EPA estimates that an
average permit application for a large
municipality will cost $76,681 and
require 4,534 hours to prepare. The
average application for a medium
municipality will cost $49,249 (2.912
hours) to prepare. The annual
respondent cost for NPDES permit
applications, notices of intent, and
notifications for facilities with
discharges associated with industrial
activity is estimated to be $9.5 million
(271,248 hours). EPA estimates that the
average preparation cost of an
individual industrial permit application
would be $1,007 (28.6 hours). Average
Group application will cost $74.00 per
facility (2.1 hours). The average coat of
the notification and notice of intent to
be covered by general permit is $17.00
(0.5 hours).
The annual cost to the Federal
Government and approved States for
administration of the program is
estimated to be $588,603. The total cost
for municipalities, industry, and State
and Federal authorities is estimated to
be $14.5 million annually.
In general, the cost estimates provided
in the ICR focus primarily on the costs
associated with developing, submitting
and reviewing the permit applications
associated with today’s rule. EPA will
continue to evaluate procedures and
methods to control storm water
discharges to the extent necessary to
mitigate impacts on water quality in the
studies required under section 402(p)(5)
of the CWA. Executive Order 12291
requires EPA and other agencies to
perform regulatory analyses of major
regulations. Major rules are those which
impose a cost on the economy of $100
million or more annually or have certain
other economic impacts. Todays
proposed amendments would generally
make the NPDES permit application
regulations more flexible and less
burdensome for the regulated
community. These regulations do not,
satisfy any of the criteria specified in
section 1(b) of the Executive Order and,
as such, do not constitute a major rule.
This regulation was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(0MB) for review.
VII I. Pape.work Redud om Ad
The information collection
requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of
Management and Budget (0MB) under
provision of the Paperwork Reduction
Act. 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and have
been assigned 0MB control number
2040-0088.
Public reporting burden for permit
applications for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity (other
than from construction facilities) is
estimated to average 28.6 hours per
individual permit application. 05 hours
per notice of intent to be covered by
general permit, and 2.1 hours per group
applicant. The public reporting burden
for permit applications for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity from construction activities
submitting individual applications is
estimated to average 4.5 hours per
response. The public reporting burden
for facilities which discharge storm
water associated with industrial activity
to municipal separate storm sewers
serving a population over 100.000 to
notify the operator of the municipal
separate storm sewer system is
estimated to average 0.5 hours per
response.
The reporting burden for system-wide
permit applications for discharges from
municipal separate storm sewer systems
serving a population of 250.000 or more
is estimated to average 4.534 hours per
response. The reporting burden for
system-wide permit applications for
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewer systems serving a
population of 100.000 or more, but less
than 250.000 is estimated to average
2.912 hours per response. Estimates of
reporting burden include time for
reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection
of information.
IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. S
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 heed of the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities
Today’s amendments to the
regulations would generally make the
NPDES permit applications regulations
more flexible and less burdensome for
permittees. Accordingly. 1 hereby
-------
48062 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 222 / Friday, November 16. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
certify. pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 805(b). that
these amendments do not, have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 122.123.
and 124
Administrative practice and
procedure. Environmental protection.
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Water pollution control.
Authoefty Clean Water Act. 33 U.S C. 1251
et seq.
Dated: October 31, 1990.
William K. Reilly.
Adm,n,strutor.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, parts 122. 123, and 124 of title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
are amended as follows:
PART 122—EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS; ThE NATIONAL
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELiMINATION SYSTEM
Subpart B—Permit Application and
Special NPDES Program Requirements
1. The authority citation for part 122
continues to read as follows:
Authority Clean Water Act. 33 USC. 1251
et seq.
2. Section 122.1 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(2)(iv) to read as
follows
1122.1 Pwpose.nd seep..
(b)’”
(2f ‘
(iv) Discharges of storm water as set
forth in I 122.28. and
. . . . .
3. Section 122.21 is amended by
revising paragraph (c)(1). by removing
the last sentence of paragraph (fl(7). by
removing paragraph (f)(9). by adding
two sentences at the end of paragraph
(g)(3). by revising paragraph (g)(7)
introductory text, by removing and
reserving paragraph (g)(10) and by
revising the introductory text of
paragraph (k) to read as follows:
* 122.21 Application for. p.rmlt
(appdcaOle to Stats programs, us
. . .
(c) Time to apply. (1) Any person
proposing a new discharge. shall submit
an application at least 180 days before
the date on which the discharge is to
commence, unless permission for a later
date has been granted by the Director.
Facilities proposing a new discharge of
storm water associated with industnal
activity shall submit an application 180
days before that facility commences
industrial activity which may result In a
discharge of storm water associated
with that industrial activity. Facilities
described under 122.26(b)(14)(x) shall
submit applications at least 90 days
before the date on which construction is
to commence. Different submittal dates
may be required under the terms of
applicable general permits. Persons
proposing a new discharge are
encouraged to submit their applications
well in advance of the 90 or 180 day
requirements to avoid delay. See also
paragraph (k) of this section and
* 122.28 (c)(1)(i)(G) and (c)(1)(ii).
• . • I •
(g) • •
(3) • The average flow of point
sources composed of storm water may
be estimated. The basis for the rainfall
event and the method of estimation must
be indicated
(7) Effluent chorvcter,stzcs.
Information on the discharge of
pollutants specified in this paragraph
(except information on storm water
discharges which is to be provided as
specifIed in § 122.26) When
“quantitative data” for a pollutant are
required, the applicant must collect a
sample of effluent and analyze it for the
pollutant in accordance with analytical
methods approved under 40 CFR part
138. When no analytical method is
approved the applicant may use any
suitable method but must provide a
description of the method. When an
applicant has two or more outfalls with
substantially identical effluents, the
Director may allow the applicant to test
only one outfall and report that the
quantitative data also apply to the
substantially identical outfalls. The
requirements in paragraphs (g)(7) (iii)
and (iv) of this section that an applicant
must provide quantitative data for
certain pollutants known or believed to
be present do not apply to pollutants
present in a discharge solely as the
result of their presence in intake water
however, an applicant must report such
pollutant. as present. Crab samples
must be used for pH. temperature.
cyanide, total phenols. residual chlorine.
oil and grease. fecal coliform and fecal
streptococcus. For all other pollutants.
24-hour composite samples must be
used. However, a minimum of one grab
sample may be taken for effluents from
holding ponds or other impoundments
with a retention period greater than 24
hours. In addition, for discharges other
than storm water discharges. the
Director may waive composite sampling
for any outfall for which the applicant
demonstrates that the use of an
automatic sampler is infeasible and that
the minimum of four (4) grab samples
will be a representative sample of the
effluent being discharged. For storm
water discharges. all samples shall be
collected from the discharge resulting
from a storm event that is greater than
0.1 inch and at least 72 hours from the
previously measurable (greater than 0.1
inch rainfall) storm event. Where
feasible, the variance in the duration of
the event and the total rainfall of the
event should not exceed 50 percent from
the average or median rainfall event in
that area. For all applicants, a flow-
weighted composite shall be taken for
either the entire discharge or for the first
three hours of the discharge The flow-
weighted composite sample for a storm
water discharge may be taken with a
continuous sampler or as a combination
of a minimum of three sample aliquots
taken4n 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 (applicants submitting
permit applications for storm water
discharges under 122 26(d) may collect
flow weighted composite samples using
different protocols with respect to the
time duration between the collection of
sample aliquots. subject to the approval
of the Director). However, a minimum of
one grab sample may be taken for storm
watir discharges from holding ponds or
other impoundments with a retention
period greater than 24 hours. For a flow.
weighted composite sample. only one
analysis of the composite of aliquots is
required. For storm water discharge
samples taken from discharges
associated with industrial activities.
quantitative data must be reported for
the grab sample taken during the first
thirty minutes (or as soon thereafter as
practicable) of the discharge for all
pollutants specified in § 122.26(c)(1) For
all storm water permit applicants taking
flow-weighted composites. quantitative
data must be reported for all pollutants
specified in § 122.28 except pH,
temperature. cyanide. total phenols.
residual chlorine, oil and grease. fecal
coliform. and fecal streptococcus. The
Director may allow or establish
appropriate silt-specific sampling
procedures or requirements. including
sampling locations, the season in which
the sampling takes place. the minimum
duration between the previous
measurable storm event and the storm
e eni sampled. the minimum or
maximum level of precipitation required
for an appropriate storm event, the form
of precipitation sampled (snow melt or
rain fall), protocols fo collecting
samples under 40 CI”R part 136. and
additional time for submitting data on a
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 222 / Friday. November 16. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 48063
case-by-case basis. An applicant is
expected to “know or have reason to
believe” that a pollutant is present ia an
emuent based on an evaluation of the
expected use, production, or storage of
the pollutant, or on any previous
analyses for the pollutant. (For example.
any pesticide manufactured by a facility
may be expected to be present in
contaminated storm water runoff from
the facility.)
• • • .
(k) Application requirements for new
sources and new discharges. New
manufacturing, commercial. mining and
silvicultural dischargers applying for
NPDES permits (except for new
discharges of facilities subject to the
requirements of paragraph (h) of this
section or new discharges of storm
water associated with industrial activity
which are subject to the requirements of
§ 122.28(c)(1) and this section (except as
provided by § 122.26(c)(1)(ii)) shall
provide the following information to the
Director, using the application forms
provided by the Director
4 Section 122.22(b) introductory text
is revised to read as follows:
§ 122.22 Signatories to permit appllcatton.
and reports ( appSr k4 to Stats programs ,
see 123.26),
(b( All reports required by permits,
and other information requested by the
Director shall be signed by a person
described in paragaph (a) of this
section. or by a duly authonzed
representative of that person. A person
is a duly authorized representative only
if
5. Section 122.20 is revised to read as
followr
§ 122.26 Storm wator discharges
(appUcabis to Stat. NPOES programs, see
* 123.25),
(a) Permit requIrement. (1) Prior to
October 1. 1992. discharges composed
entirely of storm water shall not be
required to obtain a NPDES permit
except
(i) A discharge with respect to which
a permit has been issued prior to
February 4. 1987.
(n) A discharge associated with
industrial activity (see § 122 26(a)(4fl,
(iii) A discharge from a large
municipal separate storm sewer s stem.
(ivl A discharge from a medium
municipal separale storm sewer system:
I ’. A discharge which the Director, or
in Stales with approved NPDES
programs. either the Director or the EPA
Regional Administrator, deteimmes to
contribute to a violation of s water
quality standard otis a significant
contributor of pollutants to waters of the
United States. This designation may
include a discharge from any
conveyance or system of conveyances
used for collecting and conveying storm
water runoff or a system of discharges
from municipal separate storm sewers,
except for those discharges from
conveyances which do not require a
permit under paragraph (a)(2) of this
section or agricultural storm water
runoff which is exempted from the
definition of point source at § 122.2.
The Director may designate discharges
from municipal separate storm sewers
on a oystem.wide or jurisdiction-wide
basis. In making this determination the
Director may consider the following
factors
(A) The location of the discharge with
respect to waters of the United States as
defined at 40 CFR 122.2.
(B) The size of the discharge:
(C) The quantity and nature of the
pollutants discharged to waters of the
United States, and
(D) Other relevant factors.
(2) The Director may not require a
hiermit for discharges of storm water
runoff from mining operations or oil and
gas exploration, production, processing
or treatment operations or transmission
facilities, composed entirely of flows
which are from conveyances or systems
of conveyances (including but not
limited to pipes, conduits, ditches, and
channels) used for collecting and
conveying precipitation runoff and
which are not contaminated by contact
with or that has not come into contact
with, any overburden, raw material.
intermediate products. finished product.
byproduct or waste products located on
the site of 5uch operations.
(3) Lar ge and medium municipal
separate storm sewer systems (i)
Permits must be obtained for all
discharges from large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer
systems.
(it) The Director may either issue one
system-wide permit covering all
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewers within a large or medium
municipal storm sewer system or issue
distinct permits for appropriate
categories of discharges within a large
or medium municipal separate storm
sewer system including, but not limited
to. all discharges owned or operated by
the same municipality. located within
the same jurisdiction: all discharges
within a system that discharge to the
same watershed, discharges within a
system that are similar in nature: or for
individual discharges from municipal
separate storm sewers within the
s sIe m
(iii) The operator of a discharge from
a municipal separate storm sewer which
is part of a large or medium municipal
separate storm sewer system must
either
(A) Participate in a permit application
(to be a permittee or a co-permittee)
with one or more other operators of
discharges from the large or medium
municipal storm sewer system which
covers all, or a portion of all. discharges
from the municipal separate storm
sewer system:
(B) Submit a distinct permit
application which only covers
discharges from the municipal separate
storm sewers for which the operator is
responsible, or
(C) A regional authority may be
responsible for submitting a permit
application under the following
guidelines
(2) The regional authority together
with co-applicants shall have authority
over a storm water management
program that is in existence, or shall be
in existence at the time part I of the
application is due,
(2) The permit applicant or co•
applicants shalt establish their ab:lity to
make a timely submission of part I and
part 2 of the municipal application.
(3) Each of the operators of municipal
separate storm sewers within the
systems described in paragraphs (bØ4)
(iJ. (ii), and (iii) or (b))7) (i). (ii). and (iii)
of this section. that are under the
purview of the designated regional
authority shall comply with the
application requirements of paragrapn
(dl of this section
)i ) One permit application may be
submitted for all or a portion of dll
municipal separate storm sewers within
adjacent or interconnected large or
medium municipal separate storn se e
systems. The Director may issue one
s stem’wide permit covering all, or a
portion of all municipal separate storm
sewers in adjacent or interconnected
large or medium municipal separate -
storm sewer systems
(v) Permits for all or a portion of all
discharges from large or medium
municipal separate storm sewer systems
that are issued on a system.wide.
jurisdiction-wide, watershed or other
basis may specify different conditions
relating to different discharges co%ered
by the permit. including different
management programs for different
drainage areas hich contribute siorn
water to the system
(vi) Co-permittees need only comply
with permit conditions relating to
discharges from the municipal separate
storm sewers for whicrt they are
operators
-------
48064 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No.222 / Friday, November 16. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
(4) Disciiargea through large and
medwm inurucipal separate storm sewer
systemn In addition to meeting the
requirements of paragraph (c) of this
section. an operator of a storm water
discharge associated with Industrial
activity which discharges through a
large or medium municipal separate
storm sewer system shall submit. to the
operator of the municipal separate storm
sewer system receiving the discharge no
late, than May 15. 1991. or 180 days
prior to commencing such discharge: the
name of the facility a contact person
and phone number- the location of the
discharge; a description, including
Standard Industrial Classification.
which best reflects the principal
products or services provided by each
facility and any existing NPDES permit
number.
(5) Other municipal separate storm
sewers. The Director may issue permits
for municipal separate storm sewers
that are designated under paragraph
(allhJ(v) of this section on a system-wide
basis. iunsdiction-wide basis.
watershed basis or other appropriate
basis, or may issue permits for
individual discharges.
(6) Non.munzcipal separate storm
sewers. For storm water discharges
associated with industiial activity from
point sources which discharge through a
ann-municipal or non-publicly owned
separate storm sewer system, the
Director, in his discretion. may Issue: a
ngie NPDES permit, with each
dSsd iarger l ro-permittee t a permit
issued to the operator of the portion of
the system that discharges into waters
of the United States, or. individual
p mit.s to each discharger of storm
waser associated with industrial activity
thsmigh the non.municipal conveyance
(I ) All storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity that
&icharge through a storm water
nrge system tI’.st is not a municipal
. . JwJdte storm sewer must be covered
an individual permit, or a permit
ia ied to the operator of the portion of
system that discharges to waters of
t r United States, with each discharger
the non-municipal conveyance a co-
mittee to that permit.
(ii) Where there is more than one
operator of a single system of such
uwveyances. all operators of storm
er discharges associated with
iu trial activity must submit
ap.p ca lions.
(Iii ) Any permit covering more than
a operator shall identify the effluent
lImitation,, or other permit conditions, if
any. that apply to each operator.
(7) Combined sewer systems
Canveyances that discharge storm
water runoff combined with municipal
sewage are point sources that must
obtain NPDES permits In accordance
with the procedures of 122.21 and are
not subject to the provisions of this
section.
(8) Whether a discharge front a
municipal separate storm sewer is oi’is
not subject to regulation under this
section shall have no bearing on
whether the owner or operator of the
discharge Is eligible for funding under
title II. title UI or title VI of the Clean
Water Act, See 40 CFR part 35, subpart
L appendix A(b)H.2.j.
(b) Definitions. (1) Co-pemuttee
means a permutes to a NPDES permit
that Is only responsible for p,rmut
conditions relating to the discharge for
which itis operator.
(2) Illicit discharge means any
discharge to a municipal separate storm
sewer that is not composed entirely of
storm water except discharges pursuant
to a NPDES permit (other than the
NPDES permit for discharges from thi
municipal separate storm sewer) and
discharges resulting from fire fighting
activities.
(3) Incorporated place means the
District of Columbia. or a city, town.
township, or village that is incorporated
under the laws of the State in which it is
located.
(4) Large municipal separate storm
sewer system means all municipal
separate storm sewers that are either
(i) Located in an incorporated place
with a population of 250,000 or more as
determined by the latest Decennial
Census by the Bureau of Census
(appendix F). or
(ii) Located in the counties listed in
appendix H. except municipal separate
storm sewers that are located in the
incorporated places. townships or towns
within such counties; or
(iii) Owned or operated by a
municipality other than those described
in paragraph (b) 4) (i) or (ii) of this
section and that are designated by the
Director as part of the large or medium
municipal separate storm sewer system
due to the interrelationship between the
discharges of the designated storm
sewer and the discharges from
municipal separate storm sewers
described under paragraph (b)(4) (i) or
(ii) of this section. In making this
determination the Director may consider
the following factors
(A) Physical interconnections
between the municipal separate storm
sewers:
(B) The location of discharges from
the designated municipal separate storm
sewer relative to discharges from
municipal separate storm sewers
described in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of thie
section:
(C) The quantity and nature of
pollutants discharged to waters of the
United States:
(D) The nature of the receiving waters:
and
(E) Other relevant factors: or
(iv) The Director may, upon petition.
designate as a large municipal separate
storm sewer system. municipal separate
storm sewers located within the
boundaries of a region defined by a
storm water management regional
authority based on a junsdictu inaI.
watershed, or other appropriate basis
that includes one or more of th s.stems
described in paragraph (b)(4) (). (ii), (iii)
of this section.
(5) Major municipal separate storm
sewer outfall (or “major outfall”) means
a municipal separate storm sewer outfall
that discharges from a single pipe with
an inside diameter of 36 inches or more
or its equivalent (discharge from a single
conveyance other than circular pipe
which is associated with a drainage
area of more than 50 acres), or for
municipal separate storm sewers that
receive storm water from lands zoned
for industrial activity (based on
comprehensive zoning plans or the
equivalent), an outfall that discharges
from a single pipe with an inside
diameter of 12 inches or more or from its
equi alent (discharge from other than a
circular pipe associated with a drainage
area of 2 acres or more)
(6) Major outfall means a maior
municipal separate storm sewer outfall
(7) Medium municipal separate storm
sewersysern means all municipal
separate storm sewers that are either
(i) Located in an Incorpordted place
with a population of 100.000 or more but
less than 250,000. as determined by the
latest Decennial Census by the Bureau
of Census (appendix C): or
(ii) Located in the counties listed in
appendix 1. except municipal separate
storm sewers that are located in the
incorporated places. townships or towns
within such countLes: or
(iii) Owned or operated by a
municipality other than those described
in paragraph (b)(4) fi) or (ii) of this
section and that are designated by the
Director as part of the large or medium
municipal separate storm sewer system
due to the interrelationship between the
discharges of the designated storm
sewer and the discharges from
municipal separate storm sewers
described under paragraph (b)(4) (i) or
(ii) of this section In making this
determination the Director may consider
the following factors
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 222 / Friday , November 16. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
(A) Physical interconnections
between the municipal separate storm
sewers:
(B) The location of discharges from
the designated municipal separate storm
sewer relative to discharges from
municipal separate storm sewers
desaibed In paragraph (b)(7)(i) of this
section.
(C) The quantity and nature of
pollutants discharged to waters of the
United States;
(D) The nature of the receiving waters;
or
(E) Other relevant factors; or
(iv) The Director may. upon petition,
designate as a medium municipal
separate storm sewer system, municipal
separate storm sewers located within
the boundaries of a region defined by a
storm water management regional
authority based on a jurisdictional,
watershed, or other appropriate basis
that includes one or more of the systems
described in paragraphs (b)(7) (i). (ii).
(iii) of this section.
(8) Municipal separate storm sewer
means a conveyance or system of
conveyances (including roads with
drainage systems, municipal streets.
catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches.
man-made channels, or storm drain.g):
(i) Owned or operated by a State. city.
town. borough, county, parish, district,
association, or other public body
(created by or pursuant to State law)
having jurisdiction over disposal of
sewage, industrial wastes, storm water.
or other wastes, including special
districts under State law such as a
sewer district, flood control district or
drainage district, or similar entity, or an
Indian tribe or an authorized Indian
tribal organization, or a designated and
approved management agency under
section 208 of the CWA that discharges
to waters of the United States;
(ii) Designed or used for collecting or
conveying storm water
(iii) Which is not a combined seweri
and
(iv) Which is not p-in of a Publicly
Owned Treatment Works (POTW) as
defined at 4OCFR 12.2.
(9) Outfall means a point source as
defined by 40 CFR 122.2 at the point
where a municipal separate storm sewer
discharges to waters of the United
States and does not include open
Conveyances connecting two municipal
separate storm sewers, or pipes. tunnels
or other conveyances which Connect
segments of the same stream or other
vaters of the United States and are used
o convey waters of the United States.
(10) Overburden means any material
of any nature, consolidated or
rnconsolidated, that overlies a mineral
d—— sit. excluding topsoil or similar
naturally-occurring surface materials
that are not disturbed by mining
operations.
(11) Runoff coefficient means the
fraction of total rainfall that will appear
at a conveyance as runoff.
(12) Significant materuiis Includes.
but is not limited to: raw materials;
fuels: materials such as solvents.
detergents, and plastic pellets; finished
materials such as metallic products; raw
materials used in food processing or
production. hazardou, substances
designated under section 101(14) of
CERCLA any chemical the facility is
required to report pursuant to section
313 of title III of SARA; fertilizers:
pesticides; and waste products such as
ashes, slag and sludge that have the
potential to be released with storm
water discharges.
(13) Storm water means storm water
runoff, snow melt runoff, and surface
runoff and drainage.
(14) Storm water discharge associated
with industrial activity means the
discharge from any conveyance which is
used for collecting and conveying storm
water and which is directly related to
manufacturing, processing or raw
materials storage areas at an industrial
plant. The term does not include
discharges from facilities or activities
excluded from the NPDES program
under 40 CFR part 122. For the
categones of industries identified in
paragraphs (b)(14) (t) through (x) of this
section, the term indudes. but is not
limited to, storm water discharges from
industrial plant yarda, immediate access
roads and rail lines used or traveled by
carriers of raw materials, manufactured
products, waste material, or by-products
used or created by the facility, material
handling sites; refuse sites; sites used for
the application or disposal of process
waste waters (as defined at 40 CFR part
401): sites used for the storage and
maintenance of material handling
equipment sites used for residual
treatment, storage, or disposal; shippin8
and receiving areas; manufacturing
buildings: storage areas (including tank
farms) for raw materials, and
intermediate and finished products: and
areas where industrial activity has
taken place in the past and significant
materials remain and are exposed to
storm water. For the categories of
industries identified in paragraph
(b)(14)(xi) of this section. the term
includes only storm water discharges
from all the areas (except access roads
and tail lines) that are listed in the
previous sentence where material
handling equipment or activities, raw
materials, intermediate products, final
products, waste materials, by-products.
or industrial machinery are exposed to
storm water. For the purposes of this
paragraph, material handling activities
include the storage. loading and
unloading, transportation, or
conveyance of any raw material,
intermediate product, finished product.
by-product or waste product. The term
excludes areas located on plant lands
separate from the plant’s industrial
activities, such as office buildings and
accompanying parking lots as long as
the drainage from the excluded areas is
not mixed with storm water drained
from the above described areas.
Industrial facilities (including industrial
facilities that are Federally, State. or
municipally owned or operated that
meet the description of the facilities
listed in this paragraph (b )(14J(i).-{xi) of
this section) include those facilities
designated under the provisions of
paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section. The
following categories of facilities are
considered to be engaging in “induatnal
activity” for purposes of this subsection:
(i) Facilities subject to storm water
effluent limitations guidelines, new
source performance standards, or toxic
pollutant effluent standards under 40
CFR subchapter N (except facilities with
toxic pollutant effluent standards which
are exempted under category (xi) in
paragraph (b)(14) of this section);
(ii) Facilities classified as Standard
Industrial Classifications 24 (except
2434), 28 (exce’ t 285 and 287). 28 (except
283). 29. 311. 32 (except 323), 33. 3441. 373:
(iii) Facilities classified as Standard
Industrial Classifications 10 through i
(mineral industry) including active or
inactive mining operations (except for
areas of coal mining operations no
longer meeting the definition of a
reclamation area under 40 CFR 434.11(1)
because the performance bond issued to
the facility by the appropriate SMCRA
authority has been released, or except
for areas of non.coal mining operations
which have been released from
applicable State or Federal ieclamation
requirements after December 17, 1990)
and oil and gas exploration, production.
processing, or treatment operations, or
transmission facilities that discharge
storm water contaminated by contact
with or that has come into contact with.
any overburden, raw material,
intermediate products, finished
products, byproducts or waste products
located on the site of such operations
(inactive mining operations are mining
sites that are not being actively mined.
but which have an identifiable owner/
operatori inactive mining sites do not
include sites where mining claims are
being maintained prior to disturbances
associated with the extraction,
beneficiation. or processing of min,d
-------
46686 Federnl Register I Vol. 55. No. 2 I Friday. Noveciber 16. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
matenals. nor sites where minimal
activities are undertaken for the sole
purpose of mamtaining a mining claim):
(iv) Hazardous waste treatment.
storage, or disposal facilities. induding
those that are operating under interim
statue or a permit under subtitle C of
RQ A
(v) Landfills, land application sates.
and op dumps that receive or have
received any Industrial wastes (waste
that ii received from any of the facilities
described under this subsection)
including those that are subject to
regulation under subtitle 0 of RCR&
‘vi) Facilities involved in the recycling
of matenals. includrng metal sorapyards.
battery recLaimers, salvage yards. and
automobile junkyards. including but
l,mited to those classified as Standard
lrdustnal Classification 5015 and 5093.
(vii) Steam electric power generating
rariliues, including Coal handling sites.
(viii) Transportotion f.ir ities
dassiuied as Standard lndustnal
Clasaifica Lions 4ti. 41. 42 (cxcept 422 ]—
25). 43. 44. 45. and 5171 which hove
.ehicle maintenance shops, equipment
cleaning operations, or airport deicing
operations. Only those poruotas of tho
facility that are either involved in
vehicle maintenance (includuig vehicle
rehabilitation, mechanical repairs.
painting. fueling, and lubrication).
equipment cleaning operations. a:rporl
deacing opera tions. or which are
otheri ise identified under paragraphs
1b11 14) (i—(viil or (ix)—(xi) 0 1 this eectioo
,are ass .acialed with industrial activ!1y
(i x) Treatment works treating
duinest:t sewa t ’ or ar.y other se dge
sludge or waaipwater trvotmrnt devicc
or s)s’em. used an the sturage ire,atmcnt.
rec)i.tlng a’d redamatacn of municipal
or domestic sewage inriuding land
dedicati,d to the dispocal of sewage
sludge that are located within The
c.,nlinrs of t ie (acilit wiih a design
flow oft 0 mgd or more, or required to
an approved prette ..tnu .iit program
undt ’r 40 CFR part 403. scI inr’ ded are
farm lands, domestic gardens or lands
used for sludge management where
s udge is beneficially reused and which
ap not phyxlcdlly located iii l! e
confines of the facility, or areas that are
in compliance with section 405 of the
CWA:
xj Construcnon activity including
Llearing grading and excavation
activities except’ operations that result
in the disturbance of less than five acres
of total land area which are not part of a
ldrger common plan of development or
sak
l ’u) Facilities under Standard
Industrial C)a,suf ’icalioo, 20. 21. 22, 23.
2434. 25. 265. 267. 27. Z&l. 265. 30. 31
except 311), 223. 34 (except 3441). 35. 38,
37 (except 373). 38. 39. 4221—25. (and
which are not otherwise included within
categories (u)-(x));
(c) Applicot,on req uirenients for storm
water di5daarges associated with
industrial aclavity—(1) Individual
application. Dtachargers of storm water
associated with industrial activity are
reqwred to apply for an individual
permit, apply fora permit through a
group application, or seek coverage
under a promulgated storm water
general permit Facilities that are
required to obtain an individual permit.
or any discharge of storm water which
the Director is evaluating for
designation (see 40 CFR 124 52 cJ) under
paragraph (a)(’l)(v) of this section and is
not a municipal st’parate storm sewer.
and which is not part of a group
appLication described under paragraph
(c)(2) of this section. shall submit an
NPDES application in accordance with
the requirements of 122.21 as modif’ied
and si.pptemented by the provisions of
the remainder of this paragraph.
Applicants for di cha-gt s composed
entirely of storm water shall submit
Form I and Form . F Aoplicanus for
discharges composed of storm water
and non-storm wa’er shall submit Form
1. Form ZC. and Form ZE Applicants for
new sources or new dischi .rgcs as
defined in 122.2 of this part) cc nposed
of storm water and non-storm water
shall submit Form 1. Form 21). and Form
2 ?.
(i) Except as provided n 122.26(c)(3)
(ii)-4tvl. the operator of a storm water
discharge ar suciaied wIt industrial
activity subject o this section sho!l
provide
)A) A site map showing iupography
(or indicating the outline of drainage
areas served by the outfall(sl covered in
the application if a topographic map is
unavailable) of the facility including’
e,ich of its drainage and discharge
structures, the drainage area of each
storm water outfall, paved areas and
buildings within the dramage area of
euch storm water outfall, each past or
present area used for outdoor sturage or
disposal of significant materials, each
existing structural control measure to
reduce potlulants in storm water runoff.
materials loading and access areas.
areas where pesticides, herbicides, soil
conditioners and fertilizers are applied.
each of its hazardous waste treatment,
storage or disposal facilities (including
each area not required to hdve a RCRA
permit which is used (or accumulating
hazardous waste under 40 CFR 262.34).
each well where fluids from the facility
are injected underground springs, and
other surface water bodies which
receive storm water discharges from inc
facility:
(B) An estimate of the area of
impervious surfaces (including paved
areas and building roofs) and the total
area drained by each outfall (within a
mile radius of the focaLly) and a
narrative descriptioc of the following:
Significant materials that in the three
years prior to the submittal of this
application have been treated, stored or
disposed an a manner to allow exposure
to storm water method of treatment,
storage or disposal of such materials;
materials management practices
employed, an the three yearn prior to thr
submittal of this application, to
minimize contact by these materials
with storm water runoff: materials
loading and a s. areas. the location,
manner and frequency in which
pesticides. herbicides, soil conditioners
and fertilizers ate applied. the location
and a descnptaon of existing structural
and non-structural control measures to
reduce pollutants in storm watur runoff,
and a description of the treatment the
storm water receives, including the
ultimate dispoaal of any solid or fluid
wastes other than by discharge:
(C) A certification Thai all outfalts thu
shuuld contain storm water discharges
associated with industnal activity havu’
been tested or evaluated for the
presi-nce of non-storm water dischargec
which are not covered by a NPDES
permit. tests for such non-storm water
discharges may include smoke tests.
fluoromeiric dye tests. analysis of
accurate schematics, as well as other
appropriate tests The certification shalt
include a description of the mithod
used, the ddte of any testing, and the 0,:
situ drainagv points that s ere direrti)
observed during a test.
(0) Existing information regardtn
significant leaks or spills of toxic or
hazardous pollutants at the facility that
have taken place within the three :.earn
prior to the submittal of this application.
(E) Quantitative data based on
samples collected during storm CvefltS
and collected in accordance with
* 122,21 of this part from all outfaUs
containing a storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity fot
the following parameters:
(1) Any poUtitant limited in an effltaen
guideline to which the facility is subject
(2) Any pollutant listed in the facility’s
NPOES permit for its process
wasiewater (if the facilit) is ,,perating
under an existing NPDES permit).
(3) Oil and grease. pH, 801)5, COD.
TS& total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl
nitrogen, and nitrate plus nitrite
nitrogen.
(4) Any information on the disr.hargv
required under paragraph 1Z2.21(g)(7
(iii) •and (i%) of this part ’
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 222 1 Friday. November 18, 1990 / Rules and RegulationB 48067
(3) Flow measurements or estimate, of
the flow rate, and the total amount of
discharge for the storm event(s)
sampled, and the method of flow
measurement or estimation; and
(63 The date and duration (in hours) of
the storm event(s) sampled, rainfall
measurements or estimates of the storm
event (In inches) which generated the
sampled runoff and the duration
between the storm event sampled and
the end of the previous measurable
(greater than 0.1 Inch rainfall) storm
event (in hours);
(F) Operator . of a discharge which is
composed entirely of storm water are
exempt from the requirements of
122.21 (g)(2), (g)(3), (g)(4), (g)(5),
(g)(7)(i), (g)(7)(ii). and (g)(7)(v): and
(C) Operators of new sources or new
discharges (as defined in 122.2 of this
part) which are composed in part or
entirely of storm water must include
estimates for the pollutants or
parameters listed in paragraph
(c)(1)(i)(E) of this section instead of
actual sampling data, along with the
source of each estimate. Operators of
new sources or new discharges
composed in part or entirely of storm
water must provide quantitative data for
the parameters listed in paragraph
(dlll)(i)(E) of this section within two
years after commencement of discharge.
unless such data has already been
reported under the monitonng
requirements of the NPDES permit for
the discharge. Operators of a new
source or new discharge which is
composed entirely of storm water are
exumpt from the requirements of
I 122.21 (k)(3)(ii), (kfl3)(iii). and (kils).
(ii) The operator of an existing or new
storm water discharge that is associated
with industrial activity solely under
paragraph (bfl I4flxJ of this section, is
exempt from the requirements of
* 122.21(g) and paragraph (c)(l)(i) of this
section. Such operator shall provide a
narrative description of:
(A) The location (including a map)
and the nature of the construction
activity-,
(B) The total area of the site and the
area of the site that is expected to
undergo excavation during the life of the
permit
(C) Proposed measures, induding best
management practices, to control
pollutants in storm water discharges
dunng construction, including a brief
description of applicable State and local
erosion and sediment control
requirements:
(D) Proposed measures to control
pollutant, in storm water discharges
that will occur after construction
ope ations have been completed.
mc ! 4mg a brief description of
applicable State or local erosion and
sediment control requirement..:
(E) An estimate of the runoff
coefficient of the site and the increase In
impervious area after the construction
addressed In the permit application is
completed, the nature of fill material
and existing data desaibin the soil or
the quality of the discharge: and
(F) The name of the receiving water.
(iii) The operator of an existing or new
discharge composed entirely of storm
water from an oil or gas exploration,
production, processing, or treatment
operation, or transmission facility is not
required to submit a permit application
in accordance with paragraph (c)(1)(i) of
this section, unless the facility:
(A) Has had a discharge of storm
water mulling in the discharge of a
reportable quantity for which
notification is or was required pursuant
to 40 CFR 117.21 or 40 CFR 302.6 at
anytime since November 18. 1987; or
(B) Has had a discharge of storm
water resulting in the discharge of a
reportable quantity for which
notification is or was required pursuant
to 40 CFR 1106 at any time since
November 16, 1987: or
(C) Contributes to a violation of a
water quality standard.
(iv) The operator of an existing or new
discharge composed entirely of storm
water from a mining opera lion is not
required to submit a permit application
unless the discharge has come into
contact with, any overburden, raw
material, intermediate products, finished
product, byproduct or waste products
located on the site of such opera lions
(v) Applicants shall provide such
other information the Director may
reasonably require under * 122.21(g) (13)
of this part to determine whether to
issue a permit and may require any
facility subject to paragraph (c)(1)( li) of
this sectic ’n to comply with paragraph
(c)(1)(i) of this section.
(2) Group application for dischor es
associated with industrial activity. In
lieu of individual applications or notice
of intent to be covered by a general
permit for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity, a
group application may be filed by an
entity representing a group of applicants
(except facilities that have existing
individual NPDES permits for storm
water) that are part of the same
subcategory (see 40 CFR subchapter N.
part 405 to 471) or. where such grouping
is inapplicable, are sufficiently similar
as to be appropnate for general permit
coverage under 122.28 of this part The
part I application shall be submitted to
the Office of Water Enforcement and
Permits, U.S. EPA. 401 M Street. SW.,
Washington. DC 20480 (EN—336l for
approval Once a part I application Is
approved, group applicants are to
submit Part 2 of the group applIcation to
the Office of Water Enforcement and
Permits. A group application shall
consist oft
(I) Part 1. Part I of a group application
shall:
(A) Identify the participants in the
group application by name and location.
Facilities participating in the group
application shall be listed tn nine
subdivisions, based on the facility
location relative to the nine
precipitation zones indicated in
appendix E to this part.
(B) Include a narrative description
summarizing the industrial activities of
participants of the group application and
explaining why the participants, as a
whole, are sufficiently similar to be a
covered by a general permit.
(C) Include a list of significant
materials stored exposed to
precipitation by participants in the
group application and materials
management practices employed to
diminish contact by these materials with
precipitation and storm water runoff:
(D) Identify ten percent of the
dischargers participating in the group
application (with a minimum of 10
dischargera. and either a minimum of
two discharger. from each precip.tation
zone indicated in appendix E of this part
in which ten or more members of the
group are located, or one discharger
from each precipitation zone indicated
in appendix E of this part in which nine
or fewer members of the group are
located) from which quantitative data
will be submitted in part 2. If more than
1,000 facilities are identified in a group
application, no more than 100
discharger. must submit quantitative
data in Part 2. Groups of between four
and ten discharger. may be formed
However, in groups of between four ano
ten, at least half the facilities must
submit quantitative data, and at least
one facility in each precipitation zone in
which members of the group are located
must submit data. A description of why
the facilities selected to perform
sampling and analysis are
representative of the group as a whole in
terms of the information provided in
paragraph (c)(I) (i)(B) and (i)(C) of this
section. shall accompany this section
Different factors Impacting the nature of
the storm waler discharges. such as
processes used and material
management, shall be represented, to
the extent Feasible, in a manner roughly
equivalent to their proportion in the
group
(ii) Port 2 Part 2 of a group
application shall contain quantitative
-------
41911 F 4iraI Register I Vol. 55. PJo. 2fl / Friday, Novesnber 1&, 1990 LReles amlRegthflosis
data fN ) Form 2F). as modified by
paragraph (c)(l) of this section. so that
when peril and pert 2 of the group
application are taken together, a
complete Jss’ues application (Form 1.
Form 2G. and Form 2F) can be evaluated
for each disch*vger identified In
paragraph (c)(2)(i)(D) of this section.
(d) AppJ,cabon requirements far Jorge
and n,ethwn municipal separcte storm
sewer disciiorges The operator of a
discharge from a ‘Large or medium
municipal separate storm sewer or a
municipal separate storm sewer that is
designated by the Director under
paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section, may
submit a jurisdiction-wide or system-
wide permit application. Where more
than one public entity owns or operates
a municipal separate storm sewer within
a geographic area (including adjacent or
Interconnected municipal separate
storm sewer system ,), such operators
may be a coapplicant to the same
apphcatioo. Permit applications for
discharges from large and medium
municipal storm sewers or miintcapal
storm sewers designated under
paragraph (agl)(v) of this section shall
include;
(1) Part 1. Part 1 of the application
shall consist of:
i) General information. The
applicants’ name, address, telephone
number of contact person. ownership
status and status as a State or local
government entity.
(Ii) Legolouthority. A description of
existing legal authority to control
discharges to the municipal separate
storm sewer system. When existing
legal authority is not sufficient to meet
the criteria provided in paragraph
(dfl2)(i) of this section. the description
shall list additional authoritie, as will
be necessary to meet the unteria and
shall include a schedule and
commitment to seek such additional
authority that will be needed to meet the
criteria.
(ill) Source identification. (A) A
description of the historic use of
ordinances. guidance or other controls
which limited the discharge of non.
storm water discharges to any PubLicly
Owned Treatment Works serving the
same area as the municipal separate
storm sewer system.
(B) A USGS 7.5 minute topographic
map (or equivalent topographic map
with a scale between 1.10.000 and
1:24.000 if cost effective) extending one
mile beyond the service boundaries of
the municipal storm sewer system
covered by the permit application. The
following mformation shall be pravidedi
(1) The location of known rnunic pal
storm sewer system outfafis discharging
to waters of the United States:
(2 )Ade ,alp41onoftheland ,e
activities {e.g. diviSIons indicating
undeveloped, residentiaL i iininercial.
agncaltvral and Industrial uses
accompanied with estimates of
population densities and projected
growth for a tee year period within the
drainage area served by the separate
storm sewer. For each land use type, an
estimate of an average runoff coefficient
shall be provided:
(3) The location and a description of
the activities of the facility of each
currently operating or dosed municipal
landfill or other treatment, storage or
disposal facility for municipal waste:
(4)The location and the permit
number of any known discharge to the
municipal storm sewer that has been
issued a NPDES permit
(5) The location of major structural
controls for storm water discharge
(retention basins, detention basins.
major infiftratlon devices. etc and
(6) The Identification of publicly
owned parks. reaeatlonal areas, and
other open lands.
(iv) Discharge c/iaracterizat:on. (A)
Monthly mean rain and snow fall
estimates (or summary of weather
bureau data) end the monthly average
number of storm events.
(B) Existing quantitative data
describing the volume and quality of
discharges from the municipal storm
sewer, indeding a description of the
outfalla sampled, sampling procedures
and analytical methods used.
(C) A list of water bodies that receive
discharges from the municipal separate
storm sewer system, including
downstream segments, lakes and
estuaries, where pollutants from the
system discharges may accumulate and
cause water degradation and a brief
description of known water quality
impacts. At a minimum, the description
of impacts shall include a description of
whether the water bodies receiving such
discharges have been:
(1) Assessed and reported In section
305(b) reports submitted by the State.
the basis for the assessment (evaluated
or monitored), a summary of designated
use support and attainment of Clean
Water Act (CWA) goals (fishable and
swimmable waters), and causes of
nonsupport of designated uses:
(2) Listed under section 304(lJ(lflA)(I),
section 304ffl(1 )(A)(ii). or section
304(l )(1( (B) of the CWA that is not
expected to meet water quality
standards or water quality goals;
(3) Listed In State Noripoint Source
Assessment, required by section 3 19(a)
of the CWA that, without additional
action to control noapomt sources of
pollutton. cannot reasonably be
expected to altam or maintain water
quality slar,dards doe to storm sei..era ,
construction, highway maintenance an ’
runoff from municipal landfills and
municipal sludge adding significant
pollution (or contribothg ton violation
of water quality standards)
(4) Identified and classified according
to eufrophic condition of publicly owned
lakes listed in State reports required
under section 314(a) of the CWA
(include the followiriç A description of
those publicly owned lakes for which
uses are known to be impaired: a
description of procedures, processes and
methods to control the discharge of
pollutants from municipal separate
storm sewers into such lakes. and a
description of methods and procedures
to restore the quality of such lakea)
(5) Areas of concern of the Great
Lake. identified by the International
Joint Commission.
(6) Designated estuaries under the
National Estuary Program under section
320 of the CWA;
(7) Recognized by the applicant as
highly valued or sensitive waters.
(8) Defined by the State or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Services. National
Wetlands Inventory as wetlands. arid
(91 Found to have pollutants in bottom
sediments, fish tissue or biosurvey data.
(D) FieJdweening Results of a field
screening analysis for illicit consacbons
and illegal dumping for either selected
field screening points or major outfalla
covered in the permit application. At a
minimum, a screening analysis shall
include a narrab ’e description, for
either each field screening point or
major outfalL of visual observations
made during dry weather periods. If any
flow is observed, two grab samples shall
be collected during a 24 hour period
with a minimum period of four hour,
between samples. For all such samples.
a narrative descriptIon of the color,
odor, turbidity, the presence of an oil
sheen or surface scum as well as any
other relevant observations regarding
the potentIal presence of non-storm
water discharges or illegal dumping
shall be provided. In addition, a
narrative description of the results of a
field analysis using suitable methods to
estimate p 1 1. total chlorine, total capper,
total phenol, and detergents (or
surfactarits) shall be provided along
with a description of the flow rate.
Where the field analysis does nor
involve analytical methods approved
under 40 CFR part 130. the applicant
shall provide a description of the
method used including the name of the
manufacturer of the test method along
with the range and accuracy of the test.
Field scieemng points shall be either
major outfall. or other outfall points (or
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55 No. 222 / Friday, November 16 1900 1 Rules and Regniation. 4 0 3
any other point of access such as
manholes) randomly located throughout
the storm sewer system by placing a
gnd over a drainage system map and
identifying those calls of the grid which
contain a segment of the storm sewer
system or major outfall. The field
screening points shall be established
using the following guidelines and
criteria:
(1) A grid system consisting of
perpendicular north-south and east-west
lines spaced V. mile apart shall be
ovedayed on a map of the municipal
storm sewer system, creating a aenes of
cells:
(2) All cells that contain a segment of
the storm sewer system shall be
identified: one field screening point shall
be selected in each cell; major outfalis
may be used as field screening points;
(3) Field screening points should be
located downstream of any sources of
suspected illegal or illicit activity;
(4) Field screening points shall be
located to the degree practicable at the
farthest manhole or other accessible
location downstream in the system.
within each cell: however, safety of
personnel and accessibility of the
location should be considered in making
this determinanoa;
(5) Hydrological conditions: total
drainage area of the site population
density of the site . traffic denslty age of
the structures or building3 in the area;
history of the area; and land use types:
(8) For medium municipal separate
storm sewer systems, no more than 250
cells need to have identified field
screening points; in large municipal
separate storm sewer systems, no more
than 500 cells need to have identified
field screening points; cells established
by the grid that contain no storm sewer
segments will be eliminated from
consideration; if fewer than 250 cells in
medium municipal sewers are created.
and fewer than 500 in large systems are
created by the overlay on the municipal
sewer map, then all those cells which
contain a segment of the sewer system
shall be subject to field screening
(unless access to the separate storm
sewer system is impossible); and
(7) Large or medium municipal
separate storm sewer systems which are
unable to utilize the procedures
described in paragraphs (d)(1)(iv)fD) (1)
through (6) of this section. because a
sufficiently detailed map of the separate
storm sewer systems is unavailable.
shall field screen no more than 500 or
2.50 major outfalls respectively (or all
major outfalla in the system, if less); in
such circumstances, the applicant shall
establish a grid system consisting of
north-south and east-west lines spaced
V. mile apart as an overlay to the
boundaries of the municipal storm sewer
system, thereby creating a series of
celIa; the applicant will then select
major outfalls in as many calls as
possible until at least 500 major outfalls
(large municipalities) or 250 major
outfalls (medium municipalities) are
selected: a field screening analysis shall
be undertaken at these major outfalls,
( ‘F) Chamct erZragjon plan. Information
and a proposed program to meet the
requirements of paragraph (d)(2)(iu) of
this section. Such description shall
Include; the location of outfalls or field
screening points appropriate for
representative data collection under
paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(A) of this section. a
description of why the outfall or field
screening point is representative, the
seasons during which sampling is
intended, a description of the sampling
equipment, The proposed location of
outfalla or field screening points for such
sampling should reflect water quality
concerns (see paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(C) of
this section) to the extent practicable.
(v) Management programs. (A) A
description of the existing management
programs to control pollutants from the
municipal separate storm sewer system.
The description shall provide
information on existing structural and
source controls, including operation and
maintenance measures for structural
controls, that are currently being
Implemented. Such controls may
include, but are not limited to:
Procedures to control pollution resulting
from construction activities floodplain
management controls: wetland
protection measures: best management
practices for new subdivisions; and
emergency spill response programs. The
description may address controls
established under State law as well as
local requirements.
(B) A description of the existing
program to Identify illicit connections to
the municipal storm sewer system, The
description should include inspection
procedures and methods for detecting
and preventing illicit discharges, and
describe areas where tins program has
been Implemented.
(vi) Fiscal resources. (A) A
description of the financiai resources
currently available to the municipality
to complete part 2 of the permit
application. A description of the
municipality’, budget for existing storm
water programs, including an overview
of the municipality’s financial resources
and budget, including overall
indebtedness and assets, and sources of
funds for storm water programs.
(2) Part 2 Part 2 of the application
shall consist of:
(I) Adequate legal authority. A
demonstration that the applicant cart
operate purniant to legal authority
established by statute, ordinance or
series of contract.s which authorizes or
enable. the applicant at a rnli imum to:
(A) Control through ordinance, permit.
contract. order or similar means, the
contribution of pollutants to the
municipal storm sewer by storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity and the quality of storm water
discharged from sites of industrial
activity;
(B) Prohibit through ordinance, order
or similar means, illicit discharges to the
municipal separate storm sewer:
(C) Control through ordinance, order
or similar means the discharge to a
municipal separate storm sewer of
spills, dumping or disposal of materials
other than storm water:
(D) Control through interagency
agreements among coapphcanta the
contribution of pollutants from one
portion of the municipal system to
another portion of the municipal system:
(E) Require compliance with
conditions in ordinances, permits,
contracts or orders, and
(F) Carry out all inspection.
surveillance and monitoring procedures
necessary to determine compliance end
noncompliance with permit conditions
including the prohibition on illicit
discharges to the municipal separate
storm sewer
(ii) Source identification. The location
of any major outfall that discharges to
waters of the United States that was not
reported under paragraph (d)(1)(iii)(B)(fl
of this section. Provide an inventory,
organized by watershed of the name ani
address, and a description (such as SIC
codes) which best reflects the principal
products or services provided by each
facility which may discharge. to the
municipal separate storm sewer, storm
water associated with industrial
activity;
(iii) Characterization data. When
“quantitative data” for a pollutant are
required under paragraph
(d)(a )(iii)(A)(3) of this paragraph, the
applicant must collect a sample of
effluent In accordance with 40 CFR
121Z1(g)(7) and analyze It for the
pollutant in accordance with analytical
methods approved under 40 CFR part
136. When no analytical method is
approved the applicant may use any
suitable method but must provide a
description of the method. The applicant
must provide information characterizing
the quality and quantity of discharges
covered in the permit application,
includuig
(A) Quantitative data from
representative outfall. designated by the
Director (based on information received
-------
48070 Federal Register I Vol. 55. No. 222 I Friday , November 16. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
in part I of the application, the Director
shall designate between five and ten
outfalla or field screening points as
representative of the commercial.
residential and industrial land use
activities of the drainage area
contributing to the system or, where
there are less than five outfalls covered
in the application, the Director shall
designate all outfalls) developed as
follows:
(I) For each outfall or field screening
point designated under this
subparagraph, samples shall be
collected of storm water discharges from
three storm events occurring at least one
month apart in accordance with the
requirements at 122.21(g)(7) (the
Director may allow exemptions to
sampling three storm events when
climatic conditions create good cause
for such exemptions),
(2) A narrative description shall be
provided of the date and duration of the
storm event(s) sampled, rainfall
estimates of the storm event which
generated the sampled discharge and
the duration between the storm event
sampled and the end of the previous
measurable (greater than 0.1 inch
rainfall) storm event,
(3) For samples collected and
described under paragraphs (d)(2)(iii)
(A)(1) and (A)(2) of this section.
quantitative data shall be provided for
the organic pollutants listed in Table II,
the pollutants listed in Table lii (toxic
metals, cyanide and total phenols) of
appendix D of 40 CFR part 122. and fur
the following pollutants’
Total suspended solids (TSSI
Total dissolved solids (TDSI
COD
SOD 1
Oil and grease
Fecal coliforrn
Fecal streptococcus
pH
Total Kieldahi nuirogen
Nitrate plus nitriie
Dissolved phosphorus
Total ammonia plus orgon:c nitrogen
Total phosphorus
(4) Additional limited quantitative
data required by the Director for
determining permit conditions (the
Director may require that quantitative
data shall be provided for additional
parameters, and may establish sampling
conditions such as the location, season
of sample collection, form of
precipitation (snow melt, rainfall) and
other parameters necessar ’ to insure
representativeness).
(B) Estimates of the annual pollutant
load uf the cumulaii .e discharges to
waters of the United States from all
identified municipdl outfdlls and the
event mean concentration of the
cumulative discharges to waters of the
United States from all identified
municipal outfalts during a storm event
(as described under 122.2I(c)(7)) for
DOD 1 , COD, TSS, dissolved solids, total
nitrogen, total ammonia plus Organic
nitrogen, total phosphorus, dissolved
phosphorus, cadmium, copper, lead, and
zinc. Estimates shall be accompanied by
a description of the procedures for
estimating constituent loads and
concentrations, including any n?odelling,
data analysis, and calculation methods;
(C) A proposed schedule to provIde
estimates for each major outfall
identified in either paragraph (dfl2)(ii) or
(d)(1)(uii)(BflI) of this section of the
seasonal pollutant load and of the event
mean concentration of a representative
storm for any constituent detected in
any sample required under paragraph
(d)(2)(iii)(A) of this section: and
(D) A proposed monitonng program
for representative data collection for the
term of the permit that describes the
location of outfalls or field screening
points to be sampled (or the location of
insiream stations), why the location is
representative, the frequency of
sampling, parameters to be sampled.
and a description of sampling
equipment.
(iv) Proposed management program. A
proposed management program covers
the duration of the permit. It shall
include a comprehensive planning
process which involves public
participation and where necessary
intergovernmental coordination, to
reduce the discharge ot pollutants to the
maximum extent practicable using
management practices, control
techniques and system, design and
engineering methods, and such other
provisions which are appropriate The
program shall also include a description
of staff and equipment available to
implement the program. Separate
proposed programs may be submitted by
each coapplicant. Proposed programs
may impose controls on a systemwide
basis, a watershed basis, a jurisdiction
basis, or on individual outfalls. Proposed
programs will be considered by the
Director when developing permit
conditions to reduce pollutants in
discharges to the maximum extent
practicable Proposed management
programs shall describe priorities for
implementing controls. Such programs
shall be based on
(A) A description of structural and
source control measures to reduce
pollutants From runoff from commercial
and residential areas that are
discharged from the municipal storm
sewer system that are to be
implemented during the life of the
permit, accompanied with an estimate of
the expected reductIon of pollutant
loads and a proposed schedule for
implementing such controls. At a
minimum, the description shall include
(I) A description of maintenance
activities and a maintenance schedule
for structural controls to reduce
pollutants (including floatables) in
discharges from municipal separate
atorm sewers;
(2) A description of planning
procedures including a comprehensive
master plan to develop, implement and
enforce controls to reduce the discharge
of pollutants from municipal separate
storm sewers which receive discharges
from areas of new development and
significant redevelopment. Such plan
shall address controls to reduce
pollutants in discharges from municipal
separate storm sewers after construction
is completed. (Controls to reduce
pollutants in discharges from municipal
separate storm sewers containing
construction site runoff are addressed in
paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(D) of this section:
(3) A description of practices for
operating and maintaining public
streets, roads and highways and
procedures for reducing the impact on
receiving waters of discharges from
municipal storm sewer systems.
inclucbng pollutants discharged as a
result of deicing activities;
(4) A descriptioa of procedures to
assure that flood management projects
assess the impacts on the water quality
of receiving water bodies and that
existing structural flood control devices
have been evaluated to determine if
retrofitting the device to provide
additional pollutant removal from storm
water is feasible.
(5) A description of a program to
monitor pollutants in runoff from
operating or closed municipal landfills
or other treatment. storage or disposal
facilities for municipal waste, which
shall identify priorities and procedures
for inspections and establishing and
implementing control measures for such
discharges (this program can be
coordinated with the program developed
under paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(C) of this
section): and
(6) A description of a program to
reduce to the maximum extent
practicable. pollutants in discharges
from municipal separate storm sewers
associated with the application of
pesticides, herbicides and fertilizer
which will include, as appropriate.
controls such as educational activities,
permtts. certifications and other
measures for commercial applicators
and distributors, and controls for
application in public nghtof ways and
at municipal facilities.
-------
Federal RegiMer / Vol. 55. No. 222 I Friday, November 18 1990 I Rules and ReguLations 4 G71
(8) A desmiption of a program.
including a schedule, to detect and
remove (or require the discharger to the
municipal separate storm sewer to
obtain a separate NPOES permit for)
illicit discharges and improper disposal
into the storm sewer. The proposed
program shall includm
(1) A description of a program.
including inspections, to implement and
enforce an ordinance, orders or similar
means to prevent illicit discharges to the
municipal separate storm sewer 8ystem
this program desciiption shall add es
all types of illicit discharges. however
the following category of non-storm
water discharges or flows shall be
addressed where such discharges are
identified by the municipality as sources
of pollutants to waters of the United
States: water line flushing. Landscape
irrigation, diverted stream flows, rising
ground waters, uncontaminated ground
water infiltration (as defined at 40 CFR
35.2005(20)) to separate storm sewers.
uncorntaminated pumped ground water.
discharges from potable water sources.
foundation drains, air conditioning
condensation, irrigation water, springs,
water from crawl space pumps, footing
drains, lawn watering, Ind ividual
residential car washing, flows from
ripanan habitats and wetlands,
dechlorinated sw imming pool
discharges, and street wash water
(program descriptions shall address
discharges or flows from fire fighting
only where such discharges or flows are
identified as significant sources of
pollutants to waters of the United
States):
(2) A description of procedures to
conduct on-going field screening
activities during the life of the permit.
induding areas or locations that will be
evaluated by such field screens
(3) A description of procedures to be
followed to investigate portions of the
separate storm sewer system that, based
on the results of the field screen, or
other appropriate information, indicate a
reasonable potential of containing illicit
discharges or other sources of non-storm
water (such procedures may include:
sampling procedures for constituents
such as fecal coliform. focal
streptococcus, surfactants (MBAS).
residual chlorine, fluorides and
potassium. testing with fluorometric
dyes: or conducting in storm sewer
inspections where safety and other
considerations allow. Such description
shall include the location of storm
sewers that have been identified for
such evaluation):
(4) A description of procedures to
prevent, contain, and respond to spills
that may discharge into the municipal
separate storm sewer
(5) A description of a program to
promote, publicize, and facilitate public
reporting of the presence of illicit
discharges or water quality impacts
associated with discharges from
municipal separate storm sewers
(6) A description of educational
activities, public information activities.
and other appropriate activities to
facilitate the proper management and
disposal of used oil and toxic materials:
and
(7) A description of controls to limit
infiltration of seepage from municipal
sanitary sewers to municipal separate
storm sewer systems where necessary;
(C) A description of a program to
monitor and control pollutants in storm
water discharges to municipal systems
from municipal landfills, hazardous
waste treatment, disposal and recovery
facilities, industrial facilities that are
subject to section 313 of title Ill of the
Superfund Amendments and
Reautitorisatlon Act of 1986 (SARA),
and industrial facilities that the
municipal permit applicant determines
are contributing a substantial pollutant
loading to the municipal storm sewer
system. The program shall:
(2) Identify pnoritles and procedures
for inspections and establishing and
implementing control measures for such
discharges
(2) Describe a monitoring program for
storm water discharges associated with
the industrial facilities identified in
paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(C) of this section, to
be implemented during the term of the
permit. Including the submission of
quantitative data on the following
constituents: any pollutants limited in
effluent guidelines subcategories. where
applicable any pollutant listed in an
existing NPDES permit for a facility: oil
arid grease, COD. pH. 80D 5 , TSS. total
phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen.
nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen, and any
information on discharges required
under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7) (iii) and (iv).
(D) A description of a program to
Implement and maintain structural and
non-structural best management
practices to reduce pollutants in storm
water runoff from construction sites to
the municipal storm sewer system.
which shall include:
(1) A description of procedures for site
planning which incorporate
consideration of potential water quality
impacts:
(2) A description of requirements for
nonstructural and structural best
management practices
(3) A description of procedures for
identifying priorities for inspecting sites
and enforcing control measures which
consider the nature of the construction
activity, topography, arid the
characteristics of soils and receiving
water quality and
(4) A description of appropriate
educational and training meosures for
construction site operators.
(v) Assessment of contrul . Estimated
reductions in loadings of pollutants from
discharges of municipal storm sewer
constituents from municipal storm sewer
systems expected as the result of the
municipal storm water quality
management program. The assessment
shall also identify known impacts of
storm water controls on ground water.
(vi) Fiscal analysis. For each fiscal
year to be covered by the permit, a
fiscal analysis of the necessary capital
and operation and maintenance
expenditures necessary to accomplish
the activities of the programs under
paragraphs (d)(2) (iii) and (iv) of this
section. Such analysis shall indude a
description of the source of funds that
are proposed to meet the necessary
expenditures, induding legal restnctiona
on the use of such funds.
(vii) Where mote than one legal entity
submits an application, the application
shall contain a descnption of the roles
and responsibilities of each legal entity
and procedures to ensure effective
coordination.
(viii) Where requirements under
paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(E), (d)(2)(ii).
(d)(2)(iii)(B) and (d)(2)(iv) of this section
are not practicable or are not applicable.
the Director may exclude any operator
of a discharge from a municipal separate
storm sewer which is designated under
paragraph (all )(v). (b)(4)(ii) or (bJ(7)(ii)
of this section from such requirements.
The Director shall not exclude the
operator of a discharge from a municipal
separate storm sewer identified in
appendix F. C. H or I of part 122. from
any of the permit application
requirements under this paragraph
except where authorized under this
section.
(e) Application deadlines. Any
operator of a point source required to
obtain a permit under paragraph (s) (1) -
of this section that does not have an
effective NPDES permit covering its
storm water outfall,, shall submit an
application in accordance with the
following deadlines
(1) For any storm water discharge
associated with indusn’ial activity
identified in paragraph (b)(14) (i)—{xi) of
this section. that is not part of a group
application as described in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section or which is not
covered under a promulgated storm
water general permit, a permit
application made pursuant to paragraph
(c) of this section shall be submitted to
the Director by November 18. 1991.
-------
41072 Federal Register I VoL 55 No. 222 / Friday, November * 1990 I Rules and Regulations
(2) For any group application
submitted in accordance with paragraph
(c)(2) of this section:
(I) Part I of the application shall be
submitted to the Director. Office of
Water Enforcement and Permits by
March 18. 1991:
(II) Based on information In the patti
application, the Director will approve or
deny the members in the group
application wIthin 60 days after
receiving patti of the group application.
( UI) Part 2 of the application shall be
submitted to the Director, Office of
Water Enforcement and Permits no later
than 12 months after the date of
approval of the part I application.
(iv) Facilities that are re)ected as
members of a group by the permitting
authority shall have 12 months to file an
individual permit application from the
date they receive notification of their
rejection.
(v) A facility listed under paragraph
(b)(i4) (lHxl) of this section may add on
to a group application submitted In
accordance with paragraph (e)(2)(l) of
this section at the disaetlon of the
Office of Water Enforcement and
Permits, and only upon a showing of
good cause by the facility and the group
applicant the request for the addition of
the facility shall be made no later than
February 18.1992: the addition of the
facility shall not cause the percentage of
the facilities that are required to submit
quantitative data to be less than 10%.
unless there are over 100 facIlities in the
group that are submitting quantitative
data: approval to become part of group
application must be obtained from the
group or the trade association
representing the individual facilities.
(3) For any discharge from a large
municipal separate storm sewer system:
(1) Part I of the application shall be
submitted to the Director by November
18,1991:
( Ii) Based on information received in
the patti application the Director will
approve or deny a sampling plan under
paragraph (d)(1)(Iv)(E) of this section
wIthin 90 days after receiving the patti
application:
(lii) Part 2 of the application shall be
submitted to the Director by November
iO. 1992.
(4) For any discharge from a medium
municipal separate storm sewer system:
(i) Part 1 of the application shall be
submitted to the Director by May 18.
1992.
( I I) Based on information received ir
the part I application the Director will
approve or deny a sampling plan under
paragraph (d)(1)(lv)(E) of this section
withIn 90 days after receiving the part I
application.
(lii) Part 2 of the application shall be
submitted to the Director by May 17.
1993.
(5) A permit application shall-be
submitted to the Director within eGdays
of notice, unless permission for a later
date is granted by the Director (see 40
“R 124.52(c)). for
(I) A storm water discharge which the
Director, or In States with approved
NPDES programs, either the Director or
the A Regional Administrator.
determines that the discharge
contributes to a violation of a water
quality standard or Is a significant
contributor of pollutants to waters of the
United States (see paragraph (a)(1)(v) of
this section);
(ii) A storm water discharge subject to
paragraph (c)(1)(v) of this section.
(8) Facilities with existing NPDES
permits for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity shall
maintain existing permits. New
applications shall be submitted in
accordance with the reqwrements of 40
CFR 122.21 and 40 CFR 122.26(c) 180
days before the expiration of such
permits. Facilities with expired permits
or permits due to expire before May 18.
1992. shall submit applications in
accordance with the deadline set forth
under paragraph (e)(I) of this section.
(f) Petilions. (1) Any operator of a
municipal separate storm sewer system
may petition the Director to require a
separate NPDES permit (or a permit
issued under an approved NPDES State
program) for any discharge into the
municipal separate storm sewer system.
(2) Any person may petition the
Director to require a NPDES permit for a
discharge which is composed entirely of
storm water which contributes to a
violation of a water quality standard or
is a significant contributor of pollutants
to waters of the United States.
(3) The owner or operator of a
municipal separate storm sewer system
may petition the Director to reduce the
Censu. estimates of the population
served by such separate system to
account for storm water discharged to
combined sewers as defined by 40 CFR
351005(b)(i1) that is treated in a
publicly owned treatment works. In
municipalities In which combined
sewers are operated, the Census
estimates of population may be reduced
proportional to the fraction, based on
estimated lengths, or the length of
combined sewers over the sum of the
length of combined sewers and
municIpal separate storm sewers where
an applicant has submitted the NPDES
permit number associated with each
discharge point and a map indicating
areas served by combined sewers arid
the.locatlon of any combined sewer
overflow discharg. point.
(4) Any person may petition the
Director for the desigziationof a large or
medium municipal separate storm sewer
system as defined by paragraphs
(b)(4)(iv) or (b)(7)(Iv) of this section.
(3) The Director shall make a final
determination on any petition received
under this section withIn 90 days after
receiving the petition.
6. Section i22.28(b112)(i) is revised to
read as follows:
1122.21 Gsn.r permits (sppI1 .tO
Stat. NPO€5 progrems. I.. 123.25).
• * • • •
(b)”
(2) Requiring an ujd,v,dua/permiL (i)
The Director may require any discharger
authorized by a general permit to apply
for and obtain an individual NPDES
permit. Any interested person may
petition the Director to take action
under this paragraph. Cases where an
individual NPDES permit may be
required include the following:
(A) The discharger or ‘treatment
works treating domestic sewage” is not
in compliance with the conditions of the
general NPDES permit;
(B) A change has occurred in the
availability of demonstrated technology
or practices for the control or abatement
of pollutants applicable to the point
source or treatment works treating
domestic sewags:
(C) Effluent limitation guidelines are
promulgated for point sources covered
by the general NPDES permit:
(D) A Water Quality Management
plan containing requirements applicable
to such point sources is approved,
(F) Circumstances have changed since
the time of the request to be covered so
that the discharger is no longer
appropriately controlled under the
general permit, or either a temporary or
permanent reduction or elimination of
the authorized discharge is necessary
(F) Standards for sewage sludge use
or disposal have been promulgated for
the sludge use and disposal practice
covered by the general NPDES permit
or
(C) The discharge(s) is a significant
contributor of pollutants. In making this
determination, the Director may
consider the following factors:
(I) The location of the discharge with
respect to waters of the United States.
(2) The size of the discharge:
(3) The quantity and nature of the
pollutants discharged to waters of the
United States; and
(4) Other relevant factors:
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 222 I Friday, November 16, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 4 O73
7. SectIon 122.42 Is amended by
addlnq paragraph (c) to read as follows:
* 122.42 AddmOn condleces applicabte
upsUflad categories of P01.S permits
( appicohie te Stst. NPDES pregr , es
* 1
• . .
(c) Municipal separate storm sewer
systems. The operator of a large or
medium municipal separate storm sewer
system or a municipal separate storm
sewer that has been designated by the
Director under 122.26(a)(1)(v) of this
part must submit an annual report by
the anniversary of the date of the
issuance of the permit for such system.
The report shall include:
(1) The status of implementing the
components of the storm water
management program that are
established as permit conditions:
(2) Proposed changes to the storm
water management programs that are
established as permit condition. Such
proposed changes shall be consistent
with 122.28(d)(2)(iii) of this part: and
(3) Revisions, If necessary, to the
assessment of controls and the fiscal
analysis reported in the permit
application under I 122.26(d)(2)(iv) ann
(d)(2)(v) of this part:
(4) A summary of data. including
monitoring data, that is accumulated
throughout the reporting year:
(5) Annual expenditures and budget
for year following each annual report
(6) A summary describing the number
and nature of enforcement actions,
inspections, and public education
programs:
(7) identification of water quality
improvements or degradation:
7a. Part 122 ii amended by adding
appendices E through I as follows:
Appendix E to Part 122—Rainfall Zones. of the United States
Not SAown Alaska (Zone 7); HawaIi (Zone
7): No,tMm Mañana islands (Zone 7): Guam
(Zone 7): Amencan Samoa (Zone 7); Tru.t
TerrItory of the Pacific Islands (Zone 7);
Puerto Rico Zone 3) VirgIn Islands (Zone 3).
Source: Methodology for Analysts of
Detention Basins for Control of Urban Runoff
Quality, prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protectson Agency. Office of Water. Nonpoint
Source Division. Washington. DC. 1966.
Appendix F to Part 122—incorporated
Places With Popclationi Greater Than
250,000 According to Latest Decennial
Census by Bureau of Census.
Stat. Iricorporstad p ac.
Alabama I Brmsn gt am
Ai cna
Ti,cson
Catsfon Long Beach.
Los Angitas.
Oa tand
S.orsmamo.
Son sgo.
Son Franosco
Son Jo..
Siaii lncoiVor.t.d p ac.
Co lorado Denver.
Devici at Co l nCsa
FlonOa . Jac*ion v l.
M’an
Tampa.
G.org a Atlanta.
lIkno ,s Cr ticaqo
Ind iana Ind’ana oobs
Kan sas .. ., Wacflda
Kintu cAy ._.. ................. Louisvil le
Louisiana Nou Qileant
Mw and _.. BaIamor1
Msssac?vjss?ts —H Boston.
Mscr l i gan Derc ’t
Ia.nv i..ota Minneonok .
St Piul
Z °N
-------
41W1 Federil Ra iIthr/VOL 55. No. / Friday. November 16. 199u I Rules and Regulations
No Cw ma__
O o ____
Wge .a
4 5rwlgton. ...... - — -
Wisconsal
Mstama.
M ian su . -
C i l4 oma _.. -
Staten I a*d —
T edo.
r Cty
Tu lsa.
PIs*ade4ph .a
N S SJ 1v .fle/DavidsrJn
Oe ia
I e reo
Fol Woru*
Sen Mtoi
N o
*g. s Bean
Sean1
a u lioo
H ..rtsvlo
M o gomery
*, ag.
Tiff O
t.atlte Ao
Arianea ..
B aSe r i l te id
Fresno.
C .a’den Giow,
Baac
S l 0
S a
Tonuno..
Ceiis.clo SonN2 . .
N M
Fon L s
stem
Psi.r

___ eon. at,
PSONa.
Foil Wa i . .
G ary
Soi d
____- Cdd A
e s IAoros
Koi si .__. XasonsC4y
—
Baton Rouge
vevcpo
M a*’a
Worcestoi
Grsnd Rap.Cs
Steiteig 4e . .*1
Watren
Mis i s ppi . .._. ... Jaclisan
- - I , ependence
Neaada _ _ — L.a. Vegas
Reno
Non Jnse -—
JWSey Ca
Non YnS - .. Albany
S i.racusa.
N Car08na.
G aensbovo
Raeign
W .nston-Sa..,m
O lin —- . . Akr fl
0a
Yoi 4 gsco ... .
Oregan —— - Eugene
.4 Atten*own

Rend. Iilend .
Soia iCatow is .__......._ Col . .
-- -
Teias _. . , , Aat sn0 o
Ar ig?on
: o a.
W e
Uwe -- Sai1L akeC $
- Aiexen
O ’lesapeake
‘4amDnlt
— Nowi
Rc
R on o i
S oI ans
Wnoonei i
I —
Non Voit___
vt. _.___J
Appendix H to Pret 1— Coimlie. with
Uthnc&pereted Urba ed Areas With
Population of 250.000 or More ACCOIdiIII,
to the Latent c nni ..I Ceneus by the
Bureau of Census
Tovw ies ee ..
U.__.t.
State
Co ..effy
Id u’ Z J
—
Ceiaonss -—
Los AJ 181 11 1 I 3 .... ....J
wa ’a.. - -4
SenOego ._
9 12 .888
44Loi6
304758
Oel swr . ,
F 1 .’
Geor —
H aw
MLe4er .
Texas
Ns.Css8. ..,
—-
Oe( ......... ——4
Il nii __.....4
Aon. Ar . dil I
Baltimore -
gw i ie’ y
Pnnce Georges
Hams -
257.181
7 5* 949
3SUfl
688.178
271.458
601.308
447 9*3
450,188
409601
titan .
Silt Laso —
304 .832
Vegasa
Wasbaig*on
Famlaa_ —.
Ksig_ - -
527,178
336800
Appendix C so Part 1 —1ncorporated
Places With lotions Greater Than
1l 1’V and Less Than 0 . 800 Acconllng
to Latest DecennIal Census by Bureau of
.co.povs1Id ptaoi
Appendix ito Part 12Z—Cuunt es With
tininenrporatoil Urbanuod Areas
Greater Than 100.000. But Lose Than
0.I00 According to the Latest
DecennIal Censos by the Bureau of
Census
S’.ate Co eit, Id ulbost!
Alabama .__ Jo8ersoae tO29 7
— , Pw,n , . , I I I 439
Csssorn .,a Alimed. .. — 157414
I Cone. Costa 158452
— j 1I7 2 3I
O!ar9e_ 4 210.893
Raers.oe I 1 15719
San Bemarono 148844
FOiCa. ‘ B o’.ard 159 3 O
Cscainba 147
Hrtsbo r o ug l l 238 292
O!3f 1 9 1 ‘ 245325
PeimBeach 167089
P. ’ l e l l a, - ‘ 191 :ai
104*50
Sar.aoia 1*0 .009
— *00742
Co In __. I 204121
*18529
Ke ntucty - —- Jefferson 224 956
Jefferson , *40 838
Norm CvoNna . Cuntostand. — I 14 2 .727
Nevada - . Onli .. - 201 779
Mi48 SI* ............J 141 *00
WS 5 —
South CvX a *3 5.328
I RicItlaaei_... 124.534
vrqns.. . iMa ion. . 152.599
— - .4 14t .204
cin.sn, &_ . ..4 io&
Snu .a_. ... i03 *00
____________ 1 P ce —— .. ‘ 190.113
PART 123—STATE PROGRAM
REQUIREMENTS
8. The authority citation for part 123
continues to read as follows
Colorsao - -___-
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55. No. 222 I Fnday. November 16. 1990 I Rules and Regulations 48075
AUth It>- Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. 1252
e1 Sec.
9. SectIon 123.25 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(9) to read as
follows:
o 123.25 Rsq*smsnt. for pmrngWô
(a)
(9) 0 122.28—(Storm water
discharges);
PART 124—PROCEOUR S FOR
DECISIONMAKING
10. The authority citation for part 124
continues to read as follow.:
Autbaetty Resourcs Conservation and
Recovery Act. 42 U.S.C. 0901 c i seq.: Safe
Dnnking Water Act. 42 U.S C. 300f et seq..
Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. 1251 ci seq.: and
Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. 1857 ci seq.
11. Section 124.52 is revised to read as
follows:
124.52 Permft . roquirad on a casi-by-
cass h--
(a) Various sections of part 122.
subpart B allow the Director to
determine, on a cue-by-case basis, that
certain concentrated animal feeding
operations (0 122.23). concentrated
‘ aquatic animal production facilities
(0122.24), itoriui water discharges
(0 122.28). and certain other facilities
covered by general permits (0 122.28)
that do not generally require an
individual permit may be required to
obtain an individual permit because of
their contributions to water pollution.
(b) Whenever the Regional
Administrator decides that an individual
permit is required under this section.
except as provided in paragraph (c) of
this section. the Regional Administrator
shall notify the discharger in writing of
that decision and the reasons for it. and
shall send an application form with the
notice. The discharger must apply for a
permit under 12221 within 60 days of
notice, unless permission for a later date
is granted by the Regional
Administrator. The question whether the
designation was proper will remain
open for consideration during the public
comment period under § 124.11 or
§ 124.118 and in any subsequent hearing.
(c) Prior to a case-by-case
determination that an individual permit
is required for a storm water discharge
under this section (see 40 CFR 122.28
(a)(1)(v) and (c)(1)(v)), the Regional
Administrator may require the
discharger to submit a permit
application or other infnrmittion
regarding the discharge under section
308 of the CWA. In requiring such
information, the Regional Administrator
shall notify the discharger in writing and
shall send an application form with the
notice. The discharger must apply for a
permit under § 122.26 within 60 days of
notice, unless permission for a later date
is granted by the Regional
Administrator. The question whether the
initial designation was proper will
remain open for consideration during
the public comment period under
§ 12411 or § 124.118 and in any
subsequent hearing
Noie: The following form will not appear in
the Code of Federal Regulations
SILUMO COOS siac-so—a
-------
1 O76 Reglatur / VoL 55, No . 222 / Fiiday, November 18, 1 O/ Rades and Regi ata s
Form - u 1 ’ SUI Envvonm.nta qency
20460
2r Application for Permit To Discharge Stormwater
NPCES Discharqes Associated with Industrial Activity
______ _______ Pap. ....it Rsducstost t Node.
Pub . .,. o6p nd for etta “- ‘i Is estiirta d to 206 flours per ‘calton , including time for reviewing msthactioi
01s g sx s*zng da 5 geeterwiQ and m %t er4 *51 d fle.dedj , and npfetst reviewing Vie Iectton of Information Send
fen_ordasg I I I rden es rtate, arty Other a ect of this I ’ - on 01 iJorusasion , or iggestions for irnpmving fitie form, including
01I *y cre 01 t.ducs thiS binden to’ Oset. dorrnauom Policy Branth, PM.223. U S Envi,onntsntai Protection ilgency,
405 U St.. SW, DC 20460, or Director, Otfie. 01 i rn n __ gtotoiy Aflairs, Office of Managanwu and &idger,
Wa NngW DC 50
1. OutislI Location - —•— ‘ ———‘ —mu--
oi M let the fs”ude and lorloesde of ft loaf on to the nealeet 15 u.cond ’ qnd th, name of the recelvino wawr
8.U t Oude
0 Receiving Water
——
I I. Improvements
:
& tie you now required by any I ederal. State, or local authonfy to meet any implementation $theduti for file ConWuctiQn. upgraaing 01
operation of waatewatar treatment equipment or practices or arty other Invuronmental programs wflicrt may affect the discharges
described in this application? This includes, but is not binned to. permit conditions. administiative 01 enforcement orders, enforcement
ownptiance solsedul, lett,cs, stipulations. court orders, and grant or loan oondniona
4 Final
I erttr cabor of Conditions.
Agreements, Etc
2. Affected Outf alit
3 Oust wiption of Pro 1 ect
Crrpfiance Date
a req
number
source of discharge
8. You may attach sdd.bonal sh..ts describIng any additional water’ pollution (or Other envwonnientai pro,.cts wtfrcti may affici your
diadsarges) you now have under way or which you plan Indicate witedief each program is now under way or planned, and indicat your
ectual or piarvied adiedtMs for constructIon
III. Stte Drainage Map --——
Altidt a site map aisowfrig topography (or Indicating the outline of drernag. areas served by (tie outfall(s) covered i sv the application if a
Iopograptuc map is unavailable) depicting tIle faali?y including each of its fluke and discharge I’ructures. (the drainage area Of each storm
water outfall, paved areas and buildings within the drainag. area of each storm witer ou,latt eacJ kntiwn past or present areas used for
ositdcor itorag. or disposal of significant materials, lath listing structural control measure to reduce poliutants in storm waler ruflOft
ma ials loading and a ss areas, areas where pesticides, herbicides, soil conditioners and fertilizers are applied, each oils tiazardous
waet. treatment, storage or disposal units (including ,aal area not requited to have a RCRA permit wtlicfr is used 101 aocumulatng hazardous
wasse under 40 CFR 262 34). each watt wthqr. fluids irons tess facility a ’. we .ctea undergro.3n0, springs, and other suit ac, water bodies wf% ,Ctl
receive storm waler d. iarges Irons rIse facility
eaai pied 0tl) l In ( tie unchaded arvas only
EPA VP&ss e t3 ,j ) ‘àcipy(iomrrenelcfFom, ‘ Form AppiOv ,cl Ot .49 No 20400086
- Agprovsleipsel 5/31,/92
(PA For .. 351O.2 ( 12-U)
Page I 013
t.ontanue on Pag.2
-------
Fedei.1 RegMt I VoL 55. No. 222 / Friday, November 18, 1990 I RuIe and ReguIath s
__M_.._ t , •
4 n
A. Foe s s oueaL pe imde eis .sbnl s of the wss (indu i ) of iengui m wfaoes Øm n psvsd areas arid ialong roof s s.ed
Ili Q . Uld an , st (At ci V I I • aras id4 by ths
Outfall
kea of rpaivsoua Swfa
Total iu am.d
Outfall
Ares of kiipeMoui Surface
Total A ,., Otamed
1em, units)
Mici un,fsl
Number
tomvyo . units)
( mwtle unitS)
B Provide a narr5tr. description of sugnifucanl materials that are currently oem th . peal three years have been treated. stOreøor dispoSed in
a manner to allow exposure to storm wat.r method of eaunent , storage, or disposal, pasi end present materials management practices
employed. in the last three years, to minimize contact by the ,. materials with storm water runoff, materials loading and access areas, and
th. location, manner and frequency in which pesticides, herbicides, sod conditioners, and fertilizers are applied
C For each Outfall. provide the location and a deSciuptiort of existing suuctulal and nOnhtructuraJ COntrOl measures to reduce pollutants In
storm water runoff and a description of the treatment the storm water receives including the schedule antf type of rynalnrrenance for Control
- tni,fln,” -. --“-flffi.,ffi.ni’,. ---- -
prguu,c,,r u,ryg.w Ica gnu ii, UILIFITpLC uiouc,p, ci any iiuiu waste,
Ouifafl
Number
—.
Treatment
List Coces frOm
Taple 2F
V. No
toemweter Oischart ei — ——
.
A. I Certify ufldei Penalty 01 law that the O tf5ll($) Covered by thus application have been tested or ewaluatea lou ins presence 01
nonslormwat.r discharges, and that all nOnalormwatef discharges from these outhIt(s) ate identified in either an accompanying Form 2C
ne Form 2F aorrfication for the Outfall
Narn. and Official Title (type o,pnntj S.gna b ro Dais Signed
B Provides description of the method used the date of any testing arid the onsute drainage points that were directly observed during a test
VI. Sk nifIcanl Leaks or SDiIIs
Prowde Imbng inlOitTiaoon rIg.rd.ng Vie ‘p c i eigni cant b a or of c Ce pelka.nta a) the t ty as the last three
yeses. m J0as9 O le spçeoaeri 0 wid Iocae..is of Vie d or hall, amid Vie type amid an of m ul released
EPA Form 3310.2F (12.88)
Page 2 of 3
Continu, on Page 3
-------
48078 Federal Register / VoL 55, No. 222 / Friday , November 10, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Continued from Page 2
EPA ID Numbs. opy lion, R im I ofFcm , I)
A .B .C & 0 $. snW icbons bsfovs p i’ sdang. Compists an. sit of tabtss foe sacti outfall. Mnotat, d i. outfsU numbs, in ths spa psoindsd.
Tables Vfl.A Vile, and Vll-C e Inctuded on sspaeat. sbssts numbsrsd V .1 and Ml.2.
E. PotentIal d.sollaeg.s not coisesd by anal s ,s. b any pollutant Iistsd hi Tabi. 2F.2 a substance ce a component OS a substance wti.cI i
cutr s .Wy us. ce manutactura as an nts.m.diats oe tinal peoduct ce bypeoduct?
Yss (l ’st all such pollutantS bek,wf No (go to Section ‘1I —
Yes fist result! betoe4
ri No (co to Se ,on I X)
Yes
t:o ( o tø Section X)
A N1fl e
B Addiess
C area Cote 6 Pncne r.o
0 PolIutan .s Analy?ed
X. Certification — —‘
B Aiea Code and Ptiene NO
A Name & Oticial Title (type or print)
C Signatue
0 Oat, Signed
EPA Fornt 35l0.2F (124$
Page 3 of 3
-------
F N1 Re later / VoL 55, No. 222 / Friday. November 18. i99Q / Rules and Ragulationa
VU. O cheq e)nfoñi ãtion (Continued from oaoe 3 of Form 2F1
Psil A • You mu pr .d. the fisults of M O $r .alyiis . Iy p nt in this table. Complete ens e lot eacn outbll See.
loseucboms to e additional details
Pobjtant
and
CASISamtass
( L1 )
Maairnum Values
nch uMS)
s
4iflck 1 di s )
P a enbe r
0 1
S iotm
E,ents
Sampled
Grab Sample
Taden sung
M i l
Cwju n l
Gab Sample
TakenDunng-.
t . l ei .A s
A S IIISd
C ,,o .k,
Oil vtd Geu.
Sources of Poflut ants
Geological Oiygen
Demand ( OO5)
Oiaunmcal Osygen
Demand (COO)
Tolal Suspended
Solids (TSS’
-
Totil lqsalatg
Mtrogen
Nitrate pP .as
Nitrite M ogen
-
Total
°s—
0 14
Msn.mum
Mazumu,ye
Part a - List .
permi
See t
acn pollutant tnat us
lot its process wa
tignutCO in an ethuint g alins wflicfl th6
stewatst (d the faciley is operating undst
Maximum
t Mdy is tab ec2 to or st ay pO 4 luISfrt I,SleO in the taculity NPDE3
an elisting NPO 5 permit) Complete one table or each Cuttafl
Polkjtam
and
C 5
(if available)
to, ac iteonaI detail, and
Massnum Values
(include un i t s)
!ou,rement,.
ege Values
(ancAdue s)
Numb.,
0
Storm

Sampleo
Søur et 0$ Pofl itants
Grab Sample
Taken During
Matutes
Composite
Graø Sample
Taken Ouung
Minutes
Composite
EPAtONumber (CcpyfrorTPitenrioVFcxm:) 1 Fo rmApprOved OMBN0 2040—0086
EP A fo tsio. e (t2.88)
Page V I I - I
Coetunu. on Reverse
-------
4e080 Fede’sI Raglatar I Vol 55, No. 2 / Friday, November 16, 1900 / Rules and Re iz1alio a
Pail C- Uai es i poliu tt shown It Ta I 2F .2. 3.3 mid 3.4 thof yOU ki w or have mavon bsUave ent Se. thu vt u ons for
___ _____________
Polutmfl
mid
CAS
U e .
(It w, )
—
(),c*
Wfoe.
one)
*m or
of
S lom t
Bent.
0mb Smn
TIiC.n ItQ
Aoweçh d
Swnp
Tofisn #lng
Ao gM.d
(Vavei!aba)
lOrwiss
CompoVt.
Ilnutsi
Composite
Sampled
Sources of Pollutants
Part 0. Provide dr- for the ,eorm rmnt(il w4 iIcfi resulted li i the mwi,
urn values fø, the flow
wrnqhted mp0s1te sample
1
Date of
Storm
Event
2.
Ouradon
of Storm
( n mmutes)
3.
Total rainfall
du?InQ mi event
(in hiches)
4.
f+jmbsr of Pio s b.t .fl
of 1 ’ ’ m
urud mid end of piwous
mssswsbl. tan event
5.
Maximum floe ate

(gai s,./mznute or
un i t s
6.
Total flow from

(galbns or
specify units)
7
Season
wnpie was
taken
8
Form of
Pr.ciputavon
(ra t1
snoivinft)
g Provide a desafpdon of the method of flow measursmeni or sidmats
IPA Form 3510.2? 12.U)
PIQI V Z
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55 No 222 I Friday, November 16,1990/ Rules and Regulations
Instructions -Form 2F
Application for Permit to Discharge Storm Water
Associated with Industrial Activity
Who Must File Form 2F
Form 2F must be completed by operators of facilities which discharge storm water associated with industnal
activity or by operators of storm water discharges that EPA is evaluating for designation as a significant
contributor of pollutants to waters of the United States, or as contributing to a violation of a water quality
standard.
Operators of discharges which are composed entirely of storm water must complete Form 2F (EPA Form
3510-2F) in conjunction with Form 1 (EPA Form 3510.1).
Operators of discharges of storm water which are combined with process wastewater (process wastewater
is water that comes Into direct contact with or results from the production or use of any raw material, interme-
diate product, finished product, byproduct, waste product, or wastewater) must complete and submit Form
2F, Form 1, and Form 2C (EPA Form 3510-2C).
Operators of discharges of storm water which are combined with nonprocess wastewater (nonprocess
wastewater Includes noncontact cooling water and sanitary wastes which are not regulated by effluent guide-
lines or a new source performance standard, except discharges by educational, medical, or commercial
chemical laboratories) must complete Form I, Form 2F, and Form 2E (EPA Form 3510-2E).
Operators of new sources or new discharges of storm water associated with industrial activity which will be
combined with other rtonstorrnwateq new sources or new discharges must submit Form 1 Form 2F. and
Form 2D (EPA Form 3510-2D).
Where to File Applications
The application forms should be sent to the EPA Regional Office which covers the State in which the facility
is located. Form 2F must be used only when applying for permits In States where the NPDES permits
program Is administered by EPA. -For facilities located in States which are approved to administer the NPDES
permits program, the State environrnernaj agency should be contacted for proper permit application forms
and Instructions,
Information on whether a particular program Is administered by EPA or by a State agency can be obtained
from your EPA Regional Office. Form 1, Table I of the ‘General Instructions’ lists the addresses of EPA
Regional Offices and the States within the jurisdiction of each Office.
Completeness
Your application will not be considered complete unless you answer every question on this form and on Form
I If an item does not apply to you, enter NA (for not applicable) to show that you considered the question
Public Availability of Submitted Information
You may not claim as cord identiai any information required by this form or Form t whether the informatiOn
is reported on the forms or in an attachment, SectIon 402 (j) of the Clean Water Act requires that all permit
applications will be available to the public This information will be made available to the public upon request
Any information you submit to EPA which goes beyond that required by this torn,, Form 1, or Form 2C you
may claim as confidential, but claims for information which are effluent data will be denied
II you do not assert a claim of confidentiality at the time of submitting the Information, fiA may make the
Information public without further notice to you. Claims of confidentiality will be handled in accordance with
EPA’s business confidentiality regulations at 40 CFR Part 2.
Definitions
All significant terms used in these instructions and In the form are defined in the glossary found In the General
Instructions which accompany Form 1.
EPA ID Number
Fill in your EPA Identification Number at the top of each odd-numbered page of Form 2F. You may copy this
number directly from item I of Form 1
EPA Form 3510-2F (12.88) I -
-------
FderaI R.gialer / VoL 56 No. 2 I Friday, November 18, 1990, Rider aDd Reg i1aUc e
Item I
You may use the map you provided for hem Xl ci Form I to dalemt e the lai ude and lorigdude ci each ci
your outfaUs and the name of the receiving water.
item ti-A
ii you check ‘yes’ to this question, complete aD parts of the chart, oraflach a copy of any previous submission
you have made to EPA containing the same Infom’iatlon.
Item li-B
YouarenotrequWedtosubmftadesnoffuturepolhitloncontrol pcojectsd youdonotwtsh*oorif none
Is planned.
Item Ill
Attach a site map showing topography (or Indicating the outhne of drainage areas served by the outfall(s)
covered ui the application If a topographic map Is unavaDabte) depicting the fadllity Including.
each of its drainage and discharge structures:
the drainage area of each storm water outfall;
paved areas and bulding within the drainage area of each storm water outfall, each known past or
present areas used for outdoor storage or disposal ci significant materials, each existing structunl con-
trol measure to reduce pollutants in storm water runoff, materials loading and access areas, areas where
- pesticides, herbicides, sod conditioners and fertdizers are applied;
each of its hazardous waste treatment, Storage or disposal tacDltles (including each area not required to
have a RCRA permit which is used for accumulating hazardous waste for less than 90 days under 40 CFR
262 34),
each well where fluids from the facility are 1n ected underground; and
springs, and other surface water bodies which receive storm water discharges from the facMy.
Item IV.A
For each outfall, provide an estimate of the area drained by the outfall which is covered by impervious
surfaces For the purpose of this application, Impervious surfaces are surfaces where storm water runs off at
rates that are significantly higher than background rates (e.g.. predevelopmen* levels) and mduda paved
areas, budding roofs, parking lots, and roadways. InclUde an estimate of the total area (‘including aD irspervi-
ous and pervious areas) arained by each outfaU. The site rap required under item I II can be used to estimate
the total area drained by each outfall -
Item IV-8
Provide a narrative description of significant materials that are currently or in the past three years have been
treated, stored, or disposed in a manner to allow exposure to storm water method of treatment, storage or
disposal of these materials, past and present materials management practices erT loyed, in the last three
years, to minimize contact by these materials wth storm waler runoff materials loading and access areas;
and the location. manner, and frequency ii which - 1 c . herbicides, sod conditioners, and tertdizers are
applied Significant materials should be identified by chemicaf name, form (e g. powder, liquid, ate), and
type of container or treatment unit. Indicate any materials heated, stored, or disposed of together ‘Signdl.
cant materials’ includes, but is not limited to: raw materials; fuelr materials such as solvents, detergents. and
plastic pellets, finished materials such as metallic products; raw materials used vi food processing or produc-
tion, hazardous substances designated under Section 101 (14) ci CERCLA. any chemical the taddy is re-
quired to report pursuant to Section 313 of Title Ill of SARA, fertilizers, pesticides: and waste products such
as ashes, slag and sludge that have the potential to be released with storm water discharges
Item N-C
For each outfall, structural controls Include structures which enclose material handling or storage areas.
covering materials, berms, dikes, or diversion ditches around manufac*urtng production, storage or treat-
merit units. retention ponds. etc Nonstructural controls Include practices such as sptl prevention plans.
employee training, visual inspections, preventive maintenance, arid housekee g measures that are used to
prevent or minimize the potential for releases of pollutants.
EPA Form 3510 -2F (12.88) I -2
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 5L No. 222 I Friday, November 18. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 48083
Itim V
Provide a certification that all otAfalls that should contain storm water discharges associated with tndustnai
activity have been tested or evaluated for the presence of non-storm water discharges which are not covered
by an NPDES permit. Tests for such non-storm water discharges may Include smoke tests. fluorometric dye
teszs analysis of accurate schematics, as well as other appropriate tests. Part B must Include a descnption
of the method used, the date of any testing, and the onsite drainage points that were directly observed during
a test. All non-storm water discharges must be identified In a Form 2C or Form 2E which must accompany
this application (see beginning of Instructions under section titled ‘Who Must Fife Form 2F ’ for a descnption
of when Form 2C and Form 2E must be submitted).
hem Vi
Provide a description of existing information regarding the history of significant leaks or spllls of toxic or
hazardous pollutants at the facdity hi the last three years.
Item VU-A, 5, and C
These Items require you to collect and report data on the pollutants discharged for each of your outfalls Each
part of this item addresses a different set of pollutants and must be completed in accordance with the specific
Instructions for that part. The following general Instructions apply to the entire item
General Instructions
Part A requires you to report at least one analysis for each pollutant listed Parts 6 and C require you to report
analytical data in two ways. For some pollutants addressed In Parts B and C, if you know or have reason to
know that the pollutant Is present in your discharge, you may be required to list the pollutant and test (sample
and analyze) and report the levels of the pollutants in your discharge. For all other pollutants addressed in
Parts B and C, you must list the pollutant if you know or have reason to know that the pollutant is present in
the discharge, and either report quantitative data for the pollutant or bnefly descnbe the reasons the pollutant
Is expected to be discharged. (See specific Instructions on the form and below for Parts A through C) Base
your determination that a pollutant Is present in or absent from your discharge on your knowledge of your
raw materials, rnaterlai management practices, maintenance chemicals, history of spif Is and releases, inter-
mediate and final products and byproducts, and any previous analyses known to you of your effluent or
slmllar effluent.
A. Sampling: The collection of the samples for the reported analyses should be supervised by a person
experienced In performing sampling of industnaJ wastewater or storm water discharges You may con.
tact EPA or your State permitting authority for detaled guidance on sampling techniques and for answers
to specific questions. Any specific requirements contained In the applicable analytical methods Should
be followed for sample containers, sample preservation, holding times, the collection of duplicate Sam.
pies, etc The time when you sample should be representative, to the extent feasible, of your treatment
system operating properly with no system upsets Samples should be collected from the center of the
low channel, where turbulence is at a maximum, at a site specified in your present permit or at any site
adequate for the collection of a representative sample
For pH, temperature, cyanide, total phenols, residual chlorine, oil and grease, and fecal Ccluforrn, grab
samples taken dunng the first 30 minutes (or as soon thereafter as practicable) of the discharge must be
used (you are not required to analyze a flow-weighted composite for these parameters) For all other
pollutants both a grab sample collected during the first 30 minutes (or as soon thereafter as practicable)
of the discharge and a flow-weighted composite sample must be analyzed However, a minimum of one
grab sample may be taken for effluents from holding ponds or other impoundments with a retention
period of greater than 24 hours.
All samples shall be collected from the discharge resulting from a storm event that is greater than 0 1
inches and at least 72 hours from the previously measurable (greater than 0 1 inch rainfall) Storm event.
Where feasible, the vartance in the duration of the event and the total rairfall of the event should not
exceed 50 percent from the average or median rainfall event in that area
A grab sample shall be taken during the first thirty minutes of the discharge (or as soon thereafter as
practicable), and a flow-weighted composite shall be taken for the entire event or for the first three hours
of the event.
Grab and composite samples are defined as follows
EPA Form 3510-2F (1248) i -3
-------
Federal Reg sIer 1 Vol. 55, No. 2fl I Friday. November 18.1990/ Rules and Regulations
Grab sample: An indMdUal sample of at least 100 rmll ders collected during the first thirty minutes
(or as soon thereafter as practicable) of the discharge. This sample isto be analyzed separately from
the composite sample.
low-Weighted Composite wupls A ow-weigtitad compr a mple may be taken with a con
tinuous sampler that proportions the amount 0$ sample c ected wth the flow rate or as a combina-
tion 0$ a mlninntn 0$ weo mp4e el4quor taken In each how 0$ discharge for the entire event or for
the first three h s 0$ the event. with each aliquot being at least 100 mB 5dera and collected with a
minimum period 0$ fdteen minutes between aliquot cotlectiorn The composite must be flow propor-
l ionel, either the time Interval between each ahquot or the volume of each aliquot must be propor-
lionel to either the stream flow at the time 0$ sampling or the total stream flow since the collection of
the previous aliquot. Aliquots may be collected manually or automatically Where GC/MS Volatile
Organic Analysis (VOA) is required. atk nols must be combined In the laboratory Immediately before
analysis. Ordy one analysis for the composite sample Is required
Data from samples taken in the past may be used, provided that•
All data requirements are met;
Sampling was done no more than three years before submission; and
All data are representative of the present discharge.
Among the factors which would cause the data to be w represenZatIve are significant changes in produc
lion level, changes in raw materials, processes, or final products, and changes in storm water treatment
When the Agency promulgates new analytical methods in 40 CFR Part 136, EPA wil provide information
as to when you should use the new methods to generate data on your discharges Of course, the
Director may request additional Information. Induding current quantitative data. if they determine it to be
necessary to assess your discharges. The Director may allow or establish appropnate site-specific sam-
pling procedures or requirements. Induding sampling locations, the season in wt’ticfl the sampling takes
place, the minimum duration between the previous measurable storm event and the storm event sam-
pled, the minimum or maximum level of precipitation required for an approçxiale storm event, the form
of precipitation sampled (snow melt or rainfall), protocols for collectmg samples under 40 CFA Part 136.
and additional time for submitting data on a case—by-case basis.
B. Reporting: All levels must be reported as concentration and as total mass. You may report some or alt
oftherequireddata byattaching separatesheetsotpaperinsteadof fillingoid pages V II I and VU-2i1 the
separate sheets contain all the required information in a format which is consistent with pages Vll-1 and
VlI-2 in spacing and In entificatlon of pollutants and columns. Use the follo*.ng abbreviations in the
columns headed “Units.
Concentration Mass
ppm parts per million lbs pounds
mg/I milligrams per liter ton tons (Eng!tsh tons)
ppb parts per billion mg mitligrams
ugh micrograms per liter g grams
kg kilograms T tonnes (mEnc tons)
All reporting of values for metals must be at terms 0$ toial recoverable metal.’ w ess:
(1) An applicable, promulgated effluent limitation or standard specifies the limitation for the metal in
dissolved. vaient. or total form, or
(2) M approved analytical methods for the metal Inherently measure onty Its dissolved form (e g..
hexavalent chromium): or
(3) The permitting authority has determined that It establisting case-by-case limitations it is neces-
sary to express the limitations on the metal In dissolved. vaient. or total form to carry out the provi-
sionsof the CWA If you measure o y one grab sample and one flow-weighted composite sample
for a given outfall, complete only the Maxfmum Values columns and insert 1 Into (he Number of
Storm Events Sampled column. The permitting authority may require you to conduct addiiional
analyses to further characterize your discharges
EPAFQrm3 S1O-2F(12-88) 1.4
-------
Federal Register I VoL 55, No. 2 I Friday, November i6 i o / Rules and Regulations
If you measure more than one ie for a grab sample or a flcm.welghted cunposife sample for a given
outfall and those ValL * m representatIve of your duch ge . you must report them. You must describe
your method of testing and data analysis. You also must delenthie the average of el values wthin the
last year and report the concentration mass under the ‘Average Values’ coluirwis, and the total number
of storm events sampled under the 14umber of Stonn Events Sampled’ columr .
C. Analysis: You must use tad methods promulgated in 40 R Pait 136: however, none has been
promulgated for a particular pdlt rit. you may use any suteble method for measuring the level of the
pollutant in your discharge pr 4ded that you submit a description of the method or a reference to a
published method. Your description should Include the sample holding time. preservation techniques.
and the quality control measures which you used. If you have two or more S tantially identical outfalls,
you may request permission from your permitting authority to sample and analyze only one outfall and
submit the Vesults of the analysts for other substantially identical outfalls. if your request is granted by the
permitting authority, on a separate sheet attached to the application form, dentdy which outfall you did
test, and describe why the outlalls which you did not test are substantially identical to the outisH which
you did test.
Part VU-A
Part VU-A must be completed by all applicants for all outfaAs who must complete Form 2F.
Analyze a grab sample collected during the first thirty minutes (or as soon thereafter as practicable) of the
discharge and flow-weighted composite samples for all pollutants in this Part, and report the results except
use only grab samples for pH and of and grease. See discussion In General Instructions to Item VII for
definitions of grab sample collected during the first thirty minutes of discharge and flow-weighted composite
sample The ‘Average Values’ column Is not compulsory but should be Ied out if data are available
Part Vu-B
List all pollutants that are limited Ut an effluent guideline wtsicti the ladity is subtect to (see 40 CFR Subchap-
ter N to determine which pollutants are limited in efituent guidelines) or any poautant listed in the facility’s
NPDES permit for its process wastewater (if the facility Is operating tinder an existing NPDES permit) Com-
plete one table for each outfall. See discussion In General Instructions to item VII for definitions of gnb
sample collected dunng the first thirty minutes (or as soon thereafter as practicable) of discharge and flow-
weighted composite sample. The ‘Average Values’ column Is not compulsory but should be filled out it data
are available.
Analyze a grab sample collected during the first thirty minutes of the discharge and flow-weighed composite
samples for all pollutants in this Part, and report the results, except as provided in the General Instructions
Part Vu-C
Part Vu-C must be completed by all applicants for aR oimHs which discharge storm water associated with
industrial activity, or that EPA Is evaluating for designation as a significant contributor of pollutants to waters
of the United States, or as conmbuting to a violation of a water quality standard. Use both a grab sample and
a composite sample for pollutants you analyze for in this part except use grab samples for residual chlorine
and fecai coliform The ‘Average Values’ column Is not compulsory bet should be tilled out if data are
available. Part C requires you to address the pollutants in Table 2F-2 , 2F-3. and 2F-4 for each outfall Pollu-
tants in each of these Tables are addressed differently
Table 2F-2 For each outfall, list all pollutants In Table 2F-2 that you know or have reason to believe are
discharged (except pollutants prevlouuly listed In Pan VU-a). I I a pollutant Is limited in an effluent guideline
limitation which the facility Is subject to (e g.. use of TSS as an Indicator to control the discharge of iron and
aluminum), the polkitarit should be ilsted in Part VU-B. if a pofutarit In table 2F-2 Is indirectly limIted by an
effluent guideline limitation through an you mt analyze for ft and report data hi Pan VU-C. For
other pollutants listed In Table 2F .2 hose not ømfted directly or IndIre y by an effluent lImitation guideline),
that you know or have reason to love me you me. either report quantftaftve data or briefly
describe the reasons the pollutant Is expected to be discharged.
Table 2F-3: For each outfall, list all pollutants In Table 2F-3 that you know or have reason to believe are
discharged. For every pollutant Ut Table 2F-3 expected to be disclwgad in concentrations of 10 ppb or
greater, you must submit quantitative data. For wciwi, acrØonarae, 2,4 dir ropl id, orid 2-mnth 14,6
duritrophenol, you must submit quantitative data V any of these fort pollutants is expected to be discharged
EPA Form 3510-2F (12-88) I -5
-------
48088 Federal Regieter / VoL 55 No. 222 I Fri day. November 16, 1990 / Rules and Regulati one
In concentrations ci 100 ppb or greater. For every pollutant expected to be discharged in concentrations less
than 10 ppb (or 100 ppb for the four pollutants listed above), then you must either submit quantitative data
or briefly describe the reasons the pollutant Is expected to be discharged.
Small Business ExemptIon. If you are a ‘small business,’ you are exempt from the reporting requirements
for the organic toxic pollutants listed In Table 2F .a There are t ways In which you can qualify as a ‘small
business’. If your facility Is a coal mine, arid U your probable total annusl production is less than 100,000 tons
per year, you may submit past production data or estimated future production (such as a schedule of esti-
mated totaJ production under 30 CFR 795.14(c)) Instead of Conducting analyses for the organic toxic poflu-
tents. If your facility Is not a coal mine, and If your gross total annual sales for the most recent three years
average less than $100,000 per year (‘Ut second quarter 1980 dollars). you may submit sales data for those
years instead of conducting analyses for the organic toxic pdlutants. The production or sales data mus be
for the facility which is the source of the discharge. The data should not be limited to production or sales for
the process or processes which contribute to the discharge, unless those are the only processes at your
facility For sales data, In situations Involving Intracorporate transfer of goods and services, the transfer price
per unit should approximate market prices for those goods and services as closely as possible Sales figures
for years after t980 should be Indexed to the second quarter of 1980 by using the gross national product
pnce deflator (second quarter of 1980=100). This Index Is avalable in National Income and Product Ac-
counts of the United States (Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis)
Table 2F-4: For each outfall, list any pollutant in Table 2F-4 that you know or believe to be present in the
discharge and explain why you believe it to be present No analysis is required, but if you have analytical
data, you must report them Note: Under 40 CFR I 17.12(a)(2), certain discharges of hazardous substances
(listed at 40 CFR 17721 or 40 CFR 30Z4) may be exempted from the requirements of section 311 of CWA,
which establishes reporting requirements, civil penalties, and liability for cleanup costs for spills of od and
hazardous substances. A discharge of a particular substance may be exempted if the origin, source, and
amount of the discharged substances are identified in the NPDES permit application or in the permit, if the
permit contains a requirement for treatment of the discharge, and if the treatment is in place To apply for an
exclusion of the discharge of any hazardous substance from the requirements of section 311. attach addi-
tional sheets of paper to your form, setting forth the following informatiorr
1. The substance and the amount of each substance which may be discharged
2. The origin and source of the discharge of the substance.
3 The treatment which is to be provided for the discharge by.
a An onsite treatment system separate from any treatment system treating your normal dis-
charge,
b A treatment system designed to treat your normal discharge and which is additionally capable
of treating the amount of the substance identified under paragraph I above, or
c Any combination of the above.
See 40 CFR 117 12(a)(2) and (c), published on August 29, 1979, in 44 FR 50766, or contact your Regional
Office (Table 1 on Form 1. Instructions), for further information on exclusions from section 311.
Part Vll-O
If sampling is conducted dunng more than one storm event, you only need to report the information re-
quested In Part V1l-D for the storm event(s) which resulted in any maximum pollutant concentration reported
in Part VU-A, Vu-B, or VU-C.
Provide flow measurements or estimates of the flow rate, and the total amount of discharge for the storm
event(s) sampled, the method of flow measurement, or estimation. Provide the data and duration of the storm
event(s) sampled, rainfall measurements, or estimates of the storm event which generated the sampled runoff
and the duration between the storm event sampled and the end of the previous measurable (greater than 0 1
Inch rainfall) storm event.
Part VII-E
Ust any toxic pollutant listed in Tables 2F-2, 2F-3, or 2F-4 which you currently use or manufacture as an
intermediate or final product or byproduct In addition, if you know or have reason to believe that 2.3.7.8-te-
trachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Is discharged or If you use or manufacture 2.4.5-trichiorophenoxy acetic
EPA Form 3510-2F (12.88) 1-6
-------
F4miiI Rs r I VoL 55, No 2 I Friday, November i igg / Rules and Pi ’gukiians
add (2,4,5,.T); 2 . 2 ,4.54rIcNorophenory) propanoic acid (S vex , 2,4,5,-TP 2•(2 4,5-fflcNorophenoxy) ethyi.
2.2 .dlcnloroproplonate (Erbon); O,O-dlmethyi O .(Z45-IrId*xphen t) phosphorothioute (Ronnel): 2,4.5.
trlcNorophenol (TCP); or hexacnlorophene (HCP);.then list TCOO. The Ol-ector may waive or modify the
requirement if you demonstrate that wodd be undiiy burdensome to entify each toidc pollutant and the
Director has adequste lidormatlon to issue your pern’ilL You may not claim this Information as confidential:
however, you do not have to distinguish between use or production of the pollutants or list the wnowis.
item VIII
Self explanatory. The permitting authority may ask you to provide addeional details after your application is
received.
item X
The Qean Water Act provides for severe penalties for submitting false xdormatlon on this application form.
Section 309 (c) (4) of the Clean Water Act provides that “My person who knowingly makes any false material
statement, representation, or certification In any application, . . . shall upon conviction, be punished by a fine
of not more than $10000 or by Imprisonment for not more than 2 yws, or by both. If a conviction of Such
person Is for a violation committed after a first coiwiction of such person under this paragraph, punishment
shall be by a fine of not more than $20,000 per day of violation, or by Imprisonment of not more than 4 years,
or by both? 40 CFR Part 122.22 requires the certification to be signed as follows:
(A) For a co rporation: by a responsible corporate official. For purposes of this section, a responsible
corporate officiai means (I) a president, secretary, treasurer, or vice-president of the corporation In
charge ofa principal business function, or any other person who performs simifar policy, or decision.
making functions for the corporation, or (Ii) the ma ’hager of one or more manidactwing, production, or
operating facilities employing more than 250 persons or having gross annual sales or expenditures
exceeding $25,000,000 (in Second-quarter 1980 dolLars), if authority to sign documents has been as-
signed or delegated to the manager In accordance with corporate procedures.
Note: EPA does not require specific assignmeim or delegation of authority to responsible corporate
officers identified In 122.22(a)(1)Q). The Agency will presume that these responsible Corporate officers
have the requisite authority to sign permit applications unless the corporation has notified the Director to
the contrary. Corporate procedures governing authority to sign permit applications may provide for
assignment or delegation to applicable corporate position under 122 22(a)(1)(ii) rather than to specific
individuals,
(B) For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor, respectively, or -
(C) For a munIcipality, State, Federal, or other public agency: by either a principal executive officer
or ranking elected official For purposes of this section, a principal executive officer of a Federal agency
Indudes (I) the chief executive officer of the agency, or (ii) a senior executive officer having responsibility
for the overall operations of a principal geographic ims of the agency (e g, Regional Administrators of
EPA)
iper .n35t0-2F(12-88) 1.7
-------
4 0SA Fdeml Register I Vol. 55, No. 222 / Priday, November 16, 1990 / Rule. and Regulations
Table 2F.1
CodbsfcrTrs.tmsntUnfts
Oa meoao EM
B-
Foam Fr.cXnal,on
Ft..vng
Gnndmg (Commbwto
Activated Sudgs
Uratad Lagoons
Masroti c TrUtjT%Sf t
1-U G,ft mow
1-N &IJosvalnIng
1-0 M*ç
I-P 4n Bed Rltsva
1-0 PMilmsdIa F 1tis on
1 -R pid Sand Rfttsxn
1$ Riveq$s Osmows (Hy e flltiat on)
l.T Sct..nlng
I-U Ssdlmsntation (Selling)
1.V Sow Sand Rlttation
1-W Soivunt &U.cticn
1.X Sorption
3-E Prs4rabon
3-F S xay ‘ngation/Und Apllcatlon
34 Stabthzaaon Pondi
3-H Tndding F tUation
4-A 0(scftai -g, to Siafaos Watw
4-B Ocsang.Throug ltCutfail
4-C Rsu / C 1 pd of hieated Effluent
4-0 Underground kijiCtion
Sedge Treatment and Disposal Procis..s
5-A mtiic g,stiOn
5-8 Mearobso Digestion
5-C BsftRltration
SO Canvrfugation
S E Oisrnscal Conditiorung
5-F Otlonn. Tr.aun.nI
S-G Composting
5-H 0r ’n g Beds
S- I Elutiiation
5- . ) Flotation Th,ck.ning
5-K Fr..vng
54 Gravity Thickening
5-U fWalOv nng
5-N itsal T.strnem
5-0 Vlcinerat,on
5-P Land Appticauon
5-0 Landfill
s-a Pr, . Flitration
5-S Py olyi i a
ST Sedge Lagoons
S-U Vacuum Filtration
5-V
SW Wet Ozidation
l.A
1-a
1-C
1-0
I .E
1- F
‘4
1-H
1-1
t.J
1-K
1-1
2-A
28
2-C
2-0
2E
2-F
3-A
3-B
3-C
3-0
Carbon Msorptlcn
Qiemical aiion
chemical Precipitation
Coagulation
Dscktcnnat icn
Disinfection (QIlonne)
2-0 DisinfectIon (Ozone)
2-H Disinfection (Other)
2- I Eactrocitamical Treatment
2.1 bit Excflhjige
2-K Nsu alizebo n
2 -L P duct ion
EPA Form 351Gr2F (1248)
-8
-------
Pedemi Reglat / VoL 55, No I Fri day, November 15, 1990 I Rnlea and Regniadems
Table 2F-2
Conventionat and Nonconvsntion.I PoUutsnts Required To Bi Tested by Existing Discharger If
Expsctsd To Be Prsent
Oitoiti ., To V ial
r c
1 o tt.
Total edN
CW Grs*as
t tou flo.us . Total d o.otMly
S ftta
Su nn
MnUi ,at, Total
B tum. Tatal
8 mn, Total
Cobalt. Total
t i. Total
IbOnsalur . Total
Mot tdw um, Total
UsgnssIum. Total
Tin, Toi.l
Ti vm, Total
EPA Form 3510-2? (1241) I -9
-------
48009 F.derel Righter I VoL 55. No. 222 / Frtday. November 18.1990/ Rules iah Regulations
Table 2F-3
Toxic po8 dants required to be
Identified by applicant If expected to be preser
Toz a Poautants OW ToUI P s.sI
M*imeny.T OW Coppw, TOW SiMs. TOW
ksa ac. ToW tud. ToW Th JIium. T e .uI
GsvyUiwn. ToW Mc ty, ToW nc, TOW
cadmium. TOW Pldc&, ToW Cyanide, Tot I
Ovomiwii Tots’ Sslen4un, Total Phenols. Total
GC/MS Fracbon VolaW.s Co o-ds
Aciclain i l o oOi nl msthans 1.1 .2 .2 .-TVl o i o. ans
T.t,s et 4in*
mz.n 1,2 - d tlowutha Is Totusne
o nic1 ’n, I.I-C lthl ovosd 4.n. . 2-Tfans-0.cflto osthyl.n.
Ca,ben Teoa nd. i.2 .Ctcfltotopiopane 1.1 • i.Trict tio oott n
a iL vbenz.n. I cltloioçtop len. 1.1 2.TrIcflioioet tan,
Clnd .biomomot han. €th lbsn ni Trc1Wo o.m)len.
D I.o o.tIien. IMTh)4 Bromide Vinyl Ogo.,de
Z .O lo’uethylv .n)l the Me I OUotlde
O%lorofofm UeTh 4en O loftde
2 .Ch loro?Mnot 2.4 -Cintrop ltanol Pentlchlorophenol
2,ch toop henol 2 -l àtsophenol Phenol
2.4.0amethy phenol lMtrophen ol 2.4 6.Tr.thlcrophenc4
4.6-0 .n.t ro-O-C,esoS p .Qloro-M.C reso
B aSI/NSg al
Menapl.Inens 20iioionaphm.Jsn Flwwantt ens
4-O loicpIien 4 Pheny4 Em., FIuotsne
Qvyssn. Heaact1 oOcnzene
Bsnvdins bso(ajr)anthcen. Heiachtorobutadiene
B.nzo(aja iwwac,e, I .2 .0.cNoiob,nzene liesacro an e
Benzo(a)pyven. t.3ch lo iobsnz.n. .deno(I .2.3 .cd}pyrenb
3 4.B , nzo4tuo ranm.n. 1 4nobsn hephotone
Osnzo gh.)peq ,se ns 37 .0.cNo.obenz i on. NapvhaI ne
0enzo i3U o ianthene O..dlyI Pluhala:. NarcDe . ?ene
8 42-chto ,oemoivlm.tnIn. m.myl Phthalat. N N.to odm.rny4amne
ct .ofoeu )em,s O ..N.Outyl Phihalal. N-Ntro:oo, N Pvop iarnine
B s(2.cNo ro.sopOpy1 ether 2 4-0.nittot lusn• N to od Ienylam.ne
&s(2-ethei Ølphil%aiate 2. -Oniuotc4 u sn.
4.8romophen l Phen 4 ElM. 0 . -N -Oct lphtha lats P’yrene
8ut lb .rizyi Phth3lat. I 2 -Dps z in. (as A oo. i I 4 .T;ucr, o D.n:ene
Psi ldss
Ndtm O .utdnn PCB-1254
M II%a -biC Npu -Endos Jlsi PCB.122 1
Bota -8HC Bsts -En dosu tlan PC8 - 123
G8HC EAdO uttan Siit ate PCB-1248
Ds lta .8 14C Endriri Pca-; o
Enm Mdsli PCB. toie
4.4-COT H.p*ac Uoe Toisoh.n•
4.4-DOE Hsptaotitai Epoa.ds
4.4-000 PC B- 1242
EP Forii 3510-2F (12.88 I. 10
-------
Federel Reg ater / VoL 55, No. 222 / Frf day, November 16, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 48091
Table 2F-4
Ha idous sub ancu required to be
Ids,Wfl.d by applicant If expected to be present
Tows Pc I %t
I--f- f•l
fr dsI yds ti .rnc acid
O l i flCI Osquat StrotoIuen.
4d%Icdde Cjdoto i P a ’ath c
M 4 acstats Pt enotsuttonam

Bsnzongtll. Ethion Propazgito
Bsnr 4 cNodd. v lsns dlamms Prop 4.n. oxide
a.Ø acutsia Eth 4siii dib om ds Pyvslttstns
ncI ln.
Cw sr 4 Fwfur ac c noi
Camofutan Guthion Suonth ium
bcnC mn.
—
Coumspisos K.lthans 2 .4,5-T 2.4.5 .Tflc do1oØienoiyaceuc
acid)
TOE acItlodippion i emane)
2 4,5.TP (2i2 .43 .TncflIorop4 enozy)
p o v osc aedi
Cyøch.zsn. Msrcapothm.fl r TrICJiIO OIan
2.5-0 OICI%3woøbenoiyacene Mitho Iot Tneth 1amu e
acid)
0 azinon t.tsthyl mIrcapIaJl Thmeth lamune
Cicwn8a IMth I msthacrb4ata lkanlum
OidiIob.nd Usth 4 pa,ffi,on Vanadium
Olcidon. Mu lnpflos Wiyt acetalo
2.2-O cNotoprogion.c acid tu5uxac bat. Xy(ens
OIdVar ’os PAo. ,o.9i 1 4 1mm. X)4 1n 01
OIith 4 anmmns nQmetfl 4 1mmns Zrconlum
id
IF Doc. 90—28315 FmIed 11-0—90 1217 pml
SILUNC COOS U1540 .C
EPa Form 3510 .2F I2-88) I- 1
• U 1,iru ,n 1 s’li I’
-------
Federal Register I VoL 55. No. 222 I Friday. November 16. 1990 1 Notices
47917
Regulations
ERP No. R-PR C-A 03084-al 18 CFR
Parts 157 and 284: Revisions to
Regulations Governing Transportation
Under Section 311 or the Natural Gas
Policy Act 011978 and Blanket
Transportation Certificates (55 FR
33017).
Summary: EPA supports the proposed
rule s expansion of various
environmental requirements, but is
concerned about continued and newly
proposed exemptions of natural gas
pipeline projects from National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
analysis. EPA also requests a
programmatic NEPA analysis for the
overall Natural Gas Policy Act Section
311 program.
Dated. November 13. 1990.
Anne N. Miller.
Director. SPAD. C ,ca of Fedem!Acs,vn,o&
I FR Doc. 90—27094 Fjled 11—15-00: 8:43 amj
u o coos - g--
IFRL 3881-Il
Indianas Application to Administer the
National Pollutant Discharge
ElimInation System (NPDES)
Pretreatment Program
AGeNCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
acTioii Notice of application for State
program revision.
SUMMARY: In a letter dated December
12, 1989. Mr. Charles Bardonner.
Assistant Commissioner. Office of
Water Management. Indiana
Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM). requested
approval of the State of Indiana’s
Pretreatment Program. In support of that
request IDEM has submitteth
(1) A signed statement from the
indiana Attorney General that the State
of Indiana has the necessary statutory
and regulatory authority to implement
4he req uiiements of 40 R 403;
(2) Copies of all statutes and
regulations cited in the Attorney
General’s statement
(3) A description of the funding levels
and personnel available to implement
the program:
(4) A description of the procedures
developed to implement the program:
and
(5) A signed revision to the NPDES
Memorandum of Agreement.
U.S. EPA Region V has reviewed the
submittal and intends to notice its
recommended approval by the
Administrator once additional work
years are allocated to IDEM ’s
Pretreatment Group and certain
regulatory updates are made.
Specifically. IDEM must add a minimum
of two-and-a-half work years to its
Pretreatment Group (for a total of five).
and update its State pretreatment
regulations to incorporate the
Pretreatment Implementation Review
Taskforce (PIRT) revisions adopted by
U.S. EPA on October 17, 1988, the
Domestic Sewage Study (DSS) revisions
adopted on July 24. 1990. and the
categorical pretreatment standards for
those categories not subject to the 1978
NRDC-EPA Consent Decree. (40 CFR
parts 417. 418, 424. 428. 427, 428. 448, 447,
443. 458,406 (subparts C & E), 409
(subpart A) and 412 (subparts) A & B).
as well as part 414 (organic chemicals.
plastics and synthetic fibers)). !DEM is
in the process of addressing these
Concerns.
A comment period and an opportunity
to request a public hearing will be
provided when the intended notice of
recommended approval is issued by the
Administrator.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Matt Gluckman. Permits Section
(5WQP), U.S. EPA, Region V. 230 South
Dearborn Street. Chicago. Illinois 60604.
(312) 888—6089.
SUPPlEMENTARY DIFORMATIOIC On June
18.1978, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.
EPA) promulgated the General
Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR part
403). Amendments to the General
Pretieatment Regulations were
promulgated on October 17. 1988 and
July 24. 1990. These regulations.
mandated by the Clean Water Act as
amended by Public Law 100-4. 1987.
govern the control of industrial wastes
introduced into publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs). commonly
referred to as municipal sewage
treatment plants. The objectives of the
regulations are to: (1) Prevent
introduction of pollutants into POTW’s
which will interfere with plant
operations and/or disposal or use of
municipal sludges: (2) prevent
introduction pollutants into POTVIf’s
which will pass through treatment
works or otherwise be incompatible
with such works: and (3) improve the
opportunity to recycle and reclaim
municipa! and industrial wastewatera
and sludges.
The establishment of State
pretreatment programs to supplement
existing State National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit programs is required by the
General Pretreatment Regulations, and
is fundamental in achieving the above-
stated objectives. In order to be
approved, a request for State
pretreatment program approval must
demonstrate that the State has legal
authority, procedures, available funding.
and qualified personnel to implement a
State Pretreatment Program as specified
in 403.10 of the regulations. The State
of Indiana received NPDES permit
authority on January 1, 1975. Generally.
local pretreatment programs will be the
primary vehicle for administering.
applying, and enforcing Pretreatment
Standards and Requirements for
Industrial users of POTWs. The State
will be The control authority and will be
required to apply and enforce
pretreatment standards and
requirements directly against industries
that discharge to POTWs where local
programs are not required or have not
been developed.
The Administrator’s decision to
approve or disapprove the proposed
pretreatment program will be based on a
determination of whether the proposed
program meets the requirements of the
Clean Water Act and 40 CFR part 403.
and on comments received.
The Indiana submission may be
reviewed by the public at the State of
Indiana Department of Environmental
Management, 105 South Meridian Street.
P.O. box 6015. Indianapolis. Indiana
48206-6015, and at the U.S. EPA office in
Chicago at the address appearing at the
beginning of this notice. Copies of the
submittal may also be obtained from
these offices: a copying fee will be
assessed.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
Vaidas V. Adainkua,
Regional Administralor
IFR Doc. 90-27028 Filed 11-15-90:8:45 aml
UNO coca
FEDERAL COMMUNICATiONS
COMMISSION
(Docket No. 90-478 FCC 90-331J
Commercial Television; Bozeman, UT;
Bee Broadcasting Associates
AOENCY: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTiON: HDO. notice of apparent
liability.
SUMMARY: The Commission is
designating for hearing the applicatioas
of Bee Broadcasting Associates for
assignment of the construction permit of
Station KCTZ(TV). Bozeman, Montana.
and for the license to cover the
construction permit. The Commission
-------
Federal Re ,ter / VoL 55, No. 221 I Thursday , November 15, 19 ) I Notices
477 5
release, above a im l1iple of the
CERCL.A reportable quaptity. frequent
releases from the same 1acility and
releaeea of chemical. listed a. extremely
hazardous substances under SARA
I 302) to select for additional reporting
certain hazardoes sub tan releases
reported to the National Response
Center. the EPA or thsU.S . Coast Guard.
Fixed facilities responsible Ic e the
selected release sin required to
complete and return a quuIlnmtR re
which ask. for more detailed
Information on the onnees and
consequences of aceidental releases, as
well as actions that have been or could
have bees effective In preventing them
from occurring.
The collected Info matjoo will serve
to support a range of chemical wiri .nt
prevention and pxeparesh2esa efforts
involving industry, local and state
government, and EPA regions and
headquarters.
Burden Slatementi The estimated
public reporting burden for this
collection of Information 1.24.5 hours
per respondent. This estimate includes
time to read the Ilictions, gather
existing information, and prepare and
submit the final questionnaire.
Respoadeots , Owners/operators of
fixed cilities with accidentaj release,
meetnger i I nlen s ,
Estimated No. of Respandezzta ’ i .
Estimated Tota1Ajinua/B j-d as
Respondents.’ 34.912 hours.
Frequency of Colleciiorg On occasion,
when releases meet specific triggers.
Send comment. regarding the burden
estimate, or any other aspect of this
information collection. Including
suggestions for reducing the burden. tm
Sandy Farmer. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Inforinatf on Policy
Branch (PM—2J, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460
and
Tim Hunt, Office of Manigiment and
Buil at, Office of Information and
R guLatary Affairs, 728Jaclcsoa Place,
NW. Washington. DC ‘ 0-’ O
Dated: November a
Paul Lapeley, !
RolotoyMan agem antDfn,jen
j!R Doc. -28 POed ii-i.-e &45 am)
e a cast son o
(FRt-3880-4 LAG 551000J
Proposed NPOES General Psrmft for
Domestic Waste*utev Oiscli& . In
the Stat. at Louis ian a
ane cr Environmestal Protectl on
Agency.
AC11 Notice of draft general NPD
permit.
su *am The Director now proposes to
Issue a General Permit for privately
owned and publicly owned sewage
treafment facilities La the Slate of
Louisiana with design flows of 2.500
• gallom per day (gpd) ( 0- gpd) and
?eate,. bot lass than “ I gpd (O.
gpd) who treat domestic wa.tes . When
issued, this General Permit will
establish efilnent Limitations,
prohibitions, and other condition, on
discharges. This Draft General Permit I.
based on the adnthdetratlr, rt,ouid
available for public review In Region 6
of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). The fact sheet sets forth the
principal facts and the significant
factuaL legal and policy questions
considered in the development of the
Draft General Permit A copy of the
Draft General Permit is available for
public review at EPA Region 6 and at
the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality.
DATE3 Comment Period: Comment,
must be received by December14, 1090.
A0ORE3SE Mall cnmmpnts to U.S.
Envirnnmentaj Protection Agency. -
Region 6,1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas ..
Texas 7 202-V3a Documents may also
be reviewed at the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality.
0 Fourth Street, 9th Floor. Baton
Rouge, LouIsiana 70804-4091.
FOR FURTh!R UW0RMa7!Ø C 4vACy
Ma. Ellen Caidwell, U.S. Eavigorinwigaj
Protection Agency, 1445 Rose Avainta,
Dallas, Texas 752132-2733, Telephonin
(214) 655—7190.
L Supplemental 6furwatlø and Fad
Sheet
A. Gown! Pemut
SectIon 301 (a) o(the (icon Water Act
(the Act) provide, that the discharge of
pollutant. La wdawfui except In
accordance with. National Pollutant
Discharge Elinthiation Sy.ie (Nsv S)
Permit In the past, seth permit. have
generally been Issued to Individual
discharger,. Huwever. EPA’. regulations
authorts. the Is suance of General
Peratlts to categories of discharges (40
CPR 122. EPA may Issue a single,
General Permit to a categosy of pohit
iouree located In the same geo aphlc
area whose discharges warrant similar
pollution control measures. The Director
(with delegation to the Water
Management Division Director) Is
authorized to Issue a General Permit If
there are a number of po4at sources
operating in a geographic area that
1. Involve the same or substantially
slimier types of operations:
Z Discharge the same lypesof wastes:
3. Require the s .4Ri I
or operating condilions
4 Require the same or similar
inoititorhag requirements: and
5. In the opinion of the Director, are
more appropriately controlled under
a General Permit than andir
individual permits.
B. Any discharger desiring venage
under the General Permit must submit a
(1) Notice of intent. (2) a General
Information Form I (EPA Form 3510-i)
and (3) an EPA Application Form For
Facilities That Do Not Discharge
Process Wastewater (EPA Form 3510—
2E), or Standard Form A-Municipal
( EPA Form 7550-22) for publidy owned
treatment works.
C. Violations of any condItions cIa
General Permtt constitutes. violation of
the Act and subjects the discharger to
the penalties pee.fi.d In SectIon 30901
the Act Any owner or operator
au ized by a final General Permit
may be excluded from coverage by
applying for en individual pemnnt This
request may be made by sobmitting a
NPDk permit application, together with
reasons supporting the request. New
facilities, that apply, may be covered
under this General Permit ua]ess they
apply for an individual permit using the
appropriate application.
a The Director may require any
facility that Is applying to discharge
under a Thial General Permit to apply for
and obtain an Individual permit In
addition, any interested person may
petition th Director to take this action.
However, an individual permit will not
be Issued for any point scarce wvind
by a Ceneral Permit unless it can be
demonstrated that inclusion under a
General Permit 1. dearly inappropriate.
E. The Director may consider the
Issuance of Individual permits according
to the imteiia In 40 CFR 12L28(bX2).
These cii term includor
1. The discharge(s) is a rigmficarni
contributor of pollutfon
LThe dlscbargerisnotbi compliance
with the terms and conditions of the
General Permit
3. A change has u red In the
availability of demonstrated
technolo or practice. for the
control or abatement of pollutants
applicable to the point source
4. Effluent limitation guidelines are
subsequently promulgated for the
point sources covered by the
General Permit
.5. A Water Quality Management Plan
containIng t qnlrvwents applicable
to such point sources Is approved
or
-------
47796
Federal Register / Vol . 55. No. 221 I Thursday. November 15, 1990 I Notices
8. The requirements listed In 40 CFR
1222R(a) and identified in the
previous paragraphs are not met.
IL Conditions in the General Permit
A. Expiration Date
This NPDES General Permit shall
expire five (5) year. from the effective
date of the permit or for coverage of a
facility under the General Permit upon
termination of discharge and closure of
the facility.
a Water Quality Based Effluent
Lin7itotions
1. The Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality, Office of Water
Resources. has promulgated area wide
policies which update the Water Quality
Management Plan for all domestic
wastewater treatment facilities which
discharge to US. waters in the State of
Louisiana.
2. Minimum levels of effluent quality
attainable by secondary treatment are
established by 40 CFR 133.102. The State
of Louisiana has established more
stringent requirements for all facilities
with anticipated flows of 2.500 gpd
(0,0025 mgd), or greater, but less than
25.000 gpd (0.025 MCD). This General
Permit Is based on facility design flows
in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44.
Conventional pollutants are controlled
at the following levels: 30 mg/I 30.day
average and 45 mg/i daily maximum for
BC!), and TSS respectively. Disinfection
and 15 mg/i Daily Max for Oil and
Grease Is required by the State of
Louisiana. The pH limits within the
range of 8.0 and 9.0 standard enlts are
based on 40 CFR 133.102(c).
C Monitoring Requirements
All facilities operating under
conditions of this General Permit are
required to monitor each parameter
once every three months by grab
sampla. Howver, If the daily maximum
Limit in any sample Is exceeded then the
monitoring frequency tncieues to once
per month. This inoreased frequency
shall continue until a sample
demonstrate, a value les. than or equal
to the daily maximum.
D. The Nature of Discharges From
Privately Owned Sources
All facilities operating under
conditions of this teneral Permit will be
required to document the domestic
nature of the discharge. The sources of
wastewater discharges from treatment
plants are domestic sewage amendable
to biological treatment.
& Geographic Areas and Covered
Facilities
The General Permit will authorize
discharge . from facilities within the
State of Louisiana, to various storm
sewers, tributaries, stream segments and
river basins. The permit will be
applicable only to facilities which have
direct discharges to “waters of the
United States” as defined In 40 CFR
122.2 and are therefore subject to the
requirements of sections 301 and 402 of
the Act. It does not apply to facilities
that are specifically listed in the
Louisiana Water Quality Management
Plan with previously designated
limitations.
F. Privately Owned Discharges
The General Permit will be applicable
to facilities with discharges of domestic
waste only. Toxic or priority pollutants
shall not be present In the discharges.
The privately owned facilities covered
by this permit include multi-family
residences, trailer parks, restaurants.
entertainment centers, hospitals.
shopping centers, motels and office
buildings. The nature of effluent from
these facilities involves the same type of
operations, discharge of the same types
of wastewater, and the same effluent
limitations and monitoring requirements.
Therefore, these facilities are more
appropriately controlled by a General
Permit.
G Pablicly Owned Facilities
The General Permit will be applicable
to facilities with discharges of domestic
waste only. Toxic or priority pollutants
shall not be present In the discharges.
Publicly owned facilities covered
Include dde ., towns, boroughs.
counties, parishes, districts,
associations, or other public bodies
ereated under State law and having
jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, or
an Indian tribe, or indian tribal
organizations, or a designated and
apywvcd management agency under
section 308 of the CWA located within
the State of Louisiana. The nature of
effluent from these facilities involves the
same type of operations, discharge of
the same types of wastewater, and the
same effluent Limitations and monitoring
requirements. Therefore, these facilities
are more appropriately controlled by a
General Permit.
W. Oth Legal Requirements
A, State Certification
Under section 401(a)(1) of the Act,
‘A may not Issue a NPDES permit until
the State In which the discharge will
originate, grants or waives certification
to ensure compliance with appropriate
requirements of the Act and State law.
Including water quality standards.
Region VI has requested the State of
Louisiana to certify this Draft General
Permit.
B. Water Quality Standartis
Section 301(b)(1)(C) of the Act
requires that NPDES permits contain
limitations necessary to meet water
quality standards established pursuant
to State law or regulation or any other
Federal law or regulation, or required to
implement any applicable water quality
standard established pursuant to the
Act In accordance with the Statewide
Sanitary Effluent Limitations Policy, as
established La the Louisiana Water
Quality Management Plan, the
maximum 30-day average load allowed
by this General Permit for either SOD or
TSS Is 8.2 lb/day. Therefore, no water
quality standard violations are
expected.
C. Duty To Provide Information
The permittee shall furnish to the
Director, within a reasonable time, any
information which the Director may
request, to determine whether cause
exists for modifying, revoking and
reissuing, or terminating this permit, or
to determine compliance with this
permit. Reports shall be supplied as
specified by the permit.
D. Planned Changes
The permittee shall give notice to the
Director within 30 days of any planned
physical alterations or additions to the
permitted facility or In the nature or
characteristic of the discharge.
& Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act and its
Implementing regulations (50 CFR part
402) require that each Federal Agency
shall ensure that any of their actions,
such as permit issuance, do not
jeopardize the continued existence of
any ndangered or threatened specIes or
result In the destruction or adverse
modifications of their critical habitats.
To ensure protection of endangered or
threatened species and their habitats
toxic materials and priority pollutants
are prohibited by this permit DIscharges
that are permitted are for treated
domestic wastewater only, Based on the
terms, conditions, and limitations of this
General Permit, EPA has concluded that
the discharges authorized by this
general permit are not Likely to
adversely affect any endangered or
threatened species nor adversely affect
their critical habitat. The State of
Louisiana has a similar general permit
with an effective date of March 18. 1969
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 2 / Thursday. November 15. 1990 / Notices
47797
covering the same facilities for which
this permit Is written. EPA will provide
copies of the Draft General Permit and
Fact Sheet to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service prior to Issuing the
General Permit and will request their
concwience on EPA ’s not likely to
adversely affect determination.
F. The Coastal Zone Management Act
The Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA) and Its implementing
regulatIons (15 CFR part 930) require
that any Federally licensed or permitted
activity affecting the coastal zone of a
State with an approved Coastarzone
Management Program (CZMP) be
consistent with the CZMP (section
307(c)(3)(A) subpart D). The State of
Lowsiana has a CV .4P that has been
approved by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The Region has reviewed Louisiana’s
Coastal Use Guidelines and believe that
this draft permit action is consistent
with the intent of those guidelines. A
copy of the draft permit along with a
consistency determination will be.
submitted to Louisiana far a consistency
determination.
G. The Marine Protection. Research and
Sanctuaries Act
The Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972
regulates the dumping of all types of
materials into ocean waters and
establishes a permit program for ocean
dumping. In addition the !tvWRSA
establishes the Marine Sanctuaries
Program, Implemented by NOAA. which
requires NOAA to designate ocean
waters as marine sanctuaries for the
purpose of preserving or restoring their
conservation. recreational, ecological or
aes ietlc values. Section 302(1) of
MPRSA requires that the Secretary of
Commerce. after designation of a marine
sanctuary, consult with other Federal
agencies, and Issue necessary
regulations to control any activities
permitted within the boundaries of the
marine sanctuary. It provides that no
permit, license, or other authorization
issued pursuant to any other authority
shall be valid unless the Secretary shall
certify that the permitted activity Is
consistent with the purpose of the
marine sanctuaries program andf or can
be carried out within its promulgated
regulations. There are presently no
existing marine sanctuaries In the
coastal waters of Louisiana.
IV. Mmbdrfredve Requirements
A. Economic Impact (Executive Order
12292)
The Office of Management and Budget
(0MB) has exempted this action from
the review requirements of Executive
Order 12291 pursuant to section 8(b) of
that order.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has reviewed the requirements
Imposed on regulated facilities In this
Draft General Permit under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information
collection requirements of this permit
have already been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget in
submissions made for the NPDES permit
program under the provisions of the
Clean Water Act. In addition, the
General Permit will eliminate or reduce,
for the Agency, the time consuming
process of drafting and issuing
individual permits.
The Regulatorj Flexibility Act
After review of the facts presented in
the notice printed above, I hereby
certify, pursuant to the provisions of 5
U.S.C. 805(b). that this general NPDES
permit will have a positive benefit on a
substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, it will reduce a significant
adniini tratlve burden on regulated
sources.
Jo. 0. WInkle,
AclingRionoiAdnnrustmtor, Region
(FR Dcc. 90-28930 Filed 11-l4-O &45 aml
coos sMe o.e
(FRL-388 0-e3
Draft General PIPOES Permit for
Domestic Wastewnter Dlscflarg.s In
the Stats of Loulslanz LAG556000
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTICIC Notice of Draft General NPDES
Permit
SUMMARY: The Director now proposes to
Issue a General Permit for publicly and
privately owned sewage treatment
facilities, in the State of Louisiana, with
design flows of 25,000 gallons per day
(gpd) (0.025 mgd) and greater, but less
than 50.000 gpd (0.050 mgd) who treat
domestic wastewater. When issued, this
General Permit will establish effluent
limitations, prohibitions, and other
conditions on discharges. This Draft
General Permit Is based on the
administrative record available for
public review in RegIon 6 of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The fact sheet sets forth the principal
facts and the significant factual, legal
and policy questions considered in the
development of the Draft General
Permit A copy of the Draft General
Permit is available for public review at
EPA Region 8 and at the Louisiana
Depart nent of Environmental Quality.
DATE$ Comment Period’ Comments
must be received by December 17, 1990.
ADDPFSS!3: Mail comments to: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Region 8,1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733. Documents may also
be reviewed at the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality,
625 Fourth Street, 9th floor, Baton Rouge.
Louisiana 70804—4091.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATiON CONTACT
Ms. Ellen Ca Idwell, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1445 Rose Avenue,
Dallas, Texas 75202—2723. Telephone:
(214) 655—7190.
L Supplemental Information and Fact
Sheet
A. General Permits
SectIon 301(a) of the Clean Water Act
(the Act) provides that the discharge of
pollutants is unlawful except In
accordance with a National Pollutant
Discharge Pliminatlon System (NPDES)
Permit In the past, such permits have
generally been issued to individual
dlschaxgers. However. EPA’s regulations
authorize the issuance of General
Permits to categories of dfschargers (40
CFR 122.28). EPA may Issue a single.
General Permit to a category of paint
sources located In the same geographic
area whose discharges warrant similar
pollution control measures. The
Regional Administrator (with delegation
to the Water Management Division
Director) Is authorized to issue a
General Permit If there are a number of
point sources opertlag In a geographic
area that
1. Involve the same or substantially
similar types of operations;
2. DIscharge the same types of wastes;
3. Require the same effluent
limitations or operating conditions;
4. Require the same or similar
monitoring requirements; and
5. Ia the opinion of the Director, are
more appropriately controlled under a
General Permit than under individual
permits.
B. Any disciioxger desiring coverage
wider the General Permit must submit a
(1) a Notice of Intent. (2) General
Inform at/on Form I (EPA Form 3510—i).
and (3) an EPA Application Form For
Facilities That Do Not Discho rye
Process Wastawater (EPA Form 35I0 .
25’) (Private Domestic), or Standard
-------
47798
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 221 I Thursday . November 15, 1990 / Notices
Form A-Mwucipoi (EPA Form 7550-22)
for publidy ownad treateiernl woi .
C Vio1o*i of wiy condition of a
Genervi Permit oriratitotes a violation
of the Act mid subfec the discboi ’ to
the penalties specified in sethan 3 of
the Act. Any ow or operator
authorized by a final General P z lt
may be excluded from coverage by
applying for en individual permit This
request may be made by submitting a
NPD permit application. together with
reasons supporting the request. New
facilities, that apply. may be covered
under this General Permit imlese they
apply for an Individual permit using the
appropriate application.
0. The Director may require any
facility that Is applying to discharge
under a final General Permit to apply for
and obtain an individual permit In
add1tlon any interested person may
petition the Director to take this action.
However, an Individual permit will not
be issued for any point source covered
by a General Permit unless it can be
demonstrated that inclusion under a
General Permit Is clearly inappropriate.
E. The Director may consider the
issuance ofir idividuaipe.revta
accora lng to the criteria in 40 CTh
12Z28(b)(21. These onteria ni hi4e
1. The discharge(a) La a g ficant
contributor of pnflut4nn
2. The discharger I. not in compliance
with the terinsandconthtozia of the
General Permit
3. A hnnge has occaned In the
availability of demnn trated tecbnolo
or practice. for the control or abatement
of po utanta applizable to the point
source:
4. uent limitation gui lir,pj% 5 55
subsequently promulgated for the point
sources covered by the General P rni
5. A Water Quality Management Plan
contali Ing requirements applicabl, to
such point sources La approved oz
6. The requirements listed in 40 CFR
1222R(a ) and Identified in the previous
paragraphs are not met.
flt HH .ii the E aft
Permit
A. Expiration Date
This NPD General Pe t shali
expire five (5) years from the effective
date of the permit or for ged a
facility nodes the General P ut upon
termination of discharge and dosure of
the facility.
B. Water Qaality 8ased E 7uent
Limitations
1. The Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality. Office of Water
Resoieces. ha. promulgated area wide
policies which update the Water Quality
Management Plan for all domestic waste
treatment facilities which discharge to
U.S waters in the State of Louisiana.
2. Minimum levels of effluent quality
attainabl, by secondary treatment are
established by 40 CFR 133.102. The State
of Louisiana has established moie
strhigmit requirement. for all facilities
with anticipated flows of 25,000 gpd
(0.025 mgd). or greater, but less than
50,000 gpd (0.050 nigd). This General
Permit is based on facility design flows
in aomrdance with 40 CFR 122.44.
Conventional pollutants ase controlled
at the following )evela 20 mg/I 30-day
average and 3 0mg/I daily maximum for
BOO, and TSS respectively. Disinfection
and 15 mg/I Daily Max. fOrOil and
Grease Is required by the State of
Irnti..an . The pH limits within the
range of 00 and 9.0 standard units aie
based on 40 CIR 133.102(c).
C Monitoring Requirements
All facilities operating tmder
conditions of this General Permit are
required to monitor each parameter
once per month by grab sample.
However. if the daily ma,amwn limit in
any sample is exceeded then the
monitoring frequency increases to once
per week. This isroreased frequency
shall continue until a sample
demormtmtna a value less than or equal
to the daily ma,rin
D. The Nature of Disitharges From
Privately Owned Sources
Facilities operating under conditions
of this p it will be required to
document the domestic nature of the
discharge. The sources of wastewater
discharges from privately owned
treatment plants axe domestic sewage
amenable to biological treatment
£ Geogmptiir Areas and Covered
Facilities
The General Permit will authorize
discharges from facilitie, within the
State of Louisiana, to various storm
se , thbular*ea, stream segments and
river basins. The permit will be
a II ble only to facilities which have
direct discharge, to watere of the
United States” as defined in 40
122.2 and an therefore seblect to the
of sections 301 and 402 of
the Act. II doe. no4 apply to facilities
that me specifically listed in the
Louisiana Water Quality Mana went
Plan with previously demgnated
limitations.
F. Privoleiy Owned Discbai’ges
The General Perwit will he applicable
to facilitha with diachexges of domestic
waste only. Toxm or priority pollutants
shail not be prea in the di harges.
The privately owned facilities covered
by this permit Include multi-family
res idences. trailer parks. restaurants.
entertainment centers, hospitals.
shopping centers. motels and office
buildings. The nature of effluent from
these faeihbes involves the same type of
operations. dIsdiar of the s types
of wastewates. and the same effluent
limitations and monitoring requirements.
Therefore, these fanihibes are more
appropriately controlled by a General
Permit.
C. Publicly Owned Facilities
The General Permit will be applicable
to facilities with discharge. of domestic
waste only. Toxic or priority pollutants
shall notbepresesit in the discharges.
Publicly owned facilities include cuties.t
towns, boroughs. counties. panshea.
districts. associations, or other public
bodies created under State law and
having jurisdiction over disposal of
sewage. or an Indian tribe, or Indian
tribal organizations, or a designated and
approved management agency under
section 3 of the CWA located within
the State of Louisiana. Therefore, these
facilities are more appropriately
controlled by a General Permit.
[ IL Other Legal Requirements
A. State Certification
Under section 401(a)(1) of the Act.
EPA may not issue a NPDES permit until
the State an which the discharge will
originate, grants or waives certification
to ensure compliance with appropriate
requirements of the Act and State law.
including water quality standards.
Region VI has requested the State of
Louisiana to certify this Draft General
Permit
B. Wole.r Quality Standanue
Section 301(b)(1)(C) of the Act
requires that NPOES permits contain
limitations r .aa,y to meet water
quality standasth esh hfli1 ..d parsuant
to State law orreguintiac es any other
Federal law or regulation. or required to
Implement any appliceble water quality
standard established pursuant to the
Act The mnximnm 30-day average load
allowed by this General Permit for
either SOD or TSS Is 8.3 Lb/day. an
accord nr with the Statewide Sanitary
Effluent Limitations Policy established
In the Louisiana Water Quality
Management Plan. Therefore, no water
quality standard violations are
expected.
C Duty to Provide hfarrnction
The pernnttee shall firreish to the
Director. within a reasonable time. any
information which the Director may
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 221 I Thursday, November 15, 1990 I Notices
request to determine whether cause
exists for modifying, revoking and
reissuing, or terminating coverage of this
General Permit. or to determine
compliance with this General Permit
Reports shall be supplied as specified by
this General Permit.
D. Planned Changes
The pernuttee shall give notice to the
Director within 30 days of any planned
physical alterations or additions to the
permitted facility or in the nature or
characteristic of the discharge.
E. Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act and Its
implementing regulatIons (50 G ’R part
402) require that each Federal Agency
shall ensure that any of their actions,
such as permit Issuance, do not
jeopardize the continued existence of
any endangered or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse
modification of their a,tlcal habitats. To
ensure protection of endangered or
threatened species and their habitats
this general permit prohibits toxic or
priority pollutants in the effluent
discharges. Discharges that are
pernutted Include treated domestic
wastawater only. Based on the terms,
conditions, and limitations of this
General Permit. EPA has concluded that
the discharges authorized by this
general permit are not likely to
adversely affect any endangered or
threatened species nor adversely affect
their critical habitat The State of
Louisiana has a similar general permit
with an effective date of July 31. 1989
covering the same facilities for which
this permit Is written. EPA will provide
copies of the Draft General Permit and
fact sheet to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service prior to issuing the
General Permit and will request their
concurrence on EPA. not likely to
adver ly affect determination.
F. The Coastal Zone Management Act
The Coastal Management Act
(C vtA) and Its implementing
regulations (15 CFR part 930) require
that any Federally licensed or permitted
activity affecting the coastaizone of a
State with an approved Coastal Zone
Management Program (CZMP) be
consistent with the CZMP (Section 307
(c)(3)(A) supart 0). The State of
Louisiana has a CZMP that has been
approved by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The Region has reviewed Louisiana’s
Coastal Use Guidelines and believe that
this draft permit action is consistent
with the intent of those guidelines. A
copy of the draft permit and fact sheet
will be submitted to the State of
Louisiana for a consistency
determination.
C. The Marine Protection. Research and
Sanctuaries Act
The Marine Protection. Research and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972
regulates the dumping of all types of
materials Into ocean waters and
establishes a permit program for ocean
dumping, In addition to RSA
establishes the Marine Sanctuaries
Program. Implemented by NOAA. which
requires NOAA to designate ocean
waters as marine sanctuaries for the
purpose of preserving or restoring their
conservation, recreational, ecological or
aesthetic values. Section 302(i) of
MPRSA requires that the Secretary of
Commerce. alter designation of a marine
sanctuary, consult with other Federal
agencies, and issue necessary
regulations to control any activities
permitted within the boundaries of the
marine sanctuary. It provides that no
permit. license, or other authorization
issued pursuant to any other authority
shall be valid unless the Secretary shall
certify that the permitted activity is
consistent with the purpose of the
marine sanctuaries program and/or can
be carried out within its promulgated
regulations. There are presently no
existing marine sanctuaries in the
coastal waters of Louisiana.
UI. Athninbtfradve Requirements
A. Economic Impact (Executive Order
1223!)
The Office of Management and Budget
(0MB) has exempted this action from
the review requirements of Executive
Order 12291 pursuant to section 8(b) of
that order.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has reviewed the requirements
Imposed on regulated facilities in this
Draft General Permit under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information
collection requirements of this permit
have already been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget In
submissions made for the NPDES permit
program under the provisions of the
Clean Water Act In addition. the
General Permit will eliminate or reduce.
for the Agency, the time consuming
process of drafting and issuing
Individual permits.
C The Regulator, ’ Flexibility Act
After review of the facts presented in
the notice printed above. I hereby
certify, pursuant to the provisons of 5
USC 605(b). that this general NPDES
permit will have a positive benefit on a
substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, it will reduce a significant
administrative burden on regulated
sources.
Dated: September 4. 1990.
Joe 0 . W Inkl e,
Acting RegionalAdministrulor. Region &
[ FR Doc. 90-26031 Flied 11-14-00. &45 ami
nwNa COOS
[ OPTS-6S$97 F l. 3840-21
Toxic and Hazardous Substances;
Certain Chemicals Premanulactztre
Notices
AGENCY Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTIOIC Notice.
SUMMARY Section 5(a)(1) of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires
any person who intends to manufacture
or import a new chemical substance to
submit a prernanulacture notice (PMNJ
to EPA at least 90 days before
manufacture or import commences.
Statutory requirements for section
5(a)(1 premanufacture notices are
discussed in the final rule published in
the Federal Register of May 13. 1983 (48
FR 21722). In the Federal Register of
November 11. 1984. (49 FR 46068) (40
CFR 723.250). EPA published a rule
which granted a limited exemption from
certain PMN requirements for certain
types of polymers. Notices for such
polymers are reviewed by EPA within 21
days of receipt. This notice announces
receipt of 16 such PMN(a) and provides
a sumTI1 ry of each.
DAT! Close of Review Periods:
Y 91—16. November 1, 1990.
Y91-17. November 8, 1990.
Y91-1& 91-16. 91-20.91—21.
November 12. 1990.
Y9l- November 14. 1990.
I 91—23.91—24, 91—25 91—26.91—27. 91—
28, 91-a 91-3tZ November12. 1990.
I 91-31. November 1& 1990.
FOR RIRTMER INFORMA11ON CON?ACT
Michael M. Stahl. Director.
Environmental Assistance Division (TS-
799). Office of Toxic Substances.
Environmental Protection Agency. Room
E-545. 401 M Street. SW.. Washington.
DC 20480. (202) 554-1404. TOO (202) 554-
0551.
SLIP#tEMENTARY INFORMATIOiC The
following notice contains information
extracted from the nonconfidentlal
version of the submission provided by
the manufacturer on the PMNs received
by EPA. The complete nonconfldentlal
document Is available In the Public
Reading Room NE—Coot at the above
-------
13644
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 210 / TuesJ . October 30, 1990 / Notices
(FRL-3856-51
issuance of National Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for
Occidental ChsmtonI Company’.
Kenton, Ohio FacUlty
AOENCY Environmental Protection
—7.
ACTIQa Notice.
SUUMARY Notice is hereby given. in
accordance with 40 CFR parts 121., 1.
and 124 and applicable guidelines and
regulations of the Clean Water Act
(CWA). that a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
pemut was issued by the U.S.
Envzruninexrtal Proteciwi. Agency (U.S.
EPA) Region V for the Occidental
Chemical Corpora±ioue KentOn. Ohio
facility (NPDES No. OH0tX 0760) on
September 23. 1990. Requests for an
evidentiary hearing on this action must
be submitted within thirty (30) days
f3llowmg the service of notice of the
Regional Athnimstrator’s finaL permit
decision on the permittee. Any such
requests shall be filed In accordance
with the procedures specified in 40 CFR
124.74.
oarEs This action is effective as of
October 28. 1990. and expires on
November 1.1992.
*DDRESSE* Copies of the
administrative record for the permit.
including the final issued permit are
available far inspection upon request at
the following location: U.S. EPA. Region
V. Water Division. Permits Section, 230
S. Dearborn Street Chicago. flhr rq
50608.
FOR FURThSR I ORMATTON CONTACT:
Denise Steurer of the U.S. EPA Region
V’s Water ThVisIOIi. Permits Section at
the address given above. (312) 888 —24
SUPPI.E NTARV INFORMATIOSC Oh
August 13.1988. the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency (OEPA) public
noticed an NPDES permit for the
Occldental .Kenton facility. U.S. EPA
informed the OEPA that It did o
receive adequate information to make.
deternunatimi on the p rmlt In a tfmel
fashion. and that U.S. EPA would not
con with the issuance of the permit
as drafted. On September 30. 1968. the
Ohio EPA issued an NPDES permit for
the Occidental-Kenton facility which did
not correct the defl .,w ies cited in the
August 13. 1988. letter. As that permit
failed to impose effluent limitations and
other conditions necessary to meet the
requirements of the CWA. however. U.S.
EPA filed, under 40 CFR 123.44(bM2). its
specific objection to the issuance of the
perndt on December10. 1988. Beceese
the State did not resubmit • permit
revised to meet U.S. EPA ’s objections.
and no public hearing was requested.
exclusive authority to issue the
Occidental.Kenton permit passed to U.S.
EPA. Region V. The Region’s draft
permit, which was prepared with the
assistance of the Ohio EPA. was public
noticed on March 28, 1990.
The permit was issued after taking
into consideration comments received
by Occidental as well as revisions hi
Ohio’s Water Quality Standards.
Valdas V. iAni , .i.ii
RepursalAdmjrnseetor.
[ FR Doc. 90-25839 Filed 10-29-00; &45 amj
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Public information Collection
Requirement Submftted to Office of
Management and Budget for Review
October . 1900.
The Federal Cwnmualcationa
Commission bee submitted the following
information collection requirement to
the Office of Management and Budget
for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44
U.S.C. 3507.
Copies of this submission may be
purchased from the Cu s i n’i copy
contractor. International Tinnscnption
Service, (2(r) 857—3100. ZlOOMStreet
NW.. suite 140. Washnigton. DC - .
For further IninrTnltinn on this
submission contact Judy Boley, Federal
Communications Commission. (202) 632—.
7513. Persona wishing to crenrn, tt on
this infomnntion Jection should
contact Bruce McConnell. Office of
Maenge- nt and Budget. room 323$
NEOB, Washington. DC 2050 (2t ) 395-
3785.
0MB nuwberr 3060-0069.
Title: Application for Commercial
Radio Operator License.
Form rnrn .h t FCC Form 756.
Acdoa.’ Revision.
Respandentc Individuals or
households.
Frequency of respans On occ 1 on.
Estimofedannual burden. 30,000
responses; 0.3 hours average burden per
response. 9.000 hours total annual
burden.
Needs and uses The FCC Form 758 is
used to issue radio operator licenses to
those persons found to be qualified. To
properly identify those qualified
persons. ft is necessary to collect the full
name, date of beth arid physical
description of each applicant. The
physical dvncri 1 ,tton of the applicant is
placed on the Marine Radio Operator
Permit lk ses to guard ag . mst possible
fraudulent usage. Collection of
photographs of applicants for
radiotelegiuph Licenses and physical
descriptions are in accordance with the
international Radio Regulations.
Federal Communications Commission.
Donna R. Searcy.
(FR Doc. 90-25558 Filed 10-29-90; 8.45 aml
Bin.L 5I 5 coci S71241— 5
FEDERAL MEDIATiON AND
CONCIUAT1ON SERVICE
Agency Infomnallon Collection Activity
Under Review by the Office o
Management and Budget
AC7I0 Notice; Form F-63 Submitted for
Review to the Office of Management
and Budget
The Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service (FMCS} ha,
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (0MB) a request for review
of FMCS Form F-53, Notice to Federal
Mediation end Conciliation Service. The
request seeks 0MB approval to extend
the expiration date of Form F—53 from
August 31. 1900 to February 23.1901.
The request was submitted pursuant to
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 USC
chapter 35).
Form F- 3 is used tonolify FMCS of a
dispute in the Federal sector that is
between a Federid agency and the union
representing that agencies employees..
The information supplied allows FMCS
to contact the parties and provide
assistance. Information pertaining to
Form F—53 is as follows:
Agency: Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service.
Tide: Notification to Federal
Medisation and Cnnrillation Service.
Form MimMr Agency Form F-63
0MB No. 3073-0006.
Type of Request Extension of -‘
expiratioo date of a currently approved
collection without any change in the
substance orin the method of collection.
Authority: S U.S.C. 7119(a} and 29 CFP.
part 1425.
Burden? Approximately 600 rcspses
per year. Ceneraily. a Form F-53 is fllle.d
Out only once, the time needed to fill out
the Form is about 10 minutes and the
reporting burden is 100 hours per year.
Nee and Lisos? The need for this
Form is to obtain the name, address.
phone number of the parties and the
type of dispute so that this Information
may be used to respond to requests for
FM S assistance.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55. No. 191 / Tuesday. October 2. 1990 I Notices
40235
ThIE-9O-18. The test marketing
conditions are described below.
!C11V! DAilSi September 24. 1990.
FØR FURThER NFCRMAT10N C0WTACT
Rick ICelgwin. New Chemicals Branch.
Chemical Control Division ( -794).
Office of Toxic Substances,
Environmental Protection Agency. Rm.
E-811, 401 M St. SW., Washington. DC
20460. (202) 382-2440.
SUPPLEMENTARY lNFORMATI0I Section
5(h)(1) of TSCA authorizes EPA to
exempt persons from premanufacture
notification (PMN) requirements and
permit them to manufacture or import
new chemical substances for test
marketing purposes lithe Agency finds
that the manufacture, processing.
distribution In commerce, use, and
disposal of the substances far test
marketing purposes will not present an
unreasonable risk of lnjwy to health or
the environment EPA may impose
restrictions on test marketing activities
and may modify or revoke a test
marketing exemption upon receipt of
new information which casts significant
doubt on its finding that the test
market ig activity will not present an
unreasonable risk of Injury.
EPA hereby approves TME-90-i6.
EPA has determined that test marketing
of the new chemical substance
described below, under the conditions
set out In the TME application, and for
the time period and restrictions
specified below, will not present an
unreaaonable risk of Injury to health or
the environment The test marketing
period, production volume, use, disposal
methods, and number of customers must
not exceed that specified In the
application. All other conditions and
restrictions described in the application
and In this notice must be met
The following additional restrictions
apply to TME-9O-18. A bill of lading
accompanying each shipment must state
that the use of the substance Is
restricted to that approved In the TME.
In addition, the applicant shall maintain
the following records until 5 years alter
the date they are created, and shall
make them available for Inspection or
copying in accordance with section 11 of
1 C
1. Records of the quantity of the TME
substance produced and the date of
manufacture.
2. Records of dates of the shipments
to each customer and the quantities
supplied In each shipment
3. Copies of the bill of lading that
accompanies each shipment of the TME
substance.
iME-SO-IS
Notice of ReceipL August 6. 1990 (55
FR 31882).
ApplicanL’ ConfidentiaL
Chemical: (C) BIs(hexantethylene)trf s-
demethiocarbamic acid.
Usw (C) Sulfur solvent for natural gas
production. Production Voiume
(Confidential). Number of Customern
(Confidential).
Test Marketing Perioth (Confidential).
Risk AisessmenL EPA identified
concerns for developmental toxicity,
neurotoxicity and thyroid toxicity.
based on test data on analogous
chemicals and chronic toxicity to the
liver and lungs, based on test data on
the TME substance. The submitted test
data also showed that the TME -
substance Is corrosive to the skin and
eyes. Because of these corrosive
properties. EPA expects that workers
will wear the protective equipment
specified in the Material Safety Data
Sheet ( ‘MSDS”) submitted with the
TME application. EPA does not expect
the manufacturing, processing, and use
of the ThIE substance to result in
Inhalation exposures to workers.
Therefore, the corrosive nature of the
TME substance, low predicted
inhalation exposures, and the exposure
controls specified In the MSDS mitigate
EPA’. concerns for human health.
EPA also Identified environmental
concerns for the TME substance based
on Quantitative Structural Activity
Relationships (QSARs’) derived from
test data on structurally similar
dithiocarbamates. EPA expects toxicity
to aquatic organisms to occur at a
concentration of 9 partj..per.billion
(‘ppb”) TME substance in surface
waters. However, EPA expects that the
TME substance will be deep-well
injected and will not be released to
surface water. This use/disposal method
will not result in surface water
concentrations that exceed EPA’.
concern concentration.
The Agency reserves the right to
rescind approval or modify the
conditions and restrictions of an
exemption should any new Inlormatlon
come to Its attention which casts
significant doubt on its finding that the
test marketing activities will not present
an unreasonable risk of Injury to health
or the environment
Dated: September 24. 1990.
Lawrence E. Culleen,
Actng Director. Chemical Control Division.
Office of Toxic Substance,.
(FR Doc. 90-23241 Filed 10-1-90. 845 am)
(FRL-384$- 51
Natlon PoUutant Dlsctiarç.
Elimination System (NPDES) G nerai
Permit for Activities Related to Natural
Gas Production Within the
Gographical Boundaries of Southern
( Ito Indian Reservation as Located -
Within the Political Boundaries of the
State of Colorado
AODICY U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Region V11L
ACTIOIt Notice of intent to Issue general
permit
$UMMARY Region VIII of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Is hereby giving notice of Its tentative
determination to issue a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) general permit for certain
limited activities relating to the
production of natural gas within the
geographical boundaries of the southern
Ute Indian Reservation, located In the
southwest portion of the State of
Colorado. NPDES permit Number COG-
075000. Issuance of the General Permit is
Intended to provide a more efficient
means of granting discharge
authorization for these facilities. A draft
general permit which incorporates the
requirements of the Federal Clean
Water Act and the NPDES regulations
promulgated thereunder at 40 R part
122 et seq. has been prepared by EPA.
The draft permit establishes proposed
effluent requirements and standards
based on technology and water quality
considerations, prohibitions. best
Management practices. and other
conditions applicable to the types of
waste waters generated by construction
facilities. Persons meeting the
prequalificatlon requirements of the
general permit and seeking discharge
authorization will be required to submit
a Notice of Intent (NO!) to discharge
and a request for discharge approval
prior to their commencement of any
discharge. -
DA7ISI Public comments on this
proposal must be on or before
November19, 1990.
ADORESSESI Public comments should be
sent to: Mr. Steve A. Btrrkett, P.E,
(8WM-CJ, ChIef Compliance Branch.
Water Management Dhnsion. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 999
18th Street. Swte 500, Denver. Colorado
80202—2405.
For a copy of the complete text of the
draft permit and the Statement of Basis
and Fact Sheet, please call or write Ma.
Danlela Thlgpen at the above-listed
address or telephone (303) 3—1432 or
Fl’S 330-1432. Questions regarding the
Dote of Receipt.’ July 24.1990.
— . ce 1 110. 504
-------
4O2
Federal Register I Vol. 53, No. 191 / Tue!day . OL ober 2. 1990 / Notices
specific requirements proposed by the
draft general permit may be directed to
Mr. Robert D. Shs’ kland. telephone
(303) 3-159
A public meeting to review and
entertain comments on the draft permit
has tentatively been scheduled as
fol lowm
Date: November?, 1990.
Tune: 7p.m.
Locction: La Plato County
Fairgrounds. Extension Bui1ding 2500
Main Street. Durango. Colorado 81301.
SUP WENTAflY FCRMA OIC
A. Regulatory Background
Section 3 0 1(a) of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) provides that the discharge of
pollutants is unlawful except In
accord2nt li with an NPOES permit
Discharges that occur within Indian
Country are the jurisdiction of the EPA
unless the Agency enters into an
agreement with a Thbe or other Ind ian
political body authorizing the Tribe to
regulate these discharges in lieu of EPA
doing so. No ThbaI body baa such
jurisdiction within the Southern Ute
Indian Reservation. Under EPA’.
regulations at 40 CFR 1” EPA may
issue a single general permit to point
sources within the same geographic area
if the regulated eourcem
(1) Are involved in the same or
substantially itmiiz . operations:
(2) Generate and discharge the same
types of waate
(3) Require the same permit effluent
limitations and/or operating conditions:
(4) RequIre itmllpr momtorlng
requIrements, and, ___
(5) In the opinion of the Nk’ul s
Director, are more appropriately
controlled under a general permit than
an Individual permit.
As in the case of any Lnd lv lduai
permit Issued under the NPD
program, violation of any condition of a
general permit constitutes a violation of
the Clean Water Act and is fully
enforceable under section 300 of the Act
Any owner or operator authorized by
the general permit may be excluded
from the general permit by applying for
an individual permit a. provided for by
40 CFR 122.2 8(b ).
B. Coal Bid Methane PjAruIln 0 .
The production of methane gas by
coal-bed degaeiflcation within the
Southern Uta Indian Reservation is from
coal beds located within the Fruitland
Formation. Those coal beds contain
water, so the degasificatlon process
results in the mixture of methane gas
and water being brought to the ground
surface via well.. The water I .
separated from th. gas at the ground
surface. Currently, the produced water
is not being returned to the coal beds
because the return of the water might
Interfere with gas production. To date,
most of the produced water has been
disposed of by injecting it underground
into another formation in accordance
with the requirements of the
Underground Injection Control (UIC)
perunt program of the Federal Safe
Drinking Water Act. However. In some
situations this has proven to be very
expensive.
Although treatment of the produced
water by technologies such as reverse
osmosis to reduce salinity in the water
to acceptable levels Is expensive, It may
still be more cost effective to treat and
discharge than to continue to re-inject
the produced water. In addition, It is
unknown how much of the produced
water can actually be re-injected into
the formation without encountering
some problems like plugging in the
formation. Should such a problem arise,
treatment and discharge of the produced
water will become appealing as an
alternative.
There presently are approximately 700
of these methane gas wells located on
the Reservation. The Energy Resources
Division of the Southern Ute Tribe has
estimated that approximately 500
million barrels (21 billion gallons) of
water could be produced over the next
ten years unles, there are changes in the
gas production technology that will
reduce the volume of produced water. It
is unknown how much of this water may
actually ever be discharged.
in the primary pollutant of concern for
the produced water is total dissolved
solids (TDS), a measure of the salinity of
the water, TDS concentrations in the
untreated produced water, mostly
sodium bicarbonate, have ranged from
less than 1,000 mg/L to more than 10,000
mg/L Analysis of untreated water has
indwated that most wells have only
trace amounts of organic pollutants in
the produced water. Best Available
Treatment (BAT) for reducing TDS
su ests that, after treatment, TDS
discharges should not exceed 500 mg/L.
Development of the well fields has
a’eated a need for pipeline delivery
systems. Construction of these pipelines
sometimes Involve excavations (e.g..
tr nchlngJ which may fill with water
from the resident groundwater or from
surface runoff. Another dewatering
actIvity 1. to temporarily lower the
water table arouiid the construction site
so as to prevent groundwater from
flowing into the excavation. Although
dewatering of such excavations is
commonly done, It is unlawful to do so
without an NPDES permit authorization.
Construction dewatering discharges
under the general permit are generally
anticipated to be from areas of natural
and homogenous materials.
Construction excavations associated
with existing landfills, hazardous waste
disposal sites or the cleanup of
contaminated groundwater are entirely
outside the scope of this permit or. for
that matter, the general permit process .
Once pipelines and containment
vessels are constructed, It may be
necessary to test these vessels for
leakage and stress prior to placing them
into final service regardless of the
material to be contained in the vessel or
pipeline. Water is generally used to
“hydrostatically” test the system and
secure against Its failure while In
service.
Locally available water of relafively
highqualitylsnormallyusedfor
hydrostatic testing. Cf a surface water
source is used and the water is returned
to the same source, essentially no
additional pollutants should be
introduced to the environment
However, if a groundwater source is
used, the same considerations given for
produced water from coal-bed gas
production apply to these sources. If
chlorinated municipal water Is used,
chlorine becomes of major concern.
Originally, EPA considered Including
sand and gravel production activities
within the context of the general permit
Excavation of sand and gravel
construction materials needed for the
gas production activities will likely
occur in the area. Based on a
reevaluation of our information and on
comments by the State of New Mexico
on a preliminary draft of the general
permit, sand and gravel operations will
not be Included under this general
permit Although TDS contribution.
from sand and gravel operations were
anticipated to be minimal , quantifying
the TDS contribution from such sources
could not be made, Further, sand and
gravel operations can often be operated
as “no discharge” facilities. In the event
that a discharge from a sand and gravel
operation is necessary and appropriate.
a facility may apply for an individual
permit discharge authorIzation.
EPA has sought preliminary Input on
the requirements of the general permit
from a variety of Federal Agencies. the
State of Colorado, the State of New
Me,dco, the Colorado River Salinity
Forum, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe.
interested citizens groups, and Industry
representative.. The draft general
permit Incorporates many of the
comments received from these parties as
well as attempts to respond to concern.
that were raised.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 191 I Thesday , October 2.1990 I Notices
40237
C. Coverage Under the Permit
Inclusion of each of the above
activities under a single NPDES General
Permit restricted to the geographical
confines of the Southern Ute Indian
Reservation appears to be a sensible
approach to effective environmental
regulation. The general permit provide.
the Agency with a vehicle to review the
proposed discharges on a collective
basis rather than on an individual case-
by-case basis. As such, the Agency can
more effectively use Its limited
resources to evaluate any cumulative
impacts from the potential coal-bed
discharges. By their nature, general
permits are written to promote
“environmentally conservative”
requirements which push the application
of state-of-the-art techno1o ’ upon
potential discharges. General permits do
not allow for variances for facilities
seeking less stringent requirements.
Facilities seeking authorization to
discharge under the general permit are
obhgated to submit Information
demonstrating their ability to comply
with the general permit.
D. P ,’ pmic Impact
EPA has reviewed the effect of
Executive Order 12291 on this proposed
general permit and has determined the
proposal not to be major under that
Order. This proposal is subject to review
by the Office of Management and
Budget (0MB) as required by the
Executive Order. Any comments from
0MB to EPA and any EPA responses to
those comments will be made available
for public inspection at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Compliance Branch. Water Management
Division. Denver Place. Suite 500, 999
18th Street. Denver, Colorado 80202-
2405.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has reviewed the requirements
Imposed 9fl regulated facilities In these
draft general NPDES permits under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. 44
U.S.C. 350181 seq. The Information
collection requirement, of these permits
have already been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget under
submissions made for the Clean Water
Act’s NPDES permit program.
F. The Regulatory Flexibility Act
After review of the facts presented In
the notice of intent printed above. I
hereby certify. pursuant to the
provisions of 5 U.S.C 605(b). that this
general permit will not have a
significant Impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Moreover, the
permit reduces the arlinlnlgtrative
burden on regulated sources.
— J. Schwer.
RegionoiAdmirust rotor, Region VIII.
(FR Doe. 90-23184 Filed 10-1-90; 8.45 am)
uuJn ce
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
AUTHORITY
Privacy Act of 1974; EstablIshment of
a Nsw System of Records
AO!NCY Federal Labor Relations
Authority (FLRA).
ACno c Advance notice with request for
comments; publication of proposed
system notice for a new system of
records.
sUuua r The FLRA Is establishing a
new system of records under the Privacy
Act to consist of the investigatory flies
of the FLRA’s Office of the Inspector
General (OIG). The publication of this
proposed system notice is one of the
step. required to establish the new
system. The new system of records
facilitate, the OIG’s ability to collect.
maintain, use, and disclose Information
pertaining to individuals, thus helping to
ensure that the OIG may efficiently and
effectively perform its Investigations
and other authorized duties and
activities.
DA1t Comments must be received on
or before November 1, 1990. Unless
changes are made In response to
comments received from the public, this
action Is effective upon final publication
of the amendment the FLRA’s Privacy
Act regulations, 5 CFR part 2412, set
forth in proposed form elsewhere In
today’s issue of the Federal Register.
ADORUUS Forward comments to the
Office of the Solicitor. Federal Labor
Relations AuthorIty. 500 C Street. SW.,
Washington. DC 20424.
PO FURThES INFORMATION CONTACT
Paul D. Miller, Inspector General, FLRA.
500 C Street. SW., Washington, DC
20424. (202) 382-&Ot
$UP LEM1NTARY INFORMATIOPC As
required by U.S.C 552a(e)(4) and (11),
the FLRA Is notifying the public of the
establishment of a new system of
records In the FLRA’a Office of the
Inspector General (OIG). This system is
being established as part of the formal
creation of an OIG within the FLRA by
action dated March 24. 1989. and the
appointment of the FLRA’s Inspector
General on September 25. 1989, under
the authority of the 1988 amendments to
the Inspector General Act of 1978. See
Public Law No. 100-504. amendIng
Public Law No.95-452; 5 U.S.C app. at
1184 (1988). Among the OIG’s statutory
duties are the prevention and detection
of fraud, waste, and abuse relating to
the agency’s programs and operations.
through the conduct of audits and
Investigations and the preparation of
reports to the agency’s Chairman and to
Congress.
The system of records being
established consists of investigatory
files compiled and maintained by the
01G. Due to the law enforcement nature
of these records, the proposed system is
exempt from certain provisions of the
Privacy Act, Including disclosure to
individuals who are subjects of records
In system. See 5 U.S.C 552a(J)(2) and
(k)(2). The exempt status of the system
is the subject of a companion notice of
proposed rulemaking to amend the
FLRA’s Privacy Act regulations, 5 CFR
part 2412. That notice is published
elsewhere in today’s Issue of the Federal
Register. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(r)
and 0MB CIrcular No. A-130, the FLRA
has submitted its report on the proposed
establishment of this system of records
to both Houses of Congress and to 0MB.
Accordingly, the FLRA proposes to
establish the following system of
records:
FLRA/0IO-1
. ..i. NAMt
FLRA/OIG—1—-Office of the Inspector
General Investigative Files.
UcURITV cLA**WICATise NOT £ PUCABLI
$ ‘ TlM LOCATIOIC
Office of the Inspector General,
Federal Labor Relations Authority. 500
C Street. SW., Washington. DC 20424.
CATIQORIII O r UtOWWUAU COVIR iv
Subjects of OIG Investigations
relating to the programs and operations
of the Federal Labor Relations
Authority. Subject individuals include,
but are not limited to. current and
former employees: contractors.
subcontractors, their agents or
employees. and others whose actions
affect the FLRA, Its programs and
operations.
CATIQOSIIS Or RICOQOS ml svsn*
Correspondence relating to the
investigatioru internal staff memoranda.
copies of subpoenas issued during the
Investigation, affidavits, statements
from witnesses. transcripts of testimony
taken in the investigation and
accompanying exhiblts documents.
records. or copies obtained during the
investigatloru Interview notes.
investigative notes. staff working
apers. draft materials, and other
-------
30082 Federal Register I Vol. 55. No. 142 I Tuesday. July 24. 1990/Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 122 and 403
(EN—FRL-3691-7]
PIN 2040-AMS
EPA Administered Permit Programs;
the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System; General
Prsb-eatment Regulations for Existing
and New Sources; Regulations To
Enhance Control of Toxic Pollutant
and Hazardous Waste Discharges to
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
aae ,scr Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACflON Final rule.
SUMMARY: On November 23. 1988 (53 FR
47632). EPA proposed to revise the
General Pretreatment and National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
regulations (40 CFR parts 122 and 403)
pursuant to section 3018(b) of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) and sections 307(b) and
402(b)(8) of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
The proposed regulation. were
deveropedin accordance with EPA’.
Report to Congress on the Discharge of
Hazardous Wastes to PubhcJy Owned
Treatment Works (EPA/530-SW- 8-
004. hereinafter referred to as “the
Domestic Sewage Studr or “the
Study”). Today the Agency
promulgating a flnafl rare himpFemen 5’
many of the proposed revisions.
EPA su edtheSbid; to ngress
In respos.wto’section.3018 ) of RcRA.’
Th ,iuvi 3 Luu direct dthe Agency tu
prepare a report for Cøn e am wastes
discharged through sewer systems to
publicly owned treatment works.
(PO .VWs) that are exempt frem
regulation under RCRA as .zesuftoftha.
Domestic Sewage Exciusloib The’ Study
examined the nature and sources of
hazardous wastes discharged to
POTWs, measured the effectiveness of
EPA’. propami In dealing with such
discharges. and Identified for Agency
consideration a number of possible
initiatives that could .nhan . confrol of
hazardous wastes entering POTWs.
Todays final rule Is promulgated
pursuant to section 3018(b) of RCRA
This section directs the Administrator to
revise existing regulation. and
promulgate additional regulations as are
necessary to assure that hazardous
wastes discharged to POTWs are
adequately controlled to protect human
health and the environment.
D*TW Thu regulation shall become
effective on August 23. 1990. For
purposes of Judicial review, this
regulation i&isaued at 1 pm. on August
7.199 (3.. . -
AOORESSE Questions on tocfay’i rare of
a technical nature should be adth’es.ed
to: Marilyn Goode. Permits D vfsfon.
(EN-336), Environmental Pro ction:
Agency. 401 M Street SW.. WuMngtorr..
DC 20460. The record for this. - -
rulemaking. including all puhfl a.
comments received on the proposaL. ra
available for Inspection and copgfn eP
the EPA Public Information
Unit, room 2402, 401 M Street SW.. -
Washington. DC 20460. A reasona&afe.
may be charged for copying.
oe u men INFO MATtON C0IH AC .
Marilyn Goode, Permits Divis1nn. - .
338). Environmental Protectlan gency,
401 M Street SW.. Washixzzjur DC 2OS8
(202) 475-8528. .. -
PPL M NTARY INFO TIOIC.
I. Background
IL Revisions
A. Specific Discharge Prohibition.
1. 1 utabilJIy and Explosivity -
2. ReactIvity sad Fume Toxicity’ -
3.Rc AToxic1ty
4COTTOUVlIy’
end Cress.
&lventWzs s
8. Spills and Batch Discharge. (al )
C. Trucked and Hauled Wastes
D. Notification Requirements
E. In v1dua1 Cecfrol Mecbanlsma r -
Induatti sl5lsri
F. ImpIemen ng tfle General Prvhibzti na —
Aaainit.Pas Through and ln rference
D. T inty -Basul Permit LLsuts
2. Sludge Control -: -
3. Control of Indirect Dlecharge
Camssciafeentralszed Wa,(bTregter ,
Catetorical Standard, for Other..
Induiele. ‘ -.
C. EthxcemsnrofCategorfcal Standards
1. RevIsions ta Local Limits -.
bapections and SampLing of S uffcanC
Industrial Users by P01W. -_
3. Definition of Slguficant Indu s U
4. Enforcement Response Plans er POTWs
5. DefinitIon of Sigeificant Viola ne .
S. Raportng Requirements far Sr ffcs.c
Industrial Users
H. Miscellaneous Amendments
1. Local Limits Development ani
Enforcement
2. A and State Enforcement *c1o
3. National Pretreatment Standa .....
Categorical standanis -
4. POTW Pretreatment Program
Requirements: Implementation -
S. Development and Submiuronof NPI3
Slate Pretreatment Pr gram.
S. Administrative Penalties Aga .
Industrial Users -
7. Provisions Governing Freud scd Fats.
Statements - -.
The regulatory changes promulgated
foday are Intended to improve control of
hazardous wastes introduced into
POIWs under the Domestic Sewage
Excionion. The exclusion. established by
____ C ’ostgress In SectIon 1004(27) of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), provides that solid or
dissolved material in domestic sewage
is not solid waste as defined In RCRA. A
corollary is that such material cannot be
considered a hazardous waste for
ps oses of RCRA.
The exclusion applies to domestic
rewage as well as mixtures of domestic
rewage and other wastes that pass
through a sewer system to a publicly.
. - owned treatment works (POTW) for
treatment (see 40 CFR 281.4(a)(1)). The
exclusion thus covers Industrial waste.
discharged to POTW sewers containing
domestic sewage. even if these wastes
would be considered hazardous if
disposed of by other means.
One effect of the exclusion is that
duatz4al facilities which generate
Razardoua wastes and discharge such
wastes to sewers containing domestic
sewage are not subject to RCRA
manifest requirements for the transport
th excluded wastes. However.
dap ding on the circumstances, such
indus al users may be required to -
comply with certain other RCRA
requirements that apply to generators of
hazardous wastes. Some of these
requirements are: (1) Determining
whether a waste Is hazardous (40 CFR
202.11); (2) obtaining an EPA
Identification number for hazardous
wastes not discharged to the sewer (40
_____ R 282.12); (3) accumulation of
hazardous wastes (40 CFR 282.34); (4)
recordkeeplng (40 R 282.40(c) and
Cd)); and (5) reporting (40 R 282.43)
Additional requirements will usually
apply If the wastes are treated or stored
pmoz to. discharge to a POTW (see 40
pret 284).
- Another effect of the Domestic
Sewage Exclusion is that POTWs
receiving mixtures of hazardous waste
and domestic sewage through the sewer
system are not deemed to have received
hazardous wastes. Therefore, such
POTWs are not required to meet the
I RA requirements of 40 CFR part 284
r treating. storing, and disposing of
thens wastes. However, hazardous
wastes delivered directly to a POTW by
trmck..mIl. or dedicated pipe are nor
covered by the Domestic Sewage
U I. Execuuve Order 12 I
LV. Regulatory flexibility Analysis
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
L Background
-------
Federal Register I VoL 55. No. 142 I Tuesday. July 24, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
30083
ExcluSiOQ. Industries sending their
wastes to P0 1 W. In this manner are not
covered by the exclusion. and P01W.
receiving these wastes are subject to
regulation under the RCRA perrnlt.by.
rule (see 40 CFR 270.00(c)).
In i9&4 Congress enacted the,
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments to RCRA. Section 248 of
the Amendments eated a new section
3018(a) of RCRA. requiring EPA to
prepare:
a report to the Congress concerning
those substance ’ identified or listed under
sectIon 3001 which are not regulated under
this subtitle by reason of the exclusion for
mixtures of domestic sewage and other
wastes that pass through a sewer system to a
publicly owned treatment works. Such report
shall include the types. size, and number of
generators which dispose of substances in
this manner, the types and quantities
disposed of in this manner. and the.
tdentiflcstlon of significant generators.
wastes, and waste constituents not regulated
under existing Federal law or regulated in a
manner suflicient to protect human health
and the environment
EPA submitted its report (the Study) -
to Congress on February 7. 1986. In
performing the Study, the Agency
reviewed information on 160.000 waste
dischargers from 47 industrial categories
and the residential sector. Because of
the pature c available data sources.
the Study provided estimates for the
discharge of the specific constituents of
hazardous wastes (e.g., benzene.
acetone. etc.) rather than estimates for
hazardous wastes as they are more
generally defined under RCRA (i.e..
“characteristic” wastes such as Ignitable
or reactive wastes, or “listed” wastes
such as spent solvents, electroplating
baths, etc.). The Study also provided
more extensive estimates for those
hazardous constituents which are also
CWA priority pollutants. The CWA
priority pollutant list was originally
developed as part of a settlement
agreement between the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and
EPA (NRDC v. Ti’ein, No .. 2153-73, 75-
172, 75 -1668.75-1287 (D.D.C. June 6.
1978)). This agreement required the
Agency to promulgate tecbnclogy.based
standards for 65 compounds or classes
of compounds. Congress then
Incorporated this list of toxic pollutants
as part of the 1677 amendments to the
CWA. From the list of compounds or
classes of compounds. EPA later
developed a list of 126 individual
priority pollutants (see Appendix A to
40 CFR part 423).
EPA was able to give estimates in the
Study on the types. sources. and
quantities of many hazardous
constituents discharged to POTWs. The
Study provided Information on
industrial categories ranging from large
hazardous waste generators (such as the
organic chemicals industry) to the
smaller generators (such as laundries
end motor vehicle services). The Study
also examined the fate of hazardous
constituents once they are discharged to
POTW coUection and treatment system.s
and discussed the potential for
envuonmental effects resulting from the
discharge of these constituents after
treatment by POTW5. The Study then
discussed the effectiveness of existing
government controls in dealing with
these discharges. particularly federal
and local pretreatment programs and
categorical pretreatment standards
applicable to industrial users of PO’I’Wa.
After considering all the pertinent
data, EPA concluded that the Domestic
Sewage Exclusion should be retained at
the present time. The Study found that
CWA authorities are generally the best
way to control hazardous waste
discharges to PCTWs. However, the
Study also recommended that these
authorities should be employed more
broadly and effectively to regulate
hazardous waste discharges- The Study
Identified for Agency consideration a
number of possible Initiatives with a
potential for enhancing CWA controls
on hazardous wastes entering P0 ’TWs.
The legislative history of section 3018
of R A displays Congress’
understanding that the appropriateness
of the Domestic Sewage Exclusion
depends largely on an effective
pretreatment program under the CWA.
The pretreatment program (mandated by
sections 307(b) and 402. ( b)(8 ) of the
CWA) provides that industrial users
must pretreat pollutants discharged to
P01W. to prevent the discharge of
pollutants that would interfere with or
pass through the treatment works. or
that would be otherwise incompatible
with the POTW.
As a follow-up to the Domestic
Sewage Study. sectIon 3018(b) of RQ A
requires the Administrator to revise
existing regulations and to promulgate
such additional regulations as are
necessary to assure that hazardous
wastes discharged to POTWs are
adequately controlled to protect human
health and the environment These
regulations are to be promulgated
pursuant to subtitle C of RCRA or any
other authority of the Administrator.
Including section 307 of the CWA.
As a first step toward promulgating
the regulations called for by section
3018(b). the Agency published an
Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPR) in the Federal
Register on August 22, 1988 (51 FR
30166). In the ANPR. EPA made
prlltnhlary suggestions for regulatory
changes. which. If promulgated. would
Improve the control of hazardous wastes
discharged to POTWs The Agency also
held three public meetings In
Washington. DC. Chicago. and San
Francisco to solicit additional comments
on the ANPR.
The comments received on the ANPR
were summarized and discussed in a
Federal Register notice published on
June 22, 1987 (52 FR 23477). That notice
also described many of the activities
which EPA Is carrying out to address the
recommendations of the Study. Most
commecters suggested ways to make the
pretreatment program more effective in
controlling hazardous wastes
discharged to municipal wastewater
treatment plants. On November 23. 1988
(53 FR 47632], the Agency proposed
regulatory changes in response to the
recommendations of the Study and the
comments received on the ANPR.
EPA believes that today’s rule will
satisfy the Congressional directive in
sectIon 3016(b) of RCRA that EPA revise
existing regulations and promulgate
such additional regulations “as are
necessary to assure that [ hazardous
wastes) which pass through a sewer
system to a publicly owned treatment
works axe adequately controlled to
protect human health and the
environment. Thes. niles are designed
to assure POTW compliance with water
quality standards. Including narrative
water quality standards preventing the
discharge of toxic materials in toxic
amounts. and to provide necessary
information and regulatory tools to
POTWs to address problems that axe
identified.
States and EPA have invested a great
deal of time and resources in developing
water quality standards that provide a
benchmark for determining whether
harmful concentrations of pollutants
exist in the nation’s waters. Today’s
rules Include important new information
collection requirements that will inform
P01Ws and NPDES permit writers of
the Likelihood that PO11PJ discharges
will violate water quality standards. and
also provides new information and
regulatory tools with respect to
Industrial user 4lscharges that maybe
causing water quality violations through
the P01W effluent
Of particular importance to
contzolling hazardous waste discharges
to POTW5 are the following provisions
of today’s rule. First. under revisions to
40 CFR part 122, POTW5 meeting
specified criteria will be required to test
their effluent for toxicity which may be
caused by industrial user discharges of
hazardous wastes or other toxic
-------
30084 Federal Register I Vol. 55. No. 14Z1 Tuesday . u1y 2 9O I Rales and Regula oris
substances. The results of this testing
may indicate that P01W. are vitiating.
water quality standards. thereby
endangering human bealt and the
cnvironxnerL Depending an the iesults
of this testing. POTWa may receive new
or more stringent permit l its regarding
discharges of toxic pollutants. r cirder
to comply with the revised permit limfls.
POtWs may either alter their operations
or Impose more stringent local l ta on’
Industrial user discharge. of he nrdous
wastes. Imposition of such new or more
stnngent locel limits will be fa li1,ted
by another requirement of today, oiler
the requirement In 40 CFR 403.1*p) that
Industrial users notify POTWs. State,
arid EPA of the nature and mass of
RCRA harnrdou, wastes that they
induce into the sewers. in addi n.
under today’. revisions to 40 O R
12 .21(j)(2). P01W, must evaluate it.
iting. at the same time as they submit
the data, from Ioxlcltytesting to their
permit-Issuing aethoriiy. the need to
revise locaL limits. This new provision.
will allow the NPDES permit wuter to’
review the P01W. rationale for naL
Imposing more slrmgent local limits
whee the results of toxicity tasting
Indicate that such new limits may be
necessary to ’ ass atthinmeid of wSlW
quality standards. todays rele sit. will.
ban the Introduction to POTWs at
wastee that exhibit the RCRA -
churacter4sficoL itebility. The basis.
necessary to prevent siqiloafoae Ira
aewer’systeins that could dlsiuptPOTW
operations and lead. to releases of
hazardous wastes andothertmcicor
hazardous substances in the sewers.
“MidIIight dumping” of hazardous
wastes to sewers should be
substantially curtailed’ through the ban
I a . 40 CFR 403 .5(b)(8) on the infroductios.
of bucked or’ hauled wastes to POTWe
except at discharge points Identified for
such use by the POTW. Finally. through
general improvemenlait the
pretreatment pru ’sm provided bT
todays rule, such an ladusnlaI nserslbg.
contrul — permits fw-can
tndt triaL asses. andJ01W
enforcementrospona.plans. A.
expects- a sigeiflent ii mt
the control. of hesardaire wustew andl
other toxic and hansrdoas substamiat
Introduced to P01W .. Tha Ag z.y
notes that all pretrea ent pi’ogs i
changes re%dred by today’s rule must
be incorporated isPOTWi NPD
permits upon lu” ”cs.
While EPA. believes that to ,. rule
satisfieg the requirements. of sectias.
30i8 b). EPA Intends to carelidly resdew’
the effect of today I. and promulgate
lit the fntiira any additi naLregolatia
that experience reveni.ar.neorsssry
improve control oven haanrdotms wasts.
and other aidusthal user discharges to
POTW. In addition. EPA has always.
recognined. that additional categoricat
pretreatment standards will forer to.
important component of effective
controLs over pollutants discharged to
POTWs. On January 2. 1990 . EPA
recently issued a plan mnider section
304(m) of the Clean Water Act tinder
which It will develop regulation, for four
new technology-based categoricat
pretreatment standard. and will revise
three exlstfng standards (55 FR 80 ) . The
categoric, of discharger, selected for the
development of new end revised
pretreatment standards discharge isrge’
amounts of toxic and nonconventlonal
pollutants to P01W.. The’ Domestic
Sewage Study was an lmportalTrsonroe
of data for*erectlon 304(m pfam
While EPA Ii not obligated to base
development of such. technofo ’ .based
categorical. standards on finding,
relating teprotection of hmnsn health or
the environment. EPA believes that
pollutant discharge reductions achieved
through Implementation of new-
categorical standanfs wiff advance the
protection othaman health and. the
envfronznent
It should be’noted’thaf todhy’I rule
dora nat diiecdy addresr potential afr
enussiona from the wutewater-
collection system or POTW . EPLs.
Office of Air and Radiation Is evaluating
potentiar air emissions from the -
collection and treatment of wastewater
discharged to POTWs and pram to
address these. afr emfssitns under the
Clean AfrAct
IL Revisions,
The. Agency received comments it
response-tb Its proposal from.
approximately one handled and sixty
individuals and groups. Alt signifIcant
comments and the Agency’s responses
to these comments are discussed below.
The Agency’s responses to minor
comments ale part the recardtn this
rulemaking and are available for
inspection at the EPA Public Itiformati’aa
Reference DolL Room .2402. 4 L Street
SW.. Washington. DC 2048&
A. Specific Discharge P)’okibitfcn.
1. Igrutabffity and’ ExplosMty
a. Frc zmsed cbange..the speciflc
prohibitions. of the general pmnirea tatent
regulationa (4G 403.5 (b ) ). forbi th.
discharge of certain types. oSmaterlair
which may harurPOTW sy ,toma.by
creating fir, or explosion hazardlu.
causing corrosive stitictrurat damage 1
obstructing if.’.. or oreati ng heats..
P011W hmfl iest which 1n blto’b1oIog1ca
activity. The AcugiM 2 1996 .L’WR ..
discussed expanding these prohibitions
ma forbid the discharge of characteristic.
wastra under R . A (I.e.. wastes they
are defluede, hazardous’ under 40 CFR’
part 251. subpart C if they possess. the.
characteristics of ignitability;
corrosivity, reactivity; or toxicttyJ This
would provide greater specificity tO the
largely narrative structu of the
existing prohibitions in the pretreatment
program..
With respect to Ignitability. the
Indirect discharge. of ignitable materials
has caused many documented cases. of
explosions and fires aaPOTVi collection
systems. These fires and explosion.
often happen near the point of Ind irect
discharge. when the’ temperatures
(normally above ambient)’ promote
evaporation oflgmtabie wastes.fnta a.
relatively flxed.voliuzaa ala. forming.
vapors which are ’aatdiapersed.Inio.th.
atmosphere ‘ sevapors be
Iguitad by’vaslaas sources. Induding
electric speaks. frlctiecrat heat. ho!
surface, inch a, manhole C . vci bested
by the sun, or chemical hear 5 c cl1kd
byreact ltm s ..
The Weci& discharge prohibftiona.(40
FR 40 (b)(1J ’afready prohiblath.
disge to ssw of’ raaterlsiw
adng slims orexploelrm hazard.
Howaven. this esmedve prov1skmle
specificlly.M smeanit the prehibftiazs
has limited e beU....sss as-a pervaa*u
reuimsmentThs.,f ”.’i.rd isic1earf -
violated If tharrw ansc uaI lire or
explosion In the’ sewer or if art Indu aI
user ‘Iolatocf a I .l’ mit designed
Implement. the prohibition..
To provide rbett r Implemontatiow
of these provisions. EPA proposed te
revise 40.CFR4t 5(b) to prohibit the.
Introduction Into sewer system. of -
pollutants which create a fire or -
explosion-hazard in theP0rV
inducing butnoP limited to pollutant,
with s.dl.oeed’cupffashpoint etIs,s’tbam
140 degrees Fahrenheit (sixty d’egaee, -
Centlgradbj as determined by a .Peusky-
Martens ao edCupTeste , using the
test method specified In ASFM standard
D-03-7Por D- 3-.80. ore Setellasit
Closed Cup Tester using th, tent method
spe etIn AS’TM StndardD—3r -7a
The Agency ala. proposed’ to revfse4P
CFR 403.5(b4 . to prohubll th.discharge -ci
pollutantt which cause an exceed’enee’ -
of % of the lower explos ve limit (tEE
at soy point within th.POTW
Aflashpo lntlethem imem
temperature at hklrvapercombustfoti
will spread sway from Its source of
Ignition. Below the fla.hpcmnr
teniperntm’e. rombestihn of the’ viper
immediately bovethe lIquid wiff e er
not occur at alP. arwW’occaraofy’at the
point of Ignition. Aim clegieeFsierthe*
-------
Federal Register / Vol 55. No. 142/ Tues4ay, July 24. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
flashpoint stiind ard has been used far
several years under RCRA to idenufy
liquid wastes that pose a fire haxart
EPA proposed a similnr standard for use
In a new prohibited discharge standard
in the pre ea ent pro w.
The Iower e,plnalve limit wu
proposed to deal with the problems of
mixing and dilution In the sawer. The
[ EL of an organic vapor is the minimum
cont ntrat1on required to form a
fiRmmable or explosive vapor to air
mixture The L . Is measured with an
explosimeter. an Instru nt that is
commonly used by PO11 V technicians to
protect agn(n*t combustible vapors In
sewers.
In the preamble of the proposed rule.
the Agency solicited comments on. (13
Whether or not the flashpolnt
prohibition would be reasonable, unduly
stringent or Insuffidently protective of
POTWs under worst case conditions
and whether It would sufficiently take
Into accowit the effects of effluent
mixing or dilution In a POTW sy!tem
(2) whether another technically feasible
and effective alternative e,dsts; (3)
whether the regulation should exempt
aqueous solutions with less than 24%
alcohol by volume from the proposed
flashpolnt prohibiftou (4) whether the
L prohibition Is practicaL either alone
or In combination with the flashpofnt
prohlbitloin (5) whether It Is too difficult
to link an L . ce.dence to specific
dlscharges (6) whether veporphas.
monitoring (sometime. needed to
determine the cause of any exceedence )
Is too difficult or too expensIve and (7)
whether the flashpolnt approach or the
La approach would be sufficient alone
to prevent fires and explosions at
POTW..
b. Risp . to oommento Mast
commenteri supported Lb. proposal to
adopt limits that would add specificity
to the e dsdeg nanative prohibftlon on
Ignitabl, and explosiv, discharges.
Howuvci. othci commenters believed
that e,datlng local crdlnanoes and the
existing specific prohibition were
sufficient and that the puuy ued
regulatory would impos.
excs ,stvs burdens and oasis on both
munIcipalIties sad Industrial users.
A majority of the commlf- a
s the flaahpotnt pvobthilka
either alone orbs conjunction with the
La approach. These cum. .. ters stated
that the flashpolnt prohibitions would
provide Control Authorities with a
quantifiable standard against which to
measure compliance. Other cnmm nters
believed that because the flasbposnt
limit Is used under RCRA to dethia
which wastes exhibit the characteristic
of ignitability. It would have greater
credibility sod enforcoabtilty than other
approaches. Many conmenten stated
that the proposed ilashpoint test would
be inexpensive and easy to Implement.
EPA agrees with those commenters
who supported the proposed flaahpoint
prohibition. The Agency believes that
the established flashpoint method Is a
good measure of fire and explosion
hazard and will thus be effective In
preventing Interference with POTW
operations. The flaahpolnt prohibitlQn
will also add specificity to the existing
narrative prohibitions, thus facilitating
effective prevention and enforcement.
The closed cup flasbpolnt test methods
are also relatively simple end
Inexpensive. For these reasons. EPA Is
today revisIng 40 ( R 4 .5(bli1) to
prohibit the Introduction to POfl Ys of
pdllatanta which create a fire or
explosion hazard In the POTW.
Including, but not limited to.
wastestreams with a dosed cup
flashpolnt of less than 140 degrees
Fahrenheit (sixty degrees Centigrade).
Many commenterl pointed out that
the language used is the proposed
regulation was not consistent with that
used in the preamble. The proposed
regulation stated that the flashpotnt
prohibition applies to “pollutants.”
which could be interpreted to apply both
to specific constituents of the waste and
to the entire waste m1xttiz generated by
Indirect discharges. The preamble
discussion. buwnver . dearly Indicated
EPAs Intent that the flashpolnt
prohibition would apply to “wastewater
discharge” and not waatewater
constituents of the entire discharge or
combined wsstes eam. To clarify the
regulatory language. todays final nile
has been modified to read.
‘ S’ ‘Pollutants which ereetea fire or
explosion hazard In the POTW,
Including but not limited to.
weetestircms with a dosed cup
flaihpolnl of less than 140 degrees
Fahrenheit (sixty &gzees
Centigrade)’ ‘‘S
Some coaImMitera expressed
conflualon as to the exact point where
the flashpolnt should be meesered. The
modification made to the final n ile
(discussed above) resolves any possible
ambiguity regarding the location where
the Ilashpolnt should be measured.
Because the fla.bpolnt prohibition
applies to the industrial aseVs
wasteabeare. the messur nt should
be taken at the point of Indirect
dlachsrge.
Although most comnienters approved
of the flaahpolnt prohibition, some
exptessed concerns about Its
limitations. One commenter stated that
a aia)orlty of POTWs do not have
Industrial users that would warrant
closed cup testing. Mother crwnmcnter
said that flaibpoint was not a good
Indication of fir. and explosion haz. rd
because wastewatm should not contain
enough hazardous consutuents to be
flammable. In response. the Agency
believes that the flashposnt prohibition
Is relevant because most POTWs do
have at least a few uidusuial users and
even one Industrial user may sometimes
have the potential to cause fire or
explosion hazards in a p0 1W. Also the
Study found that hazardous ccnstltuent.s
are found in many different types of
wastestreams . EPA believes that the
flasbpolnt Is an accurate Indicator of fire
and explosion hazard caused by the
presence of toxic and hazardous
pollutants In wastesbeams.
Several cummenters argued that the
discussion on the use of existing
literature flasbpoint value, in the
preamble was not applicable to the vast
nia)onty of wastes, These Uteri Lure
values are only available for discharges
of “pure” substances, which are not
common.
The Agency s ested the use of
available literature values for those
“pure” substances believed present in a
wastestreaor. EPA believes that if the
flashpolnt of a pure substance., otthe -
fla hpolut of each known substance In a
mixture . Is above 140 degrees F. then the
flashpalnt of the wutestresin omfalII . . .g
the substanca or (Iwm2IIy
diluted predtimlna&Iy with water)
would usually also be above the limit. If
the bidustrial user Is eof this
cosrelati on. the fl .hpalnt test should be
performed on Its wuste eam or the
Industrial user should consult the
Control Authority.
Several , “m ntfrS stated that
because industrial wastes are usually
variable. testh,g would Ideally have to
be continuous. Since there are no
continuous monitoring methods
available, then. c’ ’enters feared that
the discharger would be faced with
ret.i i the entire discharge until a
flashpeint determination could be made.
At this point If the waste did not pass
thetestltwoa ldthenbil .tObI
II ’pe .ed of wider R A. although ft
could be s ffld tly treated through the
POTW. A few nmentara had w ssw5
about sampling methodologies. and one
eni””’antex nid that sampling
methodologies should be specified La
addition to test methods- Another
comm ter said that the reliabilIty of
the closed nip test for wastewater was
not good.
EPA does not believe that most
wastestreams are sufficiently variable
to require continuous monitoring.
However. If an industrial users
wastestream Is determined to be
-------
20086 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 142 / Tuesday. uly 24, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
extremely variable, the Industrial user
may wiab to conduct frequent
monitoring if necessary to avoid
violating todays rule. When Industrial
users are uncertain whether their
wastestream can be adequately
characterized by intermittent
monitoring, they should consult the
Control Authority for mosutorlng
Instructions. If monitoring indicates
.periodic violations of the prohibition.
industrial users may wish to take
appropriate measures to pretreat their
wastes so that they could be conildent
that the discharges would not violate the
flashpoint prohibition. This would
prevent Industrial users from the need to
retain their wastes pending Ilashpoint
analysis. With respect to sampling
methodologies, grab samples taken at
the point prior to discharge are generally
the appropriate methodology. However.
the number of grab samples which are
needed to characterize. wastestream
will vary. For moat wastestreams. one
grab sample may be sufficient. For
variable wastestzeami. a series of grab
samples may be appropriate. In order
for a waste to meet today’. standard. no
single grab sample of the waste may be
below the 140 degree flaahpoint limit.
With respect to reliability of the closed
cup method, this method has long been
In use under RCRA to measure the-
lptabthty of liquid wastes, with few
problems brought to EPA ’s attention.
The Agency sees no reason why the
method would not be equally useful on
wastestreams discharged to POTWs. In
support of this view, many commenters
supported the test because of its
purported reliability.
Some commeriters suggested changing
either the flashpoint or L.EL limits. and
one comxnente? stated that the
flashpolnt approach alone could result
In unnecessary regulation In
circumstances where tn-sawer dilution
would effectively eliminate any
hazardous coaditloni. One courmenter
urged that the proposed revision be
made lea. stringent by prohibiting only
those discharges with a flaahpolnt of
less than 100 degrees F. This cominenter
noted that EPA had acknowledged that
140 degrees F L. considerably above
expected wastewa ter temperatures. The
commenter concluded that prohibiting
discharges with a flashpolnt near this
temperature (‘140 degrees F) would
therefore be overly protective. Another
commenter urged EPA to allow case-by-
case variances from the prohibition
where It can be shown that the waste
will be rendered non-Igeitable upon
mixture In the sewer system. and aWl
another suggested that the Agency
consider regional variation. In
flashpolnts which would take Into
account differing temperatures in
different parts of the United States.
The Agency is not convinced that
prohibiting discharges with a flashpolnt
of less than 100 degrees F would be
sufficiently protective against firee and
explosions. Although the commenter
stated that such a flashpoint would
better reflect the temperatures
encountered in moat sewer systems
under actual conditions, the commenter
provided no data In support of this
argument Although it is true that moat
wastewater temperatures are below 140
degrees F. many industrial users
discharge very hot wastestreams to
sewers, with wastewater temperatures
ranging from 120 to 7.12 degrees F (e.g..
Industrial and commercial laundries. oil
refineries, food processors. textile
manufacturers, power generating
facilities, and any facility discharging
boiler biowdown). Temperatures of
wastewater in the sewer may therefore
reach or exceed 140 degrees F for brief
periods of tune near the point of a very
hot discharge. In addition. some sewer
use ordinances prohibit the discharge of
wastewater hotter than 150 degrees F.
which Indicates that wastewaters may
reach that temperature. Although such
discharges are eventually diluted with
cooler water In the sewer, combustion
could be sustained near the point of
discharge if the sewer wutewater
reached or exceeded 140 degrees F. a
wastestrearn with a fleshpoint below
140 degrees F were discharged. and a
source of Ignition (such a friction spark
or a Lighted cigarette) were present For
this reason. EPA does not agree that In-
sewer dilution always eliminates
hazardous conditions. or that a
flashpoint of 140 degrees F Is
wutecessarily stringent With respect to
case.by -case variances from the
flashpoint prohibition, the Agency
believes that the largest determinant of
sewer temperature at the point of
Industrial discharge is the temperature
of the industrial wastewaters
discharged. rather than the teciperatures
prevailing outside of the sewer. EPA has
decided not to allow case-by-case
variances based on ability of the waste
to be neutralized after mixture In the
sewer because such variances would
not protect against explosions that may
occur prior to such mixing. POTW5 may
establish more stringent limits than
those promulgated today at their
discretion.
With respect to the current exclusion
under RCRA (40 CER 281.21(aXl)) from
the ignutability characteristic for
aqueous solutions containing lea. than
24 percent alcohol by volume, some
commenters supported extending the
exemption to the proposed flashpotnt
prohibition. indicating that such
solutions are quiLe soluble. readily
diluted, effectively treated by PO ’TWs.
and pose little threat to POTWs. One
commenter stated that such solutions
could flash but would not sustain
combustion. but acknowledged that the
ability to flash I. connected to
explosiveness. This commenter believed
that deficiencies in operating practices
and equipment often accounted for
explosions. Other commentere did not
support such an exemption. One
commenter stated that even though such
solutions may not be able to sustain
combustion because of their high water
content, the more critical issue for
substances discharged to sewer lines is
the ability of the vaporr above the
aqueous solution to sustain combustion.
After evaluating this Issue. EPA has
concluded that an exemption from the
flashpoint prohibition for aqueous
solutions containing less than 7.4 percent
alcohol by volume is not appropriate.
POTW collection systems are an Ideal
environment for generation of
flammable/ignItable atmospheies
, ,nrnmaI air Interchange within
collection systems ensures that Ignitable
vapors once formed cannot easily be
dispersed. Promulgation of the
exemption would 111 mw the discharge to
POTWs of wutswatezs otherwise
failing the fiashpolnt test For example.
a flashpouit of 140 degrees F ,- . -
corresponds to an aqueous solution ,. . -.
containing only 0 percent ethyl alcohol’
by volume: an aqueous solution
containing 24 percent ethyl alcohol by
volume would have a flashpoint of 90
degrees. well below the flashpoint
specilled in today’s rule. Other allowed
discharges would Include potentially
flammable mixtures containing methyl
alcohol and Isopropyl alcohoL The
Agency believes that allowing an
exemption from the flaahpoint
prohibition for aqueous solution.
containing less than 24 percent alcohol
by volume would not sufficiently protect
POTWi and Is not proinulgeting such’
an exemption in today’, rule. The
Agency agrees that deflclendes In
operating practices and equipment may.
often be responsible for explosions, and
encourages industrial users to employ -
the best methods available to ensure
compliance with today’s prohibition.
One commenter noted that many’
POTWs use s closed-cup Tagliabue test
to determine fiemmabthty. and
suggested that EPA should consider
adding It to 11* LIst of closed cup testers.
The Agency agrees and notes that 40
CFR l.21(a)(1). which specifies test’
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 142 / Tuesday. July 24, 1990 / Rules and Regulation.s
30087
methods for the liquid lgnllabany
charscterfstlc. allows the use of
equivalent test methods 11 approved by
the Administrator under the procedures
set forth in 40 Q ’R 2 iO and 26021. To
enable POTW. to use equivalent test
methods according to these procedures.
the Agency has modified the proposed
prohibition to prohibit the discharge of
wastestres s with a dosed cup
fl shpolnl of less than 140 degrees F
using the test methods specified In 40
CFR 281.21.
Many commentere favored keeping
both the flashpolnt and La
prohibitions. These commentere
included State and local authorities who
said that these limits and methodologies
were both reasonable end necessary.
Other commeater , however, thought it
unnecessary to include both types of
prohibitions, and favored retention of
the flashpoint limitation or the L
limitation only. One commencer elated -
that the difficulty of enforcing the LEt
approach in no way diminishe, the need
for this prohibition, because It Is a much
more sensitive Indicator of fire or
explosion hazard. Same of the
ccmmanters who supported bath
prohibition, wanted to have the freedom
to choose one or the other or both on a
case-by-case basis, and one commenter
suggested that the flashpolnt and La
approach are better suited to be placed
in guidance document, rather than Los
regulation..
Few comnienter, supported use of the
LEt approach alone and many pointed
out limita dons to the LFI. methodology.
The most common criticisms were: (1)
Calibration of instruments Is difficult
since wastestiearng are a mixture of
substances. (2) tracing any sort of
exceedance In the collection system
wouid be almost Impossible, since the
LEt reading cannot distinguish which
chemicals are causing the exceedenca
(although some commenters believed
that LEt exceedance. could be traced
by such means as t ricking alarms to-
certaIn paint. in the sewer systemi (3)
unless continuously monitored, the LEt
would be an Instantaneous
measurement and therefore subject to
too much variability to accurately
represent Industrial users’
waltestreanis. (4) the L.EL of a - -
substance Is difficult to measure with
portable Instruments arid depends on
many variables that will affect the
accuracy of the measurement such as -
ambient temperature, VOC. air
exchange rate. oxygen concentration,
humldity (5) IndustrIal users would
have di cu1ty ascertaining whether
their discharges would cause a
violation, due to the uncertainty of
conditions that may exist “downstreajn
In the sewer system from their facilities,
and (6) the 10 percent tEL is too
stringent, since higher percentages of the
LEt are routinely reached. One
coinn1entez however, favored use of the
tEL approach. arguing that it was more
effective than the £ashpolnt technique
In measuring explosiv ty of mixtures
under actual sewer canditiocs.
EPA Is persuaded by certain of the
comzuenters’ arguments against
specifying a national prohibition based
on the LEt approach. Although (be
approach has proved very valuable for
many POfl Vs. EPA recoVilzee that
there ire certain technical difficulties
associated with this approach which
make It more suitable for use on a case-
by-case basis at the discretion of the
partIcular P01W than as a nationaLly
applicable standard. The principal
difficulty Is associated with calibration
of the Instruments. Although one
commen tar stated that the indicated LEL
Is accurately represented for the
- common solvents and does not require -
knowledge of the substance monitored.
othet coinmenters who addressed this
Issue stated that wilesa the tEl. meter is
calibrated using the exact gu that La to
be measured, it may not give an
accurate reading of the vapors present.
As an example. one comenter included a
table showing that great variation can
occur In LEt readings due to the
presence of different chemicals. This
would present a problem because the
proposed rule would have established
en LEt for any point in a P01W,
collection system. and the air space in
such systems generally contains many
different kinds of gases derived from the
complex mixtures of substance, In the
sewerage. EPA has therefore modified
proposed 40 CFR 403.3(b )(1) to delete the
prohibition en discharges which result
In an exceedance of 10 percent of the
LEt it any point within the POTW.
In response to the commenters who
suggested that EPA allow POTWi to
choose either the La or the flashpolnt
approach. the Agency sckriowledge,
that the flashpoint prohibition in todays
rule will not necessarily account for the
Iguitability of mixture, of industrial user
discharges when combined in sewers.
However, owing to the effect of dilution
within the sewer system, the Agency
believes that It Is generally reasonable
to assume that the concentrations of
combustible constituents in sewer
wastewater , will be well below the
concentrations required for lgnitabzlity,
provided that all Industrial user, are In
compliance with the flashpokg
prohibition. Fires and explosions from
the discharge of Ignitable pollutants
often occur In the P01W collection
system near the point of discharge, and
the temperaflaje in the collection system
at that point may be above the ambient
temperature, promoting the evaporation
of Ignitable wastes and the formation of
flammable vapor to air mixtures. For
these reasons, the Agency believes that
todays flashpoint prohibiUo Is
necessary to help prevent fires and
explosion, at sewers, and is not
adopting the suggestions that POTWs be
allowed to choose between that
approach and the La c c that explosivfty
problemi should be addressed in -
guidance only.
However, the Agency recognizes that
many P01W. have made effective use
of the LEt approach In preventing firee
and exploafons, and encourages P01W,
to develop programs which employ this
approach, If they deem it appropriate.
Many commanters who addressed
vapor phase monitoring used to trace
the source of an tEL exceedance stated
that such monitoring Is too expensive,
Some commenters were opposed to a
requirement for vapor phase monitoring,
stating that most POTWe do not have
access to the necessary methodologies,
and that PO11P/s could already track
sources without this methodology. One
commenter suggested that vapor phase
monitoring be done at site-specific
points within the PO N, Some
commente,s argued that the regulation
should not require the P01W to Identify
the compounds responsible for the
exceedences, but one commenter stated
that the detail, of a collections system,
the location of the LEt exceedence, and
the location of the Industhal users will
make eIIrniii stIon of facilities not
causing the problem possible without
the apectfc Identflcauon of each
industrial user’s waste,ti ’eam.
EPA did not propose, and Is not
fln Ii T ng , requirement, that vapor
phase monitorIng be performed, nor that
the Identity of the compound . causing
th. enceedences be revealed through
such monitoring. However, many
P01W. whIch adopt the LEt approach -
may choose to adopt such monitoring on
an ia-needed basis, In many cases the
source of an ascendance can be
discovered by other means.
c. Today’s rule. Today’s final rule
prohibit. the discharge of pollutants
which create a fire or explosion hazard
In the P01W, IncludIng, but not limited
to, wastestreania with a closed cup
flashpoint of less than 140 degrees
Farenhelt cr60 degrees Centigrade using
the test methods specified In 40 CFR
28121.
-------
30088 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24. 1990 I Rules and Reguladons
2. ReactIvity and Fume Toxicity
Waste. exhibiting the reactivity
characteristic are regulated wider RCRA
because their extreme Instability and
tendency to react violently or explode
make thema hazard to human health
and the environment during waste
management A solid waste exhibits the
RCRA characteristic of reactivity If It is
normally unstable and readily
undergoes violent change without
detonating reacts violently with water -
forms potentially explosive mixtures
with wateri generates potentially
harmful quantities of toxic gues. vapors
or fumes when mixed with watex Is *
cyanide or sulfide bearing waste which
when exposed to pH conditions between
2 and 12.5 can generate potentially
harmful quantities of toxic gases. vapors
or fumes 1. capable of detonation or
explosive reaction if It is subjected to a
strong Initiating source or if heated
under confinement 1, capable of
detonation or explosive decomposition
or reaction at standard temperature and
preuurei or Is aforbidden. Class A. or
Class B explosive pursuant to 49 ‘R
part 173 (see 40 CFR 1. (a)).
The health and safety of POTW
workers has long been a serious concern
of the Agency. There Is no question that
the generation of toxic gases and vapors
can sometime, be dangerous to the -
health and safety of these workers. thus
Interfering with operation. at the P01W
and even endangering human life. In
addition, the local general population’
could also suiler if su cIexit quantities
of toxic gases and vapors are released
from sewer vents or aeration or
containment basins. Gases and vapors
may be caused by chemical reactions
between constituents of the Industrial
discharge and the receiving sewage, or
microbial metabolism, Some toxic gases
can be generated as the result of stiiM.n
drops In pH. Besides generating toxic
gases and vapors when mixed with
sewage. industrial discharges may have
ms cientiy hl concentrations of toxic
gases and volatile liquids to cause toxic
levels of gas or vaporto farm above the
wastewater even If the discharge Is
dilated by the sewage. There have been
nsmerous instances of sewer
maintenance workers who have been
Injured or killed from toxic gase. formed
in sewers. While most accidents have
been caused by the formation of
hydrogen sulfide gases, more recent
Incidents have been linked to certain
cega ic poUiatants that either volatilized
srreacted with hydrogen sulfide within
the POTW collection system.
a. Proposed rule. The prnhibltlan
. g.m.t the discharge of pollutants
vhlih create a fire or explosion hazerd,
as modified by today’. rule to Include.
prohibition on the discharge of materials
with a flashpolnt of less than 140
degrees F., will help prevent harm to
POTW workers, as will the requirement
promulgated today that POTiNs
evaluate significant industrial users to
determine the need for plans to control
slug discharge. (see part B below). To
augment these prohibitions and provide
further protection, the Agency proposed
on November 23, 1988 to revIse 40 C ’R
403.5(b) to add a new subsectioa (6)
providing that no discharge to a POTW
should result In toxic gases. vapors, or
fumes within the POTW In a quantity
that may cause acute worker health and
safety problems. A also proposed to
revise 40 403.5(c) to require POTW5
to Implement the proposed narrative
prohibition In 40 CFR 403.5(bllO) by
establishing numerical discharge limits
or other controls where necessary based
on existing human toxicity crIteria or
other Information. Industhal uaers
would then be liable for any violations
of these limits or controls.
As possible Implementation
mechanisms. EPA suggested approaches
used by the American Conference of
Government IndustrIal Hygienists
(ACGIH) or the Metropolitan Sewer.
District of tTh r4nnatl . The ACGIH
publishes an annual list of threshold
limit values (TLVs) for numerous toxic
inorganic and organic chemicals. The
threshold limit values represent
estimated chemical concentrations In air
below which harmful health effects in
exposed populations are believed to be
unlikely to occur. The Metropolitan
Sewer District of C1”dnnati approach
feature. the use of a vapor headapace
gas chromatographic analysis of
equilibrated Industrial wastewater
discharge (one volume of was tewater to
one volume of air head space) at room
temperature (24 degrees C). The analysis
measures the total vapor space organic
concentration by calculating the total
peak area of the chromato am
expressed as parts per million (ppm) of
equivalent hexane.
The Agency solicited “ n”’ ’ts on
the addition of this prohibition to the
general pretreatment regulations and on
the feasibility of developing local limits
from human toxicity citena or other
Information such as those discussed
above. The Agency requested
on the practicality of such a prohibition.
or alternative regulatory ways to protect
worker health and safety. and on
whether worker health and safety is
adequately protected by the present
general and specific discharge
prohibitions.
b. Response to comments. The Agency
received many comments on the
proposed rule. Comments were received
From States, environmental groups,
POTWs and industries. The majority of
the ecoimenters supported the narrative
prohibition (proposed 40 CFR
403.5(b)(8)) but were against requiring
implementation of numerical Limits
(proposed 40 R 4033(c)). These
cornmeuters generally believed that
such numerical limits would be too
difficult and expensive for POTWs to
develop. In generaL the commenters
believed that the approaches used by
ACGfl I and the Metropolitan Sewer
District of Cincinnati would be useful as
gujdanr . or as a screening tooL but that
the actual criteria are so imprecise that
It would be beet not to require POTWs
to Implement them.
Some commenterl pointed out that the
Metropolitan Sewer District of
Cincinnati approach contained
potentially serious flaws In that the 300
ppm equivalent hexane Limit might not
provide adequate prctection against
more toxic compounds. These
comxnenters said that the CIncinnati
approach could thus provide workers -
with a false sense of safety. Other
co” ters stated that the approach
would only be va 4 if the wutewater in
the sewer was at equilibrium with the
air above the wagtswster and the
wastewater acts as an ideal liquid -
mu uze. -
Some commenters also expressed
concern about the ACGU-i list of ,r
chemical threshold limit values, stating.
that the list Includes skin and dust ....
hazards as well as vapor hazards. The
commenters stated that the list of TLV
compounds appears to be very large, but’
many of the compounds on the list are
not applicable to the Agency’s purpose.
Only 138 compounds on the TLV list are
for short term exposure (exposure, of
less than 8 hours duration within the
POTSY). The 238 compounds can then be
further reduced by the removal of sImple
asphyidants (Inert gas’s , vapors and
solids (dust.)). Thus. oomm.”ters
believed that the number of ACGIH -- -
listed chemicals that could reelAstiimlly
be limited by POTWs is vsey rn Ii
These commentess also said that
ACGIH specifically dls’1 Ims its ThV
list for setting envfronmental standards.
ACGIIfs basis for this disclaimer Is that
the averaging process Involved In
deter il&ng the Thy. t , inappropriate
for establishing such standards.
Some iinnt stated that even
though EPA has never explicitly
required P01W. to develop local limits
to prevent pass through or interference
due to reactive chemicals and fuss.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
30089
toxicity, almost all TWs have
ordinance prohibitions or local limits to
handle common pollutants such as
.ulflda that have been associated with
worker health and safety problem..
After evaluating this Issue, the
Agency has concluded that the actual
methods discussed In the November 23,
1988 proposal (as well as other methods)
are not sufficiently precise at the
present time to require POTWs to base
enforceable local limits upon these
methods. None of the approaches
currently to use are necessarily suitable
for required use at all P01W.. although
they may fit the needs of many POTWs
after certain modifications. For this
reason. EPA Is not promulgating a
requirement to develop numerical limits
to protect worker health and safety
based upon specified procedures. The
Agency believes that a narrative
prohibition coupled with guidance on
developing limits would allow POTWs
more U.eidbthty to adopt Implementation
procedures to meet their particular
needs while providing adequate
protection of worker health and safety.
EPA La therefore promuigatlng the
nan’ative prohibition on reactivity and
fume toxicity and plans to Issue
guidance on developing numerical
limits. -
One coin, t.nter suggested that EPA
should require lWs to use proper
confined space entry procedure. otto
monitor their systems with portable gas
chramstugraphs (CCa) to protect worker
health and safety. The commenter also
suggested that Industrial users causing
worker health problems should be
required to Install activated carbon
treatment uy.truzl or to perform
continuous monitoring using GCs.
Another !nmm. , teT said that POTW5
should niInet extensive
Investigation of the effects organic
compounds have on their system. after
which limits could be developed for
contributors of organic pollutants. Other
commeatme .u gvsted requiring P Ns
to develop an btenstvs safety tiinIng
foe P01W employee., or
allowing P01W. to substituts such
measoree as posure surveys,
en eerIng controls. or personal safety
eqmlpm.”* for numeric limits.
One ‘ ‘ ‘ter suggested that EPA
should require tests to be used by
Industrial users to prevent the discharge
of wastewaters with high levels of toxic
constituents, such as the test used by
the Metropolitan Sewer District of
Cincinnati. The commenter also
suggested forbidding the discharge of
any wnstew.ters contaIning hazardous
constituents at concentrations which
could give rise to chronic worker
exposures higher than the relevant
OSHA Time-Weigh ted Average
Occupational Standard (TWA).
According to the commenter. a simple
algorithm could be devised relating
TWA. to the concentration of hazardous
constituents In the discharge. Industrial
users would be prohibited from
discharging a wastewater which the
algorithm predicted would give rise to
vapor concentrations higher than the
TWA. As another alternative, the
comnienter suggested that EPA adopt
particular tests for certain types of
wastes that can react in low or high pH
environments and give off toxic gases.
EPA should particularly consider
adapting to POTWs the simple scenario
It used to quantify the narrative
characteristic test used In RCRA for
cyanide and sulfide bearing wastes.
EPA encourages POTWs to use any or
all of the above approaches (or
modifications thereof) which they find
necessary to protect worker health and
safety at their facilities. However.
because the numbers and types of
Industrial users vary so widely among
POTWs, the Agency does not believe
that any single test, training program.
treatment technology, monitoring
-approach, or combination thereof Is
currently suitable for a nationally
applicable rule to protect worker health
and safety. Today’. rule allows POTWs
to Impose controls on particular
Industrial users based on numeric limits
on specific pollutants or through other
measures that address their own
particular site-specific concerns.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 4co3(d). the
approach selected by the POTW will be
federally enforceable. With respect to
the OSHA TWA approach suggested
above, the Agency note. that this
approach Is similar to one suggested by
EPA In Its Guidance Manual on the
Development and Implementation of
Local Discharge Lin-utotions Under the
Pretreatment Program. This approach
Involves using ACGIH threshold limit
value-time weighted averages (TLV-
TWA.) which serve as a measure of
fume toxicity from which sorecuing
levels for all Industrial user discharges
can be calculated. However, the Agency
notes that the TWA level. are the vapor
phase concentrations of compounds to
which workers may be exposed over
long periods of time without adverse
effect. In generaL POTW workers are
not exposed for extended periods of
time to sewer atmospheres. The Agency
also notes that the algorithm suggested
by the conimenter did not appear to take
into account the effect of possible
dilution or mixture with other
.substances In the sewer. For these
reasons. the Agency recommends the
use of such approaches as a way to
e een industrial users’ discharges. but
recommends POTW reliance upon site-
specific data in developing actual
controls for industrial users. In some
cases. the use of improved chemical
handling or management practices may
eliminate any problems. Similarly,
regarding the narrative characteristic
test under RCR.A for cyanide and sulfide
bearing wastes, the Agency believes
that this test is best adapted by POTWs
on a case-by-case basis to address their
particular circumstances with respect to
acidity or corrosivity which could result
In fume toxicity.
One commeoter urged that EPA
clarify that a specific discharge
constituent must Itself be a significant
source of actual toxic gas, vapor, or
fume problems In order to fall within the
scope of the prohibition. This
commenter said that the proposed
regulatory language could prohibit the
discharge of biochemical oxygen
demand (BODJ. which con tributes to
anaerobic conditions, and otherwise
innocuous sulfate (toxic hydrogen
sulfide levels can be generated in -
POTW sewers through the reduction of
sulfates by anaerobic bacteria.
according to this commenter). Another
consmenter urged the Agency to limit the
applicability ol th. proposed prohibition
to those situations where a P0IW
Interprets the prohibition through
adoption of specific numerical discharge
limits. La this way, Industrial user,
would not be subject to the prohibition
in the absence of numencal limits
developed by the POTW. Another
suggested that EPA prohibit only those
substances discharged In a quantity
known to cause worker health and
safety problems. This commenter
pointed out that the only instance cited
In the November 23. 1988 preamble of
actual Injury to workers involved
hydrogen su1flde and stated that
regulation of other substances was
unjustified because the existing
prohibitions already protect worker
health and safety.
In response. the Agency notes that all
of the specific discharge prohibitions
apply even In the absence of numeric
limits developed by the POTW to
Implement such prohibitions. In
addition. EPA does not agree that
regulation of other substances besides
hydrogen sulfide is unjustified to protect
worker health and safety. The Domestic
Sewage Study found that adverse health
effects on POTW workers have been
caused by a variety of pollutants
(Including toluerie, benzene. hexane.
-------
30090 Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 142 I Tuesday. July 24. 1990 I Rules and ‘Regulations
phenol. hexavalent chromium. and
chloroform).
However, the Agency agrees that
there ate certain situations In which
Industrial users should act be held
responsible for a violation of the general
pretxeatment regulations (including
today’s pohibition against fume
toxicity) because they did not possess
the information necessary for them to
prevent the causative discharge. To
addreu this concern. ‘A Is today
amending 40 ( R 403.5(a)(2J to provide
that an Industrial user, In any action
brought against It alleging a violation of
40 ( 4 .5(b)(7). shall have an
affirmative defense where that user can
demonstrate that It did not Imow or
have reason to know that Its discharge,
alone or in con j ctiou with a discharge
or discharge. from other sources, caused
pass through or Interference. Pursuant to
40 O ’R 403.5(e 112). the affirmative
defense would also be available iI the
Industrial user were In compliance with
local developed to prvv nt pass
through and mterfermice , or (where so
such limits for the pollutants in question
had been developed) If the Industrial
user’s discharge had cot changed
substantially in nature or constituents
from the uses’s prior discharge activity
when the P01W was In compliance
with the POTW’s NPDES pemit or
applicable requlroments foe sewage
sludge use or disposaL
c. Today’s rule, Today’s rule adds a
new requirement (40 CFR 4 3(bJ(7) that
no discharge to the POTW shall result In
toxic gases, vapors, or fumes within the
POTW in a quantity that may cause
acute worker health and safety
problems. Today’s rule also amends 40
CFR 403 .5(a)(2) to provide that an
industrial user shall have an affirmative
defense In any action brought against It
alleging a violation of 40 CFR 403.5(b)(7J.
if it can make the appropriate
demonstrations pursuant to 40 CFR
403.5(aX2)(i) and (U).
3. RCRA Tonicity -
The Study d l scirssed the possibility of
developing a specific prohibition to
forbid the discharge of waste exhibiting
the characteristic of to,ddty. u
measored by the Extraction Procedure
(EP) or Tc,adty CharacterIstic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP). This prohibition was
not proposed in the November , iS
rule, but was discussed In the ANPR
published La the F.del Registor on
August . 19 (51 FR 30186).
The EP tmddty test and the TU) are
designed to . 4m te the propensity of
metals and organic oontamiTuln t t to
leach from a laadflhled or land-applied
waste Into ground water. The F l ’ to,dcity
test was used under RCRA to determine
which wastes are hazardous by virtue of
exhibiting the characteristic of toxicity.
On March 1990 (55 FR 11798) the
Agency published a final rulemaking
which, when effective, will replace the
EP with the T P, which EPA believes
provides a better measure of the
propensity of pollutants to leach from a
land.disposed waste.
EPA solicited comments in the A1IPR
on whether the EP toxicity test or the
TCLP would be appropriate for
deterrrnning whether particular
pollutants are likely to cause pass
through and interference. EPA noted
that material, may be subsequently
diluted when mixed with large amounts
of domestic sewage. and that POTWs
are capable of removing many such
materials even in small amounts.
Comments in response to the ANPR
were overwh -lr ing1y opposed to adding
specific prohibitions to the pretreatment
regulations based on either the EP or the
TCLP tests. Commenters generally
asserted that since the tests model the
tendency foe metals and organic
constituents to leach from a b iii4flh1edor
land-applied waste into ground water,
the tests were inappropriate for -
assessing whether an Industrial
wastewater h hiirg. would cause paso
through or Interference at a POTW.
The Agency believes that requiring
Industrial wastestreams discharged to
POTWs to pass either of the RCRA -
toxicity tests may result In both under-
regulation and over-regulation of -
various poUutants with little technical -
justification, since application of the
tests to industrial effluents does not take
Into account POTW removal efficiencies
nor the potential for adverse Impact on
POTW collection and treatment - -
systems. The Agency believes that
current controls on toxic discharges
from industrial users (the interference
and pass through prohibition.
categorical standards, and local limits)
and from POTWs (permit limits. -
including controls on toiocity) axe
currently the best way to regulate
materials that would warrant sp.’ I
consideration under RC A due to
leacliability characteristics. For these
reasons, EPA did not propose to change
the current specific discharge
prohibitions to add a prohibition based
on any RCRA toxicity characteristic, nor
is the Agency finalizing such a
prohibition In today’s rule.
One co” nter on the ANPP. while
agreeing that the RCRA toxicity teats
were not necessanly suitable tot
Industrial wasteweter discharges.
suggested that the Agency develop a
leaching test applicable to such
discharges because of the likelihood that
they would leak from sewers and cause
cont.aminatioo of ground water.
EPA believes that such a test would
be premature at the present t:ime
because of the lack of available
information about the extent of ground
water contamination caused by leaky
sewers. When more data is available.
the Agency may consider developing
such a test if appropriate.
4. Corrosivity (4( .5(b)(2))
Section 403.5(b)(2) of the general
pretreatment regulations currently
prohibits the discharge of “pollutants
which will cause corrosive structural
damage to the P01W. (including)
discharges with pH lower than 5.0.
unless the works is specifically designed
to accommodate such discharges.” This
prohibition provides a numeric limit on
the discharge of aQdlc wastes, but does
not contain a corresponding pH
limitation for caustic wastes. The Study
reviewed local ordinxnesi and found
that many provided numeric limits on
the discharge of caustic wastes.
The RCM corroswity characteristic is
designed to address wastes which could
endanger human health or the
environment due to their ability to
destroy human or animal tissue In the
event of Inadvertent contact corrode
handling storage, transportation. an4 1
management equIp nt or mobilize,
toxic metals in a landfill environment
Under 40 CFR 281.22, an aqueous waste
exhibits the hazardous characteristic of
corrostv ty if its pH ii less than or equal
to 2 or greater than or equal to 12.5, or if
it Is liquid and capable of corroding.
steel at a rate greater than 0.250 Inches
per year at a test temperature of 130
degrees F. EPA solicited colnmnpnts La
the ANPR (51 FR 30186) on whether the
discharge of such wastes to POTWs.
should be prohibited.
Almost no comments were received -
on this Issue. One commenter believed -
that the current specific 44,rhsirg
prohibitions were inadequate to control
hazardous wastes which exhibit the:
corrosivfty characteristic as defined -
under R A. The commeoter suggested
that the prohibition be amended to
Include a maximum pH. because the
Study had found that some local
ordinances were setting maximum pH
limitations In the range of 9.0 to 11.0.
Virtually all of the reported pH -
related Incidents at POTWs Involve
corrosion caused by the discharge of
acidic wastes. which are already
prohibited by the current specific
discharge prohibItions. The Agency has
no evidence that high pH wastes are a
problem far most POTW collection
systems. For this reason, the Agency Is
-------
Federal Register / Vol 55. No. 142 I Tuesday. July 24, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
30091
not amending 40 CFR 403.3(bX2) to add
a prohibition on high pH wastes it the
present time. However. EPA encourages
pOTWs to address any problems with
caustic wastes through their local limits.
5. 011 and Grease
a. huposed rule. There are currently
no specific nation-wide prohibitions
against disposing of oil and grease in
sewers, although the existing
prohibitions forbid the discharge of
pollutants which cause pau through or
interference or which obstruct flow at
the POTW.
The Agency is concerned about the
possibility that the volume of used oil
discharged to sewers is Increasing to the
point of causing interference or pass
through. The likely Increase In volume of
used oil disposed of In this way Is due to
several factors, among them lower
prices for crude oil which make It less
profitable to recycle used oil. In
addition, the Agency Is developing a
regulatory program under RCRA to
control the management of used oil.
Including used oil that Is recycled. Such
regulations could lead to increased
discharges of used oil to sewers if these
are no controls Imposed under the Clean
Water Act.
To address these concerns and to
strengthen the om ’rent prohibitions
against pass through end interference.
on November , 19 the Agency
• o l i tedccmmentonrevti1ng40
403.5(b) to add a new provision
prohibiting the dis’4’ ’ge of used oil to
POTW. “Used oil” was generally
described an any oil that has been
refined from crude oil, used, and, as $
result of such use. coutam1r ted by
physical or chemical Impurities. The
proposal would have covered
automotive lubricating oils. transmission
and brake fluid. spent Industrial oils
such as compressor. turbine. and
bearing oils, hydraulic oils,
metalworking. gain electrical, and
refrigerator oils, railroad dr 4” g . and
spent industrial process oils. WA
solicited comm ’ no the possible
advantages and disadvantages of such a
prohibition. and on which particular
kinds of used oil should be covered by
the prohibition.
b. Respons. to comments. The
majority of commenters who addressed
this Issue believed that a complete
prohibition of the discharge of used oil
would not be practical. but many
commenters indicated support fore
numerical limitation. Moat of these
commenters suggested that any
prohibition should contain a de minimia
exemption (or small quantities of used
oil, since discharges from many
Industrial users contain small amounts
of oil from washdown or cleaning
waters that may not be completely
removed by a grease trap or oil
separator. These conimcnters generally
believed that used oil In such small
quantities presented little danger of pass
through or interference, and that any
prohibition should apply only to bulk
dumping of large quantities. Three
commenters suggested a limitation of
100 milligrams per liter of fats, oils, and
grease as being reasonable and
consistent with local limits established
by many POTWs. Other cornmenters
were opposed to any kind of prohibition.
stating that problems with used oil were
already adequately addressed by the
general and specific prohibitions against
pass through and Interference and local
limits for oil and grease.
Some commenters pointed out that
certain used oils (i.e., animal and
vegetable oils and certain oiL . used In
machine cutting and metalworking) are
highly biodegradable. These
commeriters stated that biological
digestion In the POTW treatment system
Is the most appropriate treatment for
these substances, and that a complete
prohibition would lead to other methods
of disposal which wvuld ultimately be
less protective of the envfronment.
However, some of these ccmmenteil
acknowledged that such oils could
Interfere with POTW operations If
discharged In very large quantities. One
commenter suggested that the proposed
prohibition should include restaurant
grease because It has been known to
eause Interference. and is easily
rendered.
Several commentera stated that the
discharge of used oil to POTWs should
not be completely prohibited until
sufficient methods were available for
other kinds of disposaL Some of these
commentess recommended that EPA
encourage alternative mechanisms for
the safe. legal. and Inexpensive recovery
of oil and disposal of the residue. along
with incentives far collecting and
recycling used oil. One conimenter
suggested a national educational
campaign directed towards do4t-
yourself oil changers.
Several conim ntem supported a
complete prohibition on the discharge of
used oil to sewers. One POTW stated
that such a prohibition would ensure
that it would not have to make case-by-
case determination’ on whether
requested discharges of used oil would
violate its local limits. Another
commenter stated that a prohibition
should also include restaurant greases
because these can interfere with POTW
operations and because current test
methods do not distinguish between
these oils and oil.. of other origin.
Another cominenter who supported a
complete prohibition stated that
allowing the discharge of used oil would
contradict EPA’s pollution prevention
policy, which seeks to avoid cross-
media transfer of pollutants. This
comnienter stated that a prohibition
would provide the incentive for
generators to reduce the amount of used
oil they generate as well as to recycle
what they produce. A prohibition woulJ
also stimulate development cia
recycling market that would reduce
costs and promote the
institutionalIzation of recycling habits
and ethics.
EPA agrees with those ccmmenters
who said that a complete prohibition on
the discharge of oil is unnecessary.
Trace aniounts of such oil are very
difficult to eliminate from the
wastewatere of Industrial users.
Complete elimination could necessitate
costly process or treatment changes
which would be difficult to justify given
the Agency’s assessment that the danger
of pass through or Interference from
small amounts of used oils Is slight.
Although used oil is an energy resource
that might be better collected and
recycled than discharged to POTNs. -.
today’s rule would go some distance
towards accomplishing this goal (as well
as the aim of pollution prevention).
without Incurring the disadvantages of.
complete prohibition.
EPA agrees with those comnienters
who stated that oils of animal or
vegetable origin (such as restaurant
greases) can be more easily accepted by
wastewater treatment systems. These
oils (as well as certain synthetic oils
such as machine cutting or
metalworidng oils) can be metabolized
by microorganisms In secondary waste
treatment facilities and are readily
reduced In concentration In aerobic and
anaerobic biological treatment systems.
For this reason, the Agency believes that
a prohibition or a national limitation on
such oils would not be appropriate.
Howeven the Agency believes that
the discharge to I ’Ws of oils of
petroleum or mineral origin 1. of
potential concern, since these oils aie
less biodegradable in secondary
treatment plants. Release of such oil
thus has mole potential to interfere with
operations it POT’We. particularly In the
case of smaller plants. In eddition. these
oils can contain a variety of toxic or
hazardous constituents such as PCBs.
benrene. chromium, arsenic, cadmium.
and lead. EPA has analyzed the
potential for pass through of these
pollutants to surface waters and to
sludge. Results showed that when large
volumes of used oil are discharged.
-------
QO92 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 142 I Tuesday. luly 24. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
there is a potential for pass through and
violations of waler quality criteria.
Some of the constituents La
contaminated used oil, such as
trichioroethane. are very water soluble
and thus are characterized by a high
mobility potentiaL Metals such as
cadmium. chromium. and lead are very
persistent in the environment when
released from the P01W in sludge or in
wastewater effluent.
For these reasons. the Agency agrees
with those commenters who urged
limitations on petroleum and mineral-
based oil discharged to P0 ’rws. In light
of comments received. EPA considered a
complete ban on the discharge of such
materials, a nation-wide numeric limit.
or a new narrative prohibition. As
described above. EPA determined that a
complete ban was not necessary
because small amounts of such oils are
not expected to cause pass through or
Interference. With respect to the option
of promulgating a national numeric
limitation on the discharge of such oils
to POl’Ws. EPA does not currently have
sufficient Information upon which to
base a limit of general applicability. For
this reason. EPA ii not promulgating a
numeric limit of national applicability.
EPA i* therefore revising the specific
discharge prohibitions to add a new
provisIon (40 CTh 403.5(b)(6)) to prohibit
the discharge of petroleum oil,
nonbiodepadable cutting oil, or•
products of mineral oil origin In amounts
that will cause Interference or pass
through. Under existing 40 CFR 403.5(c)
(1) and (2), P01W. with approved
pretreatsient programs would then be
required to Implement lu. prohibition
by developing specific limits for auch
substances, and other P01W. would be
required to develop such limits In cases
where pass through or interference bad
occurred and was likely to recur.
Todays rule thus provides more
specificity than is provided by the
existing general prohibitions against
pass through sad interference by
including a specific prohibition -
addressing petroleum and miners)-
based oils and nonbiodagredable cutting
oils,
In response to the ccuimentets who
stated that the Agency should not - -
prohibit the discharge of used oil until
sufficient methods were available for
other kinds of disposal. EPA notes that
todays rid. doe . not Include * complete
prohibition on the discharge of any type
of oil to P01W.. For this reason. ths
Agency Ii not adopting any specific
regulatory measures to Incorporate
these comazeaters’ suggestions it th.
present tima. although the Agency.
encourages voluntary efforts In this
regard.
As preliminary guidance to PCTWs in
establishing local limits. EPA reiterates
that some commenters mentioned 100
milligrams per liter as an oil and grease
limit frequently used by P01W., Some
standard manuals of sewer use practice
and some studies have recommended
limitations of 25 to 75 milligram, per
liter of petroleum oils. nonbiodegradable
cutting oils. or products of mineral oil
origin. One comnienter submitted a list
of eight mtuilcipalities In which the
cominenter operated. Of the eight. five
had limits of tOt) milligrams per liter on
oil and grease arid two bad more
stringent limits. Only one had Limits
which were less stringent P01W.
should adopt lunits as stringent as
necessary to protect against pea.
through or Interference at their
particular facilities.
As dL cusaed earlier in today’s notice.
some commenters on EPA’s proposed
fume toxicity prohibition expressed
concern about possible liability for
violation of the prohibition when they
did not possess the Information
necessary for them to prevent the
causative discharge. The Agency
believes that this Is also a valid concern
for potential violators of today’s
prohibition against the discharge of
certain types of oil in amounts that
cause pass through or interference. To
address this concern, the Agency Is
today amending 40 CFR 403.Sfa)(2) to -
provide that an industrial user, In any
action brought against it alleging a
violation of 40 CFR 403.5(b) [ 8), shaU
have an affirmative defense where that
user can demonstrate that It did not
know or have reason to know that Its
discharge, alone or in conjunction with a
discharge or discharges from other
sources. caused pass through or
interference. Pursuant to 40 CFR
403.(afl2), the defense would also be
available lithe industrial user were in
compliance with local limits developed
to prevent pass through and
Interference, or (where no such limits for
the pollutants In question had been..
developed) if the Industrial users
discharge had not changed substantially
in nature or constituents from the users
prior discharge activity when the P01W
was In compliance with the P01W’.
NPDES permit or applicable
requirements for sewage sludge use or
disposal.
c. Today’s nile. Today’s rule adds a
new reqwremanl [ 40 Q ’R 403.5(b)(Ofl
prohibiting the discharge of petroleum
oil. noablodegradable cutting oil, or
products of mineral oil origin In amounts
that will cause interference or pass
through. Today’s rule also amends 40
CFR 403.5(a)(2) to provide that an
industrial user shall have sri affirmative
defense in any action brought against it
alleging a violation of 40 CFP. 403.5(b)(6).
if it can make the appropriate
demonstration, pursuant to 40 CFR
403.5(a)(2) (I) and (ii).
8. Solvent Wastes
a. Proposed nj/a. On November 23.
1988. EPA solicited comment on revising
the specific discharge prohibitions to
prohibit the discharge of listed solvent
hazardous wastes from non-specific
sources as defined in 40 CFR 281.31
(EPA Hazardous Wastes No.. Ft)O1,
F002, F003, F004. and F005). These
solvent listings (about 30 organic
compounds) encompass spent solvents.
spent solvent mixture. and still bottoms
from the recovery of spent solvents and
spent solvent mixture.. The compounds
were listed on the basis of ignitability
and/or toxicity.
Discharges of solvent wastes to
P01W. have Involved actual fires or
explosions. or potential flies which
caused evacuation of treatment plant
buildings or ether measures to protect
treatment or collection systems.
Incidents have also been documented
involving hazards to worker health and
safety and inhibition or upset of -
biological treatment systems. In
addition. analysi, of pollutant fate
within P01W systems has shown that
significant quanti ties of solvents pass
through to receiving waters where . -
biological treatment system.. are not
well acclimated to the pollutant In
question. For these reasons. the Agency
solicited comment on revising the
specific discharge prohibitions to
prohibit the discharge of certain solvent
wastes listed under 40 CFR 281.31.
Specifically. EPA solicited comment on
whether existing local limits, the
proposed revisions to the specific
discharge prohibitions concerning
igriltabilhty end fume toxicity, and the
proposed solvent msnsgement
component of Industrial user spill and
batch control plan. would address most
of the concerns discussed above.
possibly making a ban on solvents -
redundant. The Agency stated that a
possible advantage of these proposed
revisions is that they would address the
discharge of organic ccmpounds not
used as solvents. The Agency solicited
comment on whether the possible
impacts of solvents on receiving waters
would justify prohibiting thes. wastes
from being discharged to P01W .. and
whether such a prohibition would b
appropriate for those highly water.
soluble solvent wastes which are more
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 142 / Tuesday. July 24. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
30093
appropriately treated by biolo cal
degradation processes such as those
used at POT, 1e.
b. Response to comments. in general.
commenters did not support a ban on
th. discharge of listed solvents. Many
mmefltefI pointed out that a complete
ban would not be practical because
most industries cannot completely
eliminate detectable levels of solvents
from their discharges. Solvent recovery
systems reduce the total amount of
hazardous waste present in a
wastestiearn but there Is still a need to
dispose of the “F” listed still bottoms.
Commecters pointed out that some
solvent wastes (e.g.. acetone, ethyl
acetate, and methanol) can be
effectively treated at POTWe using
secondary trea ent Some commentere
stated that the presence of certain
organic solvent wastes can be beneficial
to a biological treath ent system.
Many comnientere believed that
existing or proposed regulations
concerning ignitability. fume toxicity.
solvent management plans. categorical
standards and sludge control were
euffident (along with local limits) to
prevent the discharge of listed solvent
waste, from causing interference or
pass through at POTWs.. These
commentere stated that a proposed ban
on the discharge of listed solvent wastes’
would therefore be redundant
However, several commenters aid
support a ban on listed solvents. One
commenter urged the Agency to make
the prohibition constituent.speclflc so
that constituents of concern from the
RCRA IC” and “U” lists could also be
included. This commenter also urged the
prohibition of alcohol and ketone
wastes, stating that these wastes pose
significant health problems. Other
commenters stated that numerical limits
should be estabLished, or that an
aggregate limit similar to the Total Toxic
Organlcs standard for the electroplating
and metal finist’ tg industries be
promulgated. One commenter suggested
that each significant industri a] user be
required to institute a To,dcs Organic.
Management Plan.
Alter reviewing th. comments and
evaluating this issue. the Agency has
decided not to prohibit th. discharge of
RCRA listed solvents F001-F005 at this
time. EPA believes that such a
prohibition would not be Justified in
light of all the existing controls
(including those promulgated today)
designed to address the problems
caused by solvents. For example, the
prohibition on the discharge of
wastestreams with a flashpoint below
140 degrees Farenheit (the RCRA
standard for ignitable liquid waste)
should effectively prevent the discharge
of substances (Including solvents) that
could cause fires at POTW. Similarly,
the prohibition of discharges resulting in
toxic gases. vapors, or fumes In a
quantity that may cause acute worker
health and salety problems should go
very far towards øh’r ilnatIng any
problems occasioned by the
volatilization of solvent discharges In
POTW collection and treatment
systems. As discussed earlier. EPA I .
preparing guidance for POTWs on how
to implement this prohibition through
numeric limits.
Today’s final rule also contains a
requirement that all POTWs with
approved pretreatment programs
evaluate their significant industrial
users to determine if these users need
plans for the control and prevention of
slug discharges. Such plan.. must contain
any necessary measures for controlling
toxic organic. (including solvents). EPA
believes that this provision will be an
effective vehicle for extending solvent
management plans to noncategorical
significant Industrial users. Many
categorical users are already covered by
Total Toxic Organic and solvent
management plan requirements. In light
of these requirements. the Agency does
not believe that It is necessary to
promulgate a total toxins organic
management plan requirement as part of
the general pretreatment standards.
With respect to establishing
numerical. constituent.specific. or
aggregate limits for specific solvents or
waste constituents of concern, the
Agency believes that such limit. wc ild
not be appropriate at the national level.
Such limits could not, of necessity.
address the concerns of particular
municipalities with their unique
combinations of industrial users and
site-specific problems. For this reason.
the Agency prefers at this time to leave
the development of such limits to
POTW.
c. Today’s Rule. For the reasons
discussed above, today’s rule does not
contain a prohibition against the
discharge of listed solvent hazardous
wastes to POTWs.
B. Spills and Batch Dischai’ges (Slugs)
(40 CF’R 4 8(f)(2)(V))
a. Proposed Ch nge
The principal pretreatment regulation
addressed specifically to slugs is the
existing requirement in 40 CFR 403.12(0
that all industrial users notify POTWs of
discharges that could cause problems at
their POTW. including any slug loadings
that would violate any of the specific
prohibitions of 40 CFR 403.5(b).
Spills and batch discharges present
special challenges to POTWs, As
documented by data on incident, at
POTWs. these discharges can cause
many problems at the treatment plant.
Including worker illness. actual or
threatened explosion, biological upset or
inhibition, toxic fumes, corrosion. and
contamination of sludge and receiving
waters. A survey undertaken by the
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage
Agencies (AMSA) indicated that spills
to sewer systems were the most
common source of hazardous wastes at
the respondents’ treatment plants.
The current general pretreatment
regulations do not address these
problems comprehensively. To address
this concern and to strengthen the
existing prohibitions against pass
through and interference, EPA proposed
on November 23, 1988. to revise 40 CFR
403.8(fl(2)(v) to provide that POTWs
must evaluate each of their significant
industrial users to determine whether
such users need a plan to prevent and
control slug loading,. This evaluation
was proposed to be required at the same
time that the POTW conducts Inspection
or sampling of a significant industrial
user. POTWs would use the opportunity
of an Inspection or sampling to examine
the operational practices and physical
premises of a significant industrial user
to decide whether these warranted the
development of a plan to handle and
prevent accidental spi 1 is or non-routine
batch discharges.
The proposal would also have revised
40 CFR 403.8(fl(2)(v) to provide that If
the POTW decides that such a plan is
warranted for a particular significant
industrial user, the plan must contain, at
a minimum, the following elements:
(1) Description of discharge practices.
including nonroutlne batch discharges:
(2) Description of stored chemicals;
(3) Procedures for promptly notifying
the POTW of slug discharges as defined
under 40 R 403.5(b), with procedures
for follow-up written notification within
five days:
(4) Any necessary procedures to
prevent accidental spills. Including
maintenance of storage areas. handling
and transfer of materials, loading and
unloading operations. and control of
plant sit. run-off
(5) Any necessary measures for
building any containment structures or
equlpmen
(6) Any necessary measures for
controlling toxic organics (including
solvents);
(7) Any necessary procedures and
equipment for emergency response; and
(8) Any necessary follow-up practices
to limit the damage suffered by the
treatment plant or the environment
-------
30094 Federal Register! Vol. 55. No. 142 / Tuesday. July 24. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
EPA solicited comments os all upects
of the proposed revisions. Specifically.
the Agency requested comments on the
following issues Whether EPA should
wipoee specific spill or batch control
reqrnrements directly on Industrial
users whether the control plan.
proposed to be required should be
limited to significant industiial users or
expanded to cover all tndusthai users.
as limited to other categories such so
industrial users who submit notification
of the diachn’ge of hazardous wastes
under proposed 49 CPR 403.12 p
whether the requirements of 40 CFR
403.i2((J. section m3(a) of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response. Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1 0 ( CL.A). and section
304(b) of the Superfluid Amendments
and Reauthorization Act of 1988 (SARA)
are dupllrntive and unduly burdensome
and if so. on bow such duplication could
be avoided; whether It would be
appropriate to establish certain
,nirn Dative exemption.. from the
rrt n 103 Q.A notification
r ui,ement.s for indirect dischargers:
and whether industrial users should be
e,empted from having to notify the
POTW of those slug discharge.. for
which they have submitted CLPi
Response to Comments
the Agency re etved many comments
on this aspect of the proposed rule from
TWs. States, private Industry, bade
arsudalion. and environmental groups.
genesuI. commentere supported the
proposal because It would thcreaoe
of slugs while still retaining
TW flexibility. These comment era
‘Ir . r d that many POTWs have
already successfully reduced slugs using
i ,,!rbr cuntrol plans. A number of’
stressed such benefits of
d rg osatrol plans as facilitation of ear’y
g ’ and better control and clean.
u?oIamideotal discharges. Some
offered suggested
tions or modifinat ni ., as.
. ,I1....rr t below. -
Os y a few commenlels opposed the
hu Jyused rule. Some commenters
b beved that some POTWs already
&au ocadures and rulas eves mare
than those proposed by the
A y . and that slugs are already
i teIy regulated under existing
pretreatment. CERCLA. SARA. and
&,eqairements. Because of the
m different types of Industrial users
w. im the regulated community. some
indicated coacem that
r 1 slug control regulations would
too general or too spec iflc and
thizi ld be unworkable for mod
r, ..IL.r c..t users. Other commesters also
expressed concerns about paperwork
burdens, available POTW resources.
and the technical ability of POTWs to
conduct the initial evaluations and
subsequent Inspections. One commentes’
said that some POTW systems are so
large that they would not be affected by
slug discharges, end suggested that slug
plan requirements should be optional.
Because of the importance of slug
control and prevention in controlling
Interference and pass through of tonic
and hazardous pollutants. EPA Is today
requiring POTWs to evaluate significant
industhal users to determine the need
for such plans. EPA believes that the
proposed evaluation and mlnimnm plan
requirements will provide significant
environmental benefits. The Agency
also believes that slug loads have the
potential to adversely affect even the
largest POTWi. Spenific comments, and
EPA’. responses, are set forth below.
Several oummenters expressed
confusion regarding the definition of
slug loading and submitted su estlons
for clarifying the definitions and
distinctions between slugs end batches.
The primely concern expressed by
commenters was that batch discharges
are not necessarily harmful, that effluent
limitations apply to such discharges, and
that batch discharges do not always
need to be prevented. To darn the
Agency’s Intent hi specifying the type of
discharges which should be covered In
slug control plans. EPA I. modifying the
language of proposed 40 CFR
403.8(f)(2)(v) to provide that. f
purposes of that subsection, a slug
discharge is a discharge of a non-
routine, episodic nat e. including but
not limited to an accidental spill or a
non-customary batch discharge. EPA
notes that, when evaluating SlUs to
determine whether they seed to be
subject to slug control plans. POTWs
may wish to examine the SIUs’ batch
discharge practices. because batches are
not always subject to effluent
llntit.tlosr Batches may Include
discharges from Industries not covered
by categorical standards or local limits.
and certain non-routine hatch
discharges may cause problems for the
POTW.
Most commenters stressed the need to
retain complete POTW flexibility In
deerrT .inlng which indu.strzal users
should haveplans . andin approving the
adequacy of these plans. A nember of
commenters supported slug discharge
truls only so long as POTWs had the
discretion to make the needs assessment
and significant industrial user
determination, sad sin
arbiter of what Is necessary and
adequate. Cofnfnml ters also generally
supported the proposed plan eLements,
They believed that the elements are
comprehensive enough to ensure that all
the essentials of slug prevention are
covered. However, a few commeriters
were opposed to the listed plan
elements. One comrneuter said that
Imposing specific requirements for a
control plan would be excessive and
should not be necessary. Another
commenter said that the detail Involved
in the list of elements would restrict
POTW flexi ’bility In Implementing slug
controls and would discourage POTW.
from Identifying appropriate Induethee.
EPA rewgruses the need for POT’/(
flexibdity In determining which
Industrial users need to have plans for
the control and ) mv utlon of slug
discharges, and in determMmg the
appropriate elements of slug cunlzul and
prevention plans. Today’s rule leaves
much discretion to the POTW. The areas
in which POTWs have considerable
discretion Indude POTW designation
and designation of significant industrial
users and POTW evaluation of each
significant Industhal user to determine
the need for a slug control plan.
However, the Agency does not awee
that requlrthg” In” -l elements for such
plans Is unnecessary or undesirable. In
particular, the first three elements of the
plan (the description of discharge
practices. the description of stored ..t:
chemicals. and notification procedures)
are essenlial lot the POTW to be aware
of actual or potential slugloada from a
particular a.gnifiriirit Industrial uses. The
rempinIng plan elements molar to . -.
°nece.ssary” measures. procedures. or
practices, thus allowing considerable
POTW flexibility in deciding which..
measures are appropriate for a
particular industrial user with respect to
prevention. containment. emergency -
response, and follow ’up.
On the other hand, some
who supported the proposed nile
Indicated that it didnolgo far enough In
stating which Industrial users sheuld be
evaluated. and which silteef a should 6.
used In the evaluation. A few
conimenters objected to the lach of
regulatory criteria for determining
whether a slgzdflanl industrial user
needs a control plan, one comiI 1ter ,
fearing that this lack would Increase the
potential for arbitrary decimcnti . di g.
another fearing that POTWs would not
make determinations that inch plans am
needed in all appropriate cases.
Regulatory mitesla suggested by one
commenter included certain quantities
of stored chemicals. potential for slug
loadings, and history of slug discharges.
These criteria would increase uniformity
and reasonableness of decislowualdng.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, o. 142 I Tuesday. JuJy 24. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
30093
according to the commenter. Still
another commeiater suggested that
Industrial users with diked storage areas
or an absence of floor alns be
exempted. One commenter stated that
the proposed language would not
exempt nori. IgiuflC8flt Industrial users
from slug control and prevention
.requlrernents. Another comnienter
expressed concern about industrial
users who needed slug control plans
because of storage of hazardous
chemicals. but who had little industrial
discharge to sewers.
EPA’. “Guidance Manual for Control
of Slug Loadings to POTWs” (September
1988). provides guidance on evaluating
Industrial users for slug potential.
criteria for determining whether an
Industrial user needs a control plan. and
guidance La developing slug controi
requirements. The manual Is divided
Into three parts: (1) Evaluating the need
for a PO’llV slug control pro arn. (2)
developing an Industrial user control
pro am. and (3) developing a PCTW
slug response pro am. Information is
provided on identifying potential
Industrial u8er slug sources and their
risk categories, evaluating or Improving
the Legal authority to regulate slugs.
requiring selected industrial users to
develop slug control plans or measures.
Inspecting and monitoring industrial
users, and developing emergency
response procedures and resources. EPA
believes that this guidance will be useM
to TWs In deter” g which
Industrial users need slug control plans,
and In developing such plans, thereby
reducing the potential for arbitrary
decistonmaking. However. EPA does not
believe that it should develop rigid
a ’lteria in Its regulation establishing
when slug control plans should be
required. POTWi are in the best
position to make such determinations
and. since such requirements will help
ensure continued compliance with Its
NPDES permit It Is in the interest of the
POTW to do so.With ruspect to
exampting certain Industrial users from
slug control requirements. the Agency
notes that todays rule requires that
P( TWs evaluate significant Industrial
users to determine whether such users
need slug control plans. EPA believes
that exemptions are best panted by
POTWs during the course of such
evaluations to allow them to take Into
account the particular circumstances
present at the significant industrial
user’s facility. Today’. rule does not
apecificaUy exempt non -sigruficant
Industrial users from slug control
requirements because POTW may wish
to require such users to develop plans
on a case-by-case basis to address the
potential for adverse Impact caused by
slug discharges from those facilities.
With respect to facilities with little or no
industrial discharge. the Agency notes
that non-domestic users which typically
introduce only sanitary. as opposed to
IndustriaL waste to POTWa ire
nevertheless subject to the general
pretreatment regulations and may be
designated as significant Industrial users
by POTWs for such reasons as the
potential of stored chemicals to enter
the sewer In an accident. They may also
be required to have slug control plans
pursuant to POTWs’ local authorities.
One conimenter suggested Including
among the elements a timetable for
implementation. Still another said plans
should contain language requiring the
industrial user to immediately take
measures to cease the discharge and
remedy the damage. Several wanted to
see a requirement for plan certification
by professional engineers, and one
commenter suggested an equalization
system requirement for industrial users
with a history of slug discharges.
Although these elements may sometimes
be needed on an individual basis. EPA
does not believe that they are necessary
elements for all slug control plans issued
to significant Industrial users and is
therefore not promulgating such
requirements as part of today’s rule. For
example. today’s rule already specifies
that control plans must contain any
follow-up measures necessary to limit
the damage suffered by the treatment
plan or the environment POTWs may
wish to require many Industrial users to
immediately take measures to cease the
discharge as a follow-up measure. but
such a requirement may be superfluous
for some Industrial users because of the
nature of their effluent or their discharge
practices. Similarly, although POTWs
may wish to require certain facilities to
have their plans certified by
professional engineers, certification may
not be needed for smaller. less complex
facilities. With respect to equalization
systems for facilities with a history of
slug discharges. EPA believes that in
many cases other measures may be
equally as or more appropriate to
address the problem. Concerning
timetables for implementation. EPA
believes that It is preferable for POTWs
to decide on a case-by-case basis
whether such a timetable Is needed In
order to address the potential for
adverse Impact presented by a
particular significant Industrial user.
Today’s rule allows POTWs the
flexibility to require such timetables.
orders to cease discharge, or engineer
plan certification as POrN. deem
appropriate or necessary. However, the
Agency has modified today’s rule
slightly from the proposal to require that
slug control plans niust contain any
necessary measures for inspection as
well as maintenance of storage areas
and for any necessary worker training.
Inspection and maintenance of storage
areas is essential to see that stored
materials are not leaking or Improperly
placed. and worker training is necessary
to Instruct employees in the most
practicable methods to prevent detect.
and respond to spills at the particular
facility.
Another comnienter suggested that the
rule be modified to require that any
significant Industrial user which
discharges a slug loading should not
only notify the POTW but also
specifically ‘ort (within thirty days)
what happe and what action would
be taken to ..mize the possibility of
recurrence. however. EPA believes that
the coinmenter’s concern will be
adequately addressed by the
requirement In today’s rule that slug
control plans contain procedures for
prompt notification to the POTW of slug
discharges and follow.up written
notification within five days. Today’s
rule also requires follow-up practices to
limit damage to the treatment plant or
the environment
Several commenters asked for
clarification on how often the need for
slug plans should be evaluated by the
POTW: Le., whether the evaluation of
significant industrial users Is to be a
one-time requirement or whether It must
be updated at the time of each sampling
or inspection. Also, some commenters
stated that POTW5 need the flexibility
to perform frequent Inspections without
having to evaluate the need for slug
plan.. every time. Another commenter
suggested that PO’TWs be required to
evaluate the need for slug plans only
when individual significant industrial
user permits are reviewed. One
commenter suggested Implementation of
plans over a three-year period by
approved pretreatment POTW.
Mother commenter suggested that
POTWs should be allowed up to two
years to complete all of the Initial
evaluations, even 11 sampLIng or
inspection is more often than once every
two years. The commenter believed that
a two-year Interval provides adequate
time for the POTW to require, review,
and evaluate each slug loading control
plan.
EPA believes that evaluation of
sigruficant industrial users to determine
the need for slug prevention and control
plans should be more than a one-time
requirement Today’s rule therefore
requires POtWs to conduct such
-------
30096 Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 142 I Tuesday, July 24, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
evaluations of significant industrial
users for purposes of dete mimng the
need for a slag prevention and control
plan at least once every two years.
However, the Agency notes that at least
one commenter apparently misconstrued
the language of the proposal to require
that POTWs review slug control plane
every two years. EPA reiterates that
under today’s rule, POTWs would
evaluate significant Industrial users to
determine the need for a slug control
and prevention plan. Actual evaluations
of already submitted plane would take
place according to a schedule of
POTW5’ OWfl choosm&
The November 1988 proposal
would have required POTWs to
evaluate s fflcant Industrial users to
determine the need for sing control and
prevention plans every two year.. and
would have also required that the
evaluation be conducted at the same
time that the P01W conducted
inspections and sampling of significant
industrial users. Under todays rule.
POTWs must Inspect and sample
& ufir int Industrial users at least once
a year, Instead of once every two year.
as was proposed on November . 1988
(see Part Ci of today’s notice). The
Agency believes that deI ’wi i . ng the
need for slug control plans need not tuke
place that often. and therefore is
mamt Iinfng In the final rule the
proposed requirement that POTW.
make the det mlnation a minimum of
once every two years. Under today’s
rule, the deteonmatlon need not.
necessa.rtly be made at the same time as
inspections and sampling of the
particular significant industrial user.
since EPA believes that P01W. should
have the flexibility to conduct this
evaluation separately if they deem it
appropriate. Nevertheless. EPA believes
that Inspections and sampling of
industrial users will generally provide
the POVW with the best opportenity for
determination of the necessity for slug
prevention and control $“ and
encourages P01W. to conduct suth
evaluations at the same u as
inspecticco and sampling ax, carried
out. Altlwr EPA believes that where
slug control plans me developed,
compliance with the plans should be
made a reqwrement in the sigruficent
industiial users’ individual control
mechanimus. no schedule for
implementation of plans is required in
today’s rule. This will allow POTWs the
flexibility to set priorities with rrspect
to their own . ignifieant Industrial users.
EPA also solicited comments on
whether spill or batch control
requirements should be Imposed directly
on Indus t r i al users by EPA. In response.
some corninenter. indicated that It
would be appropriate for the Industrial
users to bear the burden of preventing
harm to the P01W and its workers.
However, the majority of commenters
did not support Imposing the slug
control requirements directly on all
Industrial users, on the bans that slug
control plans must be specific to each
industrial user in order to be effective
(although one commenter believed that
slug control requirements should be
uniform icr all industrial users who
handle hazardous waste). Cov m. ters
8eneraliy Indicated that due to the
facility-specific nature of moat control
plans. the POTW i.e in the beat position
to determine whether a control plan
contains appropriate measures. One
commenter said that the requirements
should be Imposed directly on only
sigruficant Industrial users or those
Industrial users with slug potential for’
both hazardous and nonhazardou.s
discharges.
EPA agrees that slug control plans
should not be Imposed directly by EPA
because there are almost no
requirements that would be uniformly
appropriate for .11 Industrial users or all
significant Industrial users, POTW. will
be in the best position to develop slug
prevention and control requirements for
Industrial users because, by f. lfdling
inspection and sampling requirements,
they will be familiar with the operations
of their indivulual industrial users, and
they will also know best what types of
discharges must be prevented to avoid
causing passthrough and interference.
Accordingly. today’s rule provides that
the P01W will develop individual slug
control plan requirements as necessary.
With respect to expanding the
evaluation requirement to other
categories or all industrial users.
commeuteri generally preferred
requiring POTWs to evaluate only
significant Industrial users as a way to
consmwe P01W resoincel. especially
since P0 1 W. may olas.’ify any user as
significant. A aumber of commenters
made their approval of the limitation to
significant Industr ial name contingent
upon adoption of en appropriate
significant Industrial user definition.
One commenter stated that 11 P01W.
appropriately damgziate as signlfisnns
those fad.Liues that have a “reasonable
potential to adversely affect the -
P01W. opera tion, the significant
Industrial user limitation would be
appropriate. However, one co ’”- ’
stated that by Implication the proposed
rule would make any facility that a
P01W believes should have a control
plan a significant Industrial user, and
that this should not necessarily be the
case. Other comxnenterl opposed to
expanding the requirement beyond
significant Industrial users generally
indicated that evaluating all industrial
users for slug control plans could result
In development of unnecessary plans.
Several commenteri expressed concern
that EPA had not considered the costs of
expanding the proposed rule to include
all industrial users, especially small
facilities.
However, a number of commenters
stated that all Industrial users should be
evaluated for slug control plans. One
commenter stated that all discbargers
ShOuld be covered by slug control
requirements to limit incentives for
industries to relocate to areas without
an approved pretreatment program.
Another cnmm. ’Iter suggested that the
requirement for slug plan evaluations be
expanded to lncli ,ide industhal users
who submit notification of the discharge
of hazardous wastes (a, proposed In 40
CFR 103.121p)) and any lneidpntnl user
of the POTW who submits notification
of the discharge of hazardous waste
pursuant to CERCL& RGRA or SARA
requirements.
Under today’. rule. POTWs must, at a.
miriimni,L evnlnate signifiennt industrial
users todetennia. the need for s ing
control plans. However. P01W. are bee
to inspect and require slag control plans.
of other industr ial . Todays rule -
affords considerable P01W flernbihty ,.,
In designating significant Industrial - f
users, and in selecting other appropriate;
industrial users fora lugplan
development. However, today. rule ‘,z
also does not require or Imply that every
Industrial user determined by the POTW
to need a slug control plan Is a
significant Industhal user, because such.
users may not fit the criteria for .: . ‘
significance found In the definition of
significant Industrial user promuLgated
today (for example. they may have the
potential for adversely affecting P01W -
operations only In the event of a spill. In’
which case the P01W may not wish to.
d ignRte them as slgn1fl nt for other
purposes). Indus t ries that are not
significant industrial users, 4r p1i, 4b’t 1
some that store or discharge hazardous
wastes. may sometime . need a slug
control plan. but EPA believes It Is
preferable for P01W. to ascertain
whether this Is necessary on a case-by-
case basis.
With respect to duplication of.
CERQ.A. SARA and/ar R A
requirements. oil Commanters
an Interest in dtuiuiiitfratlve effit ..rtry•
A number of coenters ii.k.*l that the
rule 1 ecogruze the pot iiti l st e of
Indusmial userplans already prepared
for other’ permit or regulatory
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 1990 /Ru1e and Regulations
30097
,equirementI and partially exempt such
industrial users at Incorporate their
RCRA or other permit elements by
reference. Several commenters asked for
clarification about whether an Industrial
user can submit a copy of a document
prepared for another agency or
regulation to the POTW In lieu of
preparing a separate slug control plan.
Severel commenters stated that the Spill
prevention Control and Countermeasure
(SPCCJ Plan requnementz should suffice
for slug controL One cammenter
requested clarification about whether a
faclity would be required to have a
RCRA management plan which could
serve us slug control piara ilthe facility
generated * sufficient quantity of waste
to be subject to the formal reporting
requirements (the Agency assumes that
the osuunenter was referring to today’.
hazardous waste notification
requirements).
EPA reco izes that a number of
existing requirements under other
statutes and regulations could serve as
components of slug control plans.!! a
significant Industrial user La covered by
auth a plan. the POTW may accept such
plans La partial or complete fulfillment
of the requirements In today’s rule, a,
long u each element set forth La today’s
rile is addressed La an acceptable
‘ “ Lu some document or collection
of documents. P01W. may also Impose
more rigorous requirements as
ciroumatances warrant With respect to
todays hazardous waste notification
requirements for diachargers of
hazardous wastes to POTWs. EPA notes
that some. but not .11. of inch
diach&gers are also subject to RCRA
management reqmrementa.because they
treat. store. or dispose of hazardous
waste pursuant to 4 CYR part 264.
With respect to exemptions from slug
notification requirements for Induetrial
users who submit CERCLA and SARA
notifications, almost no comxnenters
approved of this proposaL Although
SARA end (1.A have notification
requirement. that may overiap with slug
notification, most comorseteri believed
prompt and direct notification of the
POTW by the Industrial user was
essentiaL These commentate pointed out
that prompt PO’1W response to slugs
would be delayed by a second-hand
notIfIcatIon from SARA or CLA
personneL Another corumen tee pointed
out that the SARA list of Extremely
Hazardoua Substances does not address
many potential POTW hazards.
Gasolins. taluene. and other common
flammable arid explosive chemicals are
not included, while certain unusuaL
chemicals and medicines that may not
be of concern to P01Ws are on the flat.
One commenter expressed concern that
such an exemption would lead industrial
users to believe that spills below a
CYRCIA reportable quantity (RQ) are of
no consequence to the POTW, when this
Is often cot the case.
EPA believes that slug loading
notification requirements serve different
purposes from SARA/ CLA
requirements and are cot duplicative.
Direct notification to the POTW affected
by the slug Is aitically Important
because time Is essential in formulating
an appropriate response. Similarly., the
reportable quantities established under
Q.A are not necessarily related to
the potential for pus through or
Interfe r ence at the POTW. nor are the
hazardous substances required to be
reported under SARA necessarily the
substances of most concern to POTWe.
In the proposal. EPA requested
coI, mPnt on whether an administrative
exemption from CFP .CLA section 103(a)
notification requirements would be
appropriate lot releases Into sewers
which pose little or no hazard to the
POTW. The Agency received no data
Indicating that such an exemption would
be appropriate. For this reason. EPA Is
not addressing the Issue of
ar in4 trative exemptions under
CERCLA In today’s riisiniiking
c. Today’, Rule
Today’s rule revIses 40 403.8( to
prov1d that POTWa with approved
pretrea eat programs must evaluate, at
least once every two year.. whether
each significant industrial user needs a
plan to control slug discharges as
defined under 40 C ’R 403.5(b). If the
POTW decides that such a plan Is
needed, the plan shall contain at least
the following elements:
‘Desciipthm of discharge practices.
Including nonrontlue batch discharges:
• Deacmptiorr of stared chemicals;
• Precedures for promptly notifying
the POTW of slug discharges. Inc luding
any discharge that would violate a
specific prohibition under 40 Q’R
403.5(b). with procedures for follow-up
written notification within flee days:
• Uoeomsat7 , procedures to prevent
adverse Impact from accidental spills.
Including Inspection and maintenance of
storage areas, handling and transfer of
materials, loading and unloading
operations. control of plant site run-aft
worker training, building of containment
structures or equipment measures for
containing toxic organic pollutants
(including solvents), end/or measures
and equipment for emergency response.
and
• if necessary. follow-up practices to
limit the damage suffered by the
treatment plant or the ertvirorunenl
C Th cked and Hauled Waste (40 CFR
403.5(b) (8))
a. Proposed Cit r ge
Many P01W. have expressed
concern about discharges from liquid
waste haulers. The Study identified the
strengthening of controls on these
discharger, as potenti ally deserving of
the Agency’s attention. Tn June 1987 the
Agency Issued guidance to help POTWs
control the discharge of hazardous
wastes from liquid waste haulers to
their systems (Guidance Man c ia ! for the
Ideobficvtion of Hazardous Wastes
Delivered to Publicly Owned Treatment
Works by Thick. Rail. arDedicoted
Pipe). As a further response to the Study
and to further the prevention of pass
through and interference, the Agency
proposed on November 23, 1988 to add a
provision to 40 CFR 403 5 (b) prohibiting
the Introduction to POTWs of any
trucked or hauled pollutants except at
discharge points designated by the
POTW. The Agency requested
comment, on the proposal and on the
following Issues: whether to revise 40
CFR 403.8 to require P0TWe to specify
particular discharge sites; whether the
proposed specific discharge prohibftion
Is too extensive and should be limited to
non-septic wastes only end whether to
require P01W. to develop and obtain
approval of additloesi procedures to
deal with trucked wastes, such as
requiring 1Ws to monitor and sample
such wastes.
b. Response to C”’ ’ts
The Agency re ci vd many commentS
on the prapo ed rule from PtJTWs ,
States. private Industry. trade
associations. and environmental groups.
Comnienters generally favored the rule
although marry su eeted modifications.
The malority of comxnenters u d(cated
that specific discharge sites would
provide better controtaf trucked and
hauled waste. as well as Improved
accountability for this type of
discharger. Comnienters generally
Indicated that the rule would tn ease
P01W. control without adding
burdensome requirements. Additionally.
one comumenter indicated that the
requirement for designation of discharge
points give, notice to all waste haulers
that the POiWs control authority Is
backed by federal controls and
guideline.. One comnnienter stated that
as the land disposal of untreated
hazardous wastes is inniessingly
prohibited under RCRA. surrepttious
disposal of unwanted hazardous wastes
might become more commonplace. and
therefore better controls on trucked or
hauled discharges wili be necessary.
-------
398 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
However, some comnienters staled
that there is no need for additional
federal requirements for liquid waste
haulers. Some commeeters said that
current requirements established by
POTWe with approved petreatinent
programs for sampling, testing. and
manifesting are adequate to control the
discharge of non-septic trucked wastes.
Some cominenters opposed to the rule
stated that R A Is the appropriate
primary vehicle for control of trucked or
hauled hazardous waste in order to
avoid confusion, duplicative
requirements . and uncertainty. These
commenters stated that it would not be
productive to require duplicative
requirements under the pretreatment
program. since liquid waste haulers are
not covered by the domestic sewage
exclusion and are therefore subject to
RCM transporter requirements.
The Agency does not agree with the
assertions that the proposed
requirement Is redundant with existing
RCRA or pretreatment requirements or
that trucked or hauled wastes should
not be subject to specific regulation.
Because hazardous waste haulers must
comply with R A manifest
requirements (including transport of the
waste toa designated RCRA facility),
the principal new legal effect of today’s
requirement. l be to prohibit the
discharge of trucked non-hazardous -.
wastes to POTWa except at designated
discharge points. Practically, however.
this requirement will give POTWa better
control of all wastes entering their
systems (including hazardous wastes)
by encow’aging POTWs to designate
certain discharge points that they can
monitor to prevent the introduction of
undesirable wastes into the sewer , -.
system.
EPA believes that designation of
discharge points Is an essential tool to
improve POTW control of trucked or
hauled wastes. Therefore. EPA is
revising 40 CFR 403. 5(b) to add -
paragraph (8) which prohibits the
introduction to POTW. of any trucked
or hauled pdliutanta except at discharge
points designated by the POTW. The
rule allows POTN flexibility In -
implementing thi. prohibition.
Commenters were generally opposed
to requiring POTWs to specify particular
discharge sites. One commenter noted
that only POTWs accepting such waste
should designate discharge points. The
commenter concluded that requiring
POTWi to designate discharge points
would cause confusion because many
POTWs do not accept hauled waste.
EPA agrees that requiring all PO1VJs to
designate discharge points would not be
appropriate: not all POTWs are
equipped to handle additional loads
and/or types of pollutants which may be
introduced to their facilities by liquid
waste haulers. It is not EPA’s intent to
requite the designation of discharge
points by POTWs. Rather. EPA Intends
that today’s rule be Interpreted as
prohibiting the discharge of hauled
waste to a POTW except to the extent
that the PCTW allows such discharges
and they occur at locations designated
for such purposes by the P01W.
A number of commenters suggested
specific modifications to the rule. One
commenter stated that PO ’l1 Vs should
have explicit authority to refuse to
accept such wastes In order to protect
the plant.. including a rejection because
proper analyses and certification were
not met. This conimenter indicated that
POTWs should also be able to specify
location of disposaL time and other
conditions deemed necessary, including
local limits. The commenter favored
adding statements defining conditions
P01W. can impose prior to accepting
such wastes, including the use of local
limits. Two conimenters suggested
POTW performance standards for
establishing discharge points, stating
that POTW. with swid. disthbution of
Industrial users should provide multiple
locations to mir im4.e transportation
expenses and the risks Inherent In all
transportation for industrial users who
haul their wasteS to the P01W. One
cosnmenter suggested requiring that.
designated discharge points be
supervised by POTW personnel at all
times when discharging is permitted.
EPA believes that the conditions and
restrictions suggested by these
conimenters are sometimes necessary
on an individual basis, but would
necessarily vary according to different
POTWs and their circumstances and
therefore are not appropriate for
Inclusion In a uniform national rule. The
Agency notes that today’. rule provides
POTWs with the flexibility to adopt
specific conditions or restrictions e ath
as those suggested by the above
commenters. For example. P01W. may
designate multiple discharge points for
non-hazardous waste at any sites they
deem appropriate for particular types of
Industrial users and they may provide
supervision at some or all of these sites
as appropriate. Similarly. P01W. may
refuse to accept any trucked or hauled
waste if proper procedures have not
been followed, or they may set specific
limits for such wastes. EPA’. “Guidance
Manual for the Identification of
Hazardous Wastes Delivered to Publicly
Owned Treatment Works by Truck.
Rail, or Dedicated Pipe ’ (Office of
Water Enforcement and Permit.., June
1987), suggests numerous specific means
to ensure that hazardous wastes are not
being discharged to POTWs, including
permits, waste tracking systems.
inspection and samphng analysis.
surveillance and investigative
techniques, and restricted discharge
permits. Because the need for such
measures will vary, today’s rule leaves
It up to the POTW to adopt them when
necessary.
A few commentere requested
guidance on what specific tests to
perform on trucked waste, or suggested
the use of simple tests to determine the
hazardousness of wastes. EPA’s above.
cited “Guidance Manual for the
Identification of Hazardous Wastes -
Delivered to Publicly Owned Treatment
Works by Truck. Rail, or Dedicated
Pipe” coutsina detailed guidance on
such testing including how to determine
ifs waste Is hazardous and bow to
establish a waste monitoring program
tailored to the POTW’s need,.. -
One commenter suggested that the
regulations should prohibit acceptance
of tmcked or hauled materials which
may result In Interference or pass -
through of pollutant.. Mother
commeuter stated that categorical limits
should not apply to trucked wastes,
since this would smduly complicate the
process. Still another commenter stated.
that establishment of dump sites away
from the treatment facility could ci’eate-
a control problem for the POTW, and.
that the most effective control method
would allow discharge only at the- ‘:-
P01W headworks,
In response, EPA notes that trucked:
and hauled wastes are already subject
to both EPA’s general pretreatment -
regulations (including the general -
prohibition against pass through and
interference) and to any categorical
pretreatment standards applicable to the
wastes. EPA agrees that in many
Instances the most effective control
method may be to allow discharge. of -
trucked or hauled wastes only at P0 ’IW
headworks, and encourages POTWa to
adopt this method if they deem It
appropriate. In designating discharge -
points. end establishing procedures to”
ensure that wastes introduced to the
POTW comply with all applicable
federal requirements. EPA suggests that’
POTWs keep two citical issue, In mind.
First, facilities generating wastes
covered by categorical pretreatment
standards may not avoid pretreatment
requirements simply by arranging far
waste removal by liquid waste hauler..
Accordingly, wastes generated by such
facilities may not be Introduced to a
P01W by a liquid waste hauler unless
they have been pretreated In accordance
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 142 / Tuesday. July 24. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
30099
with the categoncal pretreatment
standard(s) applicable to the waste.
Second, POTWi may not designate
discharge points outside of the POTW
facility boundary for the Introduction of
hazardous wastes to the sewer system.
Und the RCRA regulations. hazardous
wastes may only be transported to
d. iige ted facilitie, permitted to handle
the waste descibed in the manifest (see
40 tFR 282. ) . 283.21). For POTWe
operating under a RCRA permit-by-rule.
the area outhde the POTW property
boundary. including most of the sewer
collection system. is not part of the
permitted facility, so camiot be used as
a location for accepting hazardous
waste. See EPA’s 1987 “Guidance for
Implementing RCRA Permit-by-Rule
Requirements at POTWs.”.p 11. For
POTWs operating under or considering
applying for a RCRA permit. EPA has
stated that “manifested wastes may
only be delivered to an approved
(hazardous waste management facility),
and sewer systems will not be approved
for that purpose”. 45 FR 33320 (May 19,
1980).
Many cammenters supported limiting
the prohibited discharge standard to
non-septic wastes, stating that
designating discharge points for all
trucked or hauled wastes could
potenthfly put an undua burden on
email P01W. because of supervising
discharges at these points, and that
limiting the prohibition to non-septic
wastes would not prevent a POTW from
specifying specific discharge points for
septic waste If deemed appropriate by
the POTW.
However, oih2r commenLers believed
that both septic and non-septic wastes
should be included In the prohibition.
These coinmenters Indicated that the
prohibition would be difficult to enforce
if septic wastes are excluded, since It is
sometimes difficult to ascertain without
sampling whether a truck Is carrying
septic or non-septic wastes.
EPA a eee with those commenters
who expressed concerns about the
tential presence of toxic sod
mis pollutants froen non-domestic
sources In septic wastes. For this
reason, the Agency is today prohibiting
the discharge of all tru ad and hauled
wastes except at designated discharge
points. This will give P01W. better
control of all such wastes potentially
containing toxic arid hazardous
pollutants.
One commenter stated that the
prohibition does not distinguish between
a liquid waste hauler. off-site discharge
to a POTW and an on-site discharge
from struck which is used to transport
waste from one lndu.strfal plant building
to another, then rinsed out and the
residue discharged to the sewer at the
Industrial users site. In response, EPA
notes that the Intent of today’. rule was
to regulate the discharge of wastes
trucked or hauled off-site to the POTW
from an industrial facility. Wastes
discharged from a truck to the collection
system at an Industr ial users facility are
not covered by today’s prohibition. since
such waste would not normally differ
from that discharged by the facility
during its usual operations. The purpose
of today’. prohibition. on the other
hand. Is to give TWs better eontrol of
potentially harmful wastes which may
be difficult to Identify or which may
have no easily ascertainable origin.
Most conimenters did not support
requiring other procedures for tucked
and hauled wastes, although a few
comznenters recommended requiring
additional sempling and monitoring
procedures. However, most commenters
generally Indicated that while
monitoring and sampling of truck loads
are i mportant. specific procedures
should be developed by each POTW on
a case-by-case basis to address Its own
particular situation. A number of
POTWs discussed their own procedures
for controlling trucked and hauled
wastes, such as a certification or
manifest requirement to track wastes
entering the treatment plant, continuous
supervision of designated discharge
points, Inspection of wastes (visual or
through chemical and/or physical
analysis) prior to a ptanca by the
P01W, requIring that trucked wastes be
subjected to a minimum annual
characterization and compatibility
testing, and Individual truck load
sampling. Commenters believed that the
extent of discharge management control
exercised by the PO’IW should be
tailored to facility-specific conditions.
such as volume of specific material
which the treatment process can
accommodate over a period of time
without loss of treatment effectiveness.
EPA believes that requiring eniformn
P01W procedures for handling trucked
amid hauled waste Is not appropriate at
the present time, since such procedures
are very dependent on site-specific
situations which P01W. are generally
best equipped to address on their own.
For this reason, EPA Li not requiring
IWs to develop any particular
measures to deal with trucked or hauled
wastes, other then the prohibition on
discharges except at locations
designated by the P01W.
c. Today’. Rule
Today’. rule adds a new provision (40
CFR 403.S(b)(8)) prohibiting the
discharge of trucked or hauled
pollutants except at discharge points
designated by the PO’rW.
D. Notiflcorion Requirements (40 CFR
4 L ,7. 12(p))
a. Proposed Change
Section 3010 of RCRA requires that
any person who generates or transports
hazardous waste, or who awn.. or
operates a facility for the treatment.
storage, or disposal of hazardous waste
must file a notification with EPA or with
a State with an authorized hazardous
waste management program. Pincuant to
the Domestic Sewage Exclusion In 40
C’R 261.4(a)(1), any material mixed with
domestic sewage that passes through a
sewer system to a publicly-owned
treatment works for treatment Is not a
solid waste, and therefore cannot be a
hazardous waste. However, section
3018(d) of RQ A (enacted as part of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments In 1984 provides that the
notification requirement. of RCPA
sectIon 3010 “shall apply to solid or
dissolved materials In domestic sewage
to the same extent and In the same
manner as such provisions apply to
hazardous waste There Is currently no
regulatory requirement that Industrial -
users report the discharge of all
hazardous wastes to sewers. The Study
therefore Identified the implementation
of section 3O1 dl es a potentially useful
component of an Improved pretreatment
program. The Agency believe, that the
Information provided by such
notification I. needed for the ultimate
development by P01W. of controls to
prevent pass through and Interference.
On November fl 1988, EPA proposed
to revise 40 CFR 403.1.2 to add a new
paragraph (p) that would zeq dme all
Industrial users to notify EPA Regional
Waste Management Division Directors,
State Hazardous Waste authorities, and
their P01W of any discharge Into a
P0’IVJ of a substance which Is a listed
or characteristic hazardous waste ender
section 3031 of RCRA. Such notification
would Include a de.atplion of any such
wastes dis’Jarged, specifying the
volums and concentrations of the
wastes. ths type of discharge
(continuous, batch, or other) end
Identifying the hazardous constituents
contained In the listed wastes. The
notification would also Include an
estimate of the volume of hazardous
wastes expected to be discharged during
the following twelve months. The
notification would take place within six
months of the effective date of the final
riles.
To further ensure control of hazardous
wastes discharged to sewers, the
-------
30100 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 1990 / Rules arid Regulations
proposed rule would require all
industrial users who submit notification
of the discharge of hazardous wastes to
certify that they have a provam In place
to reduce the volume and toxicity of
wastes generated to the degree they
have determined to be economically
practicable, and that they have selected
the practicable methods of treatment.
storage, and/or disposal currently
available to them which mrnimi,e the
present and future threat to human
health and the environment A similar
certification requirement already applies
to all generators of hazardous wastes.
(other than those that discharge their
wastes to sewers) under section 3002(b)
of RCRA.
In the October 17. 1988 revIsions to
the general pretreatment regulation, (53
FR 40582, 40614) EPA added.
requirement at 40 CFR 403.12(j)) that all
industrial users promptly notify the
P01W In advance of any substantial
change In the volume or character of
pollutants In their discharge. To clarify
that 40 Q’R 403.12(j) also applies to the
discharge of hazardou, wastes, the
Agency also proposed to require that all
industrial users promptly notify the
P01W In advance of any substantial
change in the volume or character of
pollutants In their discharge, including
ehariges in the volume or character of
any listed or characteristic hazardous,
wastes for which the Industrial user has
submitted iiutial notification under 40 . -
CFR 4 O 3 .12(p).
Under proposed 40 PR 4 O 3 .12(p)
generators would have been exempt
from notification reqwrernenti during
any calendar month in which they
generated not more than 100 kilograms
of hazardous waste, except for those
wastes identified under 40 CFR 261.5 (e),
(1). (g) and Ci). Generator, of more than
100 kilograms of hazardous wastes In
any given month would be required to
file the one t1me notification.
In the proposed rule, the Agency
solicited comments on the small -
quantity generator exemption and on
whether any of the existing RCRA form,
might be suitable for submission of the
proposed notification requirements, EPA
also requested comment on whether
those Industrial users required to submit
Form R (a Toxic Release Inventory form
required under section 313 of SARA to.
be submitted annually by industrial
users with over ten employees who
discharge certain listed toxic chemical,)
should send a copy of Form R to the
P0TW. In lieu of the proposed
hazardous waste notification
requirements, lithe toxic chemicals
reported by the Industrial user on Form
R include those RCRA hazardous
wastes for which notification would be
required. The Agency also requested
comments on whether additional (or
more specific) management ..
requirements should be imposed to
control wastes for which notification
would be submitted under the proposaL
b. Response to Continents
The majority of the commenters
expressed strong support for notifying at
least the POTW of hazardous waste
discharged into Its system. Supporting
comments were that such notification
would augment existing controls on
spills and accidental discharges and
give the P01W more knowledge of and
control over previously unreported
d lscha r gee.
Other commenter, opposed any
additional nctiflcation requirements,
stating they would be duplicative and
burdensome for all parties concerned.
Several commenters stated that the
requirement was not necessary because
the discharge of hazardous waste was
already prohibited in their sewer
ordinances and therefore did not occur
unless it was an uncontrolled spill. Still
other comatenters believed that the
Information needed by the P01W
should be available through the State
and Federal RCRA or SARA databases
for them to obtain as necessary..
Because the proposal wouid Impose
only a one-time notification requirement
which can frequently be fulfilled with
available information, EPA does not
believe It to be burdensome for
Industrial users. The information will
also be useful to POTWs in developing
programs to better control the
introduction of hazardous wastes into
treatment and collection systems. Sewer
ordinances do not generally contain a
prohibition against the discharge of
hazardous waste, and these wastes are
frequently present In part because of the
Domestic Sewage Exemption provided
under RCRA. Although some of the
Information in the proposed
notification, is accessible through State
and Federal databases, much of It is not.
For example, hazardous substances for
which notification is required under ,.
SARA are not necessarily the same as
the listed and characteristic hazardous
wastes for which notification would be
provided under today’s rule.
Most of the POTWs and States who
commented believed that POTWs, State
authorities, and EPA should receive the
notification. But many commenters
(mostly Industries) supported
notification of the P01W only. They
stated that notifying the Slate hazardous
waste management authorities. as well
as EPA, would be redundant.
Section 3018(d) of RCRA makes the
requirements of section 3010 applicable
to solid or dissolved materials in
domestic sewage “to the same extent
and in the same manner as such
provisions apply to hazardous waste.”
Section 3010(a) states that “any person
generating or transporting (hazardous
waste) or owning or operating a facility
for treatment, storage, or disposal of
such substance shall file with the
Administrator (or with States having
authorized hazardous waste permit
programs under section 3006) a
notification stating the location and
general dee ipuon of such activity and
the identified or listed hazardous wastes
bandied by such person” (emphasis
added). The statute thus mandates that,
at the least, State or EPA hazardous
waste personnel be notified. However,
EPA does not Interpret section 3018(d)
as limiting the recipents of notification
provided for under that section to the
recipient. specified under 3010(a). EPA’s
authorfty to tailor notification
requirements to meet the needs of the
pretreatment program is based In
section 307(b) of the Act. authorlsing’
EPA to promulgate such standards as -
are necessary to prevent pass through
and interference. Also. RCRA section
3018(b) dIrect, EPA to revise eidstizig
regulations “to assure that substances’
identified or listed under (RCRA section
3001) which pass through a sewer
system to a publicly owned treatment”
works are adequately controlled to
protect human health and the
environment” As desaibed below, EPA
believes that proper control of materials
identified or listed under RCRA will be
facilitated by a requirement that
notifications required by today’s rule be
submitted to PQTWs, State authorities -
andEP& ..
EPA agrees with the commenters who
support notification of the POTW
because It Is directly affected by the.
discharge of such wastes. POTWs need
to y understand the nature of Influent
wastes to their plants to ensure proper
treatment at the plant, establish -
appropriate local limits. and meet permit
requirements, EPA believe, that it Is
important for States to receive the
notification so that they may use It In
issuing NPDES permits, implementing -
State pretreatment programs, and -
protecting public health and welfare. In
addition, submission of the notification
requfrem ants to EPA may assIst the
Agency in Issuing NPDES permits to
P01W. where It I. the permitting
authority and In establishing
pretreatment requirements where It I,
the Control Authority. Notification of.
EPA will make possible the
-------
Federal_Register / Vol . 55. No. 142 1 Tuesday. July 24. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
30101
development of a national data base or
tracking system that would organize the
information Into a LJeful format for all
Interested parties.
Several commenters su ested that
the Information received could be
summarized by State. and EPA and be
made available to POTWi. One
cornmenter suggested that only the
POTWs be notified and that the State
and EPA could get the information from
the POTW. However, other comxnenters
suggested that other parties be notified.
such as EPA Headquarters. State
pretreatment program personnel. State
water quality (NPDES) personnel and
Regional as well as State Water
Division Directors.
Summarization of the Information
received by the States and EPA and
subsequent distribution to the
appropriate POTW would, in most
cases. be a cumbersome notification
method. The Agency believes that the
required information should be made
available to the POTW as soon as
possible. Although the suggestion of
notifying EPA Headquarters.
pretreata ent personnel. water quality
personnel and Water Division Directors
is reasonable. EPA believes that todays
rule, In providing for receipt of the
notification by the most Important
representatives of local. State and
Federal governments, will allow other
personnel from these respective
branches of government to easily obtain
copies of the information. As mentioned
above, the Agency Is considering the
development of a data base or tracking
system that would organize the
Information Into $ useable format
Several commenters pouited out that
much of the required information was
already submitted to regulatory agencies
In Indirect dliachargerpermit
applications, notices of process changes.
through local ordinances. or Is already
reported under 40 R 403.12 and SARA
section 313.
Although some Information may be
submitted pursuant to the., authorities.
EPA emphasize . that noas of these
provisions specifically requires
submiflal of Information to POTW,
States, and EPA about all R A
hazardous wastes discharged to sewers .
• Several commenter . while agreeing
with the need for a notification
requirement, believed that the POTW
should have the flexibility to determine
the appropriate reporting. This would
eliminate some of the redundancy, since
POrN. have different programs and
ordinances and could then choose that
Information which would best suit their
needs.
-Todays rule requires a minimum
amount of ln.forma lion that Is to be
reported by all industhal users
discharging hazardou. wastes to sewers.
except for discharger. of less than
fifteen kilograms per month of non-acute
hazardous wastes. EPA believes that
these minimum requirements will be
very useful to POTWs. States and EPA.
POTWs have the flexibility to request
additional information to suit the needs
of their specific programs.
Several commenter. expressed
concern about the requirement to
estimate the volumes of hazardous
waste that would be discharged over a
12 month period. Commenters believed
that the estimates would be unreliable
and would result In possible Liabilities
(possibly from failure to report
accurately). They questioned how to
account for dramatic variation In
discharges over the twelve-month
estimation period and also questioned
the purpose of the requirement One
commenter stated that although this
kind of Information might be useful,
POTWa could not enforce a failure to
report accurately. Another commenter
suggested that an estimation over 30
days might be more useful.
The Agency believes that the -
Information received through this
requirement will be useful for POXW
plsn ning purposes. The Information
requested from Industrial users is only
an estimate of what they haow or have
reason to believe will be discharged
over the next 12 month period, taking
any variability Into account. The
estimation I i not Intended to constitute
an enforceable limit industrial users are
reminded that under 40 CFR 403.12(j) of
today’s rule. POTWs must be notified In
advance of any substantial change In
the volume or character of pollutants In
their discharge. POTWs may choose to
deveLop enforceable local limits based
on the information submitted.
One commenter mentioned that the
last line of 40 CFR 4a3.12(p)(1) allows an
exemption from the notification
requirement for pollutants already listed
under the self-monitoring requirements.
The commenter stated that self.
monitoring Information alone would not
be sufficient to prevent pass through or
Interference.
The purpose of this proposed
• exemption Is to avoid duplicative
requirements, since In some Instances
Information required under the
hazardous waste notification provisions
will have already been submitted under
40 CFR 403.12. The Agency notes that
neither the sell-monitoring requirements
nor the hazardous waste notification
requirements are Intended primarily to
prevent Immediate pass through or
Interference. The purpose of the 40 CFR
403.12 requirement. Is to monitor
compliance with categorical standards.
The primary purpose of the hazardous
waste notification requirements is to
gather as much information as is needed
to assess the potential effects of
hazardous and toxic waste discharged
to POTWs. It should be noted that the
exemption for pollutants reported under
the 40 CFR 403.12 seLf .momtorthg
requirements applies even though such
reporting may not necessarily include all
element, submitted under today’.
notification requirements . such as an
estimate of the wastes expected to be
discharged over the next twelve months.
Since the 40 CFR 403.12 provisions
require the submission of actual
sampling results and periodic reporting
every six months, the Agency believes
that such reports are an adequate
substitute for the section 3018(d)
requirements. Although sell-monitoring
reports under 40 CFR 403.12 are
submitted only to the Control Authority
and not to EPA and the Slates as ate
today’s section 3018(d) notiflcailons.
EPA believes that the existence of an
already established, easily accessible
data base for 40 CFR 403.12 sell-
monitoring requirements obviates the
need to notify additional parties. as Is
required for one-time notifications of
hazardous waste discharges under
section 3018(4
One commen stated that
notification should extend to all
pollutants of concern In addition to
hazardous wastes. This couimenter
supported notification of the discharge
of hazardous constituents listed La 40
CFR part 281. appendIx V I ] ]. The
commenter stated that this would keep
the focus of the notification on the
cheznisuy of the discharge rather than
the legal status of the wastestream. and
would also assure more equitable
treatment of different types of
diachargers. Some commenters also
indicated that the notification
requirements should be oriented toward
volumes and type. of waste based on
their chemistry after treatment. rather
than using the RCRA code. to describe
the waste. The rationale was that the
RC A derlved from” and “mixture”
rules fall to provide Information about
the waste after treatment. other than to
define the status of the waste as
hazardous up until the point of
discharge Into $ domestic sewage
system.
The Agency believe, that notification
of the discharge of all appendix VUl
constituent. I.s not routinely necessary.
EPA believes It is preferable for the
POTW to require such Information on a.
case-by-case basis when appropriate to
protect against potential pass through or
-------
30 102 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 142 / Tuesday. luly 24. 1990 1 Rules and Regulations
interference. The Agency also notes that
today . rule requires the Industrial user
to report hazardous constituents
discharged, if known. If an industrial
user is not aware of the hazardous
constituents contained in its hazardous
waste discharge, EPA believes that
POTWs. after receipt of ziotificahoni
received wider todays nile. wi’l be in
the beat position to institute
requirements lot folio w.up inlormation
on an si-needed basis based on the data
already acquired about the industrial
user’s hazardous waste. Such additional
inlorrnatioa may provide more detail on
the chemistry of the discharge, and thus
fill in any data gaps that may result from
use of RCRA waste codes and RCRA
definitional constructs such as the
mixture and derived from rules.
Some conimentars ob ecied to the
reqiiuwent that industrial users not&fy
the POTW of any discharge Into the
POTW” and questioned whether the
presence of. section 3001 RCRA waste
In levels below the detection Limits
would require noti llc.ation. One
commenter opposed requiring that
conslituenli be identified in the
notification, stating that It would be
burdensom, to identify .11 constItuents
and calculate their volumes. Another
onimenter believed that such a
equirement would be redund n1
cause the conitituerus are already
reported wider a tm 313 of SARA.
Some commentere also stated that the
presence of a hazardous waste dots not
mean that certain constituenu are
always present nor does the presence of
constituent.s indicate that a waste is
hazardous.
EPA notes that under 40 CFR 281.11.
any parson generating a solid waste La
responsible for detprm niqg whether
that waste Is a Listed or characteristic
hazardous waste. Thus, industrial users
who are generators of hazardous wastes
are already required to have knowledge
of such wastes. Todays rule requires all-
parties discharging hazardous westus to
POTWs to Shea Gus-lime notification.
The otiflcatlon ust Inclecis.
des lpUoa of any m b wastes
discharged. To clarify this requirement
and make desaiption eesiez today’s
tule requires that industrial users
Include the name of the hazardous
waste and the EPA hazardou. waste
number for each hazardous waste
discharged (these numbers are found In
40 CFR past 281. subpart D). Todays
rule also require. an identification of the
r n tu tj discharged, along wIth their
i and concentration In the
estraam . bat only to die extent that
• constituents and their mass and
concentrations are known and readily
available to the user. The Agency is
requiring notification of mass rather
than volume (as was proposed) because
mass is a more useful measure of the
quantity of chemicals discharged.
\Vhere a discharger has knowledge that
such constituents are present In Its
discharge, the discharger should Identify
such constituents in its required section
3018(d) notification, nohvithstandixig
Inability to detect the ci i act levels of
such constituents in it.s discharge e,g.,
because constituent levels are below
analytical detection Limits).
In response to concerns expressed by
coinmenters. the Agency has clarified in
the language of today’s rule that
identification of the constituents of
hazardous waste and their mass and
concentration need only be made If
these are known by the industrial user
(unlike the notification of the discharge
of the hazardous waste end It.
description by name and EPA hazardous
waste number). Monitoring for the
presence of these constituents I. not
specifically required. It ii not correct
that all of these constituents are
reported under SARA section 313. sInce
the list of toxic diemicali required to be
reported wider that provision does not
Indude all hazardous e tituents under
RCRA. The Agency believes that many
Industrial usersivili already have
Information about the constituents of
their waste and that this Information Is
often useful to POTWs. tithe
information is not available, the POTW
may request additional monitoring on an
as.needed basis.
Under the proposed rule, generators
would have been exempt from the
notification requirements during any
calendar month In which they generate
no more than 100 kilograms of
harardous wastes, except for certain
acute hazardous wastes.
Many cominenters supported his
exemption. The commenters suggested
that by retaining the exclusion. EPA
would provide regulatory reLief for smafl
Industries while not jeopardizing the
protection ofhumanhealth and the
env ironmeaL
A few commenteri who supported the
small quantity generator exemption
suggested that the exemption be
widened to include generators of
volumes between 100 to 1000 kilogram.
per month. These couimenters stated
that section 3001(d) of RCR.A
specifically discusses the regulation of
these generators, and that during
evaluation of an appropriate regulatory
scheme for such generators. EPA paid
special attention to mirnl i g
paperwork burdens. Coinarenters stated
that by proposing to Impose noti.flcatloa
requirements on these generators. EPA
wes ignoring its previous position on
mimnuzrng the burdens associated with
recordkeeping and reporting.
In response, EPA notes that no
POTWs suggested widemng the 100
kilogram per month exemption to 1000
kilogram. per month. In fact, several
POTWs were concerned that the 100
kilogram per month exemption was
unjustified and believed that such an
exemption could jeopardize human
health and the environment, since a
discharge of 100 kilograms of certain
substance, would be very likely to
cause pass through or interference.
The majority of the commeriters who
opposed the small quantity generator
exemption were VTWi and State
governments. They believed that
discharge, of les, than 100 kilograms
per month could at thnee have a serious
impact on collection systems. POTWi
and workerbealth or’safety. and that
POTWs would be Interested in
ascertaining all quantities of hazardoni
wastes discharged to sewers.
Some conunenters who opposed the
sinaU quantity generator exemption
stated that the Agency’s proposal to
exempt such generators from
notification was not supported by the
evidence cIted In the preamble. ’These -
commenlers also pointed ant that A..
acknowledged that a 100 kflogram
discharge of some RCRA hazardous
wastes could be problematic for a -
P01W (partIcularly small and! or
unacclimated ones). Mother commenter
pointed Out that any exemption should
be tied to the discharge, rather than the
generation, of a hazardou. waste.
After evaluation of these comnsents
EPA believes that a complete exemption
from the notification requirem nla for
many discharger. of lou than 100 -
kilograms per month would not be
environmentally justified. The Agency
also agrees that any exemptions should
be tied to the discharge rather than the
generation of hazardous wastes, since
only wastes sctuallydischarged will -
usually be of concern to the POTW.
The Agency believe. that a discharge
of less thanlOokilogramsof certain
types of hazardous wastes may canse
problems for P01W. (partienlarly small
and unacclim”tedones) if discharged at
once oroveru short period of time is.g..
spent eleclioplating baths, ta1n s
solvents such au benzene, or di ded
unused formulations containing t4-
leti ’s-, or pentaclorupheuol). Although
one or two discharger, of approrlmAtrJ 1
one hundred kilograms per month may
have little potential for adverse impact
on a P01W (depending on the wastes
discharged) many POTWs have a
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 142 1 Tuesday, July 24. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
30103
,igmficant number of such generators
jschargIng hazardous waste to the
sewer system. which cumulatively pose
a potential for causing pass through or
interference. ‘A believes that some
de ee of notification from these
discbargers is the only way for POTWa
to be aware of which hazardous wastes
are entering their collection and
treatment systems. On the other hand.
the Agency believes that most
schargers of considerably smaller
amounts of hazardous wastes will noL
as a gen teJ rule, present the potential
for adverse Impact at the POTW.
As ageenral rule, the AgerucybeLievee
that discbarg rs of less than fifteen
kilograms per month (the equivalent of
about one poimd per day ) of hazardQiis
waste to POTWi pz ent little danger of
ad erse Impact to such POTWs. For this
reason, today’s role provides an
exemption for such discharger ,. unless
the hazardous wastes are acute
hazardous wastes as specified in 40 CFR
281.30(d) and 201.33(e). Today’s rule also
provides that afl aon.exempt -
disthargers of hazardou, wastes must
submit the name of the hazardous waste
discharged. the EPA hazardous waste
number. and the type of discharge
(whether batch or continuous). The
Agency belteve. that this Is the essential
Information iiL u.h I i needed to enable
POTWs ‘abe .iwuoeof which hazardous
wastes ate entering their systems and to
enable them to decide whether to
request further data from a particular
discharger Today’s rule also requires
those ind Ial s discharging more
than 100 per month of a
hazardous waste to a POTW to submit
additional kf - tion. to the extent
such inf is LWJWn and readily
available to user. The additional
information m ”- . of an Identification
of the h daua wa tituents contained
in the listed an estimation of the
mass sod - “ tIon of such
constii b the wastestream
dizthar d J .. ’ j that month. and an
esti___ mass of inch
COn3tIb to wsilciIt 5
expctedtobsdisthsrgeddwlngthe
folloutng . .tha . POIW. may
decid, to more detailed
Infarma ma usy discharger on a
case.by’.caasb tn the exercise of
authorities x d under local law.
POiWsinay of o decide. In the exercise
of local an ri es. not to provide any of
the above . m .(ibu3 or reduced
reporting rsqpisements If they do not
deem uiate for their
Two stated that because
of the of the “mixture rule”
In 40 20Z. . )(2)ftlI3 facilities
discharging wastewater containing any
amount of hazardous waste would be
subject to the proposed notification
requirements. regardless of the proposed
exemption for small quantity generators.
The regulation cited by the
commenters provides that waste
mixtures that Include a hazardous waste
that Is classilied as hazardous solely by
virtue of exhibiting a hazardous
characteristic identified In 40 CFR
281.20-281.24 are hazardous only if the
mixtures themselves exhibit a
hazardous characteristic. A companion
rule, 4OCFR 281.3(a)(2fliv), provides that
mixtures that Include a hazardous waste
listed In 40 CFR 281.33-281.33 (other
than one which Is hazardous solely
because It exhibits • characteristic
Identified in 40 CFR 281.20-26124) are
hazardous unless the resultant mixture
Is “delisted” pursuant to 40 CYR 260.20.
260 22, or one of the exceptions in 40
CFR 28t3(a)(2fllv)(A)—{E) applies. The
result of these rules Is that mixtures of
small quantities of certain hazardous
wastes with large quantities of process
or other solid wastes render the entire
mixture a hazardous waste. These rules
apply to Industrial users covered by
today’. rule accordingly, for purposes of
ascertaining whether an industrial user
discharges between 0 and 15 kilograms
per month. 15 to 100 lograms per
month or over 100 kIlograms per month
of hazardous waste, the Industrial user
must apply the RCA mixture rules to
calculate the volume of hazardous waste
being Introduced to the sewer.
Two commenters stated that the
Agency should limit the notification
requirement to significant Industrial
users as defined In proposed 40 CFR
403.3(u) who have never before notified
EPA of their hazardous waste activities.
This commentei’ stated that less than
one percent of-all hazardous wastes
generated is assodated with non-
significant industrial users.
The Agency believes that limiting the
notification requirement to significant
Industrial users would not be adequate
to fulfill the statutory requirement of
section 3018(d), sInce the definition of
significant Industrial user does not
necessarily Include the dlschargers of
hazardous wastes covered under RCRA
aectlon 3010. In addition. EPA believe,
that notification by all hazardous waste
discha.rgers will assist POTWs In
ascertaining whether the cumulative
effect of many small discharges of
hazardous waste may cause pass
through or Interference. Prior
notification to EPA of hazardous waste
activities under RCRA does not
constitute compliance with today’s rule.
since the notification would not
necessarily include .11 the Items of
information .peafied in this rule.
Some commenteri suggested that EPA
provide an exemption for the discharges
desa’ibed in 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(A)—(E)
and an exemption from notification
requirements for acute hazardous
wastes. They rprnmznended that the
exclusion should specify a level for each
characteristic waste as well as for total
listed wastes.
The Agency notes that 40 CFR
281.3(a)(2)(iv) (A)—(E) describes certain
wastes that are not classified as
hazardous waste. Discharge of such
materials to a POTW would not,
therefore, trigger today’s notification
requirements. In addition, the Agency
believes that such discharges present
little potential danger of pass.through or
Interference at POTWs. However,
POTWs may require notification of
these discharges on a case-by--case basis
pursuant to local authorities.
Today’s rule does not grant an
exemption for acute hazardous wastes.
Such wastes have been identified under
the RCRA program as meriting controls
more stringent than for other types of
hazardous waste (e.g., there Is a less
extensive small quantity generator -
exemption). end EPA believes that
Information on the discharge of any
quantities of audi wastes to a POTW is
Important for P0TW planning to prevent
pass through or Interference.
Some commenters questioned the
requirement that Industrial users - -
provide notification to the POTW of any
substantial change In the volume or
character of hazardous wastes
discharged. Notification of substantial
changes in pollutants discharged Is
already required pursuant to 40 CFR
403.12(j), and will be modified by
today’. rule to specifically provide for
notification with regard to substantial
changes In hazardous waste discharges.
These commentate requested
clarification about the definition of
‘.ub ,tantlal change In the volume or
character of pollutants” as well as the
means of notification. Mother
commenter felt that the language should
be deleted because It Implied continuous
monitoring.
The pos sfbil ltyof providing a
regulatory definition for “inbetantlal
change” In the volume or character of
pollutants In an Industrial user
discharge was specifically addressed in
the preamble to the final PIRT rule (53
FR 40562), whIch was promulga ted on
October 17. 1988. The preamble
discussion of 40 CFR 403.12 (j) stated
that EPA has determined that a
regulatory definition of substantial
change In the volume or character of
-------
30104 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 142 / Tuesday. july 24. 1990 I Rules and-Regulations
pollutants discharged ii Inadvisable
because what Is substantial In a given
situation will depend on several
variables (53 FR 40599). The Agency
stated that substantial change should be
determined by the comparable notice
requirements for direct dischargers
under the NPDES regulation. and
supplemental. or more stringent, notice
requirements adopted by the POTW or
required by the permitting authority In
the POTW ’s N’PDES permit With
respect to substantial changes In the
volume or character of pollutants
discharged. the Agency stated that these
should include a substantial change In
any characteristic of the industrial -
user’s wastewater discharge, including
volume, flow, the amount or
concentration of pollutants. and the
discharge of new pollutants not
previously reported to the POTW. Only
changes which the Industrial user
expects to occur on a regular basis over
an extended period of time (three
months or more) need to be reported.
Sporadic or episodic changes in the
volume or character of a discharge are
not ordinarily covered by the changed
discharge notification. However.
depending on the circumstances, the
industrial user may have to report these
discharges in accordance wflh other
pretreatment requirements. e.g.. the
“slug load” notification requIrements (40
CFR 403.12(fl), the upset provision (40
CFR 403.16), or bypass provision (40
CFR 403.17)). In most cases, a - -
substantial change in the volume or
character of a user’s discharge will
result from a deliberate or planned
change to the user’s facility or
operations. “Substantial” should be
based on the magnitude of change to the
Industrial user’s existing discharge and
not on the anticipated effect of the
changed discharge on the POTW.
Therefore, a regulation specifying
absolute numbers, such as an Increase
or decrease of X gallons of flow
discharged. would not be appropriate.
Although the approach taken today may
result In notifications about eK.nged -
discharges which will not have a -
demonstrable effect on the POTW’s
influent. effluent or sludge quality, EPA
has determined that any incidental
“over notification” is justified by the
need of the POTW (and NPDES
permitting authority) to have
Information on a timely basis to
determine whether, considering other
changes to the POTW’s system or
pollutant control requirements, new
limits on pollutant discharges are
necessary, or should be further
evaluated to prevent pa through or
Interference (see 53 FR 40600).
One cornrnenter inquired about the
mechanism that would be used to
ensure that all industrial users were
made aware of the one-time notification
requirement. Another commenter
suggested that the regulations should
require POTWs to develop procedures
for notification of changes in a user’s
discharge.
The principal mechanism used to
ensure that industrial users are made
aware of the notification requirement Is
through the publication of this notice in
the Federal Register. In addition.
POTWs may wish to send notices to
their Industrial users on the procedures
that they wish them to follow. With
respect to requiring POTWs to develop
procedures for notification of discharge
changes, EPA prefers to leave this
question to the discretion of the specific
POTW.
So e commentera stated that the
certification requirements seemed
Inappropriate for wastewater effluents.
EPA disagrees with these commenters.
The Agency believes that a certification
requirenient Is appropriate for Industrial
users because waste niinimi2atlon will
Improve the quality of the effluent which
enters the POTW and. eventually, the
discharge that enters navigable waters
through the POTW. The certification
requirement will also further EPA’s -
stated goal of pollution prevention by.
helping to reduce loadings of hazardous
‘wastes to sewers. . -
However, the Agency has modified
the language of the certification
requirement somewhat from the — -
November 23. 1988 proposal in order to
make the requirement more appropriate
to discharges of hazardous wastes to
POTWs. Today’s language clarifies that
the requirements apply only to
hazardous wastes for which notification
was submitted under 40 CFR 403.12(p).
In addition, the language now requires
the industrial user to certify that It has a
program In place to reduce the volume
and toxicity of wastes generated to the
degree it has determined to be
economically practicaL The Agency has
substituted the phrase “economically
practlèal” for “economically -
practicable” because It believes the
former phrase more accurately conveys
that generators should choose those
means of reducing the volume and.
toxicity of their wastes that are feasible
and cost.effective. . -
EPA has also deleted the proposed
language requiring notifiers to certify
that they have selected the treatment.
storage, and/or disposal methods
currently available to the user which
ininiffliTe the present and future threat
to human health and the environment.
By recommending retention of the
Domestic Sewage Exclusion, the Agency
has made a determination that disposal
of hazardous wastes to sewers in
compliance with pretreatment
requirements is an environmentally
acceptable disposal method. In addition,
many industrial users discharging
hazardous waste to sewers also treat.
store, or dispose of hazardous waste by
other means and are al.ready subject to
the waste minimization certification
requirements of 40 CFR 284.73. This
deletion will therefore eliminate
duplicative paperwork requirements for
those facilities while still protecting
POTWs and fitiRIling Congressional
intent to encourage the selection of
optimal waste n*nagement techniques
to reduce or eliminate the generation of
hazardous waste.
One commenter suggested that the
waste minimtnatjon certification
requirement should allow POTWs or
industries to focus on alternative control
mechanisms such as source control and
best management practices.
In response. the Agency notes that the
requirement that Industrial users certify.
that a program is in place to reduce the
volume and toxicity of wastes to the
degree that the user has determined to
be economically practical allows
complete flexibility to the industrial
user. Including the use of source controls
and best management practices to
rninimi7e the generation of hazardous
wastes. . - -
One commenter suggested that the
regulations Include a requirement that
all Lndustrial users be placed on a 5.year
schedule to eliminate hazardous wastes
discharged under the Domestic Sewage
Exclusion. However, the Study -
demonstrated that in general. PCTWs
are capable of accepting a certain
amount of hazardous waste without
threatening the POTW. human health or
the environment. The Agency therefore
believes that with proper controls, such
as those In today’s rule, elim(nAtlon of
all hazardous waste discharges from
industrial users is unnecessary at the
present time.
With respect to the use of
supplemented EPA Form R or RCRA
Forms to fulfill the proposed notification
requirement. the majority of the
commenters who addressed this issue
supported the use of such forms. The
commenters believed that the use of
these forms would lessen duplicative
and burdensome paperwork
requirements. Other commenters
opposed the use of these forms, stating
that the use of such forms would lead to
extraneous or misleading Information
that would create an administrative
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 142 / Tuesday. u1y 24. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
30105
burden tar POTWs. They stated that
Form R aught simplify the reporting
requirement for some Industrial users.
but would not simplify POTWe’ task of
evaluating the form and sorting Out
unnecessary Information.
In response to these comments. the
Agency Is darsfylng today that PA
Form R and existing RCRA forms may
be used to fulfill the notification
requirement as long as the industrial
user submits all Information required Lfl
todays rule. However, POTW5 may
require Industrial users to use other
forms Ii they wish. Industrial users may
also submit the required Information by
other mean.s. such as a letter.
Two cominenters stated that the
information on Form R would be based
on pure estimates on the part of the
discharger. In response. EPA points out
that today’s notification requirement
also requires estimates for the mass and
concentration of hazardous waste
constituents, as well as the mass of
constituents discharged over the
following twelve months. These -
estimates should be based on the best
available data,
Conimenteri stated that Form R would
not cover a sufficient range of pollutants
and that the list of SARA compounds
was very different from the list of
hazardous wastes under sectIon 3001 of
RCRA. In the case of substances which
are listed or charactethtlc wastes under
section 3001 of R A which do not
appear on Form P. the Industrial user
must submit the required Information on
those wastes to EPA. the States. and the
POTW. In addition. although section 313
of SARA only requires notification for
Industrial users with more than ten
employees. todays rule does not include
any exemptions based on the number of
employees at the facility.
A commenter ,u ested that the
reporting requirements under 40 C ’R
403.12 be used to fulfill the notification
requirement. In response, the Agency
notes that pollutants reported under 40
CFR 403.12 (b). (d), or(s) need not be
reported under todays notification
requirement. However, the reporting
requirements under the above-
mentioned provisions of 40 R 403.12
apply to pollutants regulated under
applicable categorical pretreatsiant
standards. Thus the reporting
requirements under 40 R 403.12 may
not necessarily address hazardous
wastes and would fulfill today’s
requirements only If such wastes had
been reported under 40 CFR 403.12 (b).
(d). or (e).
To clarify that todays rule applies to
new industrial users or to existing
Induatilal users which will discharge
hazardous waste only La the future. EPA
has added a provision requiring
industrial users who commence
dischar ng after the effective date of
today’s rule to provide the notification
no later than 180 days after the
discharge of the hazardous waste.
c. Today’s Rule
Today’s rule provides that the
industrial user shail notify the POTW.
the EPA Regional Waste Management
Division Director, and State hazardous
waste suthoritles In writing of any
discharge Into the POTW of a
substance. which. If otherwise disposed
of, would be a hazardous waste wider
40 ‘R part 281. Such notification must
Include the name of the hazardous
waste as set forth in 40 CFR part 281. the
EPA hazardous waste number, and the
type of discharge (continuous, batch. or
other). If the industrial user discharges -
more than 100 kilograms of such waste
per calendar month to the POTW. the
notification shall also contain the
following Information to the extent such
information is known and readily
available to the Industrial user an
Identification of the hazardous
constituents contained In the wastes, an
estimation of the mass and
concentration of such constituents in the
wastestream discharged during that
calendar month, and an estimation of
the mass of constituents In the
wastestreem expected to be discharged
during the following twelve months. All
notifications must take place within 180
days of the effective date of this rule.
Industrial users who commence
discharging after the effective date of
this rule shall provide the notification no
later than 180 days after the discharge of
the hazardous waste. Any notification
under this paragraph need be submitted
only once for each hazardous waste
discharged. However, notifications of
changed discharges must be submitted
under 40 CFR 403.12 (J). The notification
requirement in this section does not
apply to pollutants already reported
under the se1f .mon1torlng requirements
of 40 CFR 403.12(b), (d), and (e).
Industrial users are exempt from the
above requirements during a calendar
month In which they dis ’h rge no more
than fifteen kilograms of hazardous
wastes, unle the wastes are acute
hazardous wastes as specified In 40 ‘R
281.30(d) and 281.33(e). DIscharge of
more than fifteen kilograms of non-acute
hazardous wastes In a calendar month.
or of any quantity of acute hazardous
wastes as specified La 40 CFR 261.30(d)
and 281.33(e), requires a one-time
notification. Subsequent months di.. .ag
which the Industrial user discharges
additional quantities of such hazardous
waste do not require additional
notification.
In the case of new regulations under
section 3001 of RCRA identifying
additional characteristics of hazardous
waste or listing any additional
substance as a hazardous waste. the
industrial user must notify the POVW.
the EPA Regional Waste Management
Division Director, and State hazardous
waste authorities of the discharge of
such substance within 90 days of the
effective date of such regulations.
In the case of any notification made
under today’s rule, the industrial user
shall certify that it has a program in
place to reduce the volume or toxicity of
hazardous wastes generated to the
degree It has determined to be
economically practical.
£ Individual Co-b’ol Mechanisms for
Industrial Users (40 CFR 403.8(fl(l)(iii))
a. Proposed 1Thi ,n e
The existing pretreatment regulations
require POTWa with approved
pretreatment programs to have the legal
authority to control, through permit.
order, or similar means, the contribution
to the POTW by each industrial user to
ensure compliance with pretreatment
standards and requirements. EPA’s
experience In developing and overseeing
the pzetrea t a ,wam has led It to
believe that Individual control
mechanisms are Lbs best way to ensure
copIizIn with applicable’
pretreatment standards and
requirements. Such a system gives the
Industrial user Individual notice of all of
the mctr atment reqwiementa to which
ills subject. thus making It easier for
such users to understand their
obligations before a violation occurs
and ensuring more effective prevention
of pass through and Interference.
For these reasons, the Agency
proposed on November28, 1988 to
revIse 40 Q’R 403.8(0 to require that
POTW5 with approved pretreatment
programs Issue discharge permits or
equivalent individual control
mechanism ’ to Industrial users
Identified as sigeificant wider proposed
40 ( R 403.3(u). Under the proposal.
such control mechanisms would contain.
at a minimum, the following element,:
(1) Statement of duration (in no case
more than five years);
(2) Statement of noa.tranzferability
without prior POTW approvsk
(3) Applicable effluent limits based on
categorical pretreatment standards and
local limits:
(4) Applicable monitoring, sampling.
and reporting requirements:
-------
30106 - Federal Register I VoL 55. No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24. 1990 / Rules and Regulation..
(5) NotificatIon requirement. for slug
discharges as defined In 40 R 403 .3(b ) :
and
(6) Statement of applicable civil and
criminal penalties for violation of
pretreatment standards and -
requirements.
The Agency solicited comment on the
merits of the proposed revision.
Specifically. the Agency requested
comment on: (1) The appropriateness bf
limiting the ra ulsement to Industrial
users defined as significant under
proposed 40 Q R 403.3(u). or the
appropriateness of additional or
alternative targets, such as categorical
users or notifiers of hazardous waste
discharges under proposed 40 CER
403.22(p); (2) whether the requirement
should apply only to P01W. wIth more
than a specified number of Industrial
users (and. If so. what number would be
appropriate asa cut-off point): end (3)
whether the list of condition.. proposed
should be reduced, expanded. or
modified.
b. Response to Comments
The Agency received many comments
on this Issue. Commentera included
States, P01W.. trade associations,
Industries and environmental groups. Of
these, most supported the proposal in
me form and many supported It as
roposed.
Several cemmenters suggested that
me Instruments other than permits.
- such as contracts or administrative
orders. might serve as equivalent control
mechanisms. Most of those opposing the
requirement stated that the P01W
should have the flexibility to choose
whether or not to Implement a system of
individual control mechanisms. One
commenter stated that the requirement
was redundant, because every P01W
with an approved program Is already
required to notify users of pretreatment
requirements and to have the authority
to prohibit harmful pollutants born
entering the POTW.
POTWs are required under the
existing pretreatment regulations to
have and exercise the authority to
control through permit, order, or similar
means, the contribution of Individual
indus ial users to the POTW (40 CFR
403,8(fl(IiI)). It Is also true that, under the
existing regulat Ions. P01W. are
requued to notify users of applicable
pretreatment standards and
requirements and to ensure compliance
with such standards and requirements.
The Agency does not believe, however.
that P01W. have consistently exercised
discretion under the existing
•atlona to develop adequate
trial user control ecbanlsms.
A ts conducted of local pretreatment
programs have led the Agency to
conclude that many existing control
mechanisms are inadequate to ensure
compliance with pretreatment
requirements and that Industrial users
should often be provided with better
notice of pretreatment requIrements.
The Agency continues to believe that
Individual control mechanisms are the
best way to accomplish these ob)ective .
For this reason. EPA proposed to requite
P01W. to Issue permits or other
individual control mech n4ama to
significant Industrial users.
Today’s rule will provide substantial
benefits to the P01W, to the Industrial
user, and to the pretreatment program as
a whole. For Instance, a user subiect to
both categorical standards and local
limits would receive individual notice of
which limits are applicable (i.e.. the
most stringent of the two) for each
regulated pollutant In Its discharge.
Similarly. a user with equivalent mass-
or concentration-based limits or
alternative Limits derived by the
combined wastestream formula would
be informed of such limits In Its permit
or other Individual control mer hi ntm.
Users would also be individually
notified of sampling and reporting
requirements. Including any
requirements more stringent than t e
applicable Federal mfnivrum -
requirements. An Individual control
mechanism also benefits the user by
providing notice of applicable
requirements before a violation occurs,
rather than afterwards. In addition. —
individual control mechanisms provide a
mechanism for the POTW to Impose
Individualized pretreatment
requirement. (e g.. for sampling and
reporting) on an industrial user. Finally,
as some commenter. pointed out, this
requirement would bring greater
consistency to administration and
implementation of the national
pretreatment program across the
country. Some cothmenters also felt that
uniform Federal requirements were
necessary to ensure fairness In the
administration of the program.
Several commenters stated that
mandatory Individual control
mechanisms would be costly for
P01W.. One commecter said that the
rule would require POTWs to “scrap
existing arid approved pretreatment
programs. Some POTWs stated that they
were unnecessary because they already
bad effective ordla nces.
Although the Agency I. sensitive to
concerns regarding costs, EPA notes that
many POTiNs already Issue permit. or
other individual control me hnn ms to
some or all of their user. and will
probably need little or no modification
to their existing program to meet these
requirements. POV ’Ns which heretofore
have relied entirely on ordinances to
ensure compliance will require greater
modification of their programs to comply
with today . rule. However. EPA
believes that the long-term benefits of
this approach will Justify the costs, even
for P01W. that now rely on ordinances
as their only control mechanism.
P01W. wIll be able to reduce their
costs by utilizing existing data and by
Incorporating some existing
requirements Into the new system.
Substantive requirements of the
POTW’s program (such as problblted
discharge., monitoring and reporting
requirements. and penalty provisions)
should be self-Implementing under the
P01W. ordInance. Many of these
requirements could simply be written
into the lndivtdual control mechanism,
while others could be aajusted with
slight modifications to reflect the
particular circumstances of the user.
Where the P01W already possesses all
necessary data from Its users to enable
It to identify the character and volume
of pollutants con.trlbuted by each user to
the POTW, there would be no need to
collect that Information again. In
support of It. view, EPA points out that
one P01W commented that ft was ,
initially reluctant when required to
implement a permit system by its State
Approval Authority. However, It found
that Implementation wa. fairly simple
when standardized forms were : c
developed, and Its users preferred to
have all of their requirements listed in
one document.
One P01W commented that its State
law prohibits municipalities with.
population of greater than 500,000 from
using permits to control Individual.
discharges to the POTN. The - - - —
coznmenter did not Indicate whether ..ll
individual control mechanisms were
similarly prohibIted. 11 not . under the -
nile as promulgated, the com nthr may
use some other equivalent Individual
control mechanism. Alternatively, the
commenter would have to seek a
revision In Its State law. In another
context, s commenter requested that the
Agency clarify the meaning of
“equivalent control mechanlsmf which
couldbe used in place of permits.
Another commenter stated that, If
approaches other than permits have
been approved and found effective, they
should be allowed to continue and that
EPA should not limit the definition of
Individual control mechanisms to
permits only.
In this regard, the Agency would like
to clarify both what It considers to be an
acceptable TM perinir under today’s rule.
and what may constitute “equivalent
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 142 / Tuesday. July 24. 1990 I Rules and.Regulatlons
30107
control mechanisms”. Where possible.
5 nalogles or distinctions are drawn
between pretreatment permits and
NPDES permits because most POiWs
are vesy familiar (as NPDES permittees)
with the NPOES program. First, unlike
federal requirements applicable to direct
dischargers. Industrial users are not
required under today’s rule to obtain a
permit prior to discharging to a POTW.
(However. PO’flNs may establish such a
requirement pursuant to their own legal
authorities). Second. industrial users
must comply with all applicable
preireathielit requirements under federal
law, whether or not they are contained
In the permit or equivalent Individual
control mechanism. A. a corollary.
compliance by the Industrial user with
the terms of the permit doe. not shield it
from liability for failure to comply with
federal pretreatment requirements not
set forth in the permit. However. EPA
expects that the POTW will do
evesything possible to ensure that the
limits and other requirements in the
permit are as accurate and complete as
possible. and will notify the user of any
changes In applicable pretreatment
requirements which become effective
subsequent to the Issuance of the permit.
As stated In the preamble to the
proposed nile. the Agency will require
tw’ ce of individual discharge
permits or equivalent control
me 4 utn111ma.” An adequate equivalent
csutxol mechanism I. one which ensures
urns deree of specificity and
cutitrol as a permit. To clarify that the
couditious of the Individual control
rJman1iim must be enforceable against
the ‘igelficant Industrial user through
this usual remedies for noncompliance
(ud forth In 40 CFR 403.8(fl(1)( vi) (A)).
‘A has amended the language of 40
Q R 403.8(fl(1)(vI)(B) to provide that
5 .uiseatment requirements enforced
through the remedies of 40 CFR
U J(lli1flV1liA) shall Include the
requirements set forth In Individual
swirol mechanisms. In addition. the
A cy has added to proposed 40 CFR
1(1)(1)(llh) a statement that individual
iwilUl mechanisms must be
Jw .eable.
A notes that the most effective
witrol mechanisms should also be
trIctly enforceable” under local law.
Cenerally. for an Individual control
nrtrhffi nIsm to be strictly enforceable.
local ordinance must specify that the
ma and conditions of the control
i iIim can be challenged
(IllTnmnla t ratively and/or in court) only
wIthin a very LImited time period after
control mechanism becomes
el e tIve. 11 the control mechanism is not
chafl r ged within the alloted time
period. it cannot later be challenged In
an enforcement proceeding (for
guidanc. on this and other issues
concerning individual control
mechanisms. sea EPA’s Indust rial User
Permitting Guidance Manual.
(September 1989)).
Commenters suggested several
alternatives to the use of permits as
Individual control mechanisms. These
Included ordinances, administrative
orders. and contracts. Although only
two commenters discussed the use of an
ordinance as a control mechanism. some
POTWa rely on ordinances as their
principal control mechanism. An
ordinance may offer fairness and
consistency In its application, but It
does not provide specificity and
individual notice to significant Industrial
users. One POTW stated that its
ordinance, together with notice by mail
to individual users, was sufficient. In
response. the Agency emphasizes that.
although a letter provides notice to the
individual user of applicable limits and
other requirements. an ordinance system
contains the same limits for all
industrial users and does not provide for
POTW evaluation of significant
Industrial users to determine whether
Individual requirements are necessary
for that user. Accordingly. an ordinance
will not be considered an equivalent
control mechanism under today’s rule.
Two commanter$ discussed the use of
administrative orders as an alternative
control mechanism. One commenter
stated that administrative orders are an
effective method of imposing
pretreatment and reporting requirements
on Industrial users and are less
paperwork.intensiVe than permits. One
POTW commented that it modified Its
administrative orders to attempt to
comply with EPA’s oversight requests.
but did not succeed In meeting all
requirements. This commenter also
stated that it Is necessary for the
Agency to clearly specify the
requirement. for Individual control
mechanisms.
Ths Agency agrees that detailed
admIn1 tratlve orders may be an
equivalent Individual control
mechanism. In order to completely
satisfy today’s requirement with an
administrative order system. the POTW
must Issue administrative orders to its
significant industrial users whether or
not they are complying with all
applicable pretreatment standards and
requirements. In addition. such orders
must contain all of the mill Iniuzn
elements of an individual control
mechanism specified in todays rule. The
use of administrative orders therefore
may not be necessarily less paperwork’
Intensive than other Individual control
mechanisms. Finally, administrative
orders that are typically Issued only in
the context of an enforcement action
may not meet one or more of the criteria
for an adequate control mechanism
described above and thus would not
satisfy today’s requirements. POTWs
may. of course. use a mix of appropriate
administrative orders. permits. and
other equivalent individual control
mechanisms to satisfy today’s rule.
Several comomenters mentioned the
use of contracts as a control mechanism.
One stated that the successful use of
contracts precluded the need for
permits. and two others equated the use
of contracts with the use of permits.
Two comrnenters stated that the permit
should be signed by the permittee and
“act [ as a) legal contract between the
POTW and the permnittee.”
The use of contracts as a control
mechanism was addressed in a previous
rulemakIng (53 FR 40582. October 17,
1988). In that rulemaking. EPA stated
that contracts do not provide a POTW
with the requisite penalty authority for
an approved program and are not an
adequate control mechanism for POTWs
with an approved pretreatment program.
As a result. all references to the use of
contracts as a control mechanism were
deleted from the general pretreatment
regulations (for a d1scm sion of this
Iuue, see the abo,* ’mantioned Federal
Register notice at 53 FR 40574 et seq.). A
‘permlt” signed by the permittee (I.e..
the Industrial user) may be deemed a
contract and thus lose its effectiveness
as a control mechanism. POTWs that
currently use contracts as control
mechanisms may Incorporate most of
the terms of such contracts Into their
newly Issued non .contractual Individual
control mechanisms If such terms are
current. reflect applicable pretreatment
standards and requirements. and
otherwise meet the requirements of
today’s rule.
Several commenters appeared to be
confused about the meaning of the
statement In the preamble to the
proposed ndem ki1 S that the Agency
was proposing to require POTWs with
approved programs to have “the legal
authority to Issue Individual discharge
permits or equivalent control
mechanisms.” Several POTWs
commented that they supported the
proposal. as some of them already had
the authority to Issue permits. One State
commented that the proposal was not
adequate unless the POTW Is also
required to actually Issue the control
mechanism. One POTW supported a
requirement that POTW5 have permit
authority, but not a requirement to issue
-------
30108 Federal Register I VoL
55. No. 142 I Tuesday. July24, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
permits. Finally, one trade association
commented that the Agency should
remove the word “permits” (tom the
requirement If permit Issuance was cot
mtended to be a mandatory
reqUifP?ltP1it
EPA intended that the proposed rule
be interpreted consistently with the
Agency’s InlerpTetat lon of other
requirements of 40 CFR 403.81fl(1). I.e.,
the requirement that the POTW have the
authority to undertake various activities
n,that&hePONmust in fact.
engugn In thase activities. EPA Is
revlaing the language of 40 ‘R 403 .8( 1)
to clarify that POTM pretreatment
prv auza must be Implemented to
exercise the authorities In 40 CFR
In the proposed rulemaking, the
Agency also requested comments on (13
the appropriateness of limiting the
requirement to industrial users defined
as signiflant under proposed 40 CFR
4( .3 nJ or the uppiopoateness of
addttianal or alternative targets, such as
catc .eka1 u o or notifiers of
hamrdmm str discharges undet
proposedW aa 403.121p) (2) whether
the f!, .rIMTt should apply only to
P07W. with more than a specified
numflerafththzsthal users (and. if so,
what mrna would be appropriate S .
cnt.cffpo(nt sod (3) whether the list of
should be
uU ” 4 or modified. The
A 5 iwuni’ vll a number of comments
in ipu these questions.
Rc bal cEthe commenters on the
propeaaI1rucu edto the question of
which liide ind usms should be
requtrrd heve tài (tvidual control
mei .m a-Saueral commenters stated
that the 7 Wehcold have the
flp jt,jfi5 which users should
be wm . IL vci , most commenters
who i, n fth, proposal agreed that
EPA miflI iq u,. y certain classes of
tnd .. -J sr’whicb POTWs
wou!á&e - ‘i p to Lute individual
annul Most of these
D44M _ d to require th.
ued . iu dr0l mecb i.. foe
users. With reaped
__________ fl
user argers of
haerduus es zost commeaters
statndthattheusealuustrol
rranth users should be at
the diantiemofdie Control Authority.
Il i osmmentess suggested
that thr d the requirement
to lo u P - . ’sr ”, of hazardous
wor ill industrial users.
naDy .m n sten wanted the
. . .dITLmh..4focategoriCal Use’s.
N afi wim tta provided a
_________thsr the Agency to
.ttfl ,m ... . .. .5requjgement that
permits or equivalent Individual control
mechanisms be Issued to all significant
iriduetnal users. The Agency agrees with
those coaunentera who supported
limiting the requirement to significant
users, including categorical users. The
Agency also agrees with those
commenters who believed that the
definition of significant Industrial user Is
sufficiently inclusive and flexible to
ensure that the necessary users axe
regulated by Individual control
mechanisms. The definition of
significant thdu trial user, as
promulgated In today’s rulemaking.
includes all cat egoricat discharger. and
all noricategorical dischargers meeting
certain criteria, except to the extent that
the Control Authority, with the approval
of the Approval Authority, modifies the
list of significant tnduathal users In
accordance with criteria specified in 40
CFR 403.3(11(13(u).
EPA believes that issuing Individual
control mechanisms to non.signlflcant
users should be at the discretion of the
POTW because this clas, of users does
not typically have sufficient potential to
cause pass through or Interference to
warrant a requirement for individual
control mechanisms. For this reason.
todays rule does riot require that
P01W. Issue Individual control
mechanisms to all Industrial users, A
P01W may, however, require non.
significant users to have permit, or
other Individual control mechanisms.
One POTW commented that there
should be two classes of Industrial user
permits. In response. EPA points out that
POTWa are free to Implement this
approach if they wish, although the
Agency does not believe that a two-
class approach would be appropriate for
all POTW. In a national rule.
EPA disagrees with those commenters
who stated that the requirement (or
Individual control mechanisms should
be limited to categorical users. Such a
requirement would fail to Include many
users whose discharges significantly
affect POTW5. One commenter stated
that the Agency should not require
permits for small discharger., but
supported reqwring permits for
categoricels. However, the Agency
believes that even small discharger.
should be required to obtain Individual
control mechanisms if they qualify as
eigniflcant Industrial users because they
may have. significant effect ons
PO’TW. On the other hand, If a non-
categorical user Is not classified us
significant Industrial user, it would not
be required to obtain an individual
control mechanism under today’s rule.
A few commenters addressed the
question of whether the requirement
should apply only to P01W. with more
than a specified number of industrial
users. Several commecters sin ted that
the requirement shculd apply to all
POTWs with approved programs.
One stated that even a small P01W
may need to Issue individual control
mechanisms to significant discharger..
Another commenter stated that small
POTWu (less than 5 millIon gallons per
day) with • small number of significant
users (less than ten) should not be
required to issue such control
mechanisms to their significant usezu.
However, one large P01W commented
that this requirement should only apply
to smaller P01W. (under 20 mgd).
In response to the comxnenter who
wanted to Limit the applicability of the
requirement to smaller POTW, the
Agency believes that the larger the
POTW (and the greater the number of
Industrial users), th. greater the benefit
to be derived from Individual control
mechanisms. On the other hand, the
Agency does not believe that POTWs
with a small number of significant user.
should be categorically exempted from
this requirement. Even a small number
of significant users may have * - -
substantial Impact a P01W,
particulariy where ibsIr disch”ges
represent • large perosetage of the flow.
In addition. Industrial users will benefit
from Individualized oodflcation of the.,.
limits and monitoring requirements that
apply to them, regardles. of the size of.
the POTW.
Several commenters addressed the -
ninimum elements to be Included in an
Individual control mechanism. A PO’IW
op posed to the proposal commented that
there should be no minimum elements If
permits were to be required because the
POTW I. In the beet position to -
determine the necessary contents of a
permit, and none of the elements would-
be appropriate under all circumstances.
Another commenter recommended that
the Agency allow incorporation by
reference as an alternative to listing -
conditions In the permit or alternative
Individual control mechanism. Most
commenters, however, appeared to be.
satisfied with the list of conditions In
the proposal. One POTW commented
that the requirements concerning non-
transferability, slug load notification.
and penalties be dropped from the list.
beca use these are already set forth In Its
local requirements.
The Agency believe, that there ibould
be minimum requirements for Individual
control me AriI e,t . Otherwise the
requirement that P01W. issue such
niechinisnu would be Ineffective. The
Agency believes that Inc rportdon by
reference Is generally not appropriate
because of the Importance of effective
-------
Federal Regl,ter / Vol. 55, No 142 / Tuesday. July 24 1990 / Rules and Regulations
30109
notice to the significant industrial user
of .11 pretreatment requirements
contained In the Individual control
mechanism.
Several comment en stated that the
list of minimum requirements for
Individual control mechanisms should
be expanded. Two commenteis said that
the list should Indude (any required)
compliance schedule,. One commenter
suggested that the list should Inclade a
statement of severability. One POTW
described Its own additional
requirements, which indudedi A
regularly updated spill prevention
program a water and waeteload
balance calculatlom a wastewater
chazsclerization data base a schematic
flow diagram; a building layout diagram.
Including all drains to the collection
system; and a description of the
pretreatment systen
The requirements lIsted fit the
proposed rule were intended to be
minimum requirements. This leaves the
POTW much flexibility in adding other
elements. Elements such a. water and
wasteload calculations, flow diagrams.
building layouts. etc.. are more suitable -
for Inclusion on a case-by-case basis
rather than through a national rule.
POTWs may also include a statement of
severability, but the Agency I. not
requiring such a statement because even
If a control mechanism is found to he
Invalid under local law becauie of a
single provision, the user is nonethelese
required to comply with all applicable
pretreatment standard, and
requirements.
The Agency has issued detailed
gwdance on the development of
industrial user permit. (see the EPA
Thdustxioi User Permitting Guidance
Afanuci. September 1989). The
Information In his manual should be of
use to all POTWa In utilizing Individual
control mechanism. to Implement
pretreatment requirements.
The Agency agrees that where a
compliance schedule Is required It
should hi Included in tha individual
control d nê i Fos’ this reason.
today’. rule Includes such a
requirement. The Agency point. out that
such compliance schedules cannot
relieve an Industrial usez of Its federal
obligation to comply with categorical
pretreatment standards or any other
federal pretreatment requirements In a
timely manner, and language to this
effect has also been added to today’s
rule. Compliance schedule. placed In
individual control mechanisms are those
necessary for the attainment of new or
revised categorical pretreatment
standards or more stringent local limits.
rather than those which are the miult of
enforcement actions age Inst the
significant industrial user.
Several commenters opposed the
proposal that Individual control
mechanisms have a duration of no more
than five years. One P01W commented
that locking a user Into a set of
standards based on the combined
wastestream formula would result In
annual changes to the control
mechanism as flow conditions change.
Two other POTWs commented that a
five-year limit would be unduly
burdensome for POT’tVs. One stated
that permits should only need to be
renewed or amended when there are
changes In the quality or quantity of the
user’s discharge. The other stated that
there Is no need to modify the user’s
control mechanism as lang as the user is
In compliance.
- In the r t Instance, the Agency does
not believe that a user is locked” into a
particular set of standards with any
individual control mechanism. The
municipality may structure its permit
program to allow the use of reopener
clauses which would allow the
Individual control mechanisms to be
modified if and when the PCTW revises
Its local limIts. In addition, where
production rates or flow rates are highly
variable, effluent Limits can be written
to reflect such variability. The Agency
ha. provided some guidance on how this
may be accomplished (see the above-
mentioned indus trial User Permitting
GQidance Manual). The Agency believes
that a five-year maximum period Is
reasonabie, diit to the Inevitability of
changes to the POTW’s program and
changes In the characteristics of
wasteweter discharged to the POTW.
This Is consistent with the requirement
promulgated In today’. rule’nnk4’ that
all POTWs must evaluate the need to
revise their local limits every five years
when they apply for renewal of their
NPDES permits. There are many reasons
for changing the control mechanism
requirements. whether or not the user
has changed the quality or quantity of
its discharge, and the Agency believes
that each control mechanism should be
reevaluated at least once every five
years to ensw’e that III. up to date,
The Agency also proposed to require
s statement prohibiting transferability to
a new owner or operator without prior
POTW approval Only one comnmnenter
specifically addressed this Issue. This
commenter stated that so long as
compliance has been maintained under
the conditions of. permit, the POTW
should have ample authority to enforce
the permit, although notification to the
new owner or operator would be
appropriate. The Agency agrees with
this coutmenter. P01W. may have
authority to enforce permits that have
been transferred. However, the
Individual control mechanism Is based
upon Information provided to the P01W
by a particular owner or operator. The
POTW must, at a minimum. Iniow of the
change In ownership or operation to be
able to learn of any forthcoming major
changes to the Industrial user’s
operations. Similarly, the new owner or
operator should have a copy of the
existing control mechanism In order to
have adequate notice of applicable
pretreatment requirements. To ensure
that this occurs , the Agency believer
that prior notification of the POTW and
of the new owner or opera tot is needed
and is therefore promulgating 40 C ’R
4O3.8(f (1 iii)(B) to provide that each
Individual control mechanism must
Include a statement of
nontran.sferability without, at a
minimum, prior notification to the
POTW of the change In ownership or
operation and without at a minimum.
provision of. copy of the existing
Individual control mechanism to the
new owner or operator. Today’s rule
does not, however, require prior
approval by the POTtY. PO1VIs may -
decide to require such prior approval In
the permits they issue.
The Agency also received several
comments on the proposed requirement
that Individual control mechanisms
should Include applicable effluent limits
based upon categorical standards and
local limits. Two POTW. sought to limit
this requIrement One of these
comnmeutera stated thet, doe to the
inherent variability of certain effluent
limits. incorporation of such limits by
reference is preferred. The other
commented that permit li mits should
only Include end-of-process limits and
Incorporate by reference local limits and
the combined wasteetream formula. It!.
unclear to the Agency why this -
commenter believed that only end-of-
process limits should be Included In - -
Individual control mechanism., but the
Agency assumes that this coamenter
was also concerned about variability of
certain effluent limits. As discussed
above, EPA does not believe that
variability of flow and production
should prevent the Inclusion of
appropriate limits In Individual control
mechanisms. EPA. policy is that
POTWs should develop, and place in
individual control mechanisms, case-by-
case Individual end-of-pipe limits for
significant industrial users pursuant
either to 40 CFR 4tfl.5(c) and/or limits
reflecting the application of categorical
standards to the permnittee’s spectflc
operations.
-------
30110 Federal Regleter / VoL 55, No. 142 I Tuesday, July 24. 1990 / Rules and.Regujatjon,
A State suggested that “applicable
State standards” be added to the
category. The Agency agrees that where
these standard, apply, they should be
Included as elements In permits or
equivalent control mechanisms. Early
calculation of all end-of-pipe limit,,
Including those based on state law, will
result in better compliance with
applicable standard,. Today’s rule
therefore includes a requirement In 40
CFR 403.8(fl(1)(ili) to include In the
Individual control mechanism effluent
limits based on any applicable State or
local law. The Agency has also added a
requirement that the individual control
mechanism Include effluent limits based
on applicable pretreatment standard, In
part 403.
Finally, the Agency received two
comments on the requirement that
applicable monitoring, sampling, and
reporting requirement, be included In
Individual control mechanism,. A State
commented that control mechanism,
should also include sampling location(s)
to ensure that compliance is assessed at
the point where the limit, are applied. A
POTW suggested that the reqwrement
be modified in order to clarify that the
requirement refers to sell-monitoring
instead of the POTW’s own compliance
monitorIng activities.
The Agency agrees with both of these
commenters. Sampling requirements
should normally specify sampling
location(s), and the location(s) should be
point(s) i t which the limitations set
forth In the Individual control
mechanism apply. Moreover, the Agency
intended in the proposal to require that
Individual control mechanisms contain
sell monitormg requirement,. The final
rule requires that Individual control
mechanisms specify an identification of
the pollutants to be monitored, sampling
location and self-monitoring
requirements, as well as sampling
frequency and sample type. The Agency
Is also adding a requirement that the.
control mechanism contain
recordkeeplng requirements wher,
applicable, since recoi’dk.eplng may be
very useful In tracking complianc, and
In otherwise enabling the P01W to
obtain needed Information about
significant Industrial users. In addition,
EPA has deleted from the proposed rule
a separate requirement for notification
of slug discharges, since such a
requirement might imply that other types
of notification should not be included In
Individual control mechanism,. Instead,
the Agency is requiring that such
iechanjsni , contain “applicable”
oUflcation requirements, which should
iclude, as well as slug discharges, other
notification requirements contained in
part 403 such as non-compliance
reporting end notification of changed
discharge.
ci Today’s Rule
Today’s rule requires POTWs with
approved pretreatment programi to
issue permits or equivalent individual
control mechanisms to each significant
industrial user. The mechanism, shall be
enforceable and shall contain, at a
minimum, the following elements:
• Statement of duration (In no case
more than five years)
• Statement of non-transferability of
the individual control mechanism
without, at a minimum, prior notification
to the POTW and provision of a copy of
the existing control mechanism to the
flew owner or operator.
• Effluent limits based on applicable
general pretreatment standard, In part
403 of this title, categorical pretreatment
standards, local limits, and State and
local law:
• Self.monltorlng, sampling, reporting,
notification, and recordkeeping
requirements, Including an identification
of the pollutant, to be monitored,
sampling location, sampling frequency,
and sample type, based on applicable
general pretreatment standard, in part
403 of this title, categorical pretreatment
standards, local limit,, and State and
local law and -
• Statement of applicable civil and
criminal penalties for violation of
pretreatment standard, and
requirement, and, where required. any
applicable compliance schedules, Such
schedules may not extend the -
compliance date beyond applicable
federal deadline,,
F Implementing the Cenervi
Pmhib,dons Against Pose Through and’
Interference
1. Toxicity-Based Permit LImits (40 CFR
122.Z1U)(1)(2) and (3fl
a. Proposed rule. To supplement -.
numerical NPDES permit limits for
specific chemicals, EPA has strongly
encouraged NPDES permitting
authorities to establish toxicity testing -
requirement, In municipal permit. and
to develop whole effluent toxicity-based
permit limitations to control toxldty to
aquatic life. Expanded use of toxicity
testing and water quality-based
permitting for POTWs was also one of
the prln paj recommendation, of the
Domestic Sewage Study. EPA ha.
encouraged hi. approach to controlling
toxic effluent., because it allows POTWs
and permit writers to better control pass
through by identifying certain toxic
effects (such as lethality and effect. on
growth and reproduction) of a complex
mixture with one measurement
Toxicity-based permit limits can also be
useful where national categorical
pretreatment standards do not
adequately address pollutants that
cause local toxicity or where there are
no current numerical water quality
criteria for individual chemicals, as i
the case for many toxic and hazardous
constItuent,, In such cases, toxicity.
based permit limits provide a numeric
meanire of the narrative water quality
“no tonics in toxic amounts” standardi,
When such a toxicity-based limit is
violated, a toxicity reduction evaluation
(TRE) can be used to investigate the
causes, sources, end method, to control
the toxicity. A TRE Is a procedure used
to find control methods to reduce or
eliminate toxicity. A TRE provides
systematic methods for locating sources
of POTW whole effluent toxicity and/or
assessing the treatability of the toxicity,
whether through pretreatment (source
control) or through improved treatment
at the POTW. A toxicity identification
evaluation (TIE) Is part of a TRE which
uses toxicity tests to characterize,
Identify, and confirm the specific
causative agents of effluent toxicity.
EPA recently enacted regulation,
requiring that whole effluent toxicity
limits be placed In NPD permits In
appropriate circumstance,, See 40 CFR
12 2 .44(d)), . -. -
On November 23.19* EPA proposed
to revise 40 CFR 122 .21(J) to require that
all existing POTW, conduct whole.
effluent toxicity testing and submit the
results of such testing In their NPDES
permit application,. The Information
would be used by permit writer, to
justify permit limitations and toxicity
reduction evaluations (TR.Esj when the
testing reveals a potential for violations
of water quality standards. The toxicity
testing information could also form the
basis for monitoring requirement. and
other permit condition, when needed to
ensure ongoing compliance with water
quality standarde. -
In encouraging the use of toxicity
testing, EPA has recommended that.
testing requirement, be based on the
technical recommendation, and
principles found In the Technical
Support Document for Water Quality.
based Toxic, Control (TSD) (EPA/440/
4—85-032, September 19* revIsed
edition to be published In 1990), and
EPA ’s toxicity testing protocols, or
equivalent procedures designated by the
Director (I.e., the EPA Regional
Administrator or the NP permft ng
authority in a State that ii federally
approved to administer the NPDES
program), The TSD describes the
rationale for whole effluent toxicity
-------
Federal Register / vol. 55. No. 142 / Tuesday, ruly 24. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
i*, ols and the assessment of receiving
water effects. -.
b. Response to Comments. EPA -
received approxImately 90 co ment o
the topic of toxicity testing. Most of the
comments focused on the need for
toxldty testing at all P01W. and the
test procedurei outlined In the proposal.
The majority of the commenter.
asserted that toxicity testing at all
existIng P01W. was unnecessary and
In some cases redundant. In addition,.
majority of commanter. objected to the
testing procedure, and the frequency of
testing required on the heels of cost and
the possibility that they may conflict
with state toxic control strategies
already in place. The various comments
are discussed In more detail below.
Several commenters stated that EPA
or the permitting authority should
demonstrate that toxicity Is a problem
before requiring whole effluent toxicity
testing.
Section 101(a) of the Clean Water Act
establishes a national policy of restoruig
and maintaining the chemical, physical.
and biological Integrity of the Nation’s
waters. In addition. section 101(a)(3)
clearly states the national policy that
the discharge of toxic poilutant.s in toxic
amounts Is prohibited. Discharger. with
NPDES permits must meet all of the
technology-based requirements of the
CWAas well as any more stringent
requirements necessary to achieve
water quality standards established
under sectIon 303. Section 301 (b)(1)(CJ
and section 402(a)(1) of the CWA
require that NPDES permittees achieve
the effluent limitations necessary to
attain and maintain the numeric and
narrative water quality standards set by
the states or, In appropriate instances,
by EPA. EPA also has authority under
sections 308 and 402(a) (1)—(2) to require
such monitoring as Is necessary to
develop effluent limitations consistent
with the Act
Many P01W. have been found to
discharge toxic substance, In toxic
amounts. Effluent toidclty testing allows
permitting authorities to assess whether
a discharger is complying with state
water quality standards and provides a
justification for establishment, where
necessary, of permit limitations to
achieve those standards. EPA’s surface
water toxics control program uses both
chemical and biological methods to
assess and protect water quality. Whole
effluent toxicity testing Is especially
appropriate where, as for POTWs,
complex chemical Interactions may
occur and where a chemical specific
evaluation alone cannot fully assess the
toxic effects of the effluent or
attainment or nonattainment of the
narrative water quality standard for
toxicity.
One commenter stated that these
regulations should require that water
quality modeling and comprehensive
water quality studies be completed
before toxicity testing is required.
The toxicity testing required by
todays rule Is desigeed to reveal Li a
POTW Is causing or contributing to
ins tream toxicity. Toxlcfty tests are
necessary In assessing the toxicity of an
effluent. The results of such tests In
conjunction with any applicable water
quality modeling Information can lead to
decisions concerning appropriate water
quality-based limits on whole effluent
toxicity. However, EPA does not believe
that water quality modeling should be a
precondition for toxicity testing.
Many corusnenters stated that It
would be more appropriate to use
toxicity testing as an optional
monitoring tool rather than as the basis
for an enforceable limit
EPA emphasizes that today’s rule
does not explicitly require the
establishment of permit limits based on
the results of toxicity tests. Instead. It
requires certaIn P01W. to submit the
results of toxicity tests with their permit
applications. EPA’s regulations at 40
CFR 122.44(d)(1)(Iv), however, already
require whole effluent toxicity limits
where a discharge causes, has the
reasonable potential to cause, or
contribute, to an In-stream excursion
above a numeric citerton for whole
effluent toxicity. A similar requirement
exists regarding excursions above
narrative eriterla. except that limits on
whole effluent toxicity may not be
necessary lithe permitting authority
demonstrates that chemIcal-specific
limits for the effluent are sufficient to
attain and maintain the applicable state
standard. EPA will continue to use the
results of effluent toxicity testing and
other data to establish permitting
priorities, to assess whether a
discharger 1 , In compliance with state
water quality standards, and to develop
permit limitations to achieve those
standards.
• Several commenter, said that toxicity
tests cannot distinguish between
toxicity caused by “common materials,”
such as ammonia and chlorine, and
toxicity caused by section 307(a) priority
pollutants and therefore such tests are
of limltcd use In controlling priority
pollutant,.
In response, the Agency points out
that state narrative standard.,
prohibiting the discharge of toxins La
toxic amounts are not limited to section
307(a) priority pollutants. Toxicity tests
will account for toxicity caused by any
30111
pollutant, whether priority, convenUon
or nonconventi j. Any effluent that
causes unacceptable toxicity In the
receiving waters would violate genera 1 .
prohibi bone on the discharge of toxic
pollutants In toxic amounts and controls
must be established accordingly.
In addition, a few commenters stated
that state disinfection requirement,
would often cause failure of a toxicity
test due to the presence of chlorine, and
therefore toxicity testing should be
conducted before disinfection.
Residual chlorine and other
byproducts of chlorination (I.e. mono-
and dlchlomamines) can be highly toxic
to aquatic life. Therefore, EPA
recommenda that any use of chlorine for
disinfection be carefully evaluated. if
unacceptable effluent toxicity Is found
to be caused by excessive chlorine,
either a reduction in the amount of
chlorine used for disinfection,
dechlorination after disinfection, or use
of alternative disinfection technologies
may be necessary. Whole effluent
toxicity tests are an appropriate means
to Identify whether excessive toxic
chlorine discharges are occurring.
Several commenters suggested the use
of only acute tests to verify the need for
further testing and toxicity reduction. In
response, the Agency notes that today’s
- rule does not specifically require either
acute or chronic tests for any particular
P0’TW. However, after reviewing a
permit application containing the results
of any testing conducted, the Director
may choose to require additional testing
(acute, chronic, or both) as he deems
necessary to assess the toxicity of the
discharge pursuant to his authority
under sections 402 (a) (1)—{2) of the Cleari
Water Act The characteristics of
Instream dilution, effluent variability,
and species sensItivity differ from one
POTW to the next, as do the types of
pollutants discharged. Sometimes
chronic tests are more appropriate,
sometimes acute tests are sufficient and
at other times a combination of both
acute and chronic tests are necessary to
accurately assess the toxicity of an
effluent to aquatic life.
One commenter stated that the
Industrial pretreatment program has
adequately sa eened and Identified
toxicity problems so that In smaller
systems (where the pretreatment
program does not Indicate a potential
for toxic discharges) It Is unnecessary
for POTWi to conduct toxicity testing.
EPA has found that POTWe with
pretreatment programs receive the
majority of Indirect Industrial discharges
and therefore have a significant
potential for effluent toxicity. Even in
smaller POTWs with pretreatment
-------
30112 Federal Register I Vol. 55. No. 142 I Tuesday . July 24. 1990 / Rule, and Regulations
progrnnus. all the toxics In a complex
effluent cannot, as a practical matter, be
measured or linuted singly and, as
stated previously, chemical-specific
testing methods may not address the -
interactive effects of the mixture.
Toxicity testing provides a way to
characterize and ultimately to limit, If
necessary, whole effluent toxicity where
necessary to meet water quality
standards. It may also help Identify the
presence of particular pollutants of
concern so that chemical.speciflc local
limits or other controls can be
developed.
One commenter suggested using a
priority pollutant scan in lieu of toxicity
testing to screen a POiW’s In.Ouent to?
the presence of toxic wastes In
concentrations which would cause
damage to the POTW.
EPA agrees that POTWs should
generally test their Influent for the
presence of individual toxic pollutants.
However, a POTWs effluent may be
toxic due to non-priority pollutants,
complex mixtures of pollutants. or
chemicals added or created during the
treatment process at the PQTW. The
revisions to 40 CFR 122.21(j) require
POTWe to conduct whole effluent
toxicity testing to determine the Impact
of the effluent on water quality.
Several commenten suggested that
toxicity testing should not be required
for wastewater discharged to dry meek
beds, ephemeral drainages, aloughs,
ditches, etc. because these places have
no aquatic life to protect and do not
affect waterways. One commenter-
recommended the use of only chemical-
specific controls In such circumstances.
In response, EPA notes that narrative
water quality criteria apply to aU
designated uses at all flows unless
otherwise specified in state water
quality standards. It Is EPA’s policy that
no acutely toxic conditions may exist in
any state waters, regardless of
designated use. Likewise, criteria for
protection against chronic effects must
be met at the edge of the mixing zone,
where the state water quality stn Im’d
allows a mixing zone. Dry eseek beds,
ephemeral drainage areas. inteimittent
streams, sloughs, or ditches may act as
reservoirs for pollutants which usa be
flushed Into larger pe 1nent waters,
causing toxic Impact.
Many commentera stated that the
requirements for toxicity testing in the
proposed rule conflict with exisnng state
toxic control strategies. Some
commenteri wanted EPA to be more
specific In setting toxicity testing
procedures, while others wanted states
to have more flexibility.
EPA intended in the proposed rule to
provide flexibility for the states by
allowing the use ot testing procedures
equivalent to EPA’s protocols ii they are
accepted by the Director. Thia provision
was apparently misunderstood by many
of the commenters. The proposal, at 50
FR 47653 (proposed 40 CFR 122.21(j)(1))
provided that the Director may require
alternative teat procedures and may
require the submission of definitive
testing data generated according to
procedures specified by the Director to
replace or supplement the test data
specified in the proposaL Todays rule
also provides much flexibility to the
Director In specifying test methods. For
example, paragraph 122,21(J)(3) allows
the use of EPA’. methods or other
established protocols which are
scientifically defensible and sufficiently
sensitive to detect aquatic toxicity. Ta
clarify this requirement, the Agency baa
deleted the provisions in the proposed
rule which referred to the use of specific
protocols and dilution criteria.
A number of commenters stated that
biomonitoring has already been
completed or will be completed for their
facilities as part of the toxics control
programs required under section 304(1)
of the CWA. In response, EPA points out
that Ifs POTW has submitted the
results of toxicity tests with Its permit
application to meet water quality-based
permitting requirements established by
the CWA section 304(1) regulatIons (40
CFR 122,44(d)), then the POTW has met
the toxicity testing requirements In
today’s rule. Whenever that POTW’.
permit is up for renewal, the POTW will
again be required to submit the results
of toxicity tests with Its permit
application pursuant to today’s rule. The
tests must be conducted since the last
NPDES permit reisauance or permit
modification under 40 G’R 122.82(a),
whichever occurred latest. For more
detail on the relationship between the
regulations at 40 ‘R 122.44(d)(1)(ii) and
the testing required by today’s rule, see
the discussion on the requirements of 40
( ‘R 122.44(d) below.
Some commentate suggested that any
proposal affecting application
requirements for municipalities should
be Included in the new municipal
NPDES application form currently being
developed by EPA.
EPA plans to propose new application
requirements for POTWs In the near
future, along with a form to be used In
submitting the application. The final
application forms, when promulgated.
will reflect lbs requirements of today’s.
rule.
Two commenters suggested that EPA
should formally promulgate whole
effluent toxicity testing procedures
pursuant to section 304(h) of the CWA.
Although toxicity test procedures
have not yet been promulgated under
section 304(b) of the CWA, EPA has
proposed new biological measurements
and test procedures for the analysis of
pollutants under section 3 0 4(b) (54 FR
02i8. December 4, 1989). The proposal
would amend 40 CFR part 136 by adding
methods to measure the toxicity of
pollutants In effluents and receiving
waters, by adding methods to measure
mutagenicity and to monitor viruses,
and by updating citations to
microbiological methods. In addition.
EPA and States have routinely used
certain other test methods. EPA’s
published guidance documents on acute
and chronic toxicity test methods have
undergone extensive public comment
and peer review prior to their
publication, following the standard
Office of Research and Development
public comment and peer review
process. In 1984. the Agency concluded
that”’’ • toxicity testing is sufficiently
refined to be used In setting effluent
limitations’ ‘ “ (49 FR 38009 (1984)).
EPA’s studies since 1984 reinforce this
conclusion. The absence of promulgated
guidelines under section 304(h) does not
affect EPA’. authority to require toxicity
testing, nor does It affect the reliability
of the Agency. toxicity testing
protocols.
A number of cornTv nter1 objected to
a perceived objective of the proposal to
“codify elements of the TSD” because . ,,
that document is Intended only as
technical guidance and Is currently
being revised. These commenters
apparently misunderstood EPA’. Intent,
EPA recommends the use of the -
technical methods and principles
presented In the TSD because this
document Is In wide use and has proven
to be a useful tool for conducting -
toxicity protocols, However, In the
proposed and final rules, EPA has
provided a considerable degree of
flexibility to states desiring to use other
testing procedures.
Some commenters stated that toxicity
test procedures are still In the
developmental stage and are not
reliable or precise enough for purposes
of enforcement.
EPA studies Indicate that toxicity test
methods are comparable In accuracy
and precision to chemical analytical
measurements in common use. The TSD
discusses the precision of toxicity test
methods and cites various studie. that
have led EPA to conclude that toxicity
test methods, where prvper4y followed,
exhibit an acceptable range of
variability. EPA recently conducted two
interlaboratory studies of chronic
toxicity testing using Ceriodophnia.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55. No. 142 /_Tuesday, July 24, 1990 I Rules and Reguiations
30113
These studies showed that. high
percentage of the 21 participatIng
laboratories met the survival and
reproduction criteria for acceptability of
test results. Furthermore, EPA has
demonstrated a direct correlation
between effluent toxicity (where
exposure is adequately assessed) and
actual Inatrearn impact The Agency
began. series of eight studies in 1981 to
determine whether effluent toxicity
correlates to an impact on receiving
waters. At eight water quality Impacted
sites around the country. EPA conducted
extensive biosurveys, calculated actual
instream waste concentrations, and
compared the results to measured
effluent tcixicities. Final reports for these
studies are presently available from
EPA. These reports reveal that if an
effluent Is found to be toxic at a certain
ccncentration using standard toxicity
tests, a toxic effect can be expected in
the receiving water if that concentration
Is met or exceeded instrearn.
Several commenters stated that
POTWs are not equipped to handle
certain chemicals that may cause -
toxicity. One commenter also stated that
the proposed rule does not address how
to develop local limits for toxics control
when specific chemicals cannot be
readily Identified as the causative
toxicants during a TRE. One commenter
stated that POTWs would not be able to
Identify sources of toxicity and would
therefore impose arbitrary local limits
on Industrial users.
EPA recognizes that many POTWs are
not designed to treat certain toxica and
that therefore these pollutants tend to
pass through or interfere with the
treatment system at the POTW. The
national pretreatment program and
today’s regulations are intended to
Identify and control these effects.
P0 1W. with approved local
pretreatment programs often require
Industhal users who are Identified as
the source of pass through or
Interference to conduct toxicity
monitoring or take other measures to
help Identify the specific chemical,
causing toxicity. Industrial users are
often able to easily identify potential
toxics used In or created by their
processes. The P01W can then derive
local limits, If necessary. from those
results. The Agency anticipates that Lu
most cases P0flVs will be able to
determine the source of any toxicity and
will be able to develop appropriate local
limits if needed to address the problem.
EPA has also developed TRE and TIE
protocols to help address problematic
discharges where causative agents are
not readily Identified (see. e.g., Method3
forAquotic Toxicity Identification
Evaluations: Phase! Toxicity
Chcrec:er:zodon Procedures. U.S. EPA.
September 1988. EPA 600/3—88/034;
Methods for Aquatic Toxicity
Identification Evaluations: Phase II
Toxicity Identification Procedures. U.S.
EPA, February 1989. EPA 600/3-88/035;
Methods for Aquatic Toxicity
Identification Evaluations.’ Phase III
Toxicity Confirmation Procedures. U.S.
EPA. February 1989. EPA 600/3-88/036
Generalized Methodology for
Conducting Industrial Toxicity
Reduction Evaluations (7flEs), U.S.
EPA. March 1989. EPA 600/2 -88/070’.
and Toxicity Reduction Evaluation
Protocol for Municipal Wastewoter
Treatment Picius. U.S. EPA. April 1989.
EPA 600/2-88/082).
Several commenters were concerned
about the reliability of TREs because
they are allegedly in the developmental
stage and because TR.Es do not identify
specific causes of toxicity or chemical
constituents causing acute or chronic
toxicity.
EPA has found the TRE and TIE
methods currently available to be useful
In helping discharger. to achieve their
NPDES permit limits and comply with
State water quality standards. TR.E’s
often do Identify specific chemical
causes of toxicity. EPA will continue to
develop and refine ThE methods and
provide technical assistance to
permittees. EPA anticipates that there
may be a few cases where a POTW will
be unable to attain or maintain
compliance with toxicity-based limits
despite Implementing an exhaustive
TRE.. applying appropriate influent and
effluent controls, vigorously enforcing
existing pretreatment requirement.s
against industrial users, and maintauiuig
continued compliance with all other
permit limits and requirements. In such
cases. EPA will work with the permittee
to resolve the problem and will exercise
Its enforcement discretion when
considering unusual problems faced by
certain P01W. In complying with
toxicity-based limits.
A majority of the commenters strongly
opposed the requirement that all
existing POTWs conduct toxicity
tenting. Most of these wanted to see
testing procedures applied on a case-by-
case basis, after considering a number
of different factors.
EPA was persuaded by these
comments to reconsider the requirement
that all existing POTWs be required to
conduct toxicity testing as part of their
NPDES permit applications. The Agency
agrees that not all POTWs can be
anticipated to exhibit toxicity and that
toxicity testing for such POTWs could
create an unnecessary burden.
However. EPA expects that with few
exceptions, all POTWs with design
influent flows greater than one million
gallons per day and POTWg with
pretreatment programs wiU need to be
evaluated to determine whether they
have a reasonable potential to cause in-
stream excursions that violate a State
water quality standard. As stated abo%e.
POTWs with pretreatment prograr is
receive the majority of indirect
Industrial discharges and therefore ha%e
a significant potential for effluent
toxicity. In addition, one million gallons
per day Is the point at which the flow of
the wastewater usually begins to reach
critical instrearn waste concentrations
that are more likely to result In impacts
caused by effluent toxicity. The Agency
believes that design influent flow is a
more appropriate criterion than actual
effluent flow because of the possibility
that POTWa with a design inlluent flow
of one million gallons per day will reach
that capacity during a five-year permit
term due to the addition of new
Industrial users. For these reasons, in
lieu of the requirement that all POTWs
submit the results of toxicity tests with
their permit applications, EPA is today
requiring valid toxicity testing results to
be submitted as part of the permit
application requirements (on (1) Any
POTW with a design Influent flow
exceeding one million gallons per day.
or. (2) any POTW with an approved
pretreatment program or that is required
to develop a pretreatment program.
Today’s regulations also pjovide that
the Director has the discretion to require
additional POTWs to submit the results
of toxicity tests with their permit
application, based on consideration of
one or more of the following factor.
found at 40 CFR 122 ,44(J)(2): Existing
controls on point and nonpoint source
pollution (induding total maximum da ly
load calculations for the waterbody
segment and relative contribution of the
P01W). the variability of pollutants or
pollutant parameters in the effluent
(Including existing chemical-specific
Information and type of treatment
facility), the dilution of the effluent in
the receiving water (ratio of effluent
flow to receiving stream flow), receiving
stream characteristics, and other
considerations. Any tests submitted
under today’s rule must have been
conducted since the last NPDES permit
reissuance or permit modification under
122.62(a), whichever occurred later.
U toxicity tests follow established
protocols and quality assurance
requirements are followed, the validity
of the test will be assured. An Invalid
test will not meet the requirements of
today’s rule. Testing protocols that
-------
30114 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 142 / Tuesday. July 24. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
adhere to the principles presented In the
TSD and EPA’. test methods w 11 meet
the requirements of today’s rule:
however, other valid procedures may
also be used. While today’s rule requires
larger POTW, to conduct toxicity
testing, it also provides the Director the
flexibility to require small POTWs
located on email stream segments where
available dilution Is minimal to conduct
toxicity tests, or to require P01W.
discharging to near coastal waters to
conduct such tests.
In making the determination that the
categorie, of POTW. listed In 40 R
122.21(J)(1j shall conduct toxicity tests
as part of the permit application
process, EPA was Influenced by the
finding. of the Domestic Sewage Study
and the conclusion In that Study that
EPA should consider expanding the use
of biomonitonng techniques and water
quality-based permitting to Improve
controls over hawdous waste
discharged to P0 ’flNe. To strengthen Its
water quality-based permitting program.
EPA recently revised Its permitting
regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d) (54 FR
23888w June 2. 1989). These regulations
now require, with limited exceptions.
permit limits on *hole effluent toxicity
where the Director determines, using
toxicity testing or other information, that
a discharge causes or has the potential
to cause excursions above State water
quality standards for toxicity. But 40
CFR 122.44(d) does not explicitly require
the discharger to generate toxicity
testing data, nor does it require
discharger. to submit such data with
their permit applications. EPA believes
that it Is necessary to require toxicity
testing data from certain P01W. with
their permit application so that at the
time of application the Director will
have sufficient Information to determine
whether limits on whole effluent toxicity
are required In the P01W’. permit. EPA
recognizes that toxicity testing data will
not be necessary for certain categories
of P01W.. While EPA maintains the
authority to require toxicity testing data
from all P0IVJ., It would not be
appropriate to requIre P01W. that have
little or no chance of causing excursions
above State water quality standards for
toxicity to conduct toxicity tests and
submit the results with their permit
applications.
Based on the results of the Study, and
in conjunction with EPA’. ongoing
integrated approach to water quality.
based toxics con ol. the Agency has
determined that toxicity testing data Is
necessary and Ii required to be
submitted by P01W. described In 40
CFR 122.Z1 [ J)(1) and by P01W.
designated by the Director wider
paragraph (j)(2). Furthermore, under 40
CFR 122.44(d) (iv) and (v), the Director
must use this data In determIning
whether limits on whole effluent toxldty
are required In the P01W’. permit,
Paragraph (j)(2) provides the Director
with the flexibility to require additional
POTWs to submit toxicity data with
their applications. In exerci sing this
option, the Director Is to consider the
factors listed In paragraphs (J)(2)(IHv).
These factors are general principles
which EPA has consistently
recommended that permitting
authorities consider when assessing s
discharger’. potential to cause or
contribute to Instream toxicity. These
principles are compatible with EPA’.
“Policy on Development of Water
Quality-Based Permit Umitatlone for
Toxic Pollutant,” (49 FR 9018. March
1984), The Technical Support Document
for Water Quolity.Boseo’ Toxics
Conbnls. and EPA’. revisions to 40 CFR
122.44(d) to implement CWA section
304(1),
Once the Director has determined that
a P01W meets any of the criteria In
paragraph (j)(l) or has designated.
P01W under paragraph (fl(2). and that
POTW must therefore submit the results
of toxicity testing as pert of the permit
application process, paragraph (j)(3)
provides that POTWs shall use a
toxicity testing protocol that Is
scientifically defensible and sufficiently
sensitive to detect aquatic toxicity.
Approved State NPD programs that
do not presently allow permitting
authorities to require POTWs in the
categories described In paragraphs (j)
(1) and (2) to submit toxicity test results
with their permit applications will need
to revise their applicabLe law to conform
to today’s requirements. Under 40 CFR
12162(e). regulatory revisions must
occur within one year of the effective
date of today’s nile. unless statutory
changes are necessary, In which case
such revisions must take place within
two years.
One commenter suggested that the
requirement that all P0 1 W. conduct
toxicity testing is Inequitable when the
proposal does not require such testing
for private dischargers. As stated above,
40 CFR 122 .21(j) no longer requires all
POTWs to conduct toxicity testing,
Instead. P01W. that meet any of the
criteria listed In 40 ‘R 122.Z1(j)(1) or
are designated by the Director under
paragraph (fl(2) are required to conduct
such testing. Moreover, the new
amendments to 40 CFR 122.44(d) require
the Director to determine whether any
discharge causes. ba the reasonable
potential to cause, or contributes to an
excursion above a narrative or numeric
criteria within a State water quality
standard. Such procedure. will Include
toxicity tests by direct Industrial
discharger. In many cases,
One commenter ,tated that toxicity-
based limits in NPDES permits are not
an effective way of preventing toxicity
because nonpotnt sources may also be
significant contributors to toxicity. EPA
reiterates that todays regulations do not
explicitly require the establishment of
toxicity Limits.
However, the Agency disagrees with
the argument that P01W. should not
monitor or limit toxicity because
nonpoint sources may also contribute to
such toxicity. If a lW. effluent Is
found to cause Lnstream toxicity (after
consideration of any applicable mixing
zone allowances) then discharge of such
effluent I. In violation of State water
quality standards that prohibit
discharges of toxic pollutants In toxic
amounts. In such Instances, appropriate
limits aimed at achieving compliance
with State standards must be
established.
One commeater stated that permit
limits on toxicity should be required In
the permit when the results of testing
Indicate that there Ii or may be a
problem with toxicity In the discharge.
As a general rule. EPAsg rees with this
statement. For further details on
appropriate measures to be taken, see
EPA’s section u4(1) regulatIon. (54 FR
23868. June 2, 1989) at 40 R 122.44(d).
The regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d)
describe the procedures that permitting
authorities must use when determining
whether a discharge causes, ha. the
reasonable potential to cause, or
contributes to an Instream excursion
above a narrative or numeric toxicity
criterion within a State water quality
standard.
Many commenters expressed concern
over the cost of toxicity testing and the
lack of qualified laboratory facilities
available to perform the tests. EPA has
found that costs for toxicity testing
range from afew hundred dollars for a
simple one time screening analysis to
one or two thousand dollar, per month
for s monthly chronic toxicity analysis.
Typical monthly or quarterly testing
costs are comparable to many other
types of chemical monitoring costs.
EPA has also found that there are
many competent labs around the -
ccun y capable of performing these
tests, The Agency recently contracted
with several labs to perform toxicity
tests In support of each EPA Region’s
toxic, control program. It I. the
responsibility of the permittee to find an
appropriate facility and have Its
samples shipped. if necessary, and
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 142/ Tuesday._July24. i9 0 I Rules and Regulations
30115
1 nalyzed. EPA ’. Eavironniental
Monitoring and Support Lab in
Cincinnati Is currently developing
guidance for lab certification which
5tates can use to certify compelent lab.
and to provide perniittees with lists of
labs capable of conducting toxicity tests.
One commenter stated that the
regulation.. should allow time for the
solicitation and subsequent awarding of
contracts to conduct toxicity tests and
that the proposed deadline for
submission of teat results would be
unreasonably burdensome.
In response, the Agency pomis out
that the regulations do not require
P01W. to solicit contracts for the
performance of toxicity tests. Since
toxicity testing Is only required every
five years as part of certain POTWs’
NPDES permit applications. these
POTWs should have ample time to find
suitable laboratories.
One commenter noted that the added
workload to permitting authorities for
reviewing the screening data has not
been addressed. EPA has estimated
these and other costs associated with
implementing the proposed
requirements and they are available as
part of the public record of this
rulemaking. The Agency believes that
Improved control of toxic and hazardous
pollutants occasioned by todays
toxicity testing requirements justifiei the
added workload to permitting
authorities,
c. Today’s Rule
Today’s rule provides that any P01W
with a design influent flow equal to or
greater than one millIon gallons per day
and any POTW with an approved
pretreatment program or which Is
required to have such a program must
provide the results of whole effluent
biological toxicity testing to the Director
as pert of their NPDES permit
applications. Tests submitted under
today. rule must have been conducted
tince the last NPD peimit relssuanc.
or permit modification endar * 122. 2(a),
whichever o au d late,. The Director
may also require other IWs to
submit the results of toxicity tests with
their applications, based on
consideration of the variability of
pollutants In the effluent, the dilution of
the effluent In the receiving water.
existing controls on point and nonpoint
sources, receiving stream
characteristics, and other
considerations. In conducting the
testing. POTWs must use EPA’s methods
or other protocols which are
scientifically defensible and sufficiently
sensitive to detect aquatic toxicity.
2. Sludge Control
The provisions of the amended CWA
dealing with the regulation of sewage
sludge have far-reaching implications
for the pretreatment program. The
amendments mandate the promulgation
of specific numeric limits for toxic
pollutant . in sewage sludge and/or the
specification of acceptable sludge
management practices, and require that
these standards be Implemented through
permits. To carry out these
requirement., EPA has proposed
technical standards for an Initial group
of toxic pollutants for the five major
sludge use and disposal methods:
agricultural and non-agricultural land
application, distribution and marketing.
incineration, sludge-only landfills, and
surface disposal sites. These standards
were proposed on February 6,1909(54
FR 5746). EPA earlier proposed
regulations governing sludge disposal In
municipal solid waste landfills
(MSWLFs) on August 30, 1988 (53 FR
33314).
In addition to calling f r the
promulgation of technical criteria for the
use and disposal of sewage sludge, the
1987 amendments to section 405 also
contain a significant departure from
previous statutory provislon.s regarding
implementation. The amendment
prohibits the use or disposal of sludge
except In compliance with EPA.
regulations and requires the
Implementation of the standards through
a permitting system. This means that, for
the first mis. federal technical
standards will be implemented through
permits Issued to treatment works
treating domestic sewage. When the
sludge standards are promulgated.
NPDES permits issued to POTWs or
other treatment works treating domestic
sewage must Include these requirements
wiles. they are included in another
permit wider listed federal permit
programs or an approved state sludge
management program. On May 2, i aa
EPA promulgated final regulations for
implementing sludge standards Into
NPDES permits and for developing
spprovable State sludge permitting
programs.
Section 405(d)(4) as amended also
requires that, before promulgation of the
criteria, the Administrator shall Include
sludge conditions In permits Issued to
P01W. under section 402 or take such
other measures as the Administrator
deems appropriate to protect public
health and the environment from
adverse effects which may occur from
toxic pollutants in sewage sludge. To
Incorporate sludge conditions into
permits before promulgation of the
standards, such conditions will have to
be developed one caae.by.case basis.
To Implement this requirement, the
Agency has developed a “Sewage
Sludge Interim Permitting Strategy”
which explain. EPA’. strategy in
Implementing this CWA provision. EPA
baa also completed guidance (signed in
December 1989) which will be
distributed in early 1990 to EPA Regions.
States, and Interested parties. This
“Guidance for Writing Case-by-Case
Permit Requirements for Municipal
Sewage Sludge” Is designed to assist
permit writer, in developing “best
professional Jud nent” permit
conditions prior to promulgation of the
technical standards. In September1989,
EPA also Issued the “POV V Sludge
Sampling end Analysis Document” for
use in sewage sludge monitoring. In
addition, the Agency conducts
workshops several times a year on
writing sludge permit conditions.
This Improved regulation of sewage
sludge quality will drive the
development of local limits to keep
pollutants that could contaminate the
sludge and interfere with Its proper use
and disposal from entering the treatment
plant Thus, this effort will further the
development of effective pretreatment -
programs and will help to Identify and
control the discharge of hazardous
wastes and hazardous constituents to
P OTWs.
3. Control of Indirect Discharger.:
Commercial Centralized Waste Treaters
(40 CFR 403.3 (e) and (0), 403.3(c),
403,8(e), 403.8))
.. Proposed change. Commercial
centralized waste treaters (referred to
herein as CW’I’s) are facilities that beat
wastes received from off.site generators
of those wastes. The Agency first
proposed to specifically address CWTa
that discharge to P01W. as part of the
proposal, published on June 12, 1988 (51
FR 21456), to Implement the
recommendations of the Pretreatment
Implementation Review Taskforce
(“PIRT3 The preamble to that proposal
clarified that under the current
requirements. categorical pretreatment
standards apply to the wastewaters
generated by certain industrial
processes and discharged toe P01W.
regardless of whether they are finally
discharged by an Industrial generator or
some Intermediate entity such as a
CWT. For those CWTs that mix process
categorical wastewater with other
wastes prior to pretreatment, the
preamble Indicated that the combined
wa,testream formula (CWF) In 40 CFR
403.8(e) should be used to calculate
alternate discharge limits. The proposed
rule would have codified this
-------
30116 Federal Register /Vol . 55. No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24. 1990
/ Rule, and Regulations
requirement and would have required
generators of wastes to supply the
Information necessary for calculating
the limits. Three other alternatives were
discussed In the June 12. 1988 proposak
(1) PromulgatIng national categorical
standards for CWTs, (2) relying solely
on P01W-developed local limits, and (3)
limiting each pollutant discharged from
the CWT by applying the most stringent
parameter for that pollutant taken from
all the categorical standards applicable
to the wastes received by the CWT. EPA
did not amend Its regulations, or current
requirements applicable to CWT, in the
final PIRT rule. Instead the issue was
deferred and again addressed in the
proposal to today’, rule (November 23.
1988, 53 FR 47632). That proposal
solicited comment on the same
alternatives, but proposed an additional
one: POTWu would be required to
obtain and implement authority to
regulate CWT. by developing local
limit, based on the best available
technology economically achievable
(BAT). which would be determined by
each POTW for its CWTs using best
professional jud ent (BPJ). lithe
P01W determined that the combined
removal by the CWT and the POTW
was less than the removal that would be
achieved by BAT, the P01W would set
a limit equal to the BAT limits, but
adjusted for removal by the POTW.
b. Response :,, coi’nmenhj. The Agency
received numerous comments in support
of and opposing each alternative and
recommending additional alternatives.
These comments raised technical, legal
and economic concerns. The Agency has
decided to collect additional data before
deciding whether to finalize any of the
alternatives. Data that would assist In
the decision include more in!orrnation
on the types, variability, environmental
effects, and freatability of wastes
received and discharged by CWTs, Such
data would also assist the Agency in
providing guidance on ho.w to implement
It, decision. Once the data are obtained,
the Agency may determine that it Is
necessary to consider options not within
the current proposal,, and to make
additfonsi proposals. Otherwise it will
base Its decision on the proposals
currently outstanding and the comments
received thereon.
The Agency reiterate, it.s previously
stated position (see 51 FR 21450) that
any national categorical standard that
would apply to a waste if discharged by
it generator continues to apply if the
waste Is shipped off-site tos CWT that
is an industrial user of a P01W, Where
iuch wastes are mixed with other
process ws testream, prior to discharge,
the combined wastestream formula may
be used to determine the applicable
limit The Agency recognizes the
practical difficulties In applying the
CWF faced by CWTs that receive
categorical wastes in substantial or
highly variable quantities. CWTs
experiencing difficulties in applying the
CWF may wish to eithen (1) Segregate
categorical wastes and provide batch
treatment to the levels required by.
applicable categorical standards, or (2)
treat a mixture of categorlcai and other
wastel such that each pollutant
discharged is In compliance (after
correction for dilution flows) with the
most stringent numerical limit
prescribed for that pollutant in any of
the categorical standards applicable to
the wastes being treated. EPA believes
that either of these options has the
potential for substantially reducing the
paperwork of CWTs that would
otherwise be required to use the CWF,
while still assuring treatment of
categorical wastes in accordance with
categorical standards,
As discussed In section ILl below,
today’. rule requires P01W. to
determine the necessity of developing
local limits to prevent pass through and
interference. The Agency encourages
POTWs to pay particular attention to
the effluent from Cwrs In developing
those limits.
c. Todoystvle, The Agency Is
postponing promulgation of any
additional regulations pursuant to the
proposals regarding CIAPI’s:
4. Categorical Standard, for Other
Industries
Section 304(m) of the Clean Water
Act, added by the Water Quality Act of
1987. requIres the Agency to establish a
schedule for the annuai review and -
revision of promulgated effluent
guidelines, and to establish a schedule
for promulgation of new BAT guidelines
and new source performance standards
for industries discharging toxic or
nonconventlonal pollutants. On August
25 1988 (53 FR 32584), the Agency
published a notice of it. proposed plan
to implement section 304(m). That notice
contained a discussion of the Agency.
proposed decision-making process to set
priorities for the development of new or
revised effluent guidelines, Although not
required by section 304(m), that notice
said that EPA would develop categorical
pretreatment standards whenever
appropriate when developing guidelines
for categories of discharger,, Some of
the categories which the Agency said It
would consider as candidates for new or
revised guideline, were identified In the
Study as significant contributor, of
hazardous constituent, to P01W..
One commenter on the November 23,
1988 proposal criticized EPA for not
moving swiftly enough to promulgate
new or revised categorical pretreatment
standards in accordance with the
recommendations of the Study and the
mandate of section 304(m). This.
commenter stated that existing
categorical standards cover an
Insufficient number of toxic and
hazardous pollutants, and that many
Industrie, discharging large amounts of
such pollutant, are not covered by
categorical standards at alL -
On January 2. 1990, the Agency
published a final notice announcing the
Agency’. Initial plan for reviewing
existing guideline, and promulgation of
new effluent guideline, to Implement
section 304(m). This notice established a
schedule for reviewing existing
regulations and for selecting categories
of discharger, of toxic or
nonconventional pollutant, for which
guidelines have not previously been
published. Many of the Industries for
which the Agency has established
schedules were recommended by the
Study as potential candidate, for new or
revised categorlcaj pretreatment
standards. -
G. £nfoztemens Iuues
1, RevIsion to Local Limits (40
12221(fl(2))
a. Proposed change, The existing’
pretreatment regulations provide that
the development of local limits (or a
demonstration that they are not
necessary) is a prerequisite to approval
of a P01W pretreatment program and-
the continuing legal acceptability of an
approved program. Although the
existing regulatory language does not•
explicitly require POTWs to update
local limits, EPA has previously stated
that local limits must be updated as -
necessary to reflect thang rig condition,
at the P01W (51 FR 21459, June12, —
1988). Because of the Importance of up.
to-date local limits In controlling pass
through and Interference from toxic and
hazardou, pollutants, EPA proposed on
November23,lgUtopev i se40 -
122.210)12) to require POTWs to
evaluate In writing the need to updafe
their local limits as part of their NPDES
permit apç :cation (Le,, once every five
years at a minimum), lithe Director
determine, that a particular POI1N
should evaluate the need for revision -
mote often. It may so specify in the
NPDES permit or approved pretrea ent
program (as incorporated by reference
in the permit).
This provision would not require
P01W. to update their local limits
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 142 I Tuesday. July 24. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
30117
when such revision is not needed.
Instead. EPA Is establishing a minimum
frequency for formal evaluation of the
need for revised limits. Examples of
events that might indicate the need for
such a revision Include changes In the
POTWs NPDES permit. changes In
sludge disposal standards or P01W
sludge disposal methods. modifications
to the treatment plant. addition or
deletion of siguificant industrial users.
and changes In Industrial users’
processes or pretreatment operations.
These events could all affect the
likelihood of Interference with POTW
operations or possible lack of
compliance with the POTW’s NPDES
permit. The minimum frequency for
formal evaluations will give the POTWs
more precise notice of their legal
responsibilities and should facilitate
EPA enforcement actions In some
situations where POTWs are not
fulfilling their obligations to develop and
update local limits. Regular evaluation
of the need for revised limits should also
lead to more effective limits on the
discharge of toxic and hazardous
wastes, thereby preventing pass through
and Interference.
The Agency solicited comments on
whether POTWs should be required to
conduct the evaluation more often. For
example. POTWa might be required to
conduct the evaluation whenever
multiple Instances of pass through or
Interference had occurred (such as two
or more violations In a quarter). In order
to determine if existing local limits were
adequate to prevent these occurrences.
POTWa could also be required to submit
such evaluations annually as part of the
annual reports required under 40 CFR
403.8(1).
b. Response to comments. The Agency
received many comments on the
proposed rule from States. P01W ..
envIronmental groups, and industry. The
vast majority of the conimenters favored
the rule as proposed. A small minority of
commenters expressed concern over the
proposed provtslon.
One area of concern Involved the
level of POVN d1s edon in the timing
and performance of local limits
evaluations. One commenter stated that
the frequency for evaluation of local
limits should be left entirely to the
P01W since the P01W 1. In the best
position to know the nature and effect of
the discharges Into its system. Another
coinmenter observed that development
of local limits should already have taken
Into account changes In a POTW’.
system (e.g.. projected increase In the
number of industrial users. etc.).
Therefore, it was believed that the
P01W should determine when changes
to local limits should be made.
EPA Is not persuaded by the argument
that no mimimum frequency for
evaluating the need for revision is
necessary. The Agency believes that the
evaluation of local limits at least every
fIve years Is necessary to address any
changes in the POTW’s NPDES permit.
any problems In compliance with the
permit. changes in sludge disposal
method.s, or changes to the treatment
plant. However, actual changes to local
limits would be made only when the
evaluation Indicates the need for
updating the local limit, or when
otherwise required by applicable
provisions in POTW’s approved
programs or NPDES permits.
One comnienter Inquired as to what
was meant by a “formal evaluation” of
local limits. The Agency Intends the
formal evaluation to be a written
technical evaluation by the Control
Authority determining whether or not
there Is a need to revise the existing
local limits at the time of permit
application, and the reasons for this
determination. To clarify this
requirement today’s rule requires a
written technical evaluation of the need
to revise local Limits. rather than a
“formal” evaluation.
There was almost universal
opposition to the suggestion that local
limits should be evaluated annually. The
Agency agree. that annual evaluation of
local limits Is not routinely necessary
and therefore is not promulgating that
requirement as part of today’s final rule.
c. Today’s rule. Today’s rule provides
that all POTWs must provide a written
technical evaluation of the need to
revise local limits as part of their NPDES
permit applications.
2. inspections and Sampling (40 CFR
403.8(fl(2)(v))
a. Proposed change. The existing
regulations (40 CFR 403.8(fl(2)(v))
require that P01W. with approved
pretreatment programs must be able to
randomly sample and analyze the
effluent from their Industrial users and
conduct surveillance and Inspections to
identify noncompliance with
pretreatment requirements. However.
these regulations do not specify how
often such P01W. must perform the
sampling analysis and surveillance.
In the 1986 “Pretreatment Compliance
Monitoring and Enforcement Guidance,”
the Agency recommended that POTWe
conduct at least one inspection and/or
sampling visit annually to all
“significant industrial users.” EPA
emphasized In the Guidance that more
frequent monitoring should probably be
conducted In certain cases: e.g where
an Industrial facility has exhibited a
marked inability to achieve and
maintain compliance with pretreatment
standards.
In order to facilitate implementation
of existing requirements by specifying a
standard for how often POTWs must
Inspect and sample the effluent of their
significant Industrial users, EPA
proposed on November 23, 1988 to
modify 40 CFR 403.8(fl(2)(v) to require
POTWe with approved pretreatment
programs to inspect and sample all
“significant industiial users” at lea3t
once every two years. EPA believes that
Inspection and sampling of these users
at least this often should help POTWe
avert pass through and interference by
keeping better track of the more
sIgnificant Industrial dischargers Into
their treatment and collection systems
(especially dischargers of toxic and
hazardous pollutants). The proposed
revisions should also provide a uniform
program requirement that EPA can
readily enforce If necessary.
The Agency solicited comments on
whether the biennial inspections and
sampling requirement was sufficient or
If annual Inspections and sampling
should be required. EPA also requested
comment on whether the proposed
regulation represented a redundant
requirement in the face of existing
reporting and monitoring requirements
and whether to require P01W. to target
certain compounds (such as RCRA
appendix VIII hazardous constituents)
hi their sampling of significant industrial
user discharges.
b. Response to comments. The Agency
received many comments on the
proposed nile. Comments were
submitted by States. POTWs.
environmental groups. and private
Industry. The commenters were evenly
split with regard to favoring or opposing
the proposed nile. Many commenters
stated that the rule should specify
annual Inspections and sampling while
others stated that a minimum of biennial
Inspections and sampling was adequate.
A few of the commentere believed that
the frequency of inspections and
sampling should be left entirely to the
POTWs dlsaetlon. Some of the
cominenters stated that the proposed
rule was redimdant In light of existing
requirements for self-monitoring and
reporting by categorical industrial users
and proposed requirements for
significant non-categorical industrial
users.
The Agency does not agree with the
assertion that these requirements are
redundant. One of the principal
purposes and benefits of an annual
compliance monitoring program is the
-------
30118 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24. 1990 / Rules and Regulation,
independent verification of the
compliance status of the industrial user
by the Control Authority. This annual
presence provides a means to determine
whether the information the POTW
receives Is adequate in terms of
sampling techniques and lab procedures.
It also provides a way to evaluate the
recordkeeping procedures of the
industrial user as weLl as the operation
and maintenance of the pretreatment
facility. This annual presence also
provides a deterrent value by
encouraging the industrial user to
maintain appropriate operation and
maintenance procedures as well as
helping to ensure proper recordkeeping
and lab procedures. These benefits are
not possible through the review of sell-
inomtoring reports alone. Therefore, the
Agency disagrees with the claim that
this is a redundant requirement, because
the goal of thu provision Is not simply to
receive data but also to provide
effective oversight of industrial user
operations.
One commenter stated that any
specification of inspection and
monitoring frequency would limit the
ability of the POTW to make rational
determinations based on local
considerations. It was felt that any more
stringent frequency would excessively
limit the needed flexibility of the POTW
in planning for Inspections and sampling
of its industiial users. Another
commenter was of the opinion that more
frequent than biennial inspection, and
sampling might become so demanding
as to prevent a POTW from focusing its
attention on actual cases of effluent
violations.
However, other commenters did not
believe that a awurnuin frequency of
biennial inspections and sampling was
sufficient to oversee Industrial user
compliance. One POTW stated that It
supported a minimum frequency, but It
believed that It would be difficult to
maintain, in the face of competing
programs, Its current level of two to
eight visits per year In the face of
regulations which allow for.
significantly reduced effort. Many
commenters pointed out that the
proposed rule was inconsistent with
existing EPA guidance regarding
inspections and sampling of significant
industrial users. These commenters
stated that previous Instructions from
EPA during audits and Inspections as
well as in worlishops directed Control
Authorities to establish annual
monitoring frequencies foe their
significant industrial users. Another
commenter expressed concern over
allowing biennial monitoring and stated
11 , belief that annual oversight provided
greater credibility to the reported self-
monitoring information. A final
commenter said that this proposal ran
counter to the recommendations found
In the Domestic Sewage Study and that
the Intent of these recommendation,
was to provide a stronger effori In
pollution controL
EPA Is persuaded by these arguments
in favor of a requirement for annuai
inspections and sampling of significant
Industrial users. The purpose of the rule
Is to ensure consistent tracking of
industrial users with the potential to
adversely affect the operation of the
treatment works. Requiring annual
Inspections and sampling will provide
for more effective oversight of Industrial
user compliance, consistent with EPA
Guidance. For these reasons, EPA I.s
today requiring that POTWi with
approved pretreatment programs sample
and inspect all significant industrial
users at least once a year.
The Agency does not agree with those
commenters who said that specifying a
minimum inspections and sampling
frequency would excessively limit the
POTW In planning for inspections and
sampling of Industrial users. The
Agency, in its 1988 “Pretreatment
Compliance Monitoring and
Enforcement Guidance” recommended
that Control Authoritie, conduct at least
one Inspection and/or sampling visit
annually fur all significant industrial
users. This recommendation has also
been made during pretreatment
inspections and program audits. By
specifying a minimum compliance
monitoring frequency, the Agency Is
establishing uniform program
requirements to assist in program
oversight and which can be readily
enforced If necessary. In addition, the
Agency points out that this requirement
applies only to significant Industrial
users. EPA has allowed considerable
flexibility and discretion for non-
significant Industrial users with regard
to effluent sampling and other
regulatosy requirements. EPA doe. not
believe that implementation of today.
rule will prevent POTW. from dealing
with actual case, of effluent violations
or from adequately Implementing other
requirements of their approved
programs. Many POTWs are already
Implementing an Inspections and
sampling scheme with frequencies far
greater than required by todays rule
and there hav, been no observed
difficulties in addressing violation, or
maiats inIng compliance with other
requirements of approved programs.
FInally, the Agency solicited
comments on whether to require that
P01W. target certain compounds in
their sampling, such as RCR.A appendix
VIII ha.zardous constituents. There Was
uruversaj opposition to thus proposal
and many commenters indicated that it
would be excessively burdensome
without producing environmental
benefits. Upon evaluation of the
comments submitted, EPA has
determined that routine monitoring for
RCRA appendix VU! hazardous
Constituents Is not nationally necessary
for preventing interference or pass
through or for preventing sludge
contamination. The POTW has the
flexibility to require monitoring of these
substance, If they pose potential
problems for the operation of the
POTW. The POlity shouldi however,
sample for all regulated pollutants
discharged to the treatment works,
c. Today’s rule. Today’s rule requires
POTWs with approved pretreatment
programs to conduct at least one
inspection and sampling visit annually
for each significant Industhal user.
3. DefinitIon of Significant Industrial
User (40 CFR 403.3(t))
a. Proposed change. All industrial
users which discharge wastel to P01W.
are required to comply with the general
pretreatment regulations found In 40
CFR part 403. WhIl. the general -
pretreatment regulations Include very
specific requirements for categorical
industries, the regulations are less clear
a bout certain obligation. for
noncategorical industries. In the 1988
“Pretreatment Compliance Monitoring
and Enforcement Guidance”, the Agency
established a definition for what would
constitute a significant Industrial user.
This definition was In part designed to
identify those non-categorical Industrial
users which are likely to have the most
sigruficant Impact on the POTW. and for
which additional pretreatment
requirements might be Juatifiedi
In order to provide national
consistency In the application of
pretreatment requirements and to
enhance program enforceability, the
Agency proposed on November 23. 1988
to amend 40 CI 403.3 to add a new
definition of “Significant Industrial
User” which was generally consistent
with the 1986 GuIdance. Under the
proposal, a “significant Industrial user”
was defined as: (1) All discharger.
subject to categorical pretreatment
standards; (2) all noncategorfcal
discharger, that, In the opinion of the
Control Authority, have a reasonable
potential to adversely affect the
POTW. operation: (3) all
noncategorical dischargere that
contribute a process wutestream which
makes up 5 percent or more of the
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 55, No. 142 I Tuesday. uly 24, 1990 / Rules arid Regulations
30119
average dry weather capacity of the
POTW treatment plant. or that
discharge an average of 25.000 gallons
per day or more of process wastewater
to the POTW. Under the proposaL the
Control Authority need not designate as
significant any noncategorical industrial
user in category (3) above that . in the
opinion of the Control Authority and
with the agreement of the Approval
Authority, had no potential for
adversely affecting the POTW s
opera don or for violating any
pretreatment standard or requirement.
The agreement of the Approval
Authority would not be necessary in
cases where the noncategorical
discharger would have been designated
as significant only because of an
average discharge of 25.000 gallons per
day or more of process wastewater. The
proposal also would have allowed any
noncategorical industrial user
designated as significant to petition the
Control Authority to be deleted from the
list of significant Industrial users on the
grounds that it had no potential for
adversely affecting the POTW’s
operation or violating any pretreatment
standard or requirement.
The Agency Intended to provide with
this deflnit on a means for POTWs to set
priorities for monitoring and
enforcement activities. Including self-
monitoring by the Industrial user. In
addition. the definition would provide a
basis for establishing reporting
requirement.3 for non-categorical
industrial users and for Control
Authority reporting to the Approval
Authority regarding industrial user
compliance. The definition would also
provide national consistency in the
implementation and reporting of
pretrea ent requirements and would
assist Control Authorities In Identifying
the effective use of permitting.
monitoring and enforcement resources.
In addition to these benefits, the
proposed regulatory definition wauld
provide better notice to POTWs of what
constitutes a weil .s nctured
pretreatment program. One basic g a s1
was to require that similar taduitrial
facilities be treated consistently with
regard to reporting and monitoring
requirements.
EPA solicited comments on the
Noveber 23, 1988 proposal. and also
Invited comments and suggestions on
the following issues: whether to allow
POTWa to delete categorical users from
the significant Industrial user list: the
appropriateness cf the 25.000 gallons per
day criteria: the role of the Approval
Authority in designating significant
Industrial users; expanding the
definition of significant Industrial user
to include notifiers of hazardous waste
discharger,; arid reqwzuig POflNs to
estimate in annual reports whether the
amount of hazardous waste received
during the last calendar year has
Increased significantly and whether any
change has affected operations at the
POTW.
b. Response to commenLr. The Agency
received many comments on the
propoeed rule which were submitted by
States. local PCTWs, environmental
groups and private industry. The
majority of the commenters generally
favored the rule. although many
suggested modifications. Sortie
cominer.ters were of the opinion that
there should not be arty regulatory
definition for significant industrial user.
As explained above and in the preamble
to the proposed rule, the purpose behind
the proposed definition is to provide
national consistency and program
en.forceability. as well as to provide
notice of what constitutes a well.
structured pretreatment program and to
ensure equity in program
implementation. It is EPA’s belief that
this definition Is necessary since several
parts of today’s rule impose
requirements applicable only to
significant lndustzial users.
L Role of the approval authority in
/dezitifrm significant thduslriai users.
The largest number of comments
received on the proposed definition
addressed the procedures for listing or
delisting industrial users and the role
which the Approval Authority would
play in this process. All cominenters
seemed to agree that the POTW should
be allowed to add or delete certain
industrial users from the significant
industrial user list, but there was
disagreement art whether and under
what ciscumetances to require the
agreement of the App royal Authority In
this process. Two comments from
POTWs stated that there should not be
a requirement to seek prior consent from
the Approval Authority to delete or add
an Industrial user from the list of
significant Iriduatnal users because the
Approval Authority can review these
changes to the PorN’s annual
pretreatment report and during other
oversight functions. Another cummenter
stated that the Approval Authority is
not In a position to evaluate e
thschargers potential to adversely affect
a POTty ’s operation. It was stated that
the Approval Authority must rely on the
recommendation and data supplied by
the Control Authority In designating
eigruflcant industrial users and that
requiring the agreement of the Approval
Authority would create an unnecessary
bureaucratic step which would lead to
delays. It was recommended that the
Control Authority be allowed to simply
notify the Approval Authority of itS
intent not to include, or rerno.e. an
industrial user from the l;st arid to have
that decision stand unless the Control
Author ;Iy was l it violation of its NPDES
permit requirements.
Some of the cornmenters. on the other
hand, favored a strong role far the
Approval Authority in designating the
universe of significant industrial users.
One comnienter believed that the
political influence often exercised by
significant industrial users was
sufficient to require a strong oversight
presence by the Approval Authority It
was stated that the independent
evaluation of the Approval Authority
was necessary as an important check on
the POTW’s exercise of its discretion.
especially In cases where there might be
pressure exerted by the industry to be
removed from the list of significant
litdustnal users (and the subseq’.ient
regulatory requirements for such
- Industrial users) In addition. it was
stated that if the Control Authority fails
to place a significant industrial user on
the list, the Approval Authority should
have the power to require the listing of
that Industrial user.
The Agency does not agree that
adequate oversight can be achieved
through a simple review of the POTW’s
annual pretreatment report or through
other routine compLiance monitoring
activities ott the part of the Approval
Authority. The Agency believes that
notification should be required to make
the Approval Authority aware of any
changes to the approved program.
Prompt notification is necessary for
proper oversight of approved programs
and to ensure proper enforcement of
program requirements. The Approval
Authority has the obligation to evaluate
compliance, and therefore needs to be
wade aware of any changes to the scope
of the program as soon as possible.
rather than in an annual report For
example. the Approval Authority needs
to Iniow if the numbers of industrial
users subject to permitting. monitoring.
and reporting are undergoing a
significant change. if the Approval
Authority is not made aware of these
changes. tracking program
Ixnplernentation would become
extremely difficult In addition. if the
Approval Authority does not have the
opportunity to obiect to unjustified
designations or de.destgnattons of
significant industrial users, then the
Control Authority might be subsequentl
liable to enforcement action front the
Approial Authority.
-------
30120 Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 142 I Tuesday. July 24. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
There was also some stated confusion
regarding at what point Approval
Authority consent would be necessary.
including whether the POTW should use
the procedures for non-substantial
program modifications promulgated is
40 CFR 403.18(b)(2). One commenter
believed that the rule should explicitly
state that listing and delisting of SIUs
constitutes a minor program
modification.
To address these concerns and avoid
possible confusion, the Agency has
modified the language of the proposal
concerning consent of the Approval
Authority. Today’s rule adds a new
provision. 40 CFR 403.8(fl(0), which
requires the P0’rN to prepare a list of
its s gniflcant Industrial users. The list
shall identify the criteria rot significance
applicable to each industrial user. For
non-categorical users meeting the
criteria for significance, the list shall
indicate whether the POTW has made a
determination that ouch Industrial user
has no reasonable potential for
adversely affecting the P01W.
opera don or for violating any
pretiea ent standard or requirement
This list, and any subsequent
modifications thereto. shall be
submitted to the Approval Authority as
a minor program modification pursuant
to 40 CFR 403.18{bJ(2). EPA believes that
this language gives dearer notice to
POTWs of their responsibilities and of
the role of the Approval Authority in
approving significant thdustriai user lists
and subsequent modifications. 40 GR
403 8(f)(6) replaces the proposed
revisions to 40 CFR 403.124i)(1) that
would have requited updating lists of
significant industrial users in P01W
annual reports and an explanation of
why certain noncategorical users were
not designated as significant Today.
rule requires that any modifications to
the list of significant Industrial users be
submitted to the Approval Authority is
a manor program modifl tlan. Slans
modifications to the list will n .lly
take place at a 1rthv of oens a year
in most preti ’ea ent ótiea, the Agency
believes that requiring an update of
significant industrial users In the annual
report Is not necessary. EPA notes that
40 CFR 12(i)((4J provides that the annual
reports shall contain “any other relevant
Information requested by the Approval
Authority”. Approval Authorities may
therefore request additional Information
or more frequent updating of a particular
P01W. significant lndustiial user list if
they believe it appropriate.
Todays rule also makes a conforming
change to proposed 40 CFR
403.8 (fl(2)(iii) to provide that within 30
days of approval pursuant to 40 CFR
403.8(fl(8) of a list of significant
industrial users, the P01W must notify
each significant Industrial user of its
status as such and of all pretieatuient
requirements applicable to It as a result
of such status.
ii. Use of flow in determining
significance. The use of the 25.000 gallon
per day flow criterion received
considerable comment from Stale,,
P01W.. environmentai groups, and
private Industry, In general, the
corrunenteri were of the opinion that the
25.000 gallon per day criterion was
either too low or that no flow oriterion
should be included In the definition at
alL One comrneriter believed that the
flow criterion served no purpose
because the proposed definition allows
the Control Authority to fail to designate
or to delete these Industrial users
without the consent of the Approval
Authority. Another cornmenter stated
that relative, not absolute size Is
important In detern inln 8 significance
and that size is adequately covered In
the 5 percent criterion In the e sUng
definition. One P01W suggested that a
two-tiered approach be used with
P01W, with less than 5 million gallons
per day design flow using 25.000 gallons
per day arid POTWs with a design flow
greater than S million gallons per day
using 50.000 gallons per day.
The major purpose of defining
significant industrial user is to provide a
means by which EPA can set priorities
in its general pretrea ent standards
amid Control Authorities can set
pnontie , (or permitting, monitoring and
enforcement, The Agency believes that
the flow criterion can be used as a
screen by the POTW to set priorities (or
permit applications In their initial
evaluation of industrial users, and for
updating the significant Industrial user
list annually. The 25.000 gallon per day
measure will provide a general cutoff
point for consideration In determining
whether a facility should be targeted for
compliance monitoring and enforcement
activities. Under 40 Q ’R 403,8(e ), the
Regional Administrator or Director may.
at has discretion, require that. P01W
with a design flow of 5 million gallons
per day or less develop a pretreatment
program in order to prevent pass
through or interference, The smallest
POTWs generally required by the
Regional Admintitrator or Director to
have a pretreatment program under the
diaaeuoaary authority of 40 CFR
403.8(a) have a design flow of 500.000
gallons per day. EPA chose 25.000
gallons per day as a flow criterion for
significant industrial users in part
because that figure represenu five
percent of the flow of the smallest
POTWs required to have a pretreatment
program. The Agency believes that a
50.000 gallons per day criterion would
not capture many non-categorical
significant industrial users with a
potential to adversely affect smaller
POTWs, POTWs may. in thee’
discretion, and eubiect only to review by
the Approval Authority as a minor
modification, delete any or all of the
facilities which were placed on the
significant Industrial user list based
solely on flow. EPA does not wish to
overrule P01W. on a routine basis
when it comes to the desIgnation of
industrial users as significant The
purpose of the notification requirement
is to provide the Approval Authority
with information ne sary to prevent
the deletion of significant Industrial
users by POTWs without justification. It
is EPA’s position that this notification Is
necessary for proper and appropriate
oversight of program Implementation.
One conimenter believed that the new
regulatory definition would impose an
increased paperwork and adminiatiauve
burden on the POTW. The proposed
definition of significant Industrial user I,
closely related to the reop” r .t4ed
definition provided In the 1980
“Pretreatment Compliance Monitoring
and Enforcement Galdance,” and as
such, has been available to POTWs for
over three year,. Many Control
Authorities have already adopted the
definition found in the Guidance. EPA
believes that most Control Authorities
are familiar with the definition and have
already incorporated It In their
implementation activities.
iiL Other. The Agency also solicited
comment on whether to allow deletion
of categorical users from the list of
significant Industrial users. A majonty
of the commenter, favored a procedure
for deleting categorical Industrial users
from the lists. but one Approval
Authority stated Its strong objection to
any procedure for deregulating
categorical Industrial users. There wasa
suggestion that a de rninIMi . limit of
1000 gallons per day could be used for
delisting categorical Industrial users
from the list of SIIJs Another
commenter suggested that only the
Approval Authority should be allowed
to delete a Ca tegoncal industrial user
from the list of SIT)..
After reviewing these comments, EPA
Is not persuaded that s P01W should be
able to delete categorical Industr ial
users which. In the opinion of the
POTW, have no reasonable potential to
adversely affect the operation of the
P01W. Ia the development of
categorical standard,. EPA made a
determination that these standards were
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 1990 / Rules and Regula on.s
30121
cecessary in the case of certain
industries to prevent pass through and
interference. Based on this
determination, the Agency promulgated
standards which restrict the discharge
of pollutants by these Industries. It is
therefore Iniportant that the compliance
of these industries with categorical
standards be assured. Therefore. today’.
rule does not allow categorical
industrial users to be deleted from the
list of significant Industrial users.
Some commenteri expressed concern
over the burden required to prove that
an industxlal user had “no potential” to
adversely affect the operation of the
POTW. It was suggested that EPA
provide guidance regarding this issue if
the current language is maintained in
the final rule. In the 1988 “Pretreatment
Compliance Monitoring and
Enforcement Guidance.” the Agency
stated that the Control Authority may
remove any noncategorical industrial
user from the SIU list if it ha, “no
reasonable potential” to violate any
pretreatment standards. Under today’s
rule, the Control Authority may remove
an industrial user (subject to the consent
of the Approval Authority) based on
whether It has a reasonable potential to
adversely affect the operation of the
POTW or to violate any pretreatment
standaro or requirement The
determination of reasonable potential
should be based an the best professional
jud ent of the POTW and should take
into account the compliance history of
the facility, the nature and character of
the effluent, and the flow of the facility.
One comznenter from a State
Approval Authority stated that the
proposed definition lacks sufficient
objective aiterla for determining
significance. It was suggested that
objective alterla are needed regarding
potential Impact of an Industrial user In
terms of the design capacity of the
trea ent works. In relation to this.
another cammeater noted that the 1986
Guidance provides that a facility
“contrzbut(lngj a procasa wastew.tei’
which mak.a up S percent or more of the
average dry weather hydraulic or
orgo.ruc capadly of the trea iant plant”
would be considered significant. This
commenter suggested that the final rule
should conform to the Guidance
definition. EPA agrees that facilities
contributing 5 percent or more of the
average organic capacity of the
treatment plant may have significant
potential to adversely affect the POTW.
since large concentrations of
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) or
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) could
Impair the biological capacity of the
plant to treat all Incoming wastes. The
final rule will therefore Incorporate
organic capacity as part of the
regulatory definition.
One Industry conirneriter objected to
the proposed deftrution of significant
industrial user on the grounds that It
crested additional reporting and
monitoring requirements for categorical
industrial users. However, today’s rule
places no additional reporting or
monitoring requirements on categorical
significant industrial users.
A final issue raised by the proposed
rule was whether to expand the
definition of significant industrial user
to include notifiers of hazardous waste
discharges under proposed 40 CFR
403.12(p). There was almost unanimous
opposition to this proposal from the,, ,,,,,
commentera. In light of this opposition’ —
and upon reviewing this Issue. It is
EPA’s position that notifiers of
hazardous waste discharges should not
be automatically considered significant
Industrial users for purposes of
pretreatment. aince the discharge of
email amounts of hazardous waste do
not necessarily have the potential to
adversely affect the POTW. The POTW,
of course. may designate such facilities
as significant if a particular facility has
the potential to cause interference. pass.
through. or sludge contamination at the
POTW. or pursuant to state or local law
c. Today’s rule. Under todajs rule, a
sigruficant industrial user Ir (1) Any
discharger subject to categorical
pretreatment standards: (2) any other
industrial user that discharges an
average of 23.000 gaflons per day or
more of process wastewater (excluding
sanitary, noncontact cooling and boiler
blowdown wastewaterl) to the POTW
or that contributes a process
wastestr’eam which makes up 5 percent
or more of the average dry weather
hydraulic or organic capacity of the
POTW trea ent plant or (3) that Is
designated as such by the Control
Autho lty on the basis that the Indus ial
user has a reasonable for adversely
,.ffecting the P01W. operation or for
violating any pretreatment standard or
requirement. Upon a finding that a
noncitegorical user has no reasonable
potential for adversely affecting the
POTWs operation or for violating any
pretreatment standard or requirement.
the Control Authority may at any time.
upon Its own Initiative or In response to
a petition received from a
n ncategotical Industrial user or POTW
arid with the consent of the Approval
Authority. determine that such Industrial
user Is not a significant industrial user.
Today’s rule also requires POTWs to
prepare a list of their significant
industrial users, Identify the criteria
applicable to such users. and indicate
whether the POTW has made a
determination that any rioncategorical
user meetl.g the criteria in 40 CFR
403.3(t)(1)(ii) shoUld riot be a significant
Industrial user. This list. and any
subsequent modification, thereto, shall
be submitted to the Approval Authority
as a minor program modification
pursuant to 40 CFR 403.18(b)(2) Within
30 days of approval of the list, the
PO’IW shall notify each significant
Industrial user of its status as such and
of all pretreatment requirements
applicable to it as a result of such status.
4. Enforcement Response Plans for
POTWa (40 CFR 403.8(fl(5j)
a. Proposed chw e. The e is ring
general pretreatment regulations do not
specify detailed eniorcerrient
requirements applicable to POTWs with
approved pretreatment programs.
Specific enforcement sanctions
Identified in the general pretreatment
regulations are the requirement to
annually publish the names of
significant violator, in the largest daily
newspaper. and the requirement that
POT?ls have authority to seek or assess
minimum civil or criminal penalties of
$1000 per day, The e,dstfng regulations
require POTW program submissions to
Identify how the POTW intends to
ensure compliance, and also require
POTWs to enforce all pretreatment
standards and requirements and obtain -
remedies for noncomplIance (40 CFR
403 8(fl(l)). However. P0t’Ws are not
further informed what their legal
responsibilities are in carrying out
enforcement actions.
In the 1988 “Pretreatment Compliance
Monitoring and Enforcement Guidance.
the Agency encouraged each POTW to
develop an Enforcement Response
Guide, which Is a set of procedures
describing how the POTW will
Investigate Industrial user violations
and which corrective or enforcement
actions the P01W will take to respond
to such violations (the Guidance
suggested certain procedures). In order
to ensuse that POTW5 develop and
Implement specific enforcement
procedures. EPA proposed on November
23,1988 to add 40 CFR 4 .8(f)(5) to
require all POTWI with approved
pretreatment programs to develop and
implement an enforcement response
plan describing how the POTW will
Investigate and respond to instances of
Industrial user noncompliance. including
time frames within which the responses
will take place.
The Agency believes that the process
of developing these plans will be very
valuable iii helping POTWs decide what
-------
30122 Federal Register I _ Vol 55. No. 142 I Tuesday. July 24.1990 / Rules and Regulations
resources are needed to enforce their
pretreatment standards and bow they
will actually deal with Industrial user
violations. Such plans will also meke ft
easier for EPA to determine whether a
POTW Is complying with its
pretreatment implementation
requirement.s for e forceent. The rule
will not Interfere with the ability of the
POTW to carry out their programs in a
manner suited to their needs, nor should
such a plan be difficult to develop. Tb.
POTW should use the 1988 GuIdance,
EPA ’. recently issued Guidance for
Developing ConLmlAui.hority Response
Plans (September 1989) and Its own
expertise to develop a reasonable plan
to addres . and remedy noncompliance.
The Agency folicited comments on
whether to Include more specific
elements In the regulation.
b. Response £0 commenLs. EPA
received many comments on the
proposed rule. Comments were
submitted by States. POTWs. private
Industry and environmental groups. The
conunenters were generally evenly
divided with regard to favoring or
opposing the proposed rule. Several
commenters were of the opinion that
there should not be any regulatory
requirement to develop enforcement
response plan.. and that any such
provision should be developed as
guidance only.
EPA believes that enforcement
response plane will help POTW. decide
what resources are needed to enforce
their pretreatment standards and assist
in dealing with Industrial user
violations. in addition, a clearly defined
enforcement response pian will pr’vide
notice to industrial users of what to
expect if they violate any pretrea ent
requirement By alerting Industrial users
to the possible response they may face
In the event of noncompliance, the
Control Authority will demonstrat. that
itt. serious about It. complianc.
expectations and Is ready to respond to
violations with firm measures. This
heightened awareness by Industrial
users should Improve their compliance
status. Therefore. the Agency Is of the
opinion that It Is appropriate to define
these enforcement response plan. In the
regulation. For this reason, the Agency
Is today requiring all POTWs with
preueatment programs to develop and
Implement enforcement response plans.
The majority of the comments against
the rule claimed that the procedures
outlined In the proposed rule would
prevent the POTW from exercising its
enforcement discretion by locking the
POTW Into a cookbook approach to
addressing violations. One commenter
from private Industry believed that the
rule would force the POTW to address
all instances of noncompliance with
equal vigor, regardless of the magnitude
of the violation. A POTW cominen ted
that rigid enforcement response plan
requirements could result In less
vigorous POTW pretreatment program
implementation. Another POTW stated
that establishing standardized national
elements for the enforcement response
plans would remove necessary
flexibility In program Implementation. A
third commenter believed that the
current rule would Inhibit innovative
means of enforcement In general. these
commenters believed that the rule
would hinder rather than hc!p the
POTW in Its efforts to promote
Industrial user compliance.
An effective enforcement response,
plan should provide that similar
violations will be dealt with In a similar
manner, and that more serious
violations will be addressed with more
stringent enforcement responses.
Therefore. It I.e Incorrect to think that the
enforcement response plans will
address all Instances of noncompliance
with equal vigor. With regard to the
Issue of flexibility, the Agency
understands that enforcement strategies
will be different from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction and that the response.
selected by each Control Authority will
depend on their legal authority and local
circumstances. EPA Is defining the
principles for enforcement In the
regulation. but It Is up to the local
Control Authority to decide how to
Incorporate these principles Into a
functional enforcement strategy, taking
into account local circwnstance.. The
Agency does not belie e that the use of
such plans predudes innovative
enforcement strategies.
Even those cominenters who favored
the rule were concerned that EPA
provide enough flexibility to the POTW
to decide the details of response
procedures appropriate for a particular
situation. One commenter believed that
the rule as written provided enough
flexibility to accommodate the
differences In the enforcement process
for each community. Most commenters.
however, felt that requiring the
specification of time frames within the
rule Itself would place an unreasonable
restraint on the POTW’s enforcement
discretion. Another commenter stated
that time frames necessarily vary from
case to case.
Enforcement is the necessary driving
force that makes environmental laws
work. One of the foundations of
effective enforcement is the timely
response upon discovery of a violation.
The Agency 1 not persuaded by the
argument that requiring the development
of time frames in the regulation will
place an unreasonable restraint on the
POTW’s enforcement discretion. The
actual tune frames to be Incorporated
into the enforcement response plan are
being left to the discretion of the POTW
(with the agreement of the Approval
Authority). EPA understands arid
appreciates the need for local flexibility
in determining appropriate responses.
but the Agency believes that requiring
the establishment of time frames Is an
appropriate condition for effective
enforcement. The Agency emphasizes
that both the proposal and today’s rule
would not require the same time frames
for different types of industrial user
noncompliance.
Many of the POTWs that commented
stated concern that this rule would
make them easier targets for EPA
enforcement action. One POTW
asserted that the rule was an attempt by
EPA to fit local programs Into the
federal mold and to Improve EPA’ ..
enforcement capabilities against
POTWs. It was thought that a more
appropriate requirement would be to
make these enforcement response plans
a permit requirement for POTWs with
interference or pus through problems
due to inadequate enforcement.
One of the le dmate purposes of this
requirement Is to provide EPA with a
mean.s to evaluate program ‘ -
implamentation by the Control
Authority. The present general -
pretreatment regulations already require
POTWs to ensure compliance by
industrial users with all pretreatment
standards and requirements. Todays
revision to the regulations serves to
make this requirement more explicit.-
One of the difficulties La Implementing
and enforcing pretreatment programs for
POTWs has stemmed from a lack of
clearly defined policies and procedures.
The process of developing enforcement
response plans will compel the POTW
to lay out Ii. enforcement ratIonale and
will therefore serve to minimi? . 5
eliminate the uncertainties concerning
enforcement The Agency Is requiring
that POTW. lay out a clearly defined
strategy to be used in addressing
violations. One of the benefits of such
an approach Is that when the Control
Authority discovers that Its local
enforcement authority has been
Insufficient to return a recalcitrant
Industrial user to compliance. the
Control Authority may wish to report
that situation to the Approval Authority
as a possible candidate for joInt
enforcement action. This partnership
between the local Control Authority and
the Approval Authority Is an anticipated
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55, No. 142 I Tuesday, 7uly 24, 1990 / Rule, and Regulations
•ns inca of this requirement. To
ovide the Approval Authority with
owledge of who La responsible for the
rious levels of response, the Agency Is
Jay adding a new provision (40 CFR
.8(fl(5)(w)), requiring the POTW to
‘ntify in enforcement response plans
official(s) responsible for
plemenung each type of enforcement
;ponse.
)ue commenter was uncertain
ether the requirement for the
ielopment of enforcement response
.ns would apply to POTWs that
eady have approved programs. It is
• Agency’. intent that all Conti ol
thoribes. including thou with
sting approved program. .. develop
I implement the requirement of this
a. Therefore, all POTWs with -
roved programs a nd those POTWa
uired to develop a program under 40
4032(a) will be required to develop
enforcement response plan. This
nmenter also suggested that a
npUance date be established for the
elopment of these pians. Although
Agency does not agree that a
torm compliance data need be
:ified in the regulation, EPA points
all enforcement response plans
as other program changes
u. by today’s rule) must be
luded in the P01W ’. NPDES permit
n reissuanCe.
Today’s rule. Today’s rule provides
POTWs with approved programs
st develop and implement an
,rcement response plan. Thi: plan
U contain detailed procedures
catin.g how a POTW will investigate
respond to Instances of Industrial
r noncompliance and shall, at a
mum:
) Describe how the POTW will
“stigate instances of noncompliance;
!) Describe the types of escalating
.,rcement responses the POTW will
a In response to aLl anticipated type.
iduatrmal user violations and the tima
ods within which responses will
aplace
I) Identify by title the o cial(s)
oneIble for Implementing each type
nforcement rcspons and
‘)Adequately reflect the POTWs
nary responsibility to enforce all
licable pretrea ent requirements
standards. as provided In 40 CFR
8( 1) (1) and (2).
,efln.itioa of Significant
‘apliance (40 CFR 403.8(f)(Z)(vil))
nosed change. The existing
.i ns (40 CFR 403 ,8(f)(2)(vlifl
i1z Control Authorities to publish. In
daily newspaper with the largest
ulation In the service community. a
of Industrial users which had
significant violations of applicable
pretreatment standards and
requirements during the previous twelve
months. This list must be published at
least once per year. “Significant
violation” Is defined as a violation
which remains uncorrected 45 days after
notification of noncompliance which Is
part of a pattern of noncompliance over
a twelve month perlod which Involves a
failure to accurately report
noncompUance or which resulted In the
P01W exercIsing its emergency
authority under 40 CFR 4 3.8(f)(1)(vI)(B).
This definition Includes criteria
similar to those previously used by
Quarterly Noncompliance Reports
(QNCRsJ for direct discharger .. The
Agency uses QNCR5 to track the
progress and measure the effectiveness
of NPDES copliaace and authorized
state enforcement against direct
dischargere. However, in 1985 EPA
revised the criteria for the types of
violations to be reported in QNQ’.s (see
40 CFR Part 123.45). The revisions
established more precls. criteria, known
as technical review criteria (TRC), to be
used for reporting certain permit
violations. The TRC are based on the
magnitude and/or duration of the
violations and provide a means to
quantify seventy of violations for
reporting of direct discharger
noncompliance.
In the 1968 PretreoLn’ient Coazpllance
Monitoring and Enforcement Gwdance.
the Agency included a detailed
recommended definition of significant
noncompliance by industrial users
which Incorporated the essence of the
new criteria used In determining the
violations requited to be reported In the
QNCR. In the Cuidance, EPA r ’
recommended the national use of this
definition to Identify the most serious
violations by Industrial users and to set
priorities for enforcement actions.
Experience with the current regulatory
definition of .lgr’iflcant violation has
shown that P01W. vary considerably
In their application of this definition
when selecting which names of violators
to publish In the local newspaper. This
Is particularly true In deciding what
constitutes a “pattern of
noncompliance” under 40 R
403.8(f)(2)(vd). To eliminate these
inconsistencies and to establish more
parity In tracking violations committed
by direct and Indirect discharger., the
Agency proposed on November 23,1988
to revise 40 CFR 4 .8(fl(2)(vtl) to
replace the definition of significant
violation with a new definition which
essentially Incorporates the criteria used
In determining direct discharge
violations to be reported on the QNat.
Under the proposaL an Ladustiuil user
would be In significant violation If Its
violations met one or more of the
following criteria:
Chronic violations of wastewater
discharge limits, defined as those In
which eixty .si.x percent or more of all of
the measurements taken during a six-
month period exceed (by any
magnitude) the daily maitimum limit or
the average limit for the same poLlutant
parameter
• Technical review aiterla (TRC)
violations, defined as those In which
thirty.three percent or more of all of the
measurements taken during. sfx.month
period equal or exceed the product of
the daily average maximum limit or the
average limit times the applicable TRC
(TRC - 1.4 for BOD. TSS. fats. oil, and
grease. and 12 for all other pollutants
exceptpH)
• Any other violation of a
pretreatment effluent limit (daily
maximum or Ionger.term average) that
the Control Authority believes has
caused. alone or In combination with
other discharges. Interference or pau
through (Including endangering the
health of P01W personnel or the
general public);
• Any discharge eta pollutant that
has caused imminent endangerment to
huan health, welfare or to the
environment and h s resulted In the
POTW’s exercise of Its emergency
authority under paragraph (fXl)(vIXB) of
this section to halt or prevent such a
discharge
• Violation, by ninety days or orea
after the schedule date, of a compliance
schedule milestone contained In a local
control mechanism or enforcement
order. for starting construction.
completing construction, or attaining
final compliance;
• Failure to provide requited reports
such as baseline monitoring reports, go.
day compliance reports. periodic sell.
monitoring reports. and reports on
compliance with co mphnee schedules
within thirty days of the due date;
• Failure to accurately report
noncomplIance or
• Any other violation or group of
violations which the Control Authority
considers to be significant
The Agency believes that this new
definition will provide POTWs with
more precise Instructions regarding
which Industrial user. La violation of
pretreatment standards should have
their names published in local
newspapers.
EPA solicited comments on the
appropriateness of the definition
criteria, but emphasized that industrial
users would continue to be liable fat
-------
30124 Federal Register I Vol. 55. No. 142 / Tuesday. Iu.ly 24. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
any violation of applicable pretreatment
requirements.
b. Response to comments. EPA
received many comments on the
proposed rule from States. POTWI.
environmental groups. and private
Industry. The commenters were
generally evenly divided with regard to
favoring or opposing the proposed rule.
By far the greatest number of
comments addressed the fact that under
the proposed definition of sigruficant
violation. an industrial user could be
considered a significant violator based
on a single sampling event. This means
that if the Industrial user performs the
minimally acceptable level of
monitoring (generally twice per year)
and detects a violation, then that
industrial user, by definition, would be
- considered a significant violator. There
was a recommendation from several
commen’ers to ler.gthen the evaluation
period for the criteria for chronic
violatlon.s of wastewater discharge
linuts and technical review criteria
violations from six months to twelve
months to allow for the accumulation of
more data. Alternatively, one
commenter suggested that EPA should
specify a minimum number of samples
for the determination of what is a
significant ‘-lation.
In response. EPA points out that the
general pretreatment regulations specify
only the minimum monitoring and
reporting requirements for Implementing
the pretreatment program. Although it Is
true that an industrial user can be
classified as a significant violator based
on data from a single sampling event, an
industrial user may increase its
sampling frequency to lessen the chance
that, for chronic or TRC violations.
significant noncompliance will be based
on only one sampling event. In addition.
it should be noted that 40 CFR
403.1 2(g)(2) provides that if sampling
performed by a categorical Industrial
user Indicates a violation, the user shall
repeat the sampling and analysis and
submit the results of the repeat analysis
to the Control Authority wIthin 30 days
after becoming aware of the violation.
Three commenters were of the opinion
that the technical review criteria (TRC)
were too low and that a more realistic
,r.d appropriate level for the TRC would
3C 2.0 for conventional pollutants and
1.5 for all other pollutants. One
omm’ ’ter suggested eliminating this
component of the definition altogether.
Another comenter suggested that the
TRC be separately calculated for each
pollutant by Incorporating the removal
efficiencies at the treatment works. A
POTv’J commented that the TRC criteria
should have language which specifies
that the TRC applies for “each pollutant
parameter.” -
One of the reasons for the
development of the significant violator
criteria was to promote panty between
the tracking of violations for direct and
indirect d&schargers. 40 CFR 123.45(a)(2)
establishes criteria for determining
significant violations for direct
dischargers. In the 1988 Cuidance. the
Agency recommended adopting these
same criteria for evaluating significant
noncompliance for Indirect dlschargers.
The reportabthty criteria for the
Quarterly Noncompliance Report
(QNCR) uses TRC values of 1.2 and 1.4.
Therefore, EPA proposed to adopt these
same criteria In the regulatory definition
of significant violation in the
pretreatment program. The Agency does
not believe that basing TRC values on
the removal efficiencies at the POTW is
a viable means to define significant
violations, since it would involve
calculations by each POTW on Its
removal efficiencies for many
pollutants. EPA does agree. however.
that the language In the TRC would be
clearer If It specified for each pollutant
parameter.” and has accordingly
included such language in today’s final
rule.
Three commenters believed that
criterion “C” of the proposed definition
would promote arbitrary and
inconsistent Implementation of the
definition and should be eliminated. A
separate commenter stated that this
criterion was inappropriate because the
determination of a significant violation
should be based on actual fact and not a
“belief” that a discharge has caused
interference or pass.through. This
commenter recommended that we -
change the wording of this criterion to
“has reason to believe.” There was a
related concern from private industry
that the definition. as proposed. would
allow for arbitrary or Indiscriminate
enforcement without providing for
adequate or meaningful legal recourse
on the part of the Industrial user deemed
to be in significant violation of
pretreatment req ufrements. It was stated
that certain of the criteria were
sufficiently vague as to penalize
dischargers without adequate warning
arid without any opportunity for appeaL
EPA recognizes the need to base
allegations of violation on Information
and not on simple belief. Today’s final
definition therefore incorporates ha
phrase “which the Control Authority
determines has caused. alone or In
combination with other discharges.
Interference or pass through’
Instead of the language In the proposed
definition. For the sante reason. the
Agency has also incorporated the
phrase “which the Control Authority -
determines will adversely affect the
opervison or implementation of the taco!
preezeaementprogro.’n” in the last
c’iterion for sign ficant violation.
instead of “which the Control Authority
considers to be significant”. as was
proposed. The Control Authority’s
determination may include a technical
analysts documenting interference or
pass through or other appropriate
evidence which It deems sufficient EPA
believes that the above changes
decrease the chance of arbitrary
judgments by Control Authorities.
One commenter stated that an
affirmative defense should be explicitly
included In the definition of significant
noncompliance. However. EPA does not
believe that POTWs should be burdened
with ascertaining which Industrial users
may be eligible for an affirmative
defense under 40 CFR 403.5(a)(2) before
satisfying the publication requirement In
40 CFR 403.8(fl(2)(vu). Incorporating the
commenter’s suggestion into the rule
could lead to protracted arid
counterproductive efforts by POTWs If
they had to investigate the eligibility of
an industrial user for an affirmative
defense prior to publication. In addition.
where the eligibility for an affirmative
defense is unclear, this requirement
would leave POTWs uncertain about -
their obligations under 40 CYR
403 8(fl(2)(vii). Since the listing of an
industrial user in the newspaper does
not Involve an administrative penalty or
judicial acUon eligibility for an
affirmative defense Is unaffected by
such a listing, and such eligibility will be
determined during administrative -
penalty or judicial enforcement
proceedings. Accordingly. today’s rule
does riot provide for the consideration of
eligibility for an affirmative defense In
determining whether an Industrial user
Is In significant noncompliance.
In response to the comment that the’
industrial user Is not provided with
adequate or meaningful legal recourse.
EPA believes that Control Authoridei -
will not arbitrarily list Industrial users
as being in significant violation of
pretreatment requirements. The Control
Authority is most likely to base this —
decision on a reaecned professional
judgment in cases where there is
discretion provided to the POTW.
Three commenters stated that the
POTW should develop Its own criteria
for what Is considered significant
because It was believed that the POTW
Is in the best position to determine what
violations cause the greatest damage to
the treatment works. These comznenters
suggested that EPA provide support by
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55. No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
30125
rnteinlng its current criteria in
dance. One comznenter was
oncerned that the Agency be very
careful not to foster activi ties which
mzght inhibit relations between the
poTW sad Its Industrial users. If the
parW then fails to follow Its criteria. it
would be liable to enforce action by the
Approval Authority. In response. EPA
points out that both the proposal and
todays rule allow POTWs discretion to
jist any violations they consider
•igniflcant Todays rule establishes only
iumum requirements, and should not
affect relations between POTWa and
their industrial users.
One commenter requested
clarification regarding whether proposed
,terion C. “failur* to accurately report
noncompliance”. Included only willful
failures or any failures to report.
The general pretreatment regulations
specify the signatory requirements for
reports submitted by Industrial users to
the Control Authonty. This requirement
Is designed to prov de accountability on
the part of the Industrial user for the
contents of any report, including
requited reports of noncompliance. In
signing the report, the person so signing
has confirmed that the report is
complete and a curnte in ill respects.
Any failure to report accurately is
sufficient justification to list the
industrial user as a aignificant violator.
As noted above, the Agency’s 1980
guidance on this subject refetred to
“significant noncompliance” rather than
“significant violation” (the terra used in
the November 23, 1988 proposal). Since
that time EPA has directed Control
Authori Lie, and Approval Authorities to
use the “significant noncompliance”
criteria La determining appropriate
response. to Industrial user
pretreatment violations. This term has
been employed In EPA wozI hops end
seminars and is also used ass b.ais for
tracking Industrial uae noncompliance
In the Pre eatment Peemlta Enfo nement
Tracking Systems u’r r4 a computer
system which assists the Agency In
overseeing pretreatment pr ,grsa
Implementation. For the sak, of prupam
consistency. todays regulation therefore
refer, to “significant nortcoiapliance’.
C, Today’. ru/e. Today’s rule provides
that an Industrial user is In sIgnificant
noncom ,Uance If its violations meet one
or morn of the following criteria:
Chzod violatIons of wastewater
discharge limits, defined as those In
which sixty-six percent or more of all of
the measurements taken during a six.
month period exceed (by any
magnitude) the daily maximum limit or
the average linut for the same pollutant
paraa ieten
• Technical review criteria (TRC)
violations, defined as those in which
thirty-three percent or more of all of the
measurements for each pollutant
parameter taken during a six-month
period equal or exceed the product of
the daily average maximum limit or the
average limit times the applicable TRC
(TRC .1.4 for SOD. TSS. fats, oil, and
grease. end 12 for all other poLlutant,
except pH);
• Any other violation of a
pretreatment effluent limit (daily
maximum or longer-terra average) that
the Control Authority determines has
caused, alone or In combination with
other discharges, interference or pass
through (Including endangering the
health of POTW personnel or the
general public);
• Any discharge of a pollutant that
has caused imminent endangerment to
buirtan health, welfare or to the
environment or has resulted in the
POTWi exercise of its emergency
authority under paragraph (0(1 If iri)(S) of
this section to halt or prevent such a
discharge;
• Failure to meet, within 90 days alter
the scheduled date, a compliance
schedule milestone contained in a local
control mechanism or eriforcemeat
order. for starling construction.
completing construction, or attaining
final compliance:
• Failure to provide, within 30 days
after the due date, required report, such
as baseline monitoring reports, 90-day
compliance reports. periodic sell.
monitoring reports, and reports on
compliance with compliance schedule,:
• Failure to accurately report
noncomplianc or
• Any other violation or group of
violations which the Control Authority
determine, will adversely affect the
operation or implementation of the local
pretreatment program.
8. Reporting Requirements for
Significant industrial Users (40
a. Proposed rids. 40 C R 403.12
describes the reports that Industrial
users muss submit to their Control
Authorities. To demonstrate continued
compliance with pretreatment
standards. industrial users subject to
categorical standards must submit semi-
annual reports that include effluent
morn tonng data taken during the
reporting period, as provided in 40 CFR
403.12(e). The existing regulations
provide that Control Authorities must
require appropriate reporting from those
industrial users with discharges not
subiect to categorical standard,.
However, the reg IaUons do not specify
. mLnimum frequency for reporting by
noncalegoncal industrial users to the
Control Authority regarding their
compliance with applicable
pretreatment requirements.
To provide for more effective
Implementation of the existing
requirements and to ensure that this
reporting Is carried out regularly, EPA
proposed on November 23. 1988 to
revise 40 CFR 403.12 (h) to require that
all significant industrial users (as
defined under proposed 40 CFR 403.3(u))
submit to their Control Authorities, at
least twice a year, a description of the
nature, concentration, and flow of
pollutants selected for such reporting by
the Control Authority. La addition, the
proposal would require all significant
industrial users to base their reports on
data obtained through appropriate
sampling and analysis performed during
the period covered by the report.
Control Authorities may require more
frequent monitoring a. appropriate.
The Agency solicited comments on
the proposed twtce- early reporting
frequency, on limiting the reporting
requirements to significant industrial
users, end on whether to require
utgnlflcant industrial users to sample for
certain compounds, such as the RCRA
appendix Vi i i hazardous constituents.
b. Reeponie to conunento. The Agency
received many comments on the
proposed nil. from States, POTWs.
environmental groups. and Industry. A
majority of the cammentari favored the
proposal to require significant Industrial
users to report with the same frequency
as categorical industrial users.
A few of the commenters expressed
concern that the nile would require
duplicative reporting for categorical
Industrial users. The assumption was
that this provision would require
categorical Industrial users to report
more often than is currently required,
This was not EPA’s Latent in the
proposal. as Indicated by th. title of
proposed 40 CFR 403.12(b}— ”Reportlng
Requirements for Industrial Users Not
Subject to Categorical Standards”.
Today’s rule clarifies this Intent by
referring In 40 CFR 4 0 3 .1 .2 (b) to
“significant noacategorical Industrial
users.”
A few other comnienters stated that
the current reporting requIrements under
40 CFR 403.12(h) were sufficient and
allowed (or necessary flexibility in
establishing reporting requirements for
non-categorical Industrial users, There
was a concern that the current proposal
would restrict that flexibility. These
cominenter. believed that the current
regulation Is more suitable In dealing
with the highly variable group of
noncategarical discharges.
-------
30126
Federal Register I Vol. 55. No. 142 / Tuesday. July 24. 1990 / Rule , and Regulations
The Agency believes that the
reportthg requirements for aU significant
industrial users. including categorical
and non-categorical users, should
generally be the lame. Since
noncategorical significant Industrial
users are also likely contributors of
toxic and hazardous poUutants to
POTWs, EPA sees no reason for less
frequent reporting for this group of
dischargers. With respect to POTW
flexibility, the Agency emphasizes that
todays rule establishes only what it
believes to be the minimwn acceptable
frequency for sampling and reporting.
POTWs are free to require additional
sampling and reporting as frequently as
is necessary for a particular discharger.
EPA bclieves that these requirements
will give POTWs much more accurate
knowledge of non-categorical wastes
entering their treatment and collection
systems. This knowledge is particularly
important because many toxic and
hazardous pollutants are not covered by
categorical standards. EPA also believes
that establishing minimum monitoring
frequencies is the only way to ensure
that the samples submitted to the POTW
are representative and up to date. In
order to help ensure that sampling L i
conducted once every six months
Instead of twice in one month (as the
proposed rule would technically have
allowed], the Agency Is today requiring
sampling reports to be submitted at
least once every six months on dates
spec fled by the Control Authority”,
instead of “at least twice a year” as was
proposed.
Tv.o cornmenter, stated a belief that
POT’ ,V monitoring should be specified
as an acceptable a!ternative in Lieu of
industrial user monitaring. as is
currently stated In 40 CFR 403.12(g).
Since the intent of the regulation Is to
provide panty between categorical and
significant non-categorical disahargers,
EPA has amended 40 403 . 1. 2 (b) to
specify that POTW monitoring Is
acceptable in Lie u of indus isi user self.
morutorieg.
With respect to requiring significant
Industrial users to sample for certain
compound,. or classes of compounds
(such 85 RCRA appendix V hazardous
constituents), there was almost
timversai opposition to this suggestion
from the commenters. EPA does not
believe that monitoring for the..
constituents is necessary on a routine
basis to prevent pass through or
Interference. POTWs may require an
Industrial user to monitor for any or all
oF these constituents if appropriate on
an Individual basis. Therefore, this
requirement Is not part of todays rule.
However. EPA has added a requirement
to 40 CFR 403.a(fl(1)(iii) that any
pollutants required to be monitored
must be identified In the Individual
control mechanism Issued to the
significant industrial user.
c. Today’s rule. Today s rule requires
noncategorical significant industrial
users to submit to the Control Authority
at least once every six months (on date.
specified by the Control Authority) a
description of the nature. concentration.
and flow of the pollutants required to be
reported by the Control Authority. The
reports shall be based on sampling and
analysis performed In the period
covered by the report, and, where
possible, performed In accordance with
the techniques des ibed in 40 CFR part
138. The sampling and analysis may be
performed by the Control Authority In
lieu of the significant noncategorical
industrial user.
H. Miscellaneous A.znendment,
In addition to the substantive
regulatory changes proposed on
November 23.1908. EPA also proposed
to clarify certain of the general
pretreatment regulations. These
proposed non-substantive revision_s are
discussed below.
I Local Limits Development and
Enforcement
a. Proposed change. 40 C ’R 403.3(c)
provides that POTW. developLcg”
pretreatment programs must develop
and enforce specific limit. to implement
the general and specific discharge
prohibitions. In order to clarify that
POTW, with already approved
pretreatment programs must also
develop and enforce local limits. EPA
proposed to revIse 40 CFR 403.5(c) to
provide that POTWi shall continue to
develop a nd enforce appropriate local
limits after developing an approved
pretreatment program.
b. Response to comments. No
significant comments were received on
this propoaed revisIon.
c. Todays rul& Today’s rule revises
40 CFR 403.5(c)(I) to provide that *
POTWs with approved pretiestesent
programs shall continue after
pretreatment program submission and
approval to develop local limits as
necessary and effectively enforce such
limits.
2. EPA Enforcement Action
a. Prvposed change. 40 CFR 403.5(e)
summarizes procedure, that EPA
follows to bring certain enforcement
actions against an industilal user that
has caused interference or pau through
at a POTW. La. give the POTh1 30 days
notice to Initiate Its awn enforcement
action. However. 40 ‘R 403.5(e) may be
misleading in not stating that this ootlce
requirement only applies to federal
enforcement under section 309(f) of the
Act and not to State or other federal
enforcement actions. In order to avoid
misunderstandi , the Agency proposed
to revise the title of 40 CFR 403.5(e) to
indicate that these notice procedures
only apply to actions brought under
section 309(f) of the Act.
b. Response to comments. No
significant comments were received on
this proposed revision. EPA notes that in
addition to the above-mentioned title,
the text of 40 CFR 403.5(e) is also
misleading in that it refers to NPD S
States In the context of enforcement
action,.. Since this provision is intended
to apply only to actions brought under
section 309(I) of the Act. EPA has
deleted all reference, to NPDES State,
from 40 C} 4033(e).
c. Today’s rule. The title of 40 O ’R
403.3(e) has been changed to read “EPA -
enforcement actions under section 3 0 9( I)
of the Clean Water Act”, and the tent of
40 CFR 403.5(e) has been revised to
delete all references to NPDES Slates.
3. National Pretreatment Standards:
Categorical Standards
a. Pt’oposed change. 40 CFR 403.8
,rovides that categorical pretreatment
standards, unless speCflcally noted
otherwise, shall be In addition to the
general prohibitions established In 40 -
CFR 4035. There was an unintentional
omission from this provision of a - -
reference to the specific discharge
prohibitions. In order to rectify this
omission,, the Agency proposed to revise
0 CFR 403.8 to add that national
pretreatment standards, unlese
specifically noted otherwise, shall be In•
addition to all prohibitions and limit., -
established under 40 CFR 403.5(c)..
b. Response to comments, No —
significant comments were received on..
this proposed revision. The Agency has.
noted, however, that the proposed
modification could be Interpreted at
being in conflict with requirements tn_4
part 403. other than the general and
specific prohibitions, that apply to
categorical dischargers. Since this was
not the Agency’s intent. EPA Is today
clarifying in 40 CFR 403.6 that
categorical Industrial users must comply
with U applicable preneatment
standards and requirements set forth In
part 403, as well as national categorical
pretreatment standards.
c. Today’s rule. Today’s rule revises
40 CFR 403.8 to provide that categorical
industrial users must comply with .11
applicable general pretieaunent
standards and requirements set forth In
40 CFR part 403.
-------
Federal Registan I Vol. 55. No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
30127
a. .jTW Pretreatment Program
Reqwrements: Implementation
a. Proposed change. 40 R 403.8(1)
establishes the requirements that a
POTW pretreatment program must
satisfy. Section 403.8(f)(1) provides that
a POTW must have the legal authority
which enables It to deny, condition and
control pollutant contributions, require
compliance by industrial users, conduct
inspections of Endusthal users, and
perform other essential attributes of a
pretreatment program. The rule does not
specifically state that P01W. must
implement these procedures. although
this has been EPA. consistent
interpretation of the rule. To avoid any
possible misunderstanding, the Agency
proposed to revise the Introductory
sentence of 40 R 403.8(1) to state that
“a POTW Pretreatment Program shall be
developed end implemented to meet the
following requlrementa. EPA also
proposed to amend the title of 40 CFR
403.8 to read POTW Pretreatment
Programs: Development and
Implementation by POTW” (emphasis
added).
b. Response to comments. Several
vnzneoter, specifically endorsed the
‘osed changes to .) CFR 403.8(f)
.ding Implementation of approved
pretreatment programs. stating that the
proposed Language clarified an
important requirement To further clarify
this requirement the Introductory
language to 40 CFR 403.8(1) has been
changed from the proposal to rea± “a
POTW pretreatment program must be
based on the following legal authority
and include the following procedures.
These authorities and procedures shall
at all times be fully and effectively
exercised and Implemented”. -
C. Today’s rule. Today’s rule amends
the title of 40 CFR 403.8 to readi POTW
Pretreatment Program Requirements:
Development and ImplementatIon by
POTW ’. The Introductory paragraph to
40 CFR 403.8(1) now provtdu that-
POTW pretreatment programs must be
based on legal authorities sad
procedwes which shall at all times be
fully and effectively exercised and
Implemented.
5. Development and Submissrnn of
NPDES State PreUeatmedt Programs
a. Proposed change. 40 CFR 403.10(c)
states that “the EPA shall ‘ ‘ apply
and enforce Pretreatment Standards and
-quirementi until the necessary
lementing action Is taken by the
a.” This sentence might give the
wrong lxnpreuloa that the Agency will
cease to enforce pretreatment
requirements when a State has received
program approval. Since this Is not the
case. EPA proposed to delete this
sentence from 40 CTR 403.10,
b. Response to comments. No
significant cemments were received on
this proposed revision.
c. Today’s rule. Today’s rule deletes
the first sentence of 40 CFR 403.10(c).
6. Adsnlnisfratlve Penalties Against
Industrial Users
a. Proposed rule. The second to last
sentence in 40 CFR 403.8(fXl)(vl)(B)
states that “the Approval Authority
shall have authority to seek judicial
relief for noncompliance by Industrial
Users when the POTW ha, acted to
seek such relief but has sought a penalty
which the Approval Authority finds to
be insufficient (emphasis addedr. This
provision could arguably be read to
preclude the Agency from seeking
adxnui,isfrative penalties In such
instances. In order to clarify that EPA or
a State Approval Authority may use any
of their enforcement authorities in
Instances where a POTW has sought
relief for industrial user noncompliance
that the Approval Authority finds to be
insufficient the Agency proposed to
revIse 40 CPR 403.8(fl(lllvi)(B) to
provide that the Approval Authority
shall have the authority to seek judicial
relief and may also seek administrative
relief when the P01W has acted to seek
such relief bat has sought a monetary
penalty which the Approval Authority
finds to be insufficient
b. Response to comments. Some
cornmenters did not support this -
proposed revision. These commentare
believed that the Control Authority was
the only proper entity to establish
monetary penalties for discharges under
Its jurisdiction. One commenter pointed
out that state and local ordinances limit
most POTWs In the fines that they can
levy. This cornmenter also stated that
the proposed change would encourage
industrial users to attempt to deal
directly with the Approval Authority in
cases of violation, bypassing the POTW.
The commenters appear to have been
confused about the extent of the
Approval Authority’s existing authority
to levy fines against Industrial users
when the POTW has sought an
Insufficient monetary penalty. Under the
authority of sectIons 309(b) and 309(d) of
the Clean Water Act. EPA has always
been able to seek a judicial penalty
against noncomplying Industrial users
when the POTW has sought an
Insufficient monetary penalty. Including
instances where the Insufficiency was
due to State or local Limitations on fines
that could be levied. The proposed
amendments merely clarified that EPA
may now .eek admInIstrative penalties
as well, under the authority of section
309(g) of the Water Quality Act of 1987.
It is dear that Congress intended to give
the Admim trator the authority to seek
judic ial or adnurustrative penalties
directly against noncomplying industrial
users.
c. Today’s rule. Today’s rule revises
40 CFR 403.8(fl(1)(vI)fB) to provide that
the Approval Authonty shall have the
authority to seek judicial relief but also
may use administrative penalty
authority when the P0TW has sought a
monetary penalty which the Approval
Authority finds to be Insufficient
7. Provisions Coverning Fraud and False
Statements
a. Proposed change. 40 CFR 403.12(n)
regarding fraud and false statements
incorrectly states that certain reporting
requirements are sabject to the
provisions of section 309(c)(2J of the
Clean Water Act. The reference should
have been to sections 309(c) (4) and (6)
of the Act, as amended. EPA therefore -
proposed to revise 40 R 4 0 3.12(n)
accordingly.
b. Response to comments. No
significant comments were received on -.
this proposed revision. To further clarify
the existing requirements. the language.
of 40 CFR 403.12 (n) has been h ioed
from the proposal to reth -
the reports and other do wu.nts
required to be submitted or maintained unde
this section shall be subject tm 1) the v ’-”
provisions of 18 U.S.C ssc on 1001 relating
to fraud and fabe statements: 2) the-
provisions of section 3091c)(4) of the Act, as
amended. governing false statements. - -
representation or certificaUon and 3) the’
provisions of section 309 (c)(6) regarding
responsible corporate officers.
c. Today’s rule. Today’s rule revises
40 CFR 403(n) to clarify that reports and
other documents submitted under 40.
CFR 403.12 are subject to sections-
309(c)(4) and 309(c)(6) of the Clean
Water Act.
[ IL Exeentlv. Order 12291
Under Exeartive Order 12291. EPA
must judge whether a regulation I.
“Major and therefore subject to the
requirement of Regulatory Impact
Analysis. Major rules are those which
impose a cost on the economy of 3100’
million or more annually or have certain
other economic Impacts. The Agency
completed a general estimate of the -
annual costs to Industrial users and
POTW5 of the revisions proposed on
November 23, 198& which Is included In
the administrative record for this
rulemaking, and which showed
compliance costs at well below $100
million. Todays rule contains certain
changes from the proposal which
-------
301.28 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 142 I Tuesday, uly 24. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
increase costs to POTWi and industrial
users. For example, the cost for the
notification requirement, has risen from
approximately $250,000 In the proposed
rule to approximately $800,000 In the
final rule. Similarly, the cost for POTW
inspections and sampling of significant
Industrial users has increased from
approximately $l.160,000 in the
proposed rule to $10,000,000 in the final
rule. However, other changes from the
proposal decrease such costs to POTWs
and Industrial users. For example, the
cost of toxicity testing by POTWs has
decreased from approximately
$7,500,000 in the proposed rule to
approximately $1,200,000 in the final
rule, and the cost of technology.based
limits for CW’l’s has decreased from
approximately $ i.0oo,0oo in the
proposed rule to no cost in the final rule.
These changes are detailed in the
Information Collection Request (ICR) for
_this rule submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (0MB)
pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act Since the net effect of these
changes does not cause the annual
economic impact of today’s rule to
approach $100 million, this rule does not
meat the criteria of a major rule as set
forth in section 1(b) of the Executive
Order. This regulation has been
approved by 0MB pursuant to Executive
Order 12291.
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act. 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.. requires EPA and
other agencies to prepare an Initial
regulatory flexibility analysis for all
proposed regulations that have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. No regulatory
flexibility enalysia Is required, however.
whe e the head of the Agency certifies
that the rule will not have • significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of .mall entitles, Most of the
amendments promulgated today will
affect larger P01W. (the., with
approved pretrsa ant programs and
design lafluent flow of more than one
million gallons per day) and significant
industrial users, who are leu likely than
the average Industrial user to be a small
business, Those requirement . which
affect small Industrial users do not
Impose significant costs. I hereby
certify, pursuant to S U.S.C. 605(b) that
this regulation will not have a
sigruficant impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
The uiforination collection
requirement., contained in this rule were
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (0MB) under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et Beq.
Public reporting burden for this
collection of information Is estimated to
average 49 hours per response for
POTWs and G hour. per response for
industrial users, including time for
reviewing instruction,, searching
existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection
of information.
Send comments regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of Information. Including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to
Chief. Information Policy Branch, PM-.
223, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M SL SW. Washington. DC
2048& and to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Washington.
DC 20503. marked “Attention: Desk
Officer (or EPA’.
List of Subjects
40 CIR Port 222
Administrative practice and
procedure. Reporting end recordkeeplng
requirement... Water pollution control,
Confidential business information.
40 CFR Part 4
Confidential busineu Information.’
Reporting and recordkeeplng
requirements. Waste treatment arid
disposal, Water pollution Control.
Dated My 3,1990,
William K. Reilly,
Adm,rnsLretor, -
40 CFR chapter! Is amended as
follows:
PART 122—EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE NATIONAl.
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM
1. The authority citation for p,art 122
continues to read as followe:
Authorlty Cean Water Act, 33 U.S.C 1251
•1 seq.
2. Section 1222115 amended by
adding paragraphs (JJ(1) , (J)(2). W(3). and
U)(4) to reed as follows:
I 122.21 ApplirsOOn tori mIt,’
(application to Stat. prugrmua , see
I
• .I, S • S
(j)••S
(1) The following P01W. shall
provide the results of valid whole
effluent biological toxicity testing to the
Director
(i) All POTWs with design Influent
flows equal to or greater than one
millIon gallon. per day
(u) AU P01W. with approved
pretreatment programs or POTWs
requu-ed to develop a pretreaient
program;
(2) In addition to the POTWs listed c
paragraph (j)(1) of this section, the
Director may require other POT’Vs to
submit the results of toxicity tests with
their permit applications, based on
consideration of the foLlowing (actors:
(I) The variability of the pollutant, or
pollutant parameters in the POTW
effluent (based on chemical-specific
Information, the type of trea ent
facility, and types of industrial
contributors);
(u) The dilution of the effluent in the
receiving water (ratio of effluent flow tc
receiving stream flow);
(iii) Existing controls on point or
nonpoint sources. Including total
maximum daily Ioadcalcuiatiori, for th
waterbody segment and the relative
contribution of the POTW;
(iv) ReceIving stream characteristics.
including possible or known water
quality impairment and whether the
POTW discharges to a coastal water,
one of the Great Lakes. or a water
desiguated as an outstanding natural
resource: or
(v) Other consIderations (induding
but not limited to the history of toxic -
impact and compliance problems at the
POTW)S which the Director determines
could cause or contribute to adverse
water quality Impact .. -
(3) For POTWs required under
paragraph (j)(l) or (J)(2) of this section tc
conduct toxicity testing. POTWs shall
use EPA’s method.. or other established
protocols which are scientifically
defensible and su ciently sensitive to
detect aquatic toxicity. Such testing
must hay, been conducted since the last
NPDFS permit reissuance or permit
modification under 40 CFR 122.82(a).
whichever occurred later.
(4) All P01W. with approved
pretreatment programs shall provide the
following Information to the Director a
written technical evaluation of the need
to revise local limits under 40 CFR
403.3(c)(1).
• PART 403—GENERAL
PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS FOR
EXISTING AND NEW SOURCES
1. The authority citation for part 403
continues to read as follows:
- Authorlty Sec. 54(c)(2) of the Clean Water
Act of 1977 (Pub. 1.. 95-217). secs. 204(b)(1J(C).
208(b)(2)(C)(IIi), 301(bI(1)(A)(ii).
301(bllZ)(A)(il). 301(bJ(2)(C). 301(h)(S).
301(l)(2), 304 (a) and 15). 307. 308. 309. 402(b).
405 and 50 3(a) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (Pub. L, 92—500), ii amended by
the Cain Water Act of 1977 and the Water
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 142 / Tuesday. uly 24. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
30129
Quality Act of 1987. secs. 2002 and 3018(d) of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended.
2. SectIon 403.3 is amended by
redemgnating existing paragraph (t) as
paragraph (u) and adding new
paragraph (I) to read as follows
403.3 D.fh tIons.
. . I
I I
(t) Significant Industrial User. (1)
Except as provided in paragraph (tJ(2) of
this section. the term Significant
tndus ia1 User means:
(1) All industrial users subject to
Categorical Pretreatment Standards
under 40 CFR 403.8 and 40 CFR Chapter
I. Subchapter N: and
(ii) Any other Industrial user that
discharges an average of 25.000 gallons
per day or more of process wastewater
to the POTW (excluding sanitary.
noncontact cooling and boiler
blowdown wastewater); contributes a
process wastestream which makes up 5
percent or more of the average dry
weather hydraulic or organic capacity of
the P01W treatment plant or Is
designated as such by the Control
Authority as defined In 40 CFR 403.12(a)
on the basis that the Industrial user has
a reasonable potential for adversely
affecting the POTWa operation or for
violating any pretreatment standard or
requirement (in accordance with 40 CFR
403 8(fl(6ll.
(2) Upon a finding that an Industrial
user meeting the criteria In paragraph
(t)(1)(ii) of this section has no
reasonable potential for adversely
affecting the POTW ’ , operation or fur
violating any pretreatment standard or
requirement. the Control Authority (as
defined in 40 CFR 403.12(a)) may at any
time. on its own Initiative or In response
to a petition received from an industrial
.user or POTW. and In accordance with
• 40 CFR 403.8(0(6), determine that such
Industrial user is not a significant
industrial nsa?.
S S S I S
3. Section 403.5 is . rneitdad by
revising paragraphs (eXZ) Introductory
text. (b)(1), and (e), adding t to the
end of (c)(1), and adding new
paragraphs (b)(8). (b)(7) . and (b)(8) to
read u follows:
403.5 NatIonal Pretreatment Standaa ’dm
Prohiblt.d Otsctiarges.
(a) ‘ .
(2) AffirmatIve Defenses. A User shall
have an affirmative defense in any
action brought against It alleging a
violation of the general prohibitions
established In paragraph (a)(1) of this
section and the specific prohibitions In
paragraphs (b)(3). (b)(4). (bJ(5). (b)(6).
arid (b)(7) of this section where the User
can demonstrate that
• I S • I
( b ) ’ ’ ’
(1) Pollutants which create a fire or
explosion hazard in the POTW,
Including, but not limited to.
wastestreams with a closed cup
llashpoint of less than 140 degrees
Farenheit or 60 degrees Centigrade using
the test methods specified in 40 CFR
261.23.
• S • I •
(6) Petroleum oil. nonbiodegradable
cutting oiL or products of mineral oil
origin in amounts that will cause
interference or pass throughi
(7) Pollutants which result in the
presence of toxic gases. vapor ,, or
fumes within the POTW in a quantity
that may cause acute worker health and
safety problems.
(8) Any trucked or hauled pollutants.
except at discharge points designated by
the POTW.
(c) ‘
(1) • 1 EachP0TWwithan
approved pretreatment program shall
continue to develop these limits as
necessary and effectively enforce such
limits.
I I I I
S
(e) EPA enforcement actions under
section 300(f) of the Clean Water Act.
U within 30 days alter notice of an
interference or Pass Through violation
has been sent by EPA to the POTW. and
to persons or groups who have
requested such notice, the POTW fail.,
to commence appropriate enforcement
action to correct the viola ti n. EPA may
take appropriate enforcement action
under the authority provided in section
309( f ) of the Clean Water Act.
4. Section 403.6 La amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
I 403.S Nadonal Prstrutmrit Standards
National pretreatment standards
specifying quantities or concentrations
of pollutants or pollutant properties
which may be discharged to a P01W by
existing or new Industrial users In
specific Industrial subcategories will be
established as separate regulations
under the appropriate subpart of 40 ‘R
chap ter I. subchapter N. These
standards, unless specifically noted
otherwise, shall be In addition to all
applicable pretreatment standards and
requirements set forth In this part.
• S I S •
3. SectIon 403.8 Is amended by
revising the section headIng, the
Introductory text to paragraph (I),
paragraphs (fl(1)(iii). (fl(1J(vi)(B),
(fl(2)(v). and (fl(2)(vii). adding texi to the
end ot(f)(2)(iii). and adding new
paragraphs (f ’)(5) and (fl(6) to read as
(oIlo s:
403.8 Pretreatment Program
RaquIr.men Develoçment d
lmplementatjon by P07W.
S • • • .
(F) POTWpretreo aen: req reman .
A POTW pretreatment program must be
based on the foUowuig legal authority
and include the following procedure,,.
These authorities and procedures shall
at all times be fully and effectively
exercised and implemented.
(1) ‘
(iii) Control through permit, order, or
similar means, the contribution to the
P01W by each Industrial User to ensure
compliance with applicable
Pretreatment Standard., and
Requirements. In the case of Industrial
Users identified as significant under 40’
CFR 403.3(1), this control shall be
achieved through permits or equivalent
individual control mechanisms Issued to
each such user, Such control
mechanisms must be enforceable and
contain, at a minimum, the following
conditIons:
(A) Statement of duration (in no case
more than five years);
(B) Statement of non.transferability
without, at a minimum, prior notification
to the POTW and provision of a copy of
the existing control mechanism to the
new owner or operatori
(C) Effluent limits based on applicable
general pretreatment standards in part
403 of thus chapter. categorical
pretreatment standards, local limits, and
State and local law:
(D) SeIf.morutoring. sampling.
reporting, notification and mecor ’dkeeping
requirements, including sri Identification
of the pollutants to be monitored.
sampling location. sampling frequency,
and sample type, based on the
applicable general pretreatment
standards In part 403 of this chapter,
categorical preo ’eaunent standards,
local limits, and State and local law
(EJ Statement of applicable civil and
criminal penalties for violation of
pretreatment standards and
requirements, and any applicable
compliance schedule. Such schedule,
may not extend the compliance date
beyond applicable federal deadlines.
• S S S S
(vi)’’
(B) Pretreatment requirements which
will be enforced through the remedies
set forth in paragraph (fl(1)(v1)(A) of this
section. will include but not be limited
to, the duty to allow or carry out
Inspections, entry, or monitoring
activities: any rules. regulations, or
-------
order, Issued by the PO ’rW; any
requirements set forth in individual
control mechanisms issued by the
PO’flV; or any reporting requirements
imposed by the POTW or these
regulations. The POTW shall have
authority and procedures (after Lrtformal
notice to the discharger) bnrnediately
and effectively to hail or prevent any
discharge of pollutants to the POTW
which reasonably appears to present an
imminent endangerment to the health or
welfare of persons. The POTW shall
also have authority and procedures
(which shall Include notice to the
affected Industrial users and an
opportunity to respond) to halt or
prevent any discharge to the POTW
which presents or may present an
endangerment to the environment or
which threatens to Interfere with the
operation of the POTW. The Approval
Authority shall have authority to seek
judicial relief and may also use
administrative penalty authority when
the POTW has sought a monetary
penalty which the Approval Authority
believe, to be Insufficient.
• S • • •
(2)
(iii) Within 30 days of approval
pursuant to 40 CFR 403.8(f)(8), of a list of
at uflcant Industrial users, notify each
•e ._flcant _-idustrial user of its status as
such and of all requirements applicable
to It as a result of such status.
• S S S S
(v) Randomly sample and analyze the
effluent from Industi,aj user, and
conduct surveillance activities In order
to Identify, Independent of in.formation
supplied by Industrial users, occasional
and continuing noncompliance with
preti ’eati ent standard,, inspect and
sample the effluent from each
Si uficant Industrial User at least once
• year. Evaluate, at least once every two
years, whether each such Sigruficant
hndustija] User needs ap to control
slug discharge.. For purposes of this
subsection, a slug discharge Is any
discharge of a non-routine, episodic
natue, lnc1ud1 g but not Limited to an
accidental spill or a non-aistomary
batch discharge. The results of such
activities shall be available to the
Approval Authority upon request If the
POTW decides that a slug control plan
Is needed, the plan shall contain, at a
minimum, the following elements:
(A) Description of discharge practices.
Including non-routine batch discharges:
(B) Description of stored chemicals;
(C) Procedures for Immediately
notifying the POTW of slug discharges,
Including any discharge that would
violate a prohibition under 40 CFR
403.5(b), with procedures for follow.up
written notification within five days;
ID) U necessary, procedures to
prevent adverse impact from accidental
spills, including Inspection and
maintenance of storage areas, handling
and transfer of materials, loading and
unloading operation,, control of plant
site run-off, worker trauiing, building of
containment structures or equipment,
measures for containing toxic organic
pollutants (including solvents), and/or
measures and equipment for emergency
response:
• • I • •
(vii) Comply with the public
participation requirements of 40 CFR
part 25 in the enforcement of national
pretreatment standard . These
procedures shall include provision for at
least annual public notification, In the
largest daily newspaper published in the
municipality Ii i which the POTW Is
located, of industrial users which, at any
time during the previous twelve months,
were in significant noncompliance with
applicable pretreatment requirements.
For the purposes of this provision, an
industrial user is In significant
noncompliance If its violation meets one
or more of the following criteria:
(A) Chronic violations of wastewater
discharge limits, defined here as those In
which sixty-aix percent or more of all of
the measurements taken du nn 3 a six-
month period exceed (by any
magnitude) the daily maxiniurn lirrut or
the average limit forthe same pollutant
parameten
(B) Technical Review Criteria (TRC)
violations, defined here as those in
which thirty-three percent or more of all
of the measurement, for each pollutant
parameter taken during a six-month
period equal or exceed the product of
the daily maximum limit or the average
Limit multiplied by the applicable TRC
(TRC—1,4 for BOO, TSS. fats, oil, and
grease, and 1,2 for all other pollutant,,
except p1-f.
(C) Any other violation of a
pretreatment effluent limit (daily
maidmum or longer-term average) that
the Control Authority determines has
caused, alone or In combination with
other discharges, Interference or pass
through (including endangering the
health of POTW personnel or the
general public):
(D) Any discharge of a pollutant that
has caused Imminent endangerment to
human health, welfare or to the
environnierit or has resulted in the
POTWa exercise of its emergency
authority under paragraph (fl(1)(vi)(B) of
this section to halt or prevent such a
discharge;
(EJ Failure to meet, within o day,
after the schedule date. a compilanci
schedule milestone contained in a lo
control mechanism or enforcement ox
for starting construction, ccmp!etxag
construction, or attaining final
complxance;
(F) Failure to provide. wi± n 30 da
after the due date, req u :red reports SI
as baseline momtoru g repors, 90-da
compliance reports, period ic self-
morutoruig report,, and reports on
compliance with compliance stheduJ
(C) Failure to accurately report
noncompliance:
( 1-i) Any other violation or group of
violations which the Control Authorit’
determines will adversely affect the
operation or implementation of the Icc
pretreatment program.
• S • • •
(5) The POTW shall develop and
implement an enforcement response
.plan. This plan shall contain detailed
procedure, uidicatuig how a POTW w
Investigate and respond to Instances a
Industrial user noncompliance, The pl
shall, at a min.jmiim:
(i) Describe how the POTW will
Investigate instances of noncomplianci
(Ii) Describe the types of escalating
• enforcement responses the POTW will
take In response to all anticipated type
of Industrial user violation, and the tin-
periods within which responses will
take plae
(iii) Identify (by title) the official(s)
responsible for each type of response:
(iv) Adequately reflect the POTW’s
primary responsibility to enforce all
applicable pretreatment requirements
and standard,, as detailed in 40 CFR
403.8 (f)(i) and (0(2).
(0) The POTW shall prepare a list of
its industrial users meeting the criteria
In 40 CFR 403.3(l)(l), The list shall
Identify the criteria In 40 CFR 403.3(t)(1)
applicable to each Industrial user and,
for industrial users meeting the criteria
In 40 CFR 4 3(t)(1)(ii). shall also
Indicate whether the POTW has made a
determination pursuant to 40 CER
403.3(t)(zJ that such Industrial user
should not be considered a significant
industrial user, This list, and any
subsequent modifications thereto. shafl
be submitted to the Approval Authority
as a nonsubstantial program
modification pursuant to 40 CFR
403.18(b)(2). Discretionary designations
or de-designations by the Control
Authority shall be deemed to be
approved by the Approval Authority 90
days after submission of the list or
modification, thereto, unless the
Approval Authority determines that a
modification Is in fact a substantial
modilication,
30130
Federal Register I VoL 55, No. 142 I Tuesday, July 24. 1990 Rules and Regulation ,
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 142 I Tuesday. July 24. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
30131
J403.10 (Aanigidsdl
6. SectIon 403.lOtJ amended by
removing the first sentence in paragraph
(c).
7. SectIon 403.12 La amended by
adding text to th. end of paragraph (b),
by revising paragraphs U) and (a), and
adding new paragraph (p) to read as
foUows
f 403.12 R.portinq requiremectu for
PQTW’s end Industrt Users.
I I I I S
(b)’ • Significant Noncategorical
Industrial Users shall submit to the
Control Authority at least once every six
months (on dates specified by the
Control Authority) a desalpuon of the
nature. concentration, and flow of the
pollutants required to be reported by the
Control Authority. These report. shall
be based on sampling and analysis
performed In the period covered by the
report. and performed In accordance
with the techniques descnbed In 40 CFR
part 138 and amendments thereto.
Where 40 CFR part 138 does not contain
sampling or analytical techniques for the
pollutant In question, or where the
M 4i Istrstor determines that the part
138 sampling and analytical techniques
are inappropriate for th. pollutant In
question. se . npling and analysis shall be
performed by using validated analytical
methods or any other applicable
sampling and analytical procedures.
including procedures suggested by the
POTW or other persona, approved by
the Mn’lnIsirator. This sampling and
analysis may be performed by the
Control Authority In lieu of the
significant noncategortcal tndus iaI
user. Where the P01W ItseLf collects all
the Information required for the report
the concategorical significant Industrial
user will not be required to submit the
report
• S I I I
(j) Notification of changed discharge.
All Indus t rial Users shall prompdy
notily the P0 1W in advance deny
substantial ‘ ii nge In the volume or
character of poUutants In their
discharge. Including the listed or
characteristic hazardous wastes for
which the Industrial User has submitted
Initial notification under 40 R
403.12 p).
• I I I I
(a) Provisions Governing Fraud and
False Statementa The reports and other
documents required to be submitted or
maintained under this section shall be
subject to:
(1) The provisions of 18 USC. section
1001 relating to fraud and false
statementE
(2) The provisions of sections 309(c)(4)
of the Act. as amended. governing false
statements, representation or
certlficatlon and
(3) The provisions of section 309(c)(6)
regarding responsible corporate officers.
(p)(l) The Industrial User shall notify
the POTW. the EPA Regional Waste
Management Division Director, and
State hazardous waste authorities In
writing of any discharge Into the POTW
of a substance, which. if otherwise
disposed of, would be a hazardous
waste under 40 CFR part 281. Such
notification must Include the came of
the hazardous waste as set forth In 40
Q’R part 281. the EPA hazardous waste
number, and the type of discharge -
(continuous, batch, or other). If the
Indu,,trlal User discharges more than 100
kilograms of such waste per calendar
month to the POTW. the notification
shall also contain the following
Informat ion to the extent such
Information ii known and readily
available to the Industrial User An
Identification of the hazardous
constituents contained In the wastes. an
estimation of the mass and
concentration of such constituents in the
wastestream discharged during that
calendar month, and an estimation of
the mass of constituents In the
wastestream expected to be discharged
during the following twelve months. All
notifications must take place within 180
days of the effective dat. of this rule.
Industrial users who commence
discharging after the effective date of
this rule shall provide the notification no
later than 180 days after the discharge of
the listed or characterIstic hazardous
waste. Any notification under thu
paragraph need be submitted only once
for each hazardous waste discharged.
However. notifications of eh nged
discharges must be submitted under 40
R 4 0 3.12(J ). The notification
requirement in this section does not
apply to pollutants already reported
under the seU.monltor lng requirements
of 40 R 403.12(b). (dJ. and (e).
(2) Discharger. are exempt from the
requirements of paragraph (p)(1) of this
section durIng a calendar month in
which they discharge no more than
fifteen kilograms of hazardous wastes.
unless the wastes are acute hazardous
wastes u specified In 40 CFR 281.30(d)
and 281.33(e). Discharge of more than
fifteen kilograms of non•acute
hazardous wastes In a calendar month.
or of any quantity of acute hazardous
wastes as specified In 40 GP. 281.30(d)
and 281.33(e), requIres a one-time
notification.
Subsequent months during which the
Industrial User discharges more than
such quantities of any hazardous waste
do not require additional noWicatlon.
(3) In the case of any new regulations
under section 3001 of RC .A identifying
additional characteristics of hazardous
waste or listing any additional
substance as a hazardous waste, the
Industrial User must notify the POTW.
the EPA Regional Waste Management
Waste Division Director, and State
hazardous waste authorities of the
discharge of such substance wuhin 90
days of the effective date of such
regulations.
(4) In the case of any notification
made under paragraph (p) of this
section, the Industrial User shall certify
that It has a program In place to reduce
the volume and toxicity of hazardous
wastes generated to the degree It has
determined to be economically practicaL
Editorial Noir. Thu appendix will not
appear In the Code of Federal Regulation..
Appsudlx—Rawdous Waste Authoiltiem
Notifications undor 40 CFR 403.12(p)
Envlroomental Protection Agency
Region I
Director. Waits Management Division.
Environmental Prvtsction Agency. John P.
Kennedy Building, Boston, Massachusetts
Region!!
Director. Air S Waste Management Division,
Environmental Protection Agency. 25
Federal Plaza. New York, New York loVe
Region L I I
Director. Hazardous Wute Management
Dwlslon, Environmental Protection Agency.
541 Chestnut Street Philadelphia.
Pennsylvania 19207
Region IV
Director. Waste Management Division.
Envtzonmsntal Protection Agency. $43
Courtland St. N.E., Atlanta. Georgia 30343
Region V
Diructos. Waste Management Division.
Ea*onm.ntal Prvi .. ticc Agency. 0
South Dearborn S .et, Chicago. Illinois
sceoa
Region VT
Director. Hazardous Wails Management
Dlvlaloa. Eavlrei!mental Protection Agency.
1443 Ross Avenue, Suite 1250, Dallas,
Texas 73
Region VIZ
Director. Waste Management Division.
Enviroumsutal Protection Agency. 728
Minnesota Avenus, Kansas City. Kansas
ee oi
Region VIII
Director. Hazardous Wait. Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency.
One Denver Place. 9 lath Si.. Suite 500.
Denver, Colorado 50252-2403
-------
30132 FedersI RegIster 1 VoL 55. No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24. 19 I Rules and Regu!ation
RegiaaIX
Director. Hawdous Wait. Management
Division. Environmental ProtscUo Agency.
1235 Mlaslou Street. San Francisco,
California 94103
Region X
Director. Hazardous Waits Division.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1200 6th
Avenue. Seattle, WashIngton 96101
St at.s
A1 0b0 07. a
ChleL Land Division. Alabama De ai int of
Environmental Management, 1751 Federal
Drive. Montgomery. Alabama 36130
Alaska
lef. Solid and Hazardous Waite
Management Proç’sm. Division of
Environmental Quality. Department of
Environmental Conservation. 3 Hospital
DrIve, P0. Box 0. Juneau, Alaska 96811-
1800
Arizona -
Assistant Director, 0 (1k. of Waste and
Waict Quality Management, Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality, 2005
N. Central Avenue, Roont 304, Phocnlx.
ArIzona 65004
itzkansoa -
Ief. Hazardous West. Division. Arkansas
Department of Pollution Control and
T.chnolo ’, 6001 National Drive, P.O. Box
9583, Little Rock. Arkansas 7 ’J0
CoJ:fonria
LcL Deputy Executiv. Officer. California
Waste Management Board. 1020 9th Street!
Suite 300, Sacramento. CalifornIa 95814
Calorodo
Director. Wait. Management Division.
Colorado Department of HuItk. 42W 8.
11th Avenuu. Denver. Colorado 60220
Con ecticuS
Qief. Bureau of Waite Management.
Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection. Hawdous Materials
Management UnIt, 165 CapItal Avenue,
Hartford, Connecticut 06ws
Delaware
Director. DIvision at Afr 4 Wasta
Management, D.par t of Natural
Resource. and Eestzsomental ControL P.O.
Box 1401.80 KIng. W 4 hw .) , Dover,
Delaware 10903
Disgnct of Columbia
hIe!. Pesticides and Hsiardous Materials
Dlvislon/Superfund, Department of
Consumer and ReguLs tory AffaIri. 614 H
Street NW, Room 503. Washington, DC
Florida
Director. Division of Wait. Management,
Und.r ound Storage Tanks. Departm.nI of
Enronmantal Regulations. Twin Towers
omc. Building. 2000 Blair Stone Road,
Tallahassee. florid. 32301
C—
Chief. Land Protection Branch, Induatrtal aai
Hawdoua Wut. Management Program.
Floyd Towers East/Roam 205 Butler
Street. SF.. Atlanta. Georgia 30134
Hawaii
Manager. Solid and Hazardous Waste
Branch, Hawaii Department of Health.
Hazardous Waste Program. PC. Box 3378.
Honolulu. HawaiI 96801
Ida/ to. Chief, Hazardous Ma ten iii Bureau.
Department of Health and Welfare, Idaho
Slat. House, 450W. State Street. Boise, Idaho
83720
Illinois
Manager, Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency. 2200 Churchill Road. P0. Box
19V5. Springfield, Illinois 6V94-OVO
Indiana
Assistant Director. Indiana Department of
Environmental Management. 1055.
Meridian Street P0. Box 0013.
indianapolis. Indiana 48223
Iowa
Chief. Air Quality and Solid Waite
Protection. Department of Water. Air, and
Waste Management, 900 East Grand
Avenue. Henry A. Wallace Building, Des
Moines. Iowa 50319-0034
Kansas
Dtzectcs. Bureau of Waits Management,
Department of Health and Environment.
Forbes Field, Building 321. Topeka. Kansas
XenAacky - -
Director. Division of Wait. Management,
Department of Environmental Protection.
Cabinet foe Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection, II Reilly Road,
Franlilort. Kentucky 40601
Louisiana
Assistant Seeretaty, Hazardous Waste
Division, Office of Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste. Louisiana Department
of Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 44307,
N. Fowth Street. Bacon Rouge, Louisiana
Maine
Dlr.ctm’. eau of Solid Waste Management,
Department of Environmental Protection.
Slate House PIT, Augusta, MaIn. 04335
Mar Iond
Director. Hazardous and Solid Waite
Management Mmlnlstrsdon, Maryland
Department of the Environment. 201 W.
Preston Street room 212. BaltImore,
Maryland 21231
Massachuset t s
Director. Division of Solid and Hazardous
Waste, Massachusetts Department of
EnvIronmental Quality Enguwering, One
Wlnt. Street 5th Floor, Boston.
Massachusetts 02106
Michigan
Chief. Technical Servlc,s Section, Waits
Management Division, Department of
Natural Resources. Box 30038. Lansing
Michigan 48900
Minnesota
Director. Solid and Hazardous Wait.
Division. Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency. 520 Lafayette Road, North, St.
Paul, Minnesota 55155
Mississippi
Director. Divirion of Solid Waste
Management. Bureau of Pollunon Control,
Department of Natural Resources, PC. Box
10365. Jackson. M1 slsslppi 39209
M,ssou,ri
Director. Waste Management Program,
Department of Natural Resources. Jefferson
Building. 205 Jeiferson Street (lltb-ltth
floors), P0. Box 170, Jeffereon Ctty,
MissourI 65102
Montana
Chief. Solid sad Hazardous Waite Bureau.
Department of Health and Environmental
S ..iences. Cogsw.U Building. Room B-Z0i,
Heleca, Montana 59820
Nebrnsha
Chief. Hazardous Waste Management
Section. Depazr nent of Envlzonmenta.l
Control, State House Station. P.O. Box
98477, LincoLn, Nebraska 06500
Nevada
Director, Waits Management Program.
DI vision of Environmental Protection,
Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources, Capitol Complex. 201 South Fafl
Street, Carson City, Nevada 80710
Now Hompahi,,
Chief, Division of Public Health Services.
Office of Wails Management, Department
of Health and Welfare, Health end Welfare
BuildIng, 6 Hazan Drive. Concord, New
Hampshire 03301
New Jersey
Assistant Commissioner, Division of HQ
Waste Management. Department of
Environmantal Protection, 401 East State
Street. Trenton, New Jersey 08623
New Mexico
Chief. Groundwater and Hazardous Waste
Bureau, Environmental Improvement
DIvision, New Mexico Health and -
Environment Department, P.O. Box 008.
Santa F., New Mexico 07504-0008
New York
Director, Division of Hazardous Substance
Regulation. Department of Environmental
Conservation. 50 Wolf. Road, Room .
Albany. New York 12233
North Catalina
Head, Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management Branch. Division of Health
Ssrvtca., Department of Human Resources,
P.O. Box 2091, Raleigh. North Carolina
n’eoz
North Dakota
Director. Division of Hazardous Waste
Manar_mrnt. Department of Health, 13z,
-------
Federal Rogister / Vol. 55. t o. 142 / Tueeday. tily 24. 1990 I Rule , and ReguLations
30133
Mluowl Avenue. Room 30 . Bis.narck.
North Dakota S85O —5520
Ohio
Chief. Division of Solid and Hazardcus
Wait. Management. Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency. 1800 Watermark Drive.
P0. Box 1049. Columbus. Ohio 4366-0149
Oklahoma
Cue?. Waste Management Service.
Oklahoma Stat. Department of Health.
PC. Box 33331. 1000 Northeast 10th Sweet.
Oklahoma. OkIatrnms 7 152
Orogin
Director. Hazardous and Solid Wast.
Dlviii on. Department of Environmental
Quality, all Southwest 6th Avenue.
Portland. Oregon 9704
Pen .risylvan:c
Director. Dureau of Waste Management.
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources, P0. Box 2063/
Fulton Building. Ifarrtsburg. Pennsylvania
17120
Rhojie 1,/and
Director. Solid West. Management Program.
Department of Environmental
Management. 204 Canon BwldMg. 75 Davis
Street, Pros Idenc.. Rhode Wand 90
South Caxul,no
Chief. Bureau of Solid Waste Management.
Hazardous Wasta Managem.nt.
Depaz ent of Health sad Environmental
ControL 2600 Bull Street. Coh mbIi. South
Carolina 29201
South Da.to:a
Director. 0111cm of Air Quality and Solid
Waste. Department of Water and Natural
Resources. 523 E. CapitoL Foss Building.
Room 416. Pierre. South Dakota 57501
Tennessee
Director. Division of Solid Waste
Management. Tennessee Department of
Public Health. 701 Broadway. Customs
House. 4th Floor. Nashville. Tennessee
Texaa
Direcior. Hazardous and Solid Waite
Division. Texas Water Commission. P0.
Box 130 ’. Capitol Station. Austin. Texas
7871
Vermont
Chief. Waste Management Division. Agency
of Environmental Conservation. i South
Main Sreet. Waterbury, Vermont 05678
Virgrnza
Executhe Dircct r. Division of Technical
Services, Virginia Department of Waste
Management. Monroe Building. 11th Floor.
.101 North 14th Street. Richmond. Virginia
23219
Waihington
Manager. Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management Division Department of
Ecology. Mall Stop PV-11 Olympia.
Washington 96504
Weal Virginia
Chief. Wait. Management Dtvlaloa.
D.partuient of Natural Resourcas. 1260
Greenbrie, Street Qaz1eston . West
VIrginia 25311 - -
Director. Buresu of Solid Waste. Department
of Natural Resources. P0 Box 921,
Madi o . V aC.0fl 510 SJ7W
Wyom i ng
Supervisor. Solid Waste Management
Progrsni. Department of Environmental
Quality. 122 West 25th Street. Herachler
Btulduig. Cheyenne. Wyoming
A.aier,can Samoa
Director. Soild West. Division.
Environmental Quality Commission.
Government of American Samoa. Page
Page. American 5 . 9 ga
Guam
Director. Hazardous Wa.ta Management
Program. Guam Environmental Protection
Agency. P.O. Box 2990, Agana. Guam 96910
Commonwechh of Northern Mariano Iciand
Chief. Division of Envtronmsntal Quality.
Department of Public Hrahh and
En tronmental Services. Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Island.. Office of the
Covernor. Saipan. Martiuia Islands 96950
Puerto Rico
President. Environmental Quality Board. -
Santurce. Puerto Rico 00910-1485
Vi ,g i1sIan -
Director, Depertmant of Coniervadon and
Cultural Affaisi. P.O. Box 4399. Charlotte,
St. Thomas. Virgin t.1 . . .ds 00801
(FR Doc. 90-16529 PIled 7.43 90, &45 am)
— ‘
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55. No. 124 I Wednesday, June 27. 1990 f Rules and Regulations
2620:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parti 123 and 130
(FRI. 3790-8)
EPA Action on Individual Control
Strategies Under the Clean Water Act
AOENCY Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACT O C Notice of final agency
Interpretation.
$UMMARY EPA I . darlfying when its
final agency action on an individual
control strategy tICS) under section
304(1) of the Clean Water Act occurs.
Further. EPA is providing notice of what
Judicial forum EPA believes Is
appropriate for review of approvals and
disapproval, of ICS,. in cases in which
such decisions are reviewable. Finally,
EPA Is providing notice of its position
regarding the reviewebility of EPA ’ ,
decisions to list waters under section
304(1).
OR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For questlona regarding this notice,
Diane Regas or Roland Dubois, Office of
Ceneral Counsel (LE—132$J, U.S.
vtroiunentaJ Protection Agency, 401 M
Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. (202)
382—7700 or. (or question., regarding
paitci .: ecisiona, the Water
Management Thvisfon in the relevant
regional office: RegIon 1, (61?) 565—3478
Region 2. (212) 284—2513; Region 3. (215)
597-9410: Region 4, (404)347-4450:
Region 5, (312)333—2147: Region 6. (214)
835- .7100 Region?, (913) 551—7030:
RegIon 8, (303) 293—1542 Region 9. (415)
705-207& Region 10. (206)442-1207.
OUPPt.ZMENTARy INFQRMAflOpc.
On June 2. 1989, EPA published final
rules implementing sectIon 304(1) o(the
Clean Water Act (CWA). 54 FR 23868,
Those rules specified the bases on
which EPA would approve or
disapprove lists and ICSs submitted by
the states pursuant to section 304(1). In
addition. the rules established EPA’.
procedures fur involving the public in
making section 304(1) decisions.
Since then. EPA ha. made Initial
•pprovala or disapproval, of all of the
states’ lists and !CSs, and has requested
public comment on most of these
decisfon ,s. At the same time EPA and the
states, In cooperation, have been
developing final list, and !CSs.
In the preamble to the final
regulations EPA Interpreted scctlon
509(bJ(1)(G) of the CWA by saying.
“EPA believes that the permits that EPA
Issues as ICS . reviewabie in the cowl of
appeals. Review of any other actions by
EPA under section 304(1) must be
obtained in district court. 54 FR at
23895, Various questions have arisen
regarding when EPA. actions taken
under section 304(1) are final for the
purposes of judicial review and
regarding the above interpretation of
section 509(b)(1)(C).
The purpose of this notice I . to clarify
when EPA believes that decisions made
by it under section 304(1) of the CWA
are final agency actions for purposes of
judicial review. Identifying the date of
final agency action will ensure more
orderly judicial review of those Agency
decisions that are judicially reviewabie.
The date of final agency action with
respect to ICS. related decisions Is
Important because it is now the
Agency’s position that any judicial
challenge to ICS-related actions must be
filed in the courts of appeals pursuant to
section 509(b)(lflG) of the CWA. Section
509(bJ(1) requires petitions for review to
be filed wIthin 120 days of final agency
action. This notice does not address
defenses to judicial review that the
Agency might invoke, but only the
tuning for bringing such action.
EPA’s regional office, made Initial
decisions approving or disapproving
lists and ICS . submitted by the state,
on or about June 4. 1989. The Regions
requea ted public comment on all of their
disapproval decision, and on most of
their approval decisions. EPA’s
regulations require that when a Region
seeks public comment on its decision.
the Region must issue a subsequent
decision and respond to public
comments by June of 1q00. (54 FR 2 868,
23897—23899, 40 CFR 123.46(e)(3).) It is
the Agency’s position that when a
Region solicited public comment on its
Initial decision, that decision was not
finaL
L flnainy of ICS Decisions
ICS., like NFDF permits. may be
developed by the states or by EPA.
NPDES permits. however, are the only
vehicle under the CWA for imposing
effluent Ilinitatfons on point source
dlschargers. An ICS consists of a draft
or final NPDES permit with supporting
documentation showing that the
limitations In the permit would be
sufficient to meet the water quality
standards within the statutory
deadlInes, 40 ‘R 123.45(c) (19891.
Changes In NPI)ES permits because of
the section 304(1) program are only
effective after the permitting authority
hae determined, as. part of the
permitting process, that limitations are
necessary to meet water quality
standards as required by CWA section
301(b)(1J(C). Until the permitting
suthonty Issues a new permit or
modifies an existing permit, a discharger
TM. ncfte. focuu. e. A dedafaas ue ding
ICS. b .c . , ,. the., d,dilons wu b. cb.flcn If
vdicaiIIy l ,VlWublL the ta ef appseI. within
120 .1 flail .pncy .ctton.
listed on a section 304(1) list must only
comply with its pre-existing permit -
requlrwcnts. even if an ICS has been
developed. Therefore approvals and
disapprovals of ICSs do not themselves
affect the legal obligation, of
dischargers. Given that EPA’ , actions on
ICSs do not impose or alter legal
obligations. EPA believes that the
altlcal factors in determining whether
the Agency has taken final agency
action on an ICS are (1) Whether EPA
has made its definitive pronouncement
on what limitations w ll be sufficient to
comply with water quality standard,,
and (2) whether EPA intends to take any
further action. The timing of this
definitive decision in turn depends on
‘whether the state or EPA is issuing the
permit.
A. State-Issued Permit.:
1. Afler an Approval
EPA will consider regional decisions
approving state-developed 1CSs to be
final agency actions if the Region issues
its decision and does not seek further
public comment. The decision shall be
final on the date the Region publishes
notice of the decision pursuant to the
June 2,, 1989 regulation,. 40 CFR
123.46(e)(2) (1989), 54 FR 23827.
EPA approvals of state draft or final
permits that constitute ICSs represent
EPA’s final determination that the
limitations in the permit or draft permit
will be sufficient to attain and maintain
water quality standards. To the extent
such a determination may be reviewed
at all, the time for seeking Judicial
review of EPA approvals of ICSs begins
on the date of the approval, and is not
dependent on Issuance of a final permit
by the state. The precise permit
limitations may be determined only
through the state permitting process,
including any evidentiaiy hearing. (If the
stat. unacceptably modifies the permit
during that process. EPA may reconsider
its approval decision or review the
permit pursuant to section 402(d) and
object to the permit In accordance with
that section.)
When EPA approves a state draft or
final permit as an ICS, EPA has made a
determination, as required by section
304(1), that the limitations will be
sufficient to protect water quality
standards. This finding is not a
substitute for the normal permitting
process in which the necessity of
particular limitations is determined by
the permitting authority. A
determination to impose limitations in
the permit must be supported by an
admiruatrative record showing that there
is a reasonable potential for an
-------
26202 Federal Register I Vol. 55. No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27. 1990 / Rules arid Regulations
exceedance of the water quality
standard, caused or contributed to by
the discharger, and thus the limitations
are necessary. See 40 CFR 122.44(d).
Thus. EPA believes that its approval of
an ICS can be challenged. if at all, only
on claims that the Agency’s finding
under section 304(1) is in erron this
means reviewing EPA’. determination
that the limitations will be sufficient to
satisfy the requirements of that section.
On some initial decision. issued on or
about June 4, 198g. the Regions approved
ICSs without seeking public comment
finding that there previously had been
adequate notice and opportunity to
comment However, ui some cases, the
regional decisions did not make clear
that the Region intended these decisions
to be final agency actions. To prevent
prejudice stemming from any resulting
confusion. EPA is publishing this
Federal Register notice that the Agency
considers those actions final agency
actions. Therefore, those regional
approvals of state draft or final permits
as ICS ,. that were initially issued
without seeking public comment, are
final decisions representing final agency
actions for the purpose of judicial
review as of the date of publication of
this notice. EPA believe, the 120-day
judicial review period in CWA section
509(b)(1) will start with the publication
of this notice,
2. After a Disapproval --
After EPA makes a final disapproval
decision. the state still may draft a
permit that satisfies EPA’. reasons for
disapproving the state’s initial ICS.
Where EPA has disapproved a state’s
initial ICS (or the state’s failure to
submit an ICS) and the state
subsequently drafts an NPDES permit
that EPA determines to be an acceptable
ICS, EPA Intends to revise its
disapproval decisIon and Issue an
approval decision. Because there is
uncertaintly with respect to which path
will be taken sad because further EPA
action I. contemplated, EPA believes
that iti disapproval decision would not
be directly reviewable. (See the
discussion of thi, issue below at B, 2.)
EPA’. revised approval decision
would constitute final agency action
unless EPA solicit.. public comment on
the approval, In which case final agency
action would occur when the Agency
issue, a decision after considering
public comment
8. EPA—issued Permits
1. In Unauthorized States
Where EPA I. the permit issuing
authority, EPA’s action in establishing
the ICS is not final agency action until
EPA’. administrative review process
regarding the underlying NPDES permit
is complete. 40 CFR 124 91(e). Until that
time, the Agency will not have made
any final determination regarding what
limits must be included in the permit
that will serve as the ICS. ’ Therefore, a
permittee or other interested party in a
state riot authorized to issue permits
must exhaust its administrative
remedies on the permit before it can
obtain judicial review of any EPA
decision regarding the permit limitations
including EPA’s actions under section
304(1). (This same reasoning would
apply to any permit where EPA is the
permitting authority, eg.. where EPA
has assumed permit issuance authority
under section 402(d) ) This view has
support in a recent decision of the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals,
Champion int’l Corp. v. UnsEed Slates
Environmental Protection Agency. No.
89—2463 (4th Cit. March 12, 1990). lii that
case the court dismissed as premature a
challenge to EPA’. ICS for Champion
where EPA has not yet completed the
full administrative process on the
permit
2. In Authorized States
Similarly, where EPA disapproves an
authorized state’. ICS and EPA
subsequently issues the permit to the
discharger, it is EPA’s position that
judicial review of EPA’. action is not
appropriate wild EPA takes final action
on the underlying permit. Thus, EPA’s
disapproval would never, by itself; -
constitute reviewable final Agency
action.
Until EPA completes the
administrative review process, the
Agency will not have taken a defirutive
position regarding what limitations are
necessary and sufficient to meet water
quality standard,, When EPA is issuing
the permit, it will ultimately make only a
single decision, i.e., that the limitation..
In the final permit are necessary and
sufficient to meet water quality
standa Io. Where EPA Ii making both of
these findings (i.e.. I. the permitting
authority), neither will be definitive until
the other is made. Therefore, the
Agency’s tentative decisions regarding
the limitations thai are appropriate will
not be final agency action until the end
of the permitting process, including the
administrative appeal processes. This
view was recently endorsed in a case in
which the litigant challenged EPA’,
juit a. an Aiss ed p.rrnJi’, ulutup a. an ICS
do ,. not chin. thu tirniri of ludicisi rev .w of thu
pwntt, what, ICS is part of. record of diciuton
tand,, iii . Cornpv ,h.ni,v. £,wuotun.ni.i Ptj-nnia,
Cornp.nuooa and I ,labibty Act ( Q.Aj (ha ICS
ii not subi,ct to r.vauw any difVar.ndy from othaT
recorda of dacla.u wadis CmCI.A ,.
init al disappro al of an ICS IVestvoco
Corp v United States En Ironmen tol
Protec ,on .4ge’acy. et of. Nos. 89—2180.
89—2181, slip op at 15 (4th Cir Feb 13,
1990) In addition EPA’s position
regarding when final agency action on
disapproval, of ICSs occurs is
consistent with the Agencys position
regarding the finality of permit
objections under section 402(d) See
Champion Int’l Corp v EPA. 8,50 F 2d
182 (4th Cir. 1988). American Paper
Institute v EPA. 890 F 2d 873 (7th Cit.
1989).
II. Review of ICS Decision, in Federal
Court
As discussed above, it is the Agency’s
position that any judicial challenge to
ICS-related decisions must be filed in
the cowls of appeals pursuant to section
509(b)(1)(G) of the CWA EPA s
position that its approvals of state ICSs,
if judicially reviewable, would be
reviewable in the courts of appeals
under section 509(b)(1)(G) of the Clean
Water Act differs from the statement
made in the preamble to the section
304(1) regulation. See 54 FR 23895.
However, for the following reasons EPA
believes challenges to EPA’s approval of
state ICSs must be brought in the courts
of appeals.
Section 509(b)(1)(G) allows review In.
the courts of appeals of the
Administrator’s action ‘Sin promulgating
in individual ccntrol strategy unde .
section 304(1).” The use of the term
“promulgating” to describe EPA actions
on !CSs is ambiguous because there is
no action requited under section 304(1)
that is expressly described as
“promulgation.” Furthermore, the
legislative history does not specify what
actions Congress intended to be
re,viewed in the courts of appeals.
Section 304(1) speaks of disapprovals,
which may be followed by additional
state or federal action, and of approvals
which may be followed by additional
state action. All of these actions are
federal actions with legal effect that
may appropriately be categorized as
“promulgations.”
EPA believes that it would create an
irrational bifurcation of review between
federal courts of appeals and district
courts to interpret section 509(b)(1)(C) to
grant the courts of appeals jurisdiction
to review some, but not all, federally
reviewable final EPA actions on ICSs.
The reasoning of the Supreme Court in
Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Cost/c, 445
U.S. 193 (1980), supports this view, in
Crown Simpson, the Court held that
R.visw of aiata d,ca.ioni a. dr .cu .p.d
.iparaluiy an sacUon in.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55. No. 124 I Wednesday. June 27. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
262&
where the effect of an EPA permit
objection was to deny the issuance of
the permit, review should be in the
court ,s of appeals under section
509(b)(1)(FJ in part to avoid allowing
review of timilar actions in different
courts depending on whether EPA or the
state Is the permit-Issuing authority A
sumlar result should be reached
regarding EPA’s decisions under section
30 1(1). If, for example, review of EPA
action were allowed under section
509(bJ(1)(G) only if EPA disapproved an
ics and issued the underlying permit,
then jurisdiction of the courts of appeals
would be dependent “on the fortwtou.,
circumstance of whether the State in
which the case arose’ issues the permit.
Crown Simpson. 445 U S. at 197-9&
Similarly, if approvals could be
challenged in district court and
disapprovals in the Courts of appeals.
then an approval that was remdnded by
the district court could be re-litigated in
a court of appeals if it subsequently
became a disapproval. EPA does not
believe that Congress intended to create
such a system.
ill, Finality and Reviewablilty of Usting
Decisions
Unlike decision., related to ICSs.
decisions regarding lists do not fall
within the amblt of section 509(b)(1).
Nonetheless, because of the amount of
interest that has been expressed in these
lists, the Agency is announcing its
position on the reviewability of EPA
approvals of state listing decisior,s. and
EPA’, decisions to list water segments
on the Lists required by section
304(1)(1J(B) (‘fl lists”) and dischargers
on the section 3O4(1) 1J(C) lists (“C
list,”). Initial listing decisions were, for
the moat part, made in June of 1989.
These decision,, included both approvals
and diupprovals of state listings as well
as the Identification of the waters EPA
expected to add to or delete from the
list., (Referred to below as “listing
decisions,’) At that time EPA requested
comments on most of Its listing
decisions,
EPA will provide notice of its
response. to comments, along with any
revision,s to the B and C lists, in most
cases, by June of 1990. Although these
lists will represent EPA’, decisions
regarding listing (and may be called
final lists” or “final agency actions” In
some contexts, see e.g. 54 FR 23894),
EPA does not believe that decision., to
include waters or discharger, on lists
are reviewable final agency actions
within the meaning of the
Administrative Procedure Act or are
otherwise ripe for review.’
The listing of a water segment or a
point source identifies that segment or
point source as one that EPA or the state
expects will need additional controls in
order to attain and maintain water
quality standards. It is not until the
permit process is completed, however,
that a definitive determination is made
regarding what limitations, if any, will
be necessary, and it is only through
permit limitations that dischargers are
obliged to act. Therefore, list.ng a
facility has no concrete impact on the
facthty only the modification of permit
limitations does.
Accordingly, EPA believes that the
basis for a determination to list a water
segment or discharger is not ripe for
review until EPA changes a permit on
that basis, When the state issues the
modified permit, the finding that
additional limitations are necessary
would only be reviewabie in a state
forum. In addition, because limitations
a e only imposed through permits.
where EPA does not issue the permit. a
discharger would not have standing to
challenge EPA’s decision because any
harm suffered would not be traceable to
EPA nor could a court reviewing the
listing remedy limitations that a
discharger claimed were unnecessar.ly
stringent, Finally. EPA believes the
statutes specific allowance for re’.iew
of the promulgation of lCSs, but not of
the lists, indicates that the Intermediate
steps leading to permit modifications,
including the listing or approval of
listing, w re only intended for review at
the end of the process—when the permit
is finalized.
The section 304(1) listing process is an
important step in the development of
water quality-based limitation,, ut
permits and thus in ensuring that water
qiality standards for toxic pollutant.,
are met. The Inclusion of a water
segment or a facility on a list does not,
however, impose obligation., on
discharger, and is therefore not
reviewable.
IV. Effect of Today’. Notic,
Today’. notice is not a legislative rule
binding on particular parties; instead, it
sunply provides persons affected by
EPA’. actions a clarification of the
Agency’s position regarding when and
where EPA’. actions under section
304(1) of the CWA may be Judicially
reviewable. Accordingly, this notice Is
en interpretative rule which is exempt
from the notice and comment
‘The di,cu. .lon below doe. no eddie..
ch.tt.ne to A’a auion. based on GA’, fs,Iu ,
to liii .p.ctflc wa l S h,
requirements of the Admirustrauve
Procedure Act, 5 U S.C. 553(b) and from
the requirement that publication of the
rile occur not less than 30 days before
its effective date. 5 U S C. 553(d ).
Dated. June 15. 1990.
F. Henry Habiclit,
Deputy Admu ,sz. -ctor
(FR Doc. 9O-i49 Filed -2&-90 8.45 acil
SILUPtO O( S6Io-5O-
40 CFR Part 180
(PP 5F3579/R1o$i; FRL-3766—2
Pseudornonas Fluorescen. EG-1053;
Exemption From the Requirement of a
Tolerance
AGENCYn Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)
ACT1Oe Final rule.
SUMMARY; This document establishes a
permanent exemption from the
requirement for a tolerance for residues
of the blofungicide Pseudomonas
fluorescens EG-1053 in or on cottonseed
and cotton forage. This exemption was
requested by Ecogen, inc.
DATES: This regulation becomes
effective June ‘, 1990.
ADORESSIS: Written objections.
identified by the document control
number, (PP 8F3579/R1081J, may be
submitted ton Hearing Clerk (A-ho),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm.
370 5, 401 M St,, Sw.. Washington., DC
20460.
OR FIJRThER INFORMATiON CONTACT: By
mail: Susan T. Lewis. Product Manager
(PM) 21, (H7SOSC). Registration Division,
Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M
St., Sw., Washington, DC 20460. Office
location and telephone number Rm. 227.
C.M 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Arlington, VA 22202 . (703)-657-1900.
$UP LEMINTARY INFORMAT1O* In the
Federal Register of April 25, 1990 (55 FR
17400 ) . EPA Issued a proposed rule that
gave notice that Ecogen. Inc.. 2005 Cabot
Blvd. West, Langhom. PA 19047-1810.
had submitted pesticide petition (PP)
8F3579 to EPA proposing to amend 40
CPR part 180 by establishing.
regulation to exempt from the
requirement of a tolerance the residues
of the biofungicide Preudemonas
fliora ’scens EG-1053 in or on the raw
agricultural commodity cotton. In the
Federal Register of February 24. 1988 (53
FR 5458). It was announced that Ecogen,
Inc., had amended PP 8F3579 to replace
cotton specifically wIth cottonseed and
cotton forage for exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. Ecogen’s
strain of the bacterium Pseudomonos
-------
22748
Federal Regular / Vol. ss. No. 106 / Friday. lune I. 1990 I Rules and Reg i .laUona
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT1ON
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 123 and 130
F L-3783—4 I
EPA Action on Individual Control
Strategl.s Under the Clean Wits? Act
AGENCY Environmental Protection
Agenc) (EPA).
ACTIOPC Notice of final agency
irierpretatiOn.
SUMMACY EPA 3 clarifying when its
Itnal agency action on an individual
control strategy (ICS) under section
304(l) of the Clean Water Act occurs.
Further. EPA is providing notice of what
judicial forum EPA believe, is
appropriate for review of approval, and
disapprovals of ICS ,. in cases in which
such decisions are reviewable. Finally.
EPA is providing notice of its position
regarding the rev’iewability of EPA.
decision to list waters under section
• 30 4 (l).
FO* FIJ*T141C INFOPMAflON co.eyacT
For questions regarding this notice.
Diane Regal OF Roland Dubois. Office of
General Counsel (LE— 132S1. IJ.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M
Street SW. Washington. DC 460. (202)
382—7700: or. for questions regarding
particular cecisions. the Waler
Management Division in the relevant
regional offlce Region 1. (4 l S—347
Region 2. (212) 254-2513 islE 3. (
597-0410: Region 4. (404)347-4450:
Region 5 ( 2 3 U42 I n & ( 7
ess-7t00 Region 7. (I1 5i1- 3
Regtcn 8: ( I 154 Rc wu 8: (415
705-2078: Region l0 . (20 4 -5 .
suppi.Iuiirraev lNFO AT 5OIC On lun.
2.1988: EPA ubli ,hed final role,
implemes ng c 30m) of
Water Act (CWAI 54 FR 23868 flosa
rules specified the basis on which EPA
would approve or disapprove lists sad
ICSs submitted by the st.st.s pw’suant to
sect:on 304(1). In addition. the rules
established EPA. procedures for
involving the public in section
304(1) decisions.
Since then. EPA ha. m s Initial
approvals or disapprovili of all of the
states’ lists and ICS.. and ha. requested
public comment on most of these
decisions. At the same time EPA and the
states. in cooperation, have been
developing final List, and ICS..
In the preamble to the final
regulation. EPA interpreted section
509(bI(l )IG) of the CWA by saying.
“EPA believe. that the permits that EPA
issues as ICSs are riviewabli La the
court of appeals. Review of any other
acliiin. by EPA under sectIon 304(1)
must be obtained in district cowt 54
FP.ax 2.3895 Various questions hees
arisen regerd4ng w 1en EPA’. ac
taken under section 304(1) are (I Lee
the purposes of judicial review and
regarding the above interpretati .of
section 509(b)(lflG).
The purpose of this notice is to clarify
when EPA believes that decisio made
by it under section 304(1) of the CWA
are final agency actions for purpusus of
judicial review. Identifying the date of
final agency action will ensure mm
orderly judicial review of those Agency
decisions that are judicially revt.’wable.
The date of final agency action imth
respect to ICS.related decisions m
important because it is now the
Agency’s position that any pudicial
challenge to ICS-related acti st be
filed in the courts of appeal. su.t te
section 509(b)(l)(C) of the CWA . S 1
509{b((1) requires petitions for . ev te
be filed within 120 days of l p
action. ‘This notice does not es
defenses to judicial review that the
Agency might invoke, but only the
timing for bringing such action.
EPA’. regional offices made ut
decisions approving or disapproving
1iit , and ICS. sobmitted by the atas
on or about June 1989. The Re
reque d piuböc comment on alZd
disapproval decisions and on m of
their approval decisions. EPA.
regulations require that when a Region
seeks public co-ut on Its de ’-
the J at mae a .ubsequ
decision end respond to public
c .m yaof 19%. (54 F*’
40 U 123A65(e)(3U 1 to
the Agei y’s. position that whine
2a on .ámied. public nomenlon It.
Utiai deduce, that d dsion w
L E$ d.
LCSa, like • permits. maybe
developed by the states or by
NPD permit.. however, am tbs.
vehicle under the CWA for tmp
effluent Limitation, on point sou
discharger.. An ICS consists of a
or final NPO permit with soyp J
documentation showing that the
Limitations in the permit would he
sufficient to meet the water qualm’
standards within the statutesy
deadlines. 40 CPR 1 .4i(c) (1as .
Changes in NPDFS permit. becaid
the section 30441) psoçe.m are oal
effective after the permitting suC._
has determined. as a part of the
permitting proossa. what Llmita •‘*
‘Th n f— DA 41
t s bs us th s swi bs I
IvdIa$Ui v,,evsbls. S i 01 ______-
ithia i days 01 flail .i 7 scU
nswssary to meet water quality
ards as required by CWA section
Kl)(C). Until the pertTutting
Im oflty issues a new permit or
modifies an existing permiL a discharger
Is .d on a section 304(1) list must oniy
co ly with iti pre-existing permit
reqeirenients. even if an ICS ha. been
ds 1oped. Therefore approvals and
ths. wwal. of ICS. do not themselies
affect the legal obligations of
diachargeri. Given that EPA’. actions on
lCSs do not impose or alter legal
o ations. EPA believes that the
crt al factors in determining whether
the Agency has taken final agency
action on an LCS are (1) whether EPA
has mad. its definitive pronouncement
on wh 8mitations will be sufficient to
ply with water quality standards.
(2) whether EPA intends to take any
further action. The timing of hi.
utive decision in turn depends on
whether the state or EPA a issuing the
m.it.
A. 3tat.-Iuued Permits
t Nter an Approval
EPA will consider regional d.d ,
ovang state-developed LCS. to
agency actions if the Region Is
decislon and doe . not seek flurthee
p lic comment. The decision shall be
Anal on the date the R. oa publishes
notion of the dedWI piurnuant to the
umas2. 19% r,gUtima
(1989). 54 PR
EPA i. i wiil 5 of stats thuft or final
parmit. that constitute l(
‘s final determination that
in the permit or theft pmit
be wuffld t to attain arid
er quality standards. To the
a determination may be revied
.4 alL the tim. foe seeking Judicial___
- of EPA approvals of ICS. b, na
date of the eppt oflL and Is not
4 odant on Iss of a final permit
Wihe slats. Tb. pred,e permit
atmons may be determined only
t - the state permitting
sdlas a evidondemy bearing. (U the
.ta in ptibLY . o’ 14 s the permit
EPA may
l4 LJorN vtiWthi
p it peronint to IIC d) and
to the jeralt to a d with
eectlcp .)
When A . prov.e a slate theA
I permit an EPA has a
ii mqehwi by
). that the Umitad will be
_____ tscl wi qna
The flm .’ 4 ”j a
____ riarsual p
‘
r limitations Ia dstumiin.d by
-------
l’edera! Register \‘ol 53. ‘o 10$ /Fr’day. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
the permitting authority A
determination to impose limitations i t t
the permit must be supported by an
adntimstrative record showing that there
is a reasonable potential for an
exceedance of the water quality
standard. caused or contnbuted to by
the discharger. and thu. the Limitations
are necessary. See 40 CFR 122.44(d).
Thus. EPA believe, that its approval of
an ICS can be challenged. if at all, only
art claims that the Agency s finding
under section 304(1 ) is in error this
means reviewing EPA s determination
that the limitations will be sufficient to
satisfy the requirements of that section.
On some initial decisions issued on or
about June 4. 1989. the Regions approved
ICS. without seeking public comment
finding that there previously had been
adequate notice and opportunity to
comment. However, in some cases, the
regional decisions did not make clear
that the Region intended these decisions
to be final agency actions. To prevent
prejudice stemming from any resulting
confusion. EPA is publishing this
Federal Register notice that the Agency
considers those actions final agency
actions. Therefore. those regional
approvals of state draft or final permits
aslCS that were uudally issued
without seeking public comment. are
final decisions representing fins! agency
actions for the purpos. of judicial
review as of the date of publication of
this notice. EPA believes the I2O.day
cial review period in CWA section
509(bi(1) will start with the publication
of this notice.
2. After a Disapproval
After EPA makes a final disapproval
decision. the state still may draft a
permit that satisfies EPAs reasons for
disapproving the states initial ICS.
Where EPA has disapproved a state’s
initial ICS (or the state’s failure to
submit an ICS) and the stats
subsequently draft. an NPDES permit
that EPA determines to be an acceptable
ICS . EPA intends to revise Its
disapproval decision and Issue an
approval decision. Iecatae this, Is
uncertainty wIth . ..IV.s.Il1 to which path
will be taken and because further EPA
action Is contemplatnd. EPA believes
that its disapproval decision would not
be directly reviewable. (S.. the
dIscussion of this luui below at 5. 2.)
EPA ’s revised approval decision
would constitute final agency action
unless EPA solicits public comment on
the approvaL in which case final agency
action would occur when the Agency
iuues a decision after considering
public comment.
9 EP.4.Issued P.rm:gs
1. (ii Unauthorized States
Where EPA is the permit issuing
authority. EPAs action in establishing
the ICS is not final agency action until
EPA’s administrative review process
regarding the underlying NPDES permit
is complete. 40 CFR 124.9 1(e). Until that
time the Agency will not have made
any final determination regarding what
limits must be included in the permit
that will serve as the ICS.’ Therefore, a
permittee or other interested party in a
state not authorized to issue permits
must exhaust its administrative
remedies on the permit before it can
obtain judicial review of any decision
regarding the permit limitations
induding EPA’s actions under section
304(1). (This same reasoning would
apply to any permit where EPA is the
permitting authority. eg.. where EPA
has assumed perirut Issuance authority
under section 402(d).) This view has
support in a recent decision of the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeel.,
Champion Int l Corp. v. United States
Environmental Protection Agency. No.
89-2483(4th Cit. March 12. 1990J. In that
case the court dismissed as premature a
challenge to EPA’s ICS for Champion
where EPA had not yet completed the
full administrative process on the
permit
2. in Authorized Slates
Similarly. whets EPA disapproves an
authorized states ICS and EPA
subsequently issues the permit to he
dischazier. it is EPA’s position that
judicial review of EPA’s action is not
appropriate until EPA takes final action
on the underlying permit Thus. EPAs
disapproval would never, by itsolL
constitute reviewable fin..! Agency
action.
Until EPA completes the
administrative review process. the
Agency will not have taken a definitive
position regarding what limitations axe
necessary and sufficient to meet water
quality standards. When EPA Ii Issuing
the pernut. It will ultimately make only a
single decision. i.e.. that the Limitations
to the final permit are necessary and
sufficient to meet water quality
standard.. Where EPA is making both of
these findings (i.e.. Is the permitting
authority), neither will be definitive until
the other is made. Therefore. the
Agency. tentative decisions regarding
Juat u in A sau pu tI SUns
c nns iii. e the
pur t. whit. I in n
un the Cn ai .iw 5 iai P
Comp se sot UabIlltp Ad ( C.AI
in nit b$ t to i, .t.w nap dlM. *27 torn
ricords ol 4.n. — und ( C.A.
the limitations that are appropriate wt
riot be final agency action until the eec
of the permitting process. includinn’ t te
admini.Wstive appeal processes
view was recently endorsed in a i
which the Litigant thaUenged EPA’s
initial disapproval of an ICS. Wesrvacc
Carp versus United States
Environmental Protection Agency. . rc
Jos. 69-2180. 89-2181. slip op. t 15 (4t
Cit Feb. 13. 1960). In addition EPA’s
position regarding when final agency
action on disapprovals of ICSa occura I
consistent with the Agencys position
regarding the finality of permit
objections under section 402 (d). See
Champion Int’l Corp. versus EPA. 850
F 24182(4th Cit. 1968); Amencan Pope
Institute versus EPA. 800 F 2d 873(7th
Cit. 1989).
IL Review of ICS D , -4 i i to Federal
As discussed above, it is the Agency
position that any judicial challenge to
ICS-related decisions must be filed in
the courts of appeals pursuant to sectlo
5on(b)(1)(G) of the CWA.’ EPA’.
position that it.. approvals of stats (CS.
if udiaaily reviewabls. would be
reviewabis in the courts of appeals
under section 506(b)(IKC) oI$ . ( ieen
Water Act differs from the s uaii4
mad. in the preamble to the iic’ t
304 1) regulation. See 54 FR
Huwwrwir . far the following nw ‘A
believes thall nges to EPA’s a •
state ICS. mast be brought in the omtts
of appeals.
Section sa(bKIRG) allows review in
the courts of appeals of the
i,irnl. s,j ( $ action ‘ta — -‘r11
anindi, dueLcon I str,taa ond
section 304(13. The use of
omulgedog” to deemibsEPA
onlCSs is ambiguous b.ce e thwe Is
no action required under section a(I)
that Is expressly d.saibed u
‘promulgedon.” Furthermore. the
legislativ, history does not specify what
actions Congiuu intended to be
reviewed In the onurts of appeals.
Section 306(1) speaks of diuptsvvals .
which may be followed by sd&’ - 1
stati or federal acti. and of apprevels.
which may be followed by addl’ 1
state action. All of these actions axe
tedsrsl actions with lap! ect that
may spppdately be categerlend es
‘ pr e .v i t!pdO n&
EP bsil.vss that It would aeste so
irrational bifurcation of review b.4w.rse
federal courts of appeals and £sti’ t
courts to tot.r .I s.eö g b 1XC ) to
c m l the otia of sppesls Jermn&’
• d t•- •
•
-------
Fed e eterJ Vol 5 5 o. /Fr L.y. Jut. 1 . / , _____
to review some. but tree aL fe ra4?y
re,tew& 4e final EPA errtene an ICSa.
The reae. n of the Suipcmwa Cow ’t rn
C.vwn Simpson Prip C ve Cmr4
445 U S 193 tt9 O . 5u Perti this view.
In C.’vwn Simpson. the Co t held that
where the effect of an EPA permit
objection was to deny the issoance of
the permit. review should be in the
courts of appeal, under sectIon
5C9lb)(1)(F) in pan to avoid allowing
res tow of similar actions in different
courts depending on whether EPA or the
state is the perlTut.iseuing authority A
similar result should be reached
regarding EPA, decisions wider sa
304(I) If. for example. review of EPA
action were allowed wider section
5O b)(1J(C) only if EPA disapprosed an
ICS and issued the underlying permit.
then junsdicuoa of tbe court, of ap wa1
would be dependent ‘on the fortuitcu,
circumstance of whether the State in
which the case arese issues the permit.
Ccuwii Simpson. 445 LI 5. at 197-98.
Similarly. if approvals could be
challenged in diso’uet coast end
disapproval. iu the cowts of appeets.
then an approval that was remanded by
the dis ’iet comt could be re-litigated in
a coint of appeaf, if it subeeqeetidy
became a dsapproa.uJ. EPA does net
believe that Congress intended boreale
such a system.
IlL F eaMIy L.vtzuáilifp s LIatI
Unlike deasiq , related to PC !..
decisions regarding bit . do riot fal
within the imbit of
Nonetheless. because of the ameumt of
interest that has been expm d in thee.
lists, the #l ency tu am. mg ite
position on the rwvnwwbilWT of A
approvals of stare listing àd .. ... . and
EPA ’s deemons to list water
on the hats reqnsed
304(1)11 IL te1
the section 4(F 1)tC7 Lists tC hete
initial hitu deasion. — ._ far the ost
part. made in Jun. of 1 . Th.
decisions included beth açpasvala and
disapproval, of state Listings as well as
the i Jicatioc of the waters A
e ecr dro add Poor de4etefr the
lists. (Referred to below at 1hittn
decisians,1 At that thee A requested
commerias on roust of iti listeig
decision,,
EPA wifl provide notice of ill
reepooses to comments, along with any
revision, to the S and C lists. in moat
ca see. by tune of iggo. ouaJi these
lists will represent EPA’s decis&on.s
regarding lieting (and may be cafled
“final La,t. or “ aaL agency acUou Lu
some cc”. is. see e.g. 54 FR g44.
EPA doe. oat belies. that decision. to
inchide Wateas or d ischa , 5 us us aate
are reviewable aaL agency e ona
within the m isuago ( th.
Adm suaizatave Prucethw, Act or
otherwise opa f review.’
no bating of. wat se at or $
point sausce i u5es that se gz or
point source a. ooe that EPA or the i
expecti will aead addsthxiaè ccaanM
urn aLt_n . waler
qtorlsay s ords. 1$ rietu l
por.t . is c.as he.d howatu,.
that. defi nqe W” ’ .et le
regerds whet L.taOeai. II . I
be ne .y. and j &y ‘—.j
permit limitation, that dlscha.rgei’s
obliged to act. Therefore. hating a
facility has rio C JW.. V1U cr on the
t..ârp —
limitatlo m
A Lfr . A heIu et
basis far , t. e -
as aP!ur , .
twu1 .-.. , I A change. a , . _ .I on
that bean use, th s L
mod ed p the
addi snd tat1oni ore
would only be reviewabl. in a sta
• The h. do . . .t
ia en’,
-
forum. La .dd* i —
are i — perm .
whe EPA, —
he,, I _
chaUer ig, GA’s d .an ° o,s
harm sti r w.ulg he urn
EPA ear onald a coin . e re a.
In* rsmed r li.iMl t a
discher , c vnd were __________
‘UThg.ai. Fiandy. A vas the
a ik ailaw. ca for iowew
of the us lgaiaou .1 L a. bi&t i of
the lists. ratas that the iatermnd
stops heading to pu lfirltiftn .
including the Listing or appreval of
hstw&, wem sajy in’ nded for rev w a1
the end of the procese—wfuen the permil
Is Inalizet
The soc en f1 LisThig pr e I, en
iui ,ito.iiI st at the devetopourit of
water qov sy-besed limitations in
pe ts and thus in f
qeslity storsd Par toxic aL. t .
are met ‘Th Jl 0 f, w f
S wL et a Fsedh en. at doe, i .
however. p.os. ebLg. oon ow
thf. ose
rev iew.b ls.
IV. ‘ oftndafaiMed ,*
Todap’a. to rim a
— — p . . to L IL&
simply 11 . . ..s.-A
EPA’. — ——s •‘ - - - —
Aq,l r- --- 1 —
where*’. _ 5
— N
•— a
—. _ IiJ _ t , g - .
requiremanta of the 1 l hifr’ -
PrUJxndu-e Act. S U.S.C. 5 83 (b) and
the requizemant thet . .ID do . of the
ri ant — t , b s
iti eaI $1J 0 ’
(PR Don. $51.41 1
— or .
-------
F.d. 1 . l Regieter I VoL 55. No. 96 1 Thursday. May 17, 1 ) 7 Notices
idslRsd In the petition. into the Class!
waste th$ecttes well at the
F t Mhur. Twa facility, for u long as
the basis tot grsnti an approval of the
petition emams valId. under provisions
of 40 R 148.24. As required by 40 R
124 10. a public notice was Issued
February 18. 1990. A public hearing was
held March m 1990. and a public
COm en4 period ended on April 2. 1990.
All comments have been addressed and
hi’s been considered In the final
dodsian. This cision constitutes final
Agency action and there is no
Administratles appeaL
o*ii This action Is contingent on
modification of Underground Injection
Control permit WDW—ieO to authorize
disposal In the injection zone identified
in li. petition. is,. an In ecUon zone
ranging in depth from 8.130 feet to 7.200
feet. and will not become effective until
and unleu said permit modification
becomes effective.
ADOP Copies of the petition and
all pertinent Information relating
thereto. including the Agency’s response
to comments. are en file at the following
location: Environmental Protection
Agency. Region & Water Management
Division. Water Supply Branch (8W.-
SU]. 1445 Rosa Avenue. Dallas. Texas
75 2—Z?33.
y. - SlPO 5 A110N C0N?AC1
Oscar Cobra. Jr Chief Water Supply
Branch. EPA—Region 8. telephone (214)
855-7150. (F S) 255-7150.
M)lee 0. I”-4.os .
D?rerro, ’. Wotaf Management Division (6W ).
jFR Don. 9611512 Filed 5-16-90 &45 amj
— ‘ — N U
(FRI ,—3fl1—7J
Underground lnjocuon Convol
Progr.n . Nawdous Wads Oispo.si
ln$cUo R.s*ilcuonsj Petition for
£xe,npden—c1 I H Uuus Wnate
Co., Inc., $.ateu. , LA
£ 5 • Environmental Protection
Agency.
£C1IOIL Notice of final dedalon on
petition.
IUUN? Notice I. hereby given that an
exemption to the land disposal
restrictions under the 1964 Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments to the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act hu been granted to Dii Pont
Pmtitha,eatn Works, for the Class I
injection w.I located at LaPlace.
Lotitiusna . A. required by 40 R part
248. the cemp y hu adequately
th uflalac i of the
Roviroamentid ProtectioaAgsugy by
petition and supporting documentation
that, to a reasonable degree of certainty.
there will be no migration of hazardous
constituents from the Injection zone for
as long is the waste remains hazardous.
ThiLfinal d.asion allows the
underground injection by Dii Pont of the
specific restrtctsd hazardous waste
identified in the petition, into the Class!
hazardous waste Injection well at the
Pontchartrain Works facility In LaPlace.
Louisiana, for as long as the basis for
granting an approval of the petition
remains valid, under provisions of 40
CFR 148.24. As required by 40 CFR
124.10. a public notice was Issued
February 13. 1990. A public hearing was
held March V. 1990. and a public
comment period ended on April 2.1990.
AU comments have been addressed and
have been considered In the final
decision. This decision constitutes final
Agency action and there is no
Aditunistradve appeaL
D*Tt This action is effective as of My
7.1990. for Well Nos. 3.4. and?
Identified in Underground Injection
Control Permit WD 85-8. This action for
Well No.8. ldentlfleó In Underground
ln ection Control Permit WD 88-4.11
contingent on modification of the permit
to authorize disposal in the Injection
zone identified in the petition. i.e.. an
In)ectlon was renging in depth from
3. 0 feet to 8.550 feet. and will not
become effective until and unless said
permit modification becomes effective,
ADOenUI Copies of the petition end
all pertinent Infcrnjidon relating
thereto. including toe Agency. response
to comments. are on file at the following
locationi Enylroninental Protection
Agency. Region 6 Water Management
Division. Water Supply Branch (OW—
SUI. 1445 Ross Avenue. Dallas, Texas
75202— 2 733.
F Cc UOSMAflON NTACfl
Oscar Cabra. Jr., Ch3eL Water Supply
Branch. EPA—Region S. telephone (214)
655-7130. (Fl ’S) 255-7150.
MpieeO. P - - ‘—- .
Oii en Wota Management Division (6W,L
(PR Don. 80-11513 FIled 540-90 4J am
— , — Na
Notice of Rs Mtory Interpretation
AQ*11CY Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTIOSC Notice of regulatory
interpretation.
St inv EPA Is providing notice of Its
Interpretation of Its National Pollutant
Discharge Rliminetton System (NPVES)
regulations as they relate to Log sortyard
facilities. Log soryard facilitIes, as
defined in the regulations. are
silvicultwal point sources and,
therefore. subject to the NPDES
program. EPA is publishing this notice in
partial fulfillment of a stipulation and
settlement dated August 1. 1988
regarding a NPDES permit appeal of
Shee Atika. Inc.
Foe P%J TN IWVO ATIOW COWTAC’T ’
Kevin Smith. office of Water
Enforcement arid Permits (E.N—336).
Environmental Protection Agency 401 I
Street SW. Washington. DC 20460:
telephon. zr irrS 475-9518.
m vaav aocse*noec
Clarification of applicability of NPDES
regulations-to log sortyard facilities.
On June 18.1976. regulations were
promulgated for application of the
NPDES permit program to ailviculturni
activities. See 41 FR 24709. lime 18. l9 6.
With respect to the coverage of point
sources, these regulations provided, in
part.
(1) The term “silvicultursl point source”
nsans say disceriuble. confined end discrete
conveyance related to rock crushing. gravel
washing. log sorting or log storage fscilitie
wlucb are operated in connection with
silvicullural acnvites and from which
pollutants are discharge into navigable
wel S h.
The regulations further provided that
(3) The term log soatog and log storage
facilities’ messs those facilities wherein
discharges result bom the balding of
unprocessed wood. La.. loge rounded with
bark or after removal of bark in self.
contained bodies of wile? (miLl ponds or
ponds) or log storage where water is applied
uitentionally on the logs (wet decking).
42 FR at 24711. 40 ( ‘R 124.85(a) (1) and
(3) (1978) (currently codified. as
amended. at 40 CFR 122.27(b) (1) and (3)
(298811.
In 2996. EPA made minor changes to
these regulations. including substitution
of the phrase “for example’ for the word
“I.e..” In the Illustration given for “log
sorting and log storage facilities.” 45 FR
at 33348.3372. 33448-7, May 19. 1980.
EPA Issued its first NPD permit
under these regulations in 1985. Owing
the couras of the related administrative
challenge to this premit. the permittee
suggested that EPA’s regulations applied
only to log sortyard facilities where
waler was applied intentionally on the
logs (referred to as “wet deck” sortyard
facilities), and that EPA otherwise
lacked the authority to regulate “dry’
deck’S sortyard facilities. where the
discbargs Is due primarily to storm
water nmoff In other words, the
pevsnittes’irgued that the NPDFS
regulations limited the applicabthty ef
EPA’s permit requirements to the two
-------
haul £s I Vol. 55. P / Thureday. May 17. 1 / No ces
types of fa kiLi. lãnd . o
1ZL27(b113) 44 i pond. w.t-deck
soryards. and tha aâa ei fz . d
deck w,ty&sds_we t , - souicso
uru r the 4t’U p *
The perad.tee baa now entered aJel
siipu4Z i th A. . ,L. . bj
agreed that Its (actifties hoZ bng
unprocessed wood are subject to the
of the !1PC pograni.
regardless &w thert mse facdftei
employ • dry w q pi eeeei.
The 9lewe . biterv 5v the i JI
appeal. reqeeseed t psbH t a
cla,,fication th the V. dera1 t,giit en
part of the the N
— ‘ _
To .vant fwthsr
regardeg the 4 dstyof the
.ilvicW poa so’ ”i r 1L aanL
EPA 4 ‘- 1 ’s £b in
pro e the falL... gal&i ioaa d
to fuLm ps of a Obt h( eod.r the
set tlemaat a * s ed Aagimt 1.
1965 Today’s notice is designed to
restate EPA. toegatanda view
regarding lb. .pp!)catloe ci l a
silvlculturnl point mc r ula6ons
found at I 27. Todq. oo on
imposes so
on my c •
EPAs
regniattoni *naOaR I 1 .27
dssttngiosb point so activi es in the
silvicultural category from non-pom4
soures ectirbeseneiept bosa the
NPD am (eg.. ranoff frem
orchards and mid finest ndi 1
* 122.3(eflj. When these regula tio ns
were pvmulgat.d in iS7 EPA
cr 4ud d that dlacbarges such as tha i.
fag.. nino1freie J sand ren*
landuf. although someone. channeled.
were nue-polel sos to naiere. They
were caused solely by iratnaid
procemes. mcluthrg pr 1 ,4ttdun and
drainage, were not oth.rw s. tieceable
to soy s. id.nslfi.bte suu u. d
were bent d by esa-polat .w
conti’oh. DNch.rges l t the
iTttestjOflaI
runoff end Ma aIbIMa”’rul.sss (some
disciste and snU d t
other hand. . tabs
point sc diothat asibl.1 te
NPD pio im.
In pi tlgette Lb. 1WS regula en.
tb. agency rejected * su sbos that the
regulauoms bout the definidon at
ailvtcnlnirel pornt .oin’ca to those
sonic.. from wbich the discharge of
poflut*mti maulta from tha oooizoll.d
apphcattoa of wa &by soy parson . EPA
determmed abet tbas daunctken s sot
always apply. partscalWy wbsre thai.
are dischsiim of th and hark
regardle. of y . l3ed appMes1
of watar. 41 fl Wt0 . en. II IWI Tb.
1965 wardai cM. te thai.
regulasoso flinhar se4 snt
deter a ea that the t s ünaal
ap en d r ant drir4i .tg
fact.r.
— of wet dse fadlt as
an example of tie wiso leg .artmg and
leg s eg facllbel’ Ii thus erded
only so en tzs6en. The yegutedoos
not Intended to Iüstt tie ? wi.
pro om1e fuc øe. e oee dIscharge.
siem eseltoftbe controlled epp1Ica mt
of water. Rather. en, hecf*ty meathig
the eta leg e nd eg
storage lncthly Ia fac fy w ierem
discharges result from the holdIng of
unprocessed woodi. is a vL 1tinel
point . ,w-i e and is sobject to the
permitting requlrements of the NP
prvwa.w .
EPA has intended tar ‘to aflyinultaral
point source regulations tabs so read
and wtfl cont oue to interpret them in
accordance with the above ‘ ‘ . ‘sian.
l Apal is. i a
Rahat H Weyhaid
Acwig 4steii4A üiwt
(F Dec. i. .nOll Ft!ed 5-10-01 t eni

Qavts farm _. Pi’ppo,sd 3.Ifll.,.. .,..t
AG ’ u -- —tel tedhon
A . nö ui No ce of proposed set emen
sm Under , ctien t (h) of the
C.eijiNb . .. .eI’e £es1 cnmental
Response. C ., . . ...fton . sod Unbibty
Act (C .A .the Environmental
Protection Agency A) has agreed to
settle . .I..tmi for esponse costs at Davis
Farm Stte. Gordon County. Georgia with
the Temsesom Yedey Aotherfty.
L.attezkosniy Army Depot Moisten
Aney Depot ?!e,id Afr Engineer Center,
and Pfttaburgb Eer Tethswlo
Center. EPA will considar ‘psblfo
co on proposed ettITwet
for thaty day.. EPA may withdrew from
th. proposed settlement should such
comments disclose facts or
consideratior.s which indIcated the
proposed aenM t is insoprapriste.
improper or inadequate. Copies at the
proposed settlement are available from
Ms. Carolyn McCaU. W tste Programs
Stanch. Wast. Management Division.
U.S. EPA. Region (V. 345 Caurtiand
Streot NE.. Mante. Georgia ‘ -0& 401-
347—5055
Wnflen c—eels may be ssbi.L*d
to iba p m ’— aben. by 0 days from
date of piibhaa oa.
AM ZL 1
5 ______
Acrzoy R.ry o1A awwTJte,
IFR O . 10-11514 Pt4,d s-is-so ft43 aml
st _ seec
fOPTg -42omA RL-S741—71
Agt.e.M PobJ 0oo of lde*tylflç
t _ . ..&U Corre Uon
En*oomental Protection
Agency ( $.
ACI1OUL Notice
svom.miiz bi . F.der.1 R4 . of
FeIeyft1 Q0. EPA pablidied
st. ..,mj1ra of the bdormetioo submitted
to by we,refacrw’ers and p- .ssors
of certvi sebeetos products L it
accordance with the Asbestos
Informetion Act of 1966. This notice
corrects several errors m the
Lii! simatton mcinded in the FIdnL
RegisMa se.ca of February 13. !
rvn avo aiioo co.iTacv
htchael 14. StahL Director.
Env ironm.nt,J Assistance D v1suoo ( ‘IS-
799). Omee of Toxic Subetancu. -
EnvironmentaL Protection Agency. Rot.
E-645. 401 M St.. SW.. Washington. DC
20460. ( Zj 38Z-3949. -TDD: ( 02) 554-
0531.
wppu Tiav . ma*11Og
1. 8
In the Federal Register of February 13.
1990 (55 FR 5144). EPA published
sumniarles of the Information submitted
to EPA by manufactiueri and processors
of cerram asbestos products in
accordanc. with the Asbeaton
Information Act of i98& Pub. L. 1OO -5 7
As of Aprtl 30. 1Q00. EPA has rece4ved
lettom hom (lee of Ii i . c iup1aIee listed
in the II.otPebruei7 13.
1950. A lr Wceld bith.gtrles . inc..
G .eargia-Ps k CorparsOon. Kaiser
Cement Corporation. K.ene
Corporation. and United States Gypsum
Company. which request that certain
errors In It. P.doml Register notice be
corrected. These errors are corrected
below to Unit IL
U. Corrections
On page 5144. column 3. item 24a 1. in
the sixth Line bore the bottom of the
page. EPA incoreciiy Lists Forms +
Surfaces. and The W.W. Heary
Company as p.decesaors of Arma esg
World tø- 1.’ - Mc. Azmatroeg
cont a t b F + &.udaens.
Inc. and 1 .W.1InI1 e _ , _ qr
were ite - ..k r - m l t. ant
its pred ’-——— .
-------
fl662
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 91 I Thursday. May 10. 1990 I Notices
REFUND APPUCAT1OPIS RECEiVED
(Week of Mw 23 to Mw 30. 19901
Dale recmved
N in. of refund
proceoemg /rwne
of rotund apØc fl
Case No.
03/23/90 .._.,,.
Peter 6o *o.......,. , ..
RF?25-11093
03 128/90,....
Lay MutcfieIG A_.
RF300- 11067
03 126 190...._.
SogataGuif...,.,,.
RF300- 11068
03/28/90 .......
Maunce Migneault
Gulf.
AF300..11069
03/26/90 ..
Sctiniidti Grocery
RF300 -,1o7o
03/28/90 .
Paul’s Gulf..
PF3 00-1 1 071
03/28190
Orlar idi’s Gut?
RF3 0 0- 11 072
03/28/90.. . .. , ,,
Ford Tel Shell ..., .,,
RF3I S-9901
03/26/90 —.
WR. Noms.............
PF3IS-9902
03/28/90 .._
S h erroVs
Ric*miand Road,
nF3 lS-9903
03/27/90
Locitato &
Q i ioccsnet lo
RF3 15-9904
03/27/90 .. —
Sonngboro Shaft ....
RF3 15-990 5
03/27/90
Pine Brook Shell,
o.
RF3IS-9909
03/28/90
Roy’s Auto
Specialty. Inc.
flF318-9
03/29/90
W CurOs Vaughn
RF307-tOiIG
03/30/90 ....
Lo e’sGu(l,... ,....
RF300-iiOla
03/23/90
Toxa o C d Refund
RF3ZI -251 I
tt ru03/
ApçUca onu
Ur uRF32 l.
20/90
Recer .,ed_.
2847
03/23190
Auanac Richfield
RF304 . .1 1660
Bvu 03/
AppOcatfons
Bvu RF304-
30/90
Received,
11671
03/23/90
Crude Gd Refund
RF272-78529
etru 03/
Applications
Bifu RF272-
30/90
Rece ived ,
78851
(FR Doc. 90—10962 Filed 5—0-00 8.45 am(
SIWNU coas 0450’41-d
Issuance of a Proposed Decision and
Order by the Office of Hearings and
Appeals
During the week of April 2 through
ApnI 8. 1990. the proposed decision and
order summarized below was issued by
the Office of Hearings and Appeals of
the Department of Energy with regard to
an application for exception.
Under the procedural regulations that
apply to e’ception proceedings (10 CFR
part 205. subpart D), any person who
will be aggrieved by the issuance of a
proposed decision and order in final
form may file a written notice of
objection within ten days of service. For
purposes of the procedural regulations,
the date of service of notice is deemed
to be the date of publication of this
Notice or the date an aggrieved person
receives actual notice, whichever occurs
first.
The procedural regulations provide
that an aggrieved party who fails to file
a Notice of Obiection within the time
period specified in the regulations will
be deemed to consent to the issuance of
the proposed decision and order in final
form. An aggrieved party who wishes to
contest a Oetertmnation made in a
proposed decision and order must also
file a detailed statement of objections
within 30 days of the date of service of
the proposed decision and order. In the
statement of objections, the aggrieved
party must specify each issue of fact or
law that it in tenth to contest in any
further proceeding involving the
exception matter.
Copies of the full text of this proposed
decision and order are available in the
Public Reference Room of the Office of
Hearings and Appeals, room IE—234.
Forrestal Building. 1000 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington. DC 20585.
Monday through Friday, between the
hours of 1 p.m. and 5 p.m.. except
federal holidays.
Dated: May 4, 1990.
C.orge B. Breznay.
Director. Office of Hearings andAppeols
Muigrew Oil Company, Dubuque. Lt
LEE-fY)12. Reporting Requirement.s
Muigrew Oil Company. Inc.. filed an
Application for Exception from the
Energy Information Administration
(EIA) reporting requirement. The
exception request if granted, would
relieve Mulgrew of its requirement to
fIle Form EIA—782B, “Reseilers’/
Retailers’ Monthly Petroleum Products
Sales Report.” On April 6. 1990. the
Department of Energy issued a Proposed
Decision and Order which determined
that exception relief be denied.
(FR Doc. 90-10983 Filed 5-0-90 8.45 am)
S1UJSU 6005 S48O.OI-M
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
(OW-FRL—3764-eJ
Technical Support Document for
Water Quallty..3ased Toxics Controli
Draft Guidance Availability
AGENCY Environmental Protection
Agency.
AC11Ot Notice of availability .
SUMMARV This notice announces the
availability of the draft guidance
document entitles “Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-Based
Toxics Control” (TSD).
DATES Copies of this draft guidance
document are available beginning today.
Comments must be received on or
before (45 days from date of Notice
publicationj.
AOORESU Copies of this document
can be obtained by writing Mr. lames
Taft, Office of Water Enforcement and
Permits, EN- .338, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 401 M Street SW..
Washington. DC 20460.
FOR FURThES INFORMATION GONTACT
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
at the above address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIOIC The U S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA) national “Policy for the
Development of Water Quality-Based
Permit Limitations for Toxic Pollutants”
(March 1984) states that to control
pollutants beyond Best Available
Technology Economically Achievable
(BAT), secondary treatment, and other
Clean Water Act technology-based
requirements and in order to meet water
quahty standards, the EPA will use an
integrated strategy consisting of both
biokgical and chemical methods to
address toxic and noncoriventional
pollutants from industrial and municipal
sources.
In addition. EPA’s surface water
toxics control regulation (54 FR 23888
(June 2, 1989)), established specific
requirements for assessing and
controlling point source discharges of
pollutants which cause, have the
reasonable potential to cause, or
contribute to an excursion above any
State water quality standard.
The revised guidance document
announced in today’s notice is intended
to support the implementation of both
the policy and the regulation. The
overall approach taken in this revised
document is to provide additional
explanations and darifications based on
accumulated experience and data
related to the various recommendations
which were made in the original ‘I’S ! ).
Additional data is provided to support
the scientific basis for whole effluent
toxicity testing and the control of the
discharge of toxic pollutants through the
“integrated strategy”. The TSD strongly
recommends the use of an integrated
water quality-based approach (i.e.
employing both chemical-specific. whole
effluent and biocritena components) for
controlling toxic discharges. The
document also discusses mixing zones
for toxicity, non-persistent toxicants.
and bioaccwnulative pollutants: effluent
characterization with and without data:
exposure assessment methods: permit
issuance procedures: toxicity reduction
evaluations (TREs): and
recommendations for enforcing water
quality-based permits. An overall
summary of each chapter as well as the
most significant changes since the
onginal IS!) are provided below:
Chapter 1: Approaches to Water
Quality-Based Toxics Control
This chapter describes the regulatory
end scientific basis for water quality-
based toxics control. In particular, the
“integrated” approach to water quality-
-------
Fecleml Register / Vol. 55. No. 91 I Thursday, May 10, 1990 / Notices
1 63
based toxins control (i.e., use of
assessment and control techniques for
individual cbeniicals, whole effluent
toxicity, and blocriteria) and the
relationship of each technique to the
other is strongly emphasized. However.
the chapter is now supported by new
documentation and data as compared to
the old TSD.
chapter 3: Water Quality Criteria and
Standards
The discussions in this chapter lay the
groundwork for the “standards. to-
pernuts” process by describing key
features of water quality criteria and
standards for both aquatic life and
human health protection. A key feature
in this chapter is the discussion of
magnitude. duration, and frequency of a
pollutant or pollutant parameter for
human health and aquatic life
protection. The presentation of specific
procedures for deriving acceptable
ambient concentrations (AACa) for
human health protection has been added
to this document The definition of
mixing zones for bath persistent and
non.presistent toxicants is also
introduced in this chapter.
Chapter 3: Ufluent characterization
This chapter describes the procedures
for determm ..g whether an effluent is
causing. baa the ‘resonable potential” to
cause, or coninbutes to an hi-stream
excursion above a narrative or numeric
criterion within a State water quality
standard. The effluent characterization
recommendations described in this
charter have been revised and
streamlined as compared to the original
TSD. INhere effluent data are available.
effluent characlezizatjon can now be
performed in a single step with limited
effluent data and no longer requires
initial screening followed by data
generation. This chapter also presents a
new protocol for assessing wastewaters
for the presence of bioconcentratablo
polutants.
chapter t Assessment and
Wastefoad Allocation
Where effluent characterization
indicates the need fm a water quality-
based permit limitation, the water
quality analyst proceeds to develop a
wastetoad 0 ocation (W1.A) using the
procedures described in chapter 4.
Information is provided for modeling
both near field and far field exposure of
an effluent. Recommendations for both
steady state and dynamic models are
pro%ided. As with the original ISO,
amb:ent criteria to control acute toxicity
to aquatic life may be met within a short
distance of the outfalL However, the
TSD no longer recommends this
provision be restricted to outfalls which
have high rate diffusers. It now
recommends this be allowable for any
type of outfall for which it can be
demonstrated that the criterion
maximum concentration (CMC) is met
within the short distances specified.
Chapter 5: Permit Requirements
Chapter 5 provides procedures for
translating various types of WLA
outputs into permit limitations. Other
permit-related issues such as permit
documentation and toxicity reduction
evaluations are also presented. No
ma;or changes have been made from the
substantive recommendations In the
original TSD. however, numerous
clarifications and supporting tables and
figures have now been included. fri
addition, this chapter gives detailed
information on the components of IRE
recommendations and how to use them
in the permitting context.
Chapter & Enforcement
Compliance monitoring and
enforcement considerations for water
quality-based permits are summarized
in this chapter. The ISO provides a
more comprehensive discussion on
compliance monitoring in comparison to
the old ISO. The discussions emphasize
the regulatory principle that any failure
to meet a permit limitation is a violation
subject to the full range of possible
enforcement responses.
Summary
The goal of this document is to
provide comprehensive technical
recommendations for water quality-
based toxics control. These
recommendations are intended to
provide scientifically sound and useful
procedures to regulatory authorities and
the regulated community. EPA solicits
comments on whether this document
achieves it goal.
Dated: May 3. 1990.
Lafuana S. WUcher
Assistant Adminisinjeor.
[ FR Doc. 90-10985 Filed 5-0-Oft 8.45 aml
S UMO COOS S5I 6O
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
Agreement(s) Filed
The Federal Maritime Commission
hereby gives notice of the filing of the
following agreement(s) pursuant to
section 5 of the Shipping Act of 1984.
Interested parties may inspect and
obtain a copy of each agreement at the
Washington. DC Office of the Federal
Maritime Commission. 1100 L Street.
NW.. room 10323. Interested parties may
submit comments on each agreement ta
the Secretary, Federal Maritime
Commission, Washington. DC 20573.
within 10 days after the date of the
Federal Register in which this notice
appears. The requirements for
comments are found in I 572.603 of title
48 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Interested persons should consult this
section before communicating with the
Commission regarding a pending
agreement.
Agreement No.: 003—010071-011.
Title: The Cruise Lines International
Association Agreement.
Parties: Admiral Cruises. American
Hawaii Cruises, B.S.L Cruises. Carnival
Cruise Lines. Chandns Cruises, Clipper
Cruise Line, Commodore Cruise Line.
Ltd.. Costa Cruises. Crown Cruise Line,
Crystal Cruises. Cunard Line, Ltd..
Cunard/Norwegiari American Cruisi’s,
Cunard Sea Coddess, Delta Queen
Steamboat Co., Dolphin Cruise Line.
Dolphin Hellas Cruises. Epirotiki Lnes.
Inc., Holland America Line. Norwegian
Cruise Line. Ocean Cruise Lines. Iri..
Ocean Quest International, Oceanic
Cruises. Premier Cruise Lines. Princess
Cruises, Regency Cruises. Royal
Caribbean Cruise Line. Inc.. Royal
Cruise Line, Royal Viking Line.
Seabourn Cruise Line. Society
Expeditions Cruises, Sun Line Cruises,
Windstar Sail Cruises, World Explorer
Cruises.
Synopsis: The proposed amendment
would provide the current level of
application and renewal fees for
independent travel agent affiliation.
Agreement No.: 212-010389-013.
Title: U S. Gulf Ports/Argentina
Agreement.
Parties: American Transport Lines,
Inc.. Empresa Lineas Maritimas
Argentinas S.A., A. Sot tacchi S.A. cia
Navegacion C.P.U.
Synops,s. The proposed amendrmwnt
would extend through December 31.
1390. certain provisions related to space
chartering. It would also permit the
parties to charter space with any carrier
who is also a party to Agreement No.
212-010382 (the Argentina/U.S. Gulf
Ports Agreement).
Agreement No.. 203—011268-001.
Tide: New Zealand/United States
Interconference and Carrier Discussion
Agreement.
Parties: Nuw Zealand-Pacific Coast
Rate Agreement. New Zraland/U S.
Atlantic & Gulf. Shipping Lines Rate
Agreement. Associated Container
Transportation (Australia) Ltd..
Autstralia-New Zealand Direct Lin’ .
Columbus Line. Blue Star Line, Ltd.
-------
5660
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 33 / Friday. February 18. 1990 / Notices
(RFL-3724-61
Approval of North Dakota’s National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) General Permit
Program and of the North Dakota
Authority To Issue NPDES Permits to
Federal Facilities
AQENC’V Environmental Protection
Agency.
acnor Notice of final approval of
modifications to North Dakota’s General
NPDES Program and North Dakota’s
authority to issue NPDES permits to
Federal facilities.
SUUMARY On fanuary 22.1990. the
Regional Administrator of Region VUI of
the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) approved modifications to the
State of North Dakota’s National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit program thereby
authorizing the State to issue general
NPDE permits and to issue NPDES
permits to Federal facilities. Under the
general permit authority. North Dakota
may now Issue general permits in lieu of
Individual permits consistent with the
requirements of the North Dakota
• NPDES program and the Federal NPDES
Regulations at 40 CFR 122.28. EPA’s
recognition of North Dakota’s authority
over Federal facilities provides that the
State will begin issuance of individual
permits to Federal facilities in lieu of
EPA’s issuance of such permits. This
delegation of the responsibility to Issue
permits to Federal facilities does not
include permits issued to either Indian
Tribes or to persons located within
Federal Indian Reservations. Such
Indian permits shall continue to be
Is8ued by EPA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTAC1i
Marshall Fischer. Compliance Branch
(8ViTM—C), Water Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
999 18th Street. Denver, Colorado 80202—
2405.
SUPPLERENTARY INFORMimOIC Section
402(b) of the Clean Water Act provides
that a State may be approved to operate
a permit program in lieu of the Federal
NPDES permit program. North Dakota
Initially received such approval on June
13.1975. The NPDES program
regulations at 40 CFR123.2 set forth the
procedures for EPA to process
modifications to an approved state
program. Oti September 20. 1989. the
State of North Dakota submitted two
separate packages requesting
modification of its NPDES program to
include authorization to issue general
permits and to issue permits to Federal
facilities. Pursuant to those regulations.
EPA determined the request for general
permit authority to be a substantial
program modification requiring the
opportunity for public participation. EPA
determined requests for authorization to
issue Federal facility permits to be a
non-substantial program modification as
defined by these regulations.
L General Permits
EPA published an October 18. 1989
Federal Register notice requesting
comments on the State of North
Dakota’s gen eral permit package
submitted on September 20. 1989 (see 54
FR 42841). The package contained a
letter from the State asking for approval.
a copy of a revision to the Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) between EPA and
the State regarding how the general
permit program would be implemented.
a supplement to the NPDES program
description specific to the general permit
program activities, and copies of
relevant State statutes and regulations.
North Dakota’s general permit program
was designed to address short term
discharges, as well as discharges with
substantially similar character and
requiring similar regulatory controls.
Types of discharges which might be
covered by the North Dakota general
permit program include hydrostatic
testing and dewatering activities.
backwash water discharges from
portable water treatment plants. and
certain types of stormwater discharges.
North Dakotas general permit
program submittal also included a
statement by the Attorney General
certifying, with appropriate citations to
the statutes and regulations, that the
State has adequate legal authority to
administer a general permit program. An
additional Attorney General’s
statement, dated November 22, 1989.
provided supplementary information
regarding the State’s authority to
Implement a general permit program.
During the thirty day public comment
period EPA received only one written
comment letter. That letter fully
supported approval of the general
NPDES program authority. After having
reviewed each of the documents
prepared and submitted and having
considered all comments received, on
January 22. 1990. EPA notified the State
that modification of its NPDES program
to include general permit authority was
approved.
2. Federal Fadlitles
In 1977 Congress amended section 313
of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq.) to authorize States to regulate
federally owned or operated facilities
under their own water pollution control
program. Prior to that amendment.
States, including North Dakota. were
precluded from regulating Federal
facilities and EPA remained responsible
for issuing NPDES permits. as required.
to these Federal facilities.
On September 20. 1989. North Dakota
submitted a request for modification to
its approved NPDES permit program to
include authorization by EPA to issue
permits to federally owned and/or
operated facilities. The modification
request included a letter from the State
asking for approval. a copy of a revision
to the MOA between EPA and the State
clarifying that Federal facilities would
be subject to the same requirements as
any other facility in North Dakota. a
description as to what affect this change
will have on the North Dakota program.
and an Attorney General’s statement
certifying as to the authority being relied
upon by the State to assert jurisdiction
over Federal facilities. Because of the
structure of the existing North Dakota
statutes and regulations, no specific
regulatory modification was deemed
necessary for North Dakota to make
such a demonstration. Consequendy.
this change was determined to be a non-
subs tantlal program modification. After
having reviewed each of the documents
prepared and submitted and having
considered all comments received, on
January 22. 1990. EPA notified the State
that modification of Its NPDES program
to include Federal facility authority was
approved. EPA has concluded that the
State will have the necessary
procedures and resources to administer
the general permits and Federal
facilities programs.
Federal Register Notice of Approval of
State NPDES Programs or Modifications
EPA will provide Federal Register
notice of any action by the Agency
approving or modifying a state NPDES
program. The foLlowing table provides
the public with an up-to-date list of the
status of NPDES permitting authority
throughout the country.
-------
Federal Zegister I Vol. 55. No. 33 I Friday, February lB. i990 I Notices
5661
Aec,cyad
A iowed to
A poved
q,,

state NPOES
evTTwt
psoqram
reqtdate
Foder
f ci id ies
Approved genend NPOES permit
progmm
slate
pre lzeatrnert l
p ern
,tabams.. . . ..._____________________________________________
10119179
11/01188
05/04/73
03/27/75
10119179
11/01/86
05/05173
._
NO 10110179
Ye. 11/01/86
Yei......... — 09/Z2/B9
Yei....__............. ........ —
No — 06103/31
No .. ....._.... .. —.
NO...... ,.. ,.._ ..... . . ....... . .. 33 112/81
No ... . .. .._..... . — ... .... oai 12183
Ye....... . . . :.. . .. . . .... -
No....... . . ....... . .........._._..
No .._ 0j6/03/ I
No — - ._ . ..... ——
Yes.............._......_..... 09/3 0 183
No ._._...._._ ..... . .4 09/30/85
NO..._........ .. . 05/07/83
Yei.. .. .. ..... - . ,_. ,. . .. . 07/ 16/79
No — .. . . .. . 05/12 52
A, Iiar laL..... . ... .... . . .. . . ... .....
Cal iforn ia . . .. . .. . ..
Colorado — .._ —
Connecscu t
09/28/73 01/09/83
04 101/74 *______
08/28/71 12/08,80
11/28 ‘74 06’01 179
01/23/:” 09/20/79
01/01/731 12/39/78
08fl 0/73 I 08110178
08/Z3/73 08/28/85
09’3.1/82 09/30/83
03/05174 I 11/10/87
10/17173 IV /79
06/30/74 12109/78
05/01 (74 01/28/83
Cqiaware... ._.... - ._... ....
..__.__...._____.
l ’ ljwa, . — ._ . .. — . — . . . .... ._.._........
il iflO iS ....._ .. . .... . .. . . . . .
Iowa .._.. . ._ . . .. .__ _. __ _ _ .._....._._ ....
Xarsai — ._......._.
__...
f .4 sr Ia n d . ._.. .. .....
M -.r. t a ... ._. .. .. .
ess ioQi —- - . -__________
I0/30i79 06i26/79
YOS............._.........................._
35(03/81
Mantaria._._. . ......._......... . .........__..._.... . .. —_. -..
08/10.74 08/23/81
—. ... ......._..._

New .ier .ey . ....._. ._.._.. .._.. .... —
06/12/74 11,02179
09/19/lSi 08/31/73
04/13/82 04/13/82
Yes. ._._._ .j 09/07/84
No._.___.. ..__......4__....__..._...
Yes.. ..._.. -. . ...._. ..... ......_ 04/13,82
10/26,75 06/13/80
No..........
lo1h Camlina .._.. .. .._ ... . ... ... . . ..... ...... .. .. .. .
10/19/75 09/28/84
No ..... .... * ._,. . .. . .. 05/14/32
.,rth Dakota . -. — . ......_..._ . .......... . .._.. —_ .. ._ - . . . ...
Ohio ..__._ - .._._. ...
O.aqon _ ....._....._.._..__.__..__________-__.—-.— - -_. - -
........
06/13/75 01122/90
03/11/74 01/28/83
00/28.73 03.02 /79
06/30/78 08. iU/78
YeS.. ...._.. ....... .. .. . .... ... —-
No .. —.. — . — ..._4 07/27 93
Yes... ... . 3 3/ 31
fio .... .. ..... .....j ._ - -
Rhode Island ....._ ...... .._._. .. .. ..___ ._ ._..._
09/17/34
09/17/84
(es._....... .. . , _._......_ - .. 09,17,84
...
06/l0I75
09/26/80
No......._.. ..._... . .. ... . 0409,32
12/28,77
._..
No .. . 03110/53
Utah .._...... ... . .... . .. ._ _.__ __ __ _ — - . . ._........_
VermOni -
Vigin Ia’.ajids..............._.._.._ ..____________
.
W sr.hmg ton
West Vw 5 im3
Weconan
Wyoi i ng
07/07/87
03/11/74
08/30/76
03/31/75
11/14/73
05/10/82
02104/74
01/30175
07/07/81
-________ .
02/09/82
05/10/82
11/25/79
05/18/81
Y s..._ . .__...... 0// )7/87
No...._ . ._ .._ 03116,82
No... . . ... .. . . . . . ... . . .. _ .. . ...... _ __ _ __. .. -_. 1.
Plo .._........___I OA/14 189
Yee .._.._ 09/30/35
V—s 05/10/82
Y5 ._..... I . 1 ‘80
No — I
Review Under £‘cecutlvc Order 1229?
wid the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the review
requirements of Executive Order 12291
pursuant to section 8(b) of that Order.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
El’. Is reqwred to prepare a Regulatory
Fexibility Analysis for a 1 rules which
may have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Approval of the subject modifications to
the Ncrth Dakota NPDi S permit
progiam t.srabiish s rio new substantial
requi ”ements. nor does It materially
alter the iegulatory control over any
mw ipai or industrial categury
Because this notice does not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities, a Regulatorj
Flexibility Anal ’sis is not necessary.
Accordinqly. 1 hereby certify pursuant to
5 U S.C. 005(b) that approval of these
two pro mm (i.e.. general permits and
Federal f icilitics) cha.iges to the No;th
Dakota NPDES delegation will not have
a significant impdct on a substantiiil
number of small enti! :es.
Dated: February 7. 1990.
Jac¼ W. McGraw,
.4& .iin t RegicinolAdn ’:nistmtor. P.e ’.j:on V II !.
( R Doc. 90-3733 Filed 2—i5-9t1 843 am)
swNQ ccc i u
(PP oF3a43;PF—s31; FRL-3710-2 1
PesticIde Tolerance Petition for
Oldoran
AGENCY: Environmental Protect:on
Agency (EPA).
acnosc Notice.
UUMARYt This notice announces the
filing of a pesticide pet :tior. proposmgto
establish a tolerance of 2.0 ports per
million (ppm) for residues oi tile
fungicide dicloran. 2.8-dichh,ra4-
ni(ro.inilirie. in or on the raw agricultural
commodity applea for 1 year.
øamz Comments. id nufied by the
document control number. 1?P CF)&43/
PF—5 11), must b . received oi r bafore
February 26. 1990.
aoonE 3cs: By mail, submit ‘vrI:’n
tomments to: hiforma’ion I’ieid
Operstions Division jlI 75COC . Office
of Pesticide Programs. Environmental
Protection Agency. 401 NI SI. SW..
Washington. DC :0.130. In person.
deliver comments to: Rin. 246, C.M 2,
Environmental Protection Agency. 1921
Jefferson Davis Hwy.. Arlington. VA
22:02.
Information submitted as a i ornment
concerning this nouce may be claimed
confIdential by marking any part or all
of that mformation as “Confidential
Business Informatioo” (CBI).
Information so mat ked will not be
disclosed except In accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A
copy of the comment that does not
contain CSI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public record.
Information not marked “confidential”
may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. All written
comments will be available for public
inspection n Rm. 246 at the add oss
given above, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m..
Monday thraugh Friday. excluding legal
holidays.
FO FunrilEn r:FO A3 ’tON CCPITAC ’ri Cy
mail: Sus.tn T. Lev.is. Product Mar..,c r
(PM) 21. gstrlitlen Division.
-------
2530
Federal Register I Vol. 55. No. 17 I Thursday. January 25. 1990 1 Notices
(FRL 3706-51
Revision of WashIngton s National
Pollutant Clscharge Elimination
System (NPOES) Program
Memorandum of Agreement
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Ager.cy.
ACTiON: Notice of arproval of
Washington s Revised PDES
Memorand im of Agreement .
9UMMAR On January 9. 19!0. the
Re ional Administrator approved
Revision of Washington’s NTDES
Program Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA). The MOA serves to outline
respective program responsibilities of
EPA and the state. Document revision
ensures continuing validity of EPA s
approval of Washington s NPDES
program.
FOR FURThER INFORMATiON CONTACT:
Ms. Andi Manzo, Environmental
Protection Agency. 1200 Sixth Avenue.
WD—134. Seattle. Washington 98101.
SUPP8.ELIENTARY INFOnMA1I0N The
original MOA for the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System was
entered into by EPA and Ecology on
November 9. 1973. Ecology has been
camjmg out the NPDES program u a
delegated State for the past 18 years.
Washington’s MOA has been updated
to reflect recent changes in the Federal
Clean Water Act (CWA) and 40 CFR
parts 122 through 125. This MOA
includes a new section (section XIV)
addressing indian issues, which makes
clear that CPA is not delegating
authority over Indian lands to the Slate
of Wasnington.
Additionally, the NPDES Program
Description for the State of Washington
was up sated to reflect the revised MOA.
Day to ddy operations under th4 MOA
are delineated In a compliarce
assurance agreement.
EPA determined that the state’s
submittal was complete and, as required
under CFR 123.62. issued 30.day public
notice of the proposed MOA revision.
No ccrnzzients were received during the
public comment period. Based upon the
contents of the submittal and upon
meeting the requ:rements of 40 CFR part
123, EPA has approved the modification.
Raview U odor Executive Order 12281
and the Regulatory Flexibility Act
Tha Office of Manaqere.ent and Budget
has exempted this ruie from the review
requi ements of Executive Order 1229 1
pursuant to section 8(b) of that Order.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
EPA is required to prepare a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis for all rules which
may have a significant impact on a
ubsiantlal number of small entities
Revision of Washington’s MOA
establishes no new-substantive
requirements. oar does it alter the
regulatory control over any municipal or
industrial category Because this notice
does not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of smal’ entities, a
Regulatory fle’cwility Analysis 13 not
neceasary.
Da:ed: lanuary 9. 1990
Robie C. Russell.
Reg:onalAdmirizstmtor. EP.4 Region 10.
IFR Doc. 90—1281 Fied 1—24—90 845 ainj
numo cooe esse
FEDERAL COMMUNCATIONS
COMMISSION
ICC DoCket PJo. S7-339, FCC 89—3351
Estab lshment of a Program To
Uonlt:r the Impact of Jalnt Board
Decisions
AGENCYt Federal Commurucatior.s
Commission.
ACTIOIC Notice.
SUMUARYt The Comnussion adopted the
Common Carrier Bureau’s prescribed
reporting format that all carriers must
use when filing jurisdictional revenue
requirements shifts that are five percent
or greater.
EFFECTIVE DATE January 25. 1990.
AOORESS Federal Communications
Commission. Wasnington. DC 20854.
FOR R .IRThER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Wilson. Accounting and Audits
division. Common Carrier Bureau, at
(202) 632—7500.
SUPPI.EMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s
Memorandum Opinion and Order. CC
Docket 87—339, FCC 69—336. adopted
December 5. 1989. ana released
December 28. 1989.
The complete test of this Order is
availabla for inspection and copying
during normal business hours n the FCC
Dockets Branch (Room 2301. 1919 M
Street NW.. ‘tvasnington. DC. The
complete text of this Order may aiao be
purchased from tue Cotnmissioa a copy
contractors. L’iterr.atianal Thiascription
Services. Inc.. 2130 M Street NW.. Suite
140. Washiiigton. DC 20037. (202) 857—
3800.
Summary of Memorandum Opinion and
Order
In this Order the Commirsion ;eqti:res
Tier I camera that experience a shift In
their Jurisdictional revenue requirement
of 5 percent or greatcr to file a report
prescribed by the Commission that
shows the impact of this shift. This
Order alqo allows other camera
e’ periencirig shifts in their juri d 1 ctional
revenue requirement of 5 percen: or
greater to file reçorts on an cptinnai
basis. rh se reporti are due .3 days
ifter the rciease of the Order
Paperwork R ’duc .’on Act
The Office of Managernt’nt and Budget
(Q! ) has approved the collection of
information contained in this Order The
0MB control number for this collection
of information :s 3060—0391. which
expires September 3D. 1990
Filing Requirements
The Commission requires that all
reporting carriers file the report
contained in Appendix A of the Order
using the instructions set forth n
Appendices A and B of the Order To
facilitate the submission of the Oain. the
Commission has provided a computer
disk that contains the data request in
the format of a spreadsheet file. The fin,’
page of the data request contains
specific instrucuons for the completion
cf the worksheet. The Commission
requires that all reporting carriers file
two hard copies of the report with the
Secretary of the Commission. deliver
one hard copy and one diskette to the
Commission’s copy contractor.
International Transcriptlcn Service. 2100
M Street NW. Suite 110. Washington.
DC 20037. (202) 857—380th and deliver
one hard copy and one diskette to Alicia
Dunrugan. Accounting and Audits
Division. Common Carrier Bureau,
Federal Comxnwucations Commission.
2000 L Street NW., Suite 812,
Washington. DC 20554: and one hard
copy to each Joint Board Comm :ssioner
and staff person listed in Appendix C of
the Orcier.
Ordering Clauses
Accordingly. 11 is ordered. That the
jurisdictional revenue requirements -
monitoring report Is adopted.’
ft is further ordered. That all Tier I
carriers with jurisdictional shults in total
study area unseparated revenue
requirements of 5 percent of greater
shall file reports as specified in
Appendices A. B. and C of the Order
within 30 days of release of the Order
Fetloral Cummumcations Commission.
Deane R. Smmmcb.
Secetary.
(FR Doe. 90-1527 Filed 1-24-90: &4 .5 .izn
Ifl.UiIO ceca s71t.oI—d
‘Thu ocean ii u kan pwiucnl 1047 ‘J.S.C. 1541,1
und tu. i.m 203.403. and 410.
-------
1989
-------
Federal Register I VoL 54. No. 200 / Wednesday , October 18, 1989 / Notices
administrative record, subject to
provisions of law restricting public
disclosure of confidential Information. In
order to provide opportunity for public
comment, EPA will issue no final order
assessing a penalty in this proceeding
for thirty days from the date of this
Notice.
Dated: September 13. 1989.
Mom. Kay,
RegionalAdmmiatmtcr.
[ FR Doc. 89-24517 Filed 10-17-89:8:45 amj
coos
[ FRL-3671-7J
Clean Water Act Class I I: Proposed
Admlnlsbstlvs Penalty Assessment
and Opportunity To Comment
Regarding the Little Blue Valley Sewer
District (LBVSO)
AGENC Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTiON: Notice of proposed
administrative penalty assessment and
opportunity to comment regarding
LBVSD.
SUMMARY EPA Is providing notice of a
proposed administrative penalty
assessment for alleged violations of the
Clean Water Act EPA Is also prowding
notice of opportunity to comment on the
proposed penalty assessment. Under 33
U.S.C 1319(g). EPA is authorized to
issue orders assessing avil penalties for
various violations of the Act. EPA may
issue su orders after filing a
Complaint commencing either a Class I
or Class II penalty proceeding. EPA
provides public notice of the proposed
assessment pursuant to 33 U.S.C
1319 (gJ(4)(a).
Class U proceedings are conducted
under EPA’. Consolidated Rules of
Practice Governing the Administrative
Assessment of Civil Penalties and the
Revocation and Suspension of Permits.
40 CFR part 22. The procedures by
which the public may submit written
comments on a proposed Class II order
or partiapate in a Class II proceeding.
and the procedures by which a
respondent may request a hearing, are
set forth in the Consolidated Rules. The
deadline for submitting public comment
on a proposed Class U order is thirty
days after issuance of this public notice.
On September 25, 1989, EPA
commenced the following Class LI
proceeding for the assessment of
penalties by filing with the Regional
Hearing Clerk. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Region VII. 720
Minnesota Avenue. Kansas City. Kansas
66101. (913) 236-2853. the following
Complaint In the Matter of the Little
Blue Valley Sewer District. EPA Docket
No. VU 8s-W-000o. The Complaint
proposes a penalty of $60,000. for failure
to implement and enforce LBVSIJs
pretreatment program pursuant to the
terms part C. Special Conditions of the
LBVSD’s National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No.
MO-0i0 1 087.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Persons wishing to receive a copy of
EPA’s Consolidated Rules, review the
Complaint or other documents filed in
this proceeding, comment upon the
proposed penalty assessment, or
otherwise participate in the proceeding
should contact the Regional Hearing
Clerk identified above.
The administrative record for the
proceeding is located In the EPA
Regional Office at the address stated
above, and the file will be open for
public inspection during normal
business hours, All Information
submitted by the LBVSD is available as
part of the adminisirative record.
subject to provisions to law restricting
public disclosure of confidential
information. In order to provide
opportunity for public comment, EPA
will issue no final order assessing a
penalty in this proceeding for thirty days
from the date of this Notice.
Dated. September 25. 1989
Mmiii Kay.
RegiorwJAdminis rcjgor
[ FR Doc. 89-24515 Filed 10-17-89: &45 amj
wao cone
(FRL—3657—3j
North Dakota’s Application foi’
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General
Permit Authority
AovlcY Environmental Protection
Agency.
acrtorc Notice of application, public
comment period.
SUNMARY On September 20. 1989. the
State of North Dakota submitted to EPA
a final application for authority to
administer general permits under the
NPDES program. Approval of this
application would authorize state
issuance of general permits, under
specific circumstances, in lieu of
individual NPDES permits. The
application received from North Dakota
is complete and is now available for
inspection and copying. EPA requests
public comments and will hold a public
hearing if sufficient public interest
existk.
0AT EPA inner receive comments and
requests fora public hearing on or
before November 17, 1989.
AODRES 5 Address comments and
requests for further information to Mr.
Marshall Fischer. Water Management
Division, Environmental Protection
Agency, 999 18th Street. Suite 500.
Denver, Colorado 80202—2405.
WPtEM 5i ya py INFORNATIOPI EPA
regulations at 40 CFR 122.28 provide for
the issuance of general permits to
regulate discharges of waste water
which result from substantially similar
operations, are of the same type wastes,
require the same effluent limitations.
require similar monitoring, and are more
appropriately controlled under general
permits rather than by Individual
permits. State authority to issue general
permits would significantly reduce the
backlog of unissued NPDES permits and
reduce the administrative burden and
cost of issuing indlviduaj permits.
On June 13, 1975. North Dakota
received authority to administer the
NPDES program under section 402 of the
Clean Water Act. Their program, as it
currently exists, does not include
provisions for the issuance of general
permits. The State’, final application for
authority to issue general permits was
received September 20. 1989. The
submittal contains a letter from the
State asking for approval, a copy of the
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). a
supplementary NPDES program
description, and copies of relevant State
statutes and regulations. The submittal
also includes a statement by the
Attorney General certifying, with
appropriate citations to the statutes and
regulations, that the State has adequate
legal authority to administer the general
permits program.
After the close of the comment period.
the EPA Regional Administrator, with
concurrence of EPA Headquarters, will
approve or disapprove this proposed
modification to North Dakotas NPDES
program, This decision will be based
upon the contents of the submittal, all
written comments received during the
comment period and presented at the
public hearing, if one is held. and upon
meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part
123. If North Dakota’s request is
approved, the Regional Administrator
will notify the State and notice will be
published in the Federal Register. North
Dakota’s program will implement
Federal law: however, each general
permit will be subject to EPA review
and approval as provided by 40 CFR
123.44(a)(2). Public notice and
opportunity to request a hearing will
also be provided for each general
-------
42842
Federal Register / VoL 54. No. 200 I Wednesday, October 18.. 1989 / Notices
permit if the Regional Administrator
disapproves the State’s request for
general permit authority, he will notify
the State of the reasOns for disapproval
and of any revisions or modifications
which are necessary to obtain approval.
The public may review North
Dakotas application from 9 a.m. to 4
p.m. Monday through Friday. excluding
holidays. at the Environmental
protection Agency, Region VIII. 999 18th
Street. Denver. Colorado 80202—2405.
Copies of the submission may also be
obtained by contacting Ma. Daniela
Thigpen at the Denver address listed or
at (303) 293-1432.
Approval of the States general permit
program would establish no new
substantive requirements. nor would it
modify the regulatory control over any
industrial category. Program approval
would merely provide a simplified
administrative process.
Kerngan Clough.
Actvzg RegianaJAdmuustfOtOr, Region VU!.
(FR DoG. 89-24590 FlIed 1O-17-89 &45 am)
eiwi•o COOS 5560.60-M
FEDERAL COMMUNICATiONS
COMMISSION
Applications for Consolidated
Proceeding
1. The Commission has before it the
following mutually exclusive
applications for a new FM statiom
MM
Ap
QtyiState
FiaN
0oc at
N
&W8 A.
Dock
OPH.
89.458
Brosilig
Co
Asic

GA
07091
OMI
9. Lcvasie U.
Dock
BPH-
W
GA
87091
,
C. Dock JuneSen
Dock
BPH—
Radio LWMSd
Asic
$7091
P th
e.
GA
O 4O.
0 South Geoi9ia
6roadC
Dock
sic
s %
GA.
BPH-
87091
w
E.JamssP
Dock
8PH-
M
Junc
d c ii.
GA
$7091
ONR.
2. Pursuant to section 309(e) of the
CommuzucatlOns Act of 1934. as
amended. the above applicants have
been designated for a hearing in a
consolidated proceeding upon the issues
whose headings are set forth below. The
text of each of these issue. has been
standardized and is set forth in its
entirety under the corresponding
headings at 51 FR 19347. May 29. 1980.
The letter shown before each applicant’s
name, above, is used to signify whether
the issue in question applies to that
particular applicant.
Issue bee ng
I See Appendoi........... ...
C
2.SeeAwo iM Ax -
C
A9Ø ...4 ii
C
4 At Hszard.....................
C
5Conipev swe
8 .utumate_______
A.9.C.D.E
3. Ii there is any non-standardized
issue in this proceeding. the full text of
the issue and the applicants to which it
applies are set forth in the appendix to
this notice. A copy of the complete HDO
In this proceeding Is available in the
FCC Dockets branch (Room 230), 1919 M
Street NW.. Washington. DC. The
complete text may also be purchased
from the Commission’s duplicating
contractor. International Transcripton
Services. Inc.. 2100 M Street, NW.
Washington. DC 20037 (Telephone No.
(29 ) 857.3600).
W. Jan Gay.
Asszsto.nt Chief Audio Semces Division.
Mass Medic Bureau.
Appendix
1. To determine whether Soririse
Management Services. Inc. lean undisclosed
party-tn-interest to the application of DJRLP
Broadcasting Partnership.
2. To determine whether DIRLP
Broadcsting Partnership’s organizational
otincture Is a sham.
3. To determine, based on the evidence
adduced pursuant to Issues I and 2 above.
whether DIRLP Broadcasting Partnership
possesses the basic qualifications to be a
Commission licensee.
(FR Doc. 89-24540 Filed 1O-17-8R 9.45 am)
COOS 8712-O1-d
FEDERAL MARTIME COMMISSION
Agreement(s) Flied
The Federal Maritime Commission
hereby gives notice of the filing of the
following agreement(s) pursuant to
section 5 of the Shipping Act of 1984.
Interested parties may Inspect and
obtain a copy of each agreement at the
Washington. DC Office of the Federal
Maritime Commission. 1100 L Street
NW.. room 10220. Interested parties may
submit comments on each agreement to
the Secretary, Federal Maritime
Commission. Washington. DC 20573.
within 10 days after the date of the
Federal Register in which this notice
appears. The requirements for
comments are found in 572.603 of
of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Interested persons should consult this
section before communicating with the
Commission regarding a pending
agreement.
Agreement No.: 224-200009-001.
Title: Port of San Francisco Terminal
Agreement.
Parties: City and County of San
Francisco, Transportacion Maritime
Mexicans. S.A. de C.V.
Synopsis: The Agreement provides for
a “Bypass Container” wharfage rate for
cargo delivered or received at the Port of
San Francisco other than by vessels
making a direct call. All other terms of
the basic agreement remain unchanged.
By Order of the Federal Maritime
Commission.
Dated. October 12. 1989.
Joseph C. Polldng.
Sec r e .
(FR Doc. 89-24519 Filed 1O-17--89 9.45 sin)
SIUJNO COOS S?3O-O1-4
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
George Gall Foster Corp., et aL
Formations of; Acquisitions brr
Mergers of Bank Holding Compa
The companies Listed In this notice
have applied for the Boards approval
under section 3 of the Bank Holding
Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1842) and
1225.14 of the Board e Regulation Y (12
R 225.14) to become a bank holding
company or to acquire a bank or bank
holding company. The factors that are
,-ctiulaidered in acting on the applications
are set forth In section 3(c) of the Act (12
U.S.C. 1842(c)).
Each application Is available for
Immediate Inspection at the Federal
Reserve Bank indicated. Once the
application has been accepted for
processing. It will also be available for
inspection at the offices of the Board of
Governors. Interested persons may
express their viewe In writing to the
Reserve Bank or to the offices of the
Board of Govenors. Any comment on an
application that requests a hearing must
Include a statement of why a written
presentation would not suffice in lieu of
a hearing. Identifying specifically any
questions of fact that are in dispute and
summari ng the evidence that would be
presented at a hearing.
Unless otherwise noted, comments
regarding each of these applicatir
must be received not later than
November 9, 1989.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York
(William L. Rutledge. Vice President) 33
-------
40730
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3. 1.989 / Notices
4. EducatIon and Training Committee:
National Press Club, First Amendment
Room
5. International Committee World Bank.
701 18th Street. NW. Room J4009
(Attendance notilication required—
phone 202—475—9744).
\temoers of the public wishing to
make comments to NACETI ’ or any of
its committees are invited to submit
them in writing to R. Thomas Parker.
Designated Federal Official for
NACETT. by October 19. 1989. Ptease
send comments to R. Thomas Parker
(A—ba F6J. EPA. 499 South Capitol
Street. SW., Washington. DC 20460.
The meetings will be open to the
public. Additional information on the
meeting may be obtained from It
Thomas Parker by writing to the above
address or by calling Mr. Parker at 202-
475—9741.
Dated. September 21. 1989
R. Thomas Parke,,
Designated Federal Off:ciai, National
A dv,so,y Cowir l for Envzranmentoj
Technology Tmjisfer.
[ FR Doc. 89—23233 Filed 10—2—89. 845 am)
811.5.5108901 I6IS- O-N
(OPP-00283 FRL-3454-lJ
State F1FRA issues Research and
Evaluation Group (SFIREG) Working
Committe on Reglafration and
Classification and Working Commfttee
on Enforcement and Certification;
Open Meethig
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTIOIC Notice.
SUMMARY: The State FIFRA Issues
Research and Evaluation Griinp
(SFIREG) Working Committee on
Registration and Classification will hold
a two day meeting beginning on October
2. 1989 and ending on October 3, 1989.
The Working Committee on
Enforcement and Certification will hold
a two-day meeting beginning on October
5. 1989 and ending on October 8. 1989.
This notice announces the location and
times for the meetings and sets forth
tentative agenda items. The meetings
are open to the public.
o* The SPIREG Working Committee
on Registration and Classification will
meet on Monday. October 2. 1989 from
8:30 am. to 5.00 p.m. and on Tuesday,
October 3, 1989 beginning at 6 30 a.m.
and adjourning at approximately noon.
The Working Committee on
Enforcement and Certification will meet
on Thursday. October 5. 1989 from 8:30
a m to 5:00 p.m. and on Friday. October
8.1989 beginning at 8:30 a.m. and
adjourrung at approximately noon.
ADDRESS: The meeting will be held ar
Grantree Inn, 122 5 North Seventh
Avenue, Bozernan, Montana 59715. (406)
587—5261 or (800) 624—5885.
FOR FURThER INFORMA11ON CONTACri
By mail: Arty Williams. Office of
Pesticide Programs (H7506C).
Environmental Protection Agency. 401
M SL SW.. Washington, DC 20460.
Office location and telephone numbert
Rat. 1007. Crystal Mall No.2.1921
Jefferson Davis Highway. Arlington.
VA, (703) 557—3401.
SUPPLEMEPITARY INFORNATION The
tentative agenda for the meeting of the
Working Comnutlee on Registration and
Classification Includes the following
1. Bulk handling policy status report.
2. Channels of trade policy update.
3. Update on the Pesticide Officials Pilot
Training program.
4. Status of FIFRA 1988 regulations.
5. Good laboratory practice regulations
Update on statements of practical
treatment workgroup.
7 FoodSafety.
8. Report on September 11. 1989 meeting
with EPA on data management and
information sharin& -
9. Report on the September 27, 1989
chemistry workshop.
10. Status report on efforts to resolve
whether nomrnal or lower limit
concentration shall be on pesticide
labels.
11. Report on the Termiticide Labeling
Taskforce.
12. Enforcement issues resulting from
voluntary cancellation of pesticides in
response to FIFRA 1988 requirements.
13. Applicability of existing endangered
species labeling.
14. EPA position on pesticide labels
referring user to additional
information for “other accepted uses.”
15 DefinitIons of “low volume” and
“minor use” for purposes of fee
apportionment under FIFRA.
16. Other topics as appropriate.
The tentative agenda for the meeting
of the Working Committee on
Enforcement and Certification includes
the following:
1. Items 1 through 7 of the agenda topics
of the Working Committee on
Registration and Classification, will
also be discussed at the meeting of the
Working Committee on Enforcement
and Certification.
2. Pesticide inspector training and status
on Agency Order 35001.
3. National compliance strategies
progress report.
4. Fiscal Year 1990 Cooperative
Enforcement A eements progress
review.
5. Worker protection regulations status.
8. Enforcement case tracking resolution.
7. CertIfication and training regulations
status.
8 Lhscussion on new directons f r t e
Working Committee.
9. Update on Pesticide Enforcement
Tracking System.
10. Other topics as appropriate.
Datedi September 22. 1989.
Susan H. Wayland,
Acting D,r tor. Office of Pesticide Pmgmms
[ FR Doc. 89-23234 Filed 10-2-89. 8.45 am)
S IWNU cOOS 6560-60-a
(FRt .-3654-4 1
National Pollutant Discharge
ElImination System General Permit for
Construction Related Activities in
South Dakota
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region VU].
ACTiON: Notice of issuance of final
general permit.
SUMMARY: On July 28. the Region VIII
Office of the Environmental Protection
Agency published a Federal Register
notice (54 FR 310811 of its intent to
reissue a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPt)ES) general
permit for the Construction Related
Activities of Excavation Dewatering and
Hydrostatic Testing conducted within
the State of South Dakota, NPDES
permit Number SDG—070000. This permit
contains discharge requirements and
j ndards that are based on technology
“ and water quality consideration.
prohibitions. Best Management
Practices, and other conditions
applicable to the types of Waste waters
generated by construction facilities.
Persons seeking discharge authorization
under the general permit are required to
submit a request for discharge approval
prior to their commencement of such
discharge.
Because the Region received no
comments during the 30-day public
comment period, the final permit is
being reissued with the same conditions
as contained in the draft public noticed
permit On behalf of the State of South
Dakota. EPA certifies that this permit
conforms to aU applicable requirements
of sections 301. 302, 308. and 307 of the
Clean Water Act.
Economic Impact
EPA reviewed the effect of Executive
Order 12291 on the general permit and
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 1989 I Notices
40731
has determined the permit not to be
major under that Order. The proposed
permit was submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget for review as
required by the Executive Order.
Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA reviewed the requirements
imposed on regulated facilities by this
general NPDES permit under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information
collection requirements of this permit
have already been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget under
submissions made for the Clean Water
Act’s NPDES permit program.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
After review of the facts presented in
the notice of intent printed above. I
hereby certify, pursuant to the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b). that this
general permit will not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Moreover, it
reduces a significant admuustrative
burden on regulated sources.
oamm Effective Date, This General
Permit shall be effective November 2.
1989.
Expiration Date This General Permit
shall expire at 12:00 am., midnight.
September 30. 1994.
FOR FURTHER IPI!ORMA11ON CONTACT
- Mr. Marshall Fischer. Region VI I I. tJ.S
Environmental Protection Agency,
Compliance Branch (8WM-C), 999 18th
Street. Suite 500, Denver. Colorado
80202- .24 elephone (303) 293—1592 or
Fl ’S 564—1592.
SUPPLEMENTARY iNFORMATIOP
General Permit to Discharge under the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System for Constivction
Activities in South Dakota including
Hydrostatic Testing and Excavation
Dewatering—NPDES General Permit
Number SD G-07C WAX)
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) (hereinafter referred
to as “the Act”), facilities engaged in
either construction dewatering of
groundwaters and/or hydrostatic testing
of fluid vessels are authorized to
discharge at locations throughout the
State of South Dakota to waters of the
United States, lit accordance with
effluent limitations, monitoring
requirements and other conditions set
forth in parts I and 11. hereof.
Table of Contents
t Effluent Limitations and Monitoring
Requirements
A. Coverage under the Permit
B. Definitions
C. Specific Limitations and Self-
Mom Losing Requirements
11. Monitoring. Recording and Reporting
Requirements
A Representative Sampling
B. Monitoring Procedures
C Penalties for Tampering
D. Reporting of Monitoring Resulti
E. Additional Monitoring by the Permiltee
F Records Contents
G Retention of Records
H. Twenty.four Hour Notice of
Noncompliance Reporting
L Other Noncompliance Reporting
f. Inspection and Entry
Ill. Compliance Responsibilities
A. Duty to Comply
B. Penalties for Violation., of Permit
Conditions
C- Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a
Defense
D. Duty to Mitigate
E. Proper Operation and Maintenance
F Removed Substances
C. Bypass of Treamient Facilities
H. Upset Conditions
I. Toxic PoUutants
Changes in Discharge of Toxic
Substances
IV General Requirements
A Planned Changes
B. Anticipated Noncompliauce
C. Permit Actions
D Duty to Reapply
E. Duty to Provide Information
F Other Information
G. Signatory Requirements
H. Penalties for Falsification of Reports
I vailability of Reports
J. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
K. Property Rights
L Severability
M. Transfers
N. State Law
0. Water Quality Standard
Requirements-Reopener Provision
P. 1 equinng an Individual NPDES Permit
Q Requesting an Individual NPDES
Permit
R. Requesting Coverage Under the
General Permit
Part L Effluent Limitations and
Monitoring Requirements
A. Coverage Under this Permit
1. Applicability of Gene .zul Permit—
This general permit is potentially
applicable to all facilities conducting
excavation dewatering in conlunction
with construction activities, as well as
pipeline hydrostatic testing with the
State of South Dakota. The water
discharged from any of these activities
must be relatively uncontaminated and
must not have the potential to contribute
non-conventional or toxic pollutant
loadings to the receiving stream.
2. Request for Authorization—In order
to be considered eligible for
authorization to discharge waste water
under the terms and conditions of this
permit. owner, operator. and/or the
authorized agent of any facility desiring
to discharge must submit the following
information by certified letter at least
thirty (30) days prior to the first
anticipated date of discharge:
a. Name, address, and descriptive
location of the facility;
b. Name of principal in charge of
operation of the facility;
c, Name of water receiving the
discharge and, if known, the beneficial
use classification(s) and 10-year. 7-day
low flow of the water receiving the
discharge:
d. A brief desaiption of the type of
activity resulting in the discharge,
including the anticipated date for
commencement of the discharge.
duration of the discharge. termination
date of the discharge. total volume.
average and maximum flow rate of the
discharge. and the source of water
which is to be discharged.
e. A brief description of the type of
water treatment processes employed.
f. A map andlor schematic diagram
showing area of the activity and
location of the waste water flow and of
any treatment system employed.
In addition for Hydrostatic Testing
Related Discharges. the following must
be included.
g. The type of vessel being tested (e g.
pipe, tank, etc.);
h. The type of material from which the
vessel is constructed.
I Whether the vessel has been
previously used or is of virgin material;
and.
j. A description of the fluid material
normally contained and/or transported
through the vessel.
Such information should be submitted
to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Compliance Branch. Water Management.
Denver Ptace Suite 500.99918th Street.
Denver. Colorado 80W2-2405. Telephone
(301) 2os-1592
South Dakota Department of Water and
Natural Resources. Division of Land and
Water Quality. Surface Water Quality
Program, lot Foss Building. Pierre. South
Dakota 57501. TeleDhosim (005) 773-SVO
The permit issuing authority shall
have up to thirty (30) days after receipt
of the information to request additional
data and/or deny the authonzation
under this general permit for any
particular discharge. Lithe person
proposing a new discharge does not
receive a request for additional
information or a notification of denial
from the permit issuing authority.
authorization to discharge in accordance
with the conditions of the permit shall
be deemed granted. For existing
individually authorized discharges.
-------
40732
Federal Register I Vol. 54 , No. 190 / Tuesday. October 3. 1989 I Notices
coverage under the general permit will
not be effective unless and until the
individual permit IS either revoked or
inactivated. The permit issuing authority
may waive, at its discretion, the thirty
(30) day period In special cases,
B. Del initions ,
1. The “30-day (and monthly)
average.” Is the anthnaetlc average of all
samples collected during a consecutive
30-day period or calendar month.
whichever is applicable. The calendar
month shall be used for purposes of
reporting self-monitoring data on
discharge monitoring report forms.
2. “Daily Maximum” (“Daily Max.”) Is
the maximum value allowable in any
single sample or instantaneous
measurement
3. “Composite samples” shall be flow
proportioned. The composite sample
shall, as a minimum, contain at least
four (4) samples collected over the
compositing period. Unless otherwise
specified, the time between the
collection of the first sample and the last
sample shall not be less than six (6)
hours nor more than 24 hours.
Acceptable methods for preparation of
composite samples are as follows:
a. Constant time interval between
samples, sample volume proportional to
flow rate at time of sampling:
b. Constant time interval between
samples, sample volume proportional to
total flow (volume) since last sample.
For the first sample, the flow rate at the
time the sample was collected may be
used
c. Constant sample volume, time
interval between samples proportional
to flow (i.e.. sample taken every “X”
gallons of flow); and,
d. Continuous collection of sample,
with sample collection rate proportional
to flow rate.
4. A “grab” sample, for monitoring
requirements, is defined as a single “dip
and take” sample collected at a
representative point In the discharge
stream.
5. An “Instantaneous” measurement,
for monitoring requIrements. 1* defined
as a single reading, observation, or
measurement
6. “Upset” means an exceptional
incident in which there Is unintentional
and temporary noncompliance with
technology.based permit effluent
limitations because of factors beyond
the reasonable control of the permittee.
An upset does not indude
noncompliance to the extent caused by
operational error, improperly designed
treatment facilities, inadequate
treatment facilities, lack of preventive
maintenance, or careless or improper
operation.
7. “Bypass” means the intentional
diversion of waste streams from any
portion of a treatment facility.
8. “Severe property damage” means
substantial physical damage to property,
damage to the treatment facilities which
causes them to become inoperable, or
substantial and permanent loss of
natural resources which can reasonably
be expected to occur in the absence of a
bypass. Severe property damage does
not mean economic loss caused by
delays in production.
9. “Director” means Director of the
United States Environmental Protection
Agency’s Water Management Division.
10. “EPA” means the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
11. “Sludge” Is any solid, semi-solid or
liquid residue that contains materials
removed from the wastewater during
treatment
12. “Waters of the United States”
means:
a. All other waters such as Intrastate
lakes, rivers, streams (induding
intermittent streams), mudilats,
sandflatg, “wetlands”, sloughs, prairie
potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or
natural ponds the use, degradation, or
destruction of which would affect or
could affect Interstate or foreign
commerce including any such waters:
(1) Which are or could be used by
interstate or foreign travelers for
recreational or other purposes:
(2) From which fish or shellfish are or
could be taken and sold in interstate or
foreign commerce: or,
(3) Which are used or could be used
for industrial purposes by industries in
Interstate commerce.
b. All impoundments of waters
otherwise defined as waters of the
United States under this defuutioni
c. Tributaries of waters identified in
paragraphs a,—d. of this defuutlon
d. The territorial sea;
e. ‘Wetlands” adjacent to waters
(other than waters that are themselves
“wetlands”) Identified in paragraphs a.—
f. of this definition.
C Specific Limitations and Self.
Monitoring Requirements
1, Effluent Limitations.
a. There shall be no discharge of any
process generated waste waters except
those waste waters resulting from
dewatering of groundwater and/or
surface runoff from construction sites
and/or hydrostatic testing of pipelines
or other fluid vessels,
b. ilils permit does not authorize
discharges from dewatering activities at
hazardous waste sites or discharges of
toxic materials from any location.
c. There shall be no direct discharge
of any solids and/or sludges generated
by the treatment of the discharge.
d. There shall be rio discharge of
sanitary waste waters from toilets or
related facilities.
e. There shall be no discharge of
floating solids or visible foam in other
than trace amounts.
f. No chemicals containing toxic
pollutants and/or any priority pollutants
listed at 40 CFR Part 401 are to be added
to the discharge. No chemical, except
lime or aluminum salts specifically
added as an aid to the flocculation and
settling of solids, may be added to the
discharge unless prior permission for the
use of the additive is specifically
granted by the permit issuing authority
g. The use of chlorinated water (e g.
potable tap water) for a hydrostatic test
fluid shall not be allowed unless it can
be demonstrated that the chlorine
substantially dissipates prior to
discharge and/or possesses no potential
for toxic impacts to the receiving waters,
h. The permittee shall take such steps
as are necessary to prevent or minimize
stream scouring caused by the
discharge.
I. The concentration of oil and grease
In any single sample shall not exceed 10
mg/L nor shall there be a visible sheen
in the discharge.
j. The pH of the discharged waters
shall not be less than 6.5 nor more than
9. Ouzuts.
k. Total suspended solids shall be
limited as follows:
0t3cfl ge tacon
Toti si .atend.d 90 mg/L Vi any angie grab or
.Cflds. ,.ia an p e
2. Monitoring and Reporting
a. Daily Logs. The permittee shall
maintain a daily log relating to the
authorized discharge(s). The log shall
contaixu
(1) flow information and data.
(2) sample results.
(3) records of visual observations, and
(4) notations on any problems relating
to treatment of the discharge.
b. Samples shall be taken as often as
necessary to provide representative
information as to the nature and volume
of the discharge(s). At a minimum,
samples of each discharge shall be
taken as follows:
-------
Federal Register / VoL 54, No. 190 / Tuesday. October 3, 1989 1 Notices
(1) CONSIRUC11OP . DEWATERING
40733
a
c. If sampling performed by the
pernhittee indicates a viotlaton, the
permittee shall notify the permit issuing
authod y in accordance with the
provisions at part IL 1-L of this permit.
The permittee shall also repeat the
sampling and analysis and submit the
results of the repeat analysis to the
permit issuing authority within thirty
days aftezi,ecoming aware of the
violation.
Part IL Monitoring RecordIng and
Reporting Requirements
A. Representative Sampling
Samples taken in compliance with the
monitoring requirements established
under Part I shall be collected from the
effluent stream prior to discharge into
the receiving waters. Samples and
measurements shall be representative of
the volume and nature of the monitored
discharge. Sludge samples shall be
collected at a location representative of
the quality of sludge immediately prior
to the use-disposal practice.
B. Monitoring Procedures
Monitoring must be conducte4
according to test procedures approved
under 40 CFR Part 136. unless other test
procedures have been specified in this
permit.
C. Penalties for Tampering
The Act provides that any person who
falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly
renders inaccurate, any rnorutoring
device or method required to be
maintained under this permit shall, upon
conviction, be punished by a fine of not
more than $10,000 per violation, or by
imprisonment for not more than two
years per violation, or by both.
D. Reporting of Monitoring Resuit,s
Effluent monitoring results obtained
during the previous 3 months shall be
rummarized for each month and
reported on a Discharge Monitoring
Report Form (EPA No. 3320-i ),
postmarKed no later than the z8th day of
the month following the completed
reporting period. 11 no discharge occurs
during the reporting period. “no
discharge” shall be reported. Legible
copies of these, and all other reports
required herein, shall be signed and
certified In accordance with the
Signatory Requirements (See part IV)
and submitted to the Director, Water
Management Division and the State
water pollution control agency at the
following addresses:
Original to: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region VI I I. 999
18th Street Suite 500, Denver,
Colorado 80202—2405. Attention:
Water Management Division
Compliance Branch (8WM—C)
Copy to: South Dakota Department of
Water and Natural Resources.
Division of Land and Water Quality.
Surface Water Quality Program, 7oe
Foss Building, Pierre. South Dakota
57501
E. Addil,onol Monitoring by the
Permittee
11 the permittee monitors any pollutant
more frequently than required by this
permit using test proceduresapproved
under 40 CFR 138 or as specified in this
pemut. the results of this monitonng
shall be included in the calculation and
reporting of the data submitted LO the
DMR. Such increased frequency shall
also be indicated.
F. Records Contents
Records of monitoring information
shall include:
1. The date, exact place, and time of
sampling or measurements;
2. The initials or name(s) of the
individual(s) who performed the
sampling or measurements:
3. The date(s) analyses were
performed:
4. The time(s) analyses were initiated;
5. The initials or name(s) of
individual(s) who performed the
analyses;
6. References and written procedures.
when available, for the analytical
techniques or methods use± and.
7. The results of such analyses,
including the bench sheets, instrument
readouts, computer disks or tapes. etc..
used to determine these results.
G. Retention of Records
The permittee shall retain records of
all monitoring information, including all
calibration and maintenance records
Mtic ieiod . age sdierg, ra
Po kaant parwTwer
ServO, frequency
Sample type
Greater then I zb,i Foot Pa, Second (C S) —
During the ectual period of ckscharge —
Less than I Cobio Foot Per Second (CFS)
During the actual period of discharge ... _. , ,.
Flow . .. ... - . . .. ,,_ -
pH - ..
Oi l end Grease..
Oil arid Grease
O y....’..... - . .. .
Woody.. - ..

Monthly — .. ,,
Wee*iy ..._
Daily ..,. - ,,.._
Woolly
O y ..
lfl 5taiutan ri by COntinuiUS rOCOrdOr
frau flerioous by cor iuous re uer.

Grab,
Grab or Composite.
or by ccnbiteus recorder
Irardaieaai or by uraious recorder
VauaL
Grab.
Grab or Composite.
Total 5u no Soid ...._
Flow
pH . .. —, -
Oil and Grease
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Sohds
Moiauty —
Woel Ily
(2) HYDROSTATIC TESTING DISCHARGES
Anticipated average discharge rate
Po utent paierneter
Sample frequency
Sample type
Greater than I Qibc Foot Per Second (CFS) —
Owing the actual penal of disch ge
Less than I CubIc Foot Per Second (CFS) ...
Owing the actual period of discharge ..__,.......,.
Flow Rate . .. ._ Daly ....,,. , ... ... ,,.
Flaw Volume .... .......... —. Daily ... ,., , .. ..
pH.. Daly ..
0 5 and Grease Daily
Oil and Grease - . Monthly_ ..
Total Solids Daily - . ..,....,._
Flow — . ............. ......... ._. . ._.
Flow Volume ..._, ..... . ... . ... . Daily
pH ., .. .. . , Daily
Oil and Grease... ... ...,,..... - . Daly
Oil and Grease . ._. . Monthly -
Total Suspended Solids .... Daily . .. - -
tnstervW ecos or by oonitenua recorder
Meeaiss or Calo,dato.
irauantaiieous or by contimiota recorder
Vinuat
Grab
Grab or Cornpawta.
trsienterieot or by conuwis ecorOer
Mea ,e or
Iristantaneotus or by continuous recorder
Visual.
Grab.
Grab or Composite
-------
40734
Federal Re isterf Vol. 54. No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 1989 I Notices
and all original strip chart recordings for
continuous monitoring instrumentation.
copies of all reports required by this
permit, and records of all data used to
complete the application for th.1a permit.
for a period of at least three years from
the date of the sample, measurement.
report or application. This period may
be extended by request of the Director
at any time. Data collected on site.
copies of Discharge Monitoring Reports,
and a copy of this NPDES permit must
be maintained on-site during the
duration of activity at the permitted
location.
H. Twenty-four Hour Notice of
Noncompliance Reporting
1. The permiltee shall report any
noncompliance which may seriously
endanger health or the environment as
soon as possible, but no later than
twenty-four (24) hours from the time the
permittee first became aware of the
circumstances. The report shall be made
to the EPA. Region VIIL Emergency
Response Branch at (303) 293—1788 and
the State of South Dakota at (605) 773—
3231.
2. The following occurrences of
noncompliance shall be reported by
telephone to the EPA., Region VIII.
Compliance Branch at (303) 293-1589
and the State of South Dakota at (605)
773—3152 by the first workday (8.1 )0 a.m.—
4:30 p.m. Mountain Time) after the day
the pernuttee became aware of the
circumstances
a. Any unanticipated bypass which
exceeds any effluent limitation In the
permit (See part 111.0.. Bypass of
Treatment Facilities.);
b. Any upset which exceeds any
effluent limttation in the permit (See
part lI1.H.. Upset Conditions.); or,
c. Violation of a maximum daily
discharge limitation for any of the
pollutants listed In the permit to be
reported within 24 hours.
3. A written submission shall also be
provided within five days of the time
that the permittee becomes aware of the
circumstances, The written submission
shall contaim
a. A desciption of the noncompliance
and its cause:
b. Period of noncompliance. lndudlng
exact dates and times;
C, The estimated time noncompliance
is expected to continue, if it has not
been correctedi and.
d. Steps taken or planned to reduce.
eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of
the noncompliance.
4. The Director may waive the written
report on a case-by-case basis if the oral
report has been received within 24 hours
by the Compliance Branch. Water
Management Division, Denver,
Colorado, by phone, (303) 293—1589.
5. Reports shall be submitted to the
address in port 11.D.. Reporting of
Monitoring Results.
I. Other Noncompliance Reporting
Instances of noncompliance not
required to be reported within 24 hours
shall be reported at the time that
monitoring reports for part ILD. are
submitted. The reports shall contain the
Information listed in part ILH.2.
J. Inspection and Entiy
The permittee shall allow the Director,
or an authorized representative, upon
the presentation of credentials and other
documents as may be required by law,
to:
1. Enter upon the pernuttee’s premises
where a regulated facility or activity is
located or conducted. or where records
must be kept under the conditions of this
permit
2. Have access to and copy, at
reasonable times, any records that must
be kept under the conditions of this
permiti
3. inspect at reasonable times any
facilities, eqwpment (including
monitoring and control equipment),
practices, or operations regulated or
required under this permit and,
4. Sample or monitor at reasonable
times, for the purpose of assuring permit
compliance or as otherwise authorized
by the Act. any substances or
parameters at any location,
Part ilL Compliance Responsibilities
A. Duty to Comply
The perinittee must comply with all
conditions of this permit Any permit
noncompliance constitutes a violation of
the Act and is grounds for enforcement
action; for permit termination,
revocation and reissuance, or
modiflcation or for denial of a permit
renewal application. The permittee shall
give the Director advance notice of any
planned changes at the permitted
facility or of an activity which may
result in permit noncompliance.
B. Penalties for Violations 0/Permit
Conditions
The Act provides that any person who
violates a permit condition
implementing sections 301. 302. 306, 307,
308. 318. or 405 of the Act is subject to a
civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per
day of such violation. Any person who
willfully or negligently violates permit
conditions implementing sections 301.
302, 306, 307. or 308 of the Act is subject
to a fine of not less than $5,000. nor
more than $50,000 per day of violation.
or by Imprisonment for not more than
three (3) years. or both. Except as
provided in permit conditions on part
111.0.. Bypass of Treatment Facilities
and part iI.H., Upset Conditions.
nothing in this permit shall be construed
to relieve the permittee of the civil or
criminal penalties for noncompliance.
t Need to Halt or Reduce Activity iVot
a Defense
It shall not be a defense for a
permittee in an enforcement action that
it would have been necessary to halt or
reduce the permitted activity in order to
maintain compliance with the conditions
of this permit.
D. Duty to Mitigate
The permittee shall take all
reasonable steps to minimize or prevent
any discharge in violation of this permit
which has a reasonable likelihood of
adversely affecting human health or the
environment
& Proper Operetion and Maintenance
The permittee shall at all times
properly operate and maintain all
facilities and systems of treatment and
control (and related appurtenances)
which are installed or used by the
permittee to achieve compliance with
the conditions of this permit Proper
operation and maintenance also
includes adequate laboratory controls
and appropriate quality assurance
procedures. This provision requires the
operation of back-up or auxiliary
facilities or similar systems which are
installed by a permittee only when the
operation is necessary to achieve
compliance with the conditions of the
j rmit However, the permittee shall
operate, as a minimum, one complete set
of each main line unit treatment process,
whether or not this process is needed to
achieve permit effluent compliance.
F. Removed Substances
Collected screenings, grit. solids.
sludges, or other pollutants removed in
the course of treatment shall be buried
or disposed of In such a manner so as to
prevent any pollutant from entering any
waters of the state or creating a health
hazard, Sludgeldtgester supernatant and
filter backwash shall not be directly
blended with or enter either the final
plant discharge and/or waters of the
United States.
0. Bypass of Treatment Facilities
1. Bypass Not Exceeding Limitations
The permittee may allow any bypass
to occur which does not cause effluent
limitations to be exceeded. but only if it
also is for essential maintenance to
assure efficient operation. These
-------
Federal Register / VoL 54, No. 190 / Tuesday. October 3, 1989 I Notices
40735
bypasses are not subject to the
provisions of paragraphs 2. and 3. of this
section.
2. NotIce.
a. Anticipated bypass. 11 the perinittee
knows in advance of the need for a
bypass. it shall submit prior notice. .f
possible at least 60 day8 before the date
of the bypass.
b. Unanticipated bypass. The
permittee shall submit notice of an
unanticipated bypass as required under
part fIJ I.. Twenty-four Hour Reporting.
3. ProhibitIon of Bypass
a. Bypass is prohibited and the
Director may take enforcement action
against a pernuttee for a bypass, unless:
(1) The bypass was unavoidable to
prevent loss of life, personal Injury, or
severe property damage:
(2) There were no feasible alternatives
to the bypass, such as the use of
auxiliary treatment facilities, retention
of untreated wastes, or maintenance
during normal periods of equipment
downtime. This condition is not satisfied
if adequate back-up equipment should
have been installed In the exercise of
reasonable engineering judgement to
prevent a bypass which occurred during
normal periods of equipment downtime
or preventive maintenance; and,
(3) The permittee submitted notices as
required under paragraph 2. of this
section.
H. Upset Conditions
1. Effect aLan Update
An upset constitutes an affirmative
defense to an action brought for
noncompliance with technology-based
permit effluent limitations If the
requirements of paragraph 2. of this
section are met. No determination made
during administrative review of claims
that noncompliance was caused by
upset, and before an action for
noncompliance, Is final admIn1 trative
action subject to judIcial review (i.e..
Permittees will have the opportunity for
a judicial determination on any claim of
upset only in an enforcement action
brought for noncompliance with
technology-based permit effluent
limitations).
2. CondItions necessary for a
demonstration of upset.
A permittee who wishes to establish
the affirmative defense of upset shall
demonstrate, through properly signed,
contemporaneous operating logs, or
other relevant evidence that:
a. An upset occurred and that the
permittee can identify the cause(s) of
the upset:
b. The permitted facility was at t ie
time being properly operated.
c. The pernuttee submitted notice of
the upset as required under Part II.H..
Twenty-four Hour Notice of
Noncompliance Reporting; and,
d. The pernuttee complied with any
remedial measures required underpart
111.0. Duty to Mitigate.
3. BurdeIi of Proof
In any enforcement proceeding, the
permittee seeking to establish the
occurrence of an upset has the burden of
proof.
1. Toxic Pollutants
The permittee shall comply with
effluent standards or prohibitions
established under section 307(a) of the
Act for toxic pollutants within the time
provided in the regulations that
establish those standards or
prohibitions, even if the permit has not
yet been modified to incorporate the
requirement.
1. Changes in Discharge of Toxic
Substances
Notification shall be provided to the
Director as soon as the permittee knows
of. or has reason to believe:
1. That any activity has occurred or
will occur which would result in the
dlscherge. on a routine or frequent basis,
of any toxic pollutant which is not
limited in the permit, if that discharge
will exceed the highest of the following
“notification levels”:
a. One hundred micrograms per liter
(100 ug/L);
b. Two hundred micrograms per liter
(200 ug/.I j for acrolein and acrylozutrile;
five hundred micrograms per liter (500
ug/L) for 2.4-dinitrophenol and for 2-
methyl-4. 6-dinitrophenok and one
milligram per liter (1 mg/U for
antimony;
c. Five (5) tImes the maximum
concentration value reported for that
pollutant In the permit application In
accordance with 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7): or.
d. The level established by the
Director in accordance with 40 CFR
12 1444f) .
2. That any activity has occurred or
will occur which would result in any
discharge, on a non-routine or infrequent
basis. of a toxic pollutant which is not
limited in the permit, if that discharge
will exceed the highest of the following
“notification levels”:
a. Five hundred micrograms per liter
(500 ugh.);
b. One milligram per liter (1 mg/U for
antimony:
c. Ten (10) times the maximum
concentration value reported for that
pollutant In the permit application in
accordance with 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7); or.
d. The level established by the
Director in accordance with 40 CFR
12144(f).
Part IV. General Requirements
A. Planned Changes
The permittee shall give notice to the
Director as soon as possible of any
planned physical alterations or
additions to the permitted facility.
Notice Is required only when.
1. The alteration or addition to a
permitted facility may meet one of the
criteria for determining whether a
facility is a new source as determined in
40 CFR 122.29(b):
2. The alteration or addition could
significantly change the nature or
increase the quantity of pollutants
discharged. This notification applies :o
pollutants which are subject neither to
effluent limitations in the permit, nor to
notification requirements under part
IV.A.1.; or,
3. There are any planned substantial
changes to the existing sewage sludge
facilities, the manner of its operation, or
to current sewage sludge management
practices of storage and disposaL The
permittee shall give the Director notice
of any planned changes at least 30 days
prior to their implementation.
B. Anticipated Noncompliance
The peimittee shall give advance
notice of any planned changes in the
permitted facility or activity which may
result in noncompliance with permit
requirements.
C. Permit Actions
This permit may be modified, revoked
and reissued, or terminated for cause.
The filing of a request by the permittee
for a permit modification, revocation
and reissuance. or termination, or a
notification of planned changes or
anticipated noncompliance. does not
stay any permit condition.
D. Duty to Reapply
If the pernuttee wishes to continue an
activity regulated by this permit after
the expiration date of this permit. the
perinitee must apply for and obtain a
new permit. The application should be
submitted at least 180 days before the
expiration date of this permit.
H. Duty to Provide Information
The permitee shall furnish to the
Director, within a reasonable time, any
information which the Director may
request to determine whether cause
exists for modifying, revoking and
reissuing. or terminating this permit. or
-------
40736
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 190 / Tuesday. October 3 , 1989 / Notices
to determine compllaaue with this
permit. The permittee shall also furnish
to the Director, upon request, copies of
records required to be kept by this
permit.
P Other Infonnasjoip
When the permittee becomes aware
that it failed to subout any relevant facts
in a permit application, or submitted
incorrect information in a permit
application or any report to the Director.
it shall promptly submit such facts or
Information.
C. Signatory Requirements
All applications, reports or
information submitted to the Director
shall be signed and certified.
1. All permit applications shall be
signed as followE
a. For a corporatiom By a responsible
corporate officer;
b. For a partnership or sole
proprietorship: By a general partner or
the propnetor respectlvely
c. For a municipality, State, Federal,
or other public agency: By either a
principal executive officer or ranking
elected official.
2. All reports required by the permit
and other information requested by the
Director shall be signed by a person
described above or by a duly authorized
representative of that person.
A person is a duly authorized
representative only ift
a. The authorization is made in
writing by a person desoribed above
and submitted to the Director, and,
b. The authorization specified either
an individual or a position having
responsibility for the overall operation
of the.regniated facility or activity, such
as the position of plant manager,
operator of a well or a well field,
superintendent, position of equivalent
responsibility, or an Individual or
position having overall responsibility for
environmental matters for the company,
(A duly authorized representative may
thus be either a named Individual or any
Individual occupying a named position.)
3. Changes to authorization. If an
authorization under paragraph IV.G.2. Is
no longer accurate becaus. a different
Individual or position ha. responsibility
for the overall operation of the facility, a
new authorization satisfying the
requirements of paragraph IV.G.2_. must
be submitted to the Director prior to or
together with any reports, information,
or applications to be signed by an
authorized representative.
4. Cemficotion. Any person signing a
document under this section shall make
the following certification: attachments
were prepared under my direction or
supervIsion fri accordance with a system
designed to assure that qualified
personnel properly gather and evaluate
the information submitted. Based on my
inquiry of the person or persons who
manage the system, or those persons
directly responsible for gathering the
information, the information submitted
Is. to the best of my knowledge and
belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am
aware that there are significant
penalties for submitting false
information, including the possibility of
fine and Imprisonment for knowing
violations.”
H. Penalties for Falsification of Reports
The Act provides that any person who
knowingly makes any false statement,
representation. or certification in any
record or other document submitted or
required to be maintained under this
permit, including monitoring reports or
reports of compliance or noncompliance
shall. upon conviction be punished by a
fine of not more than $10,000 per
violation. or by impnsonment for not
more than two years per violation. or by
both.
1. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be
confidential under 40 CFR part 2, all
reports prepared In accordance with the
terms of this permit shall be available
for public inspection at the offices of the
State water pollution control agency and
the Director. As requireciby the Act,
permit applications, permits and effluent
data shall not be considered
confidential.
J. Oil and Hazar&iu Substance
Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be
construed to preclude the institution of
any legal action or relieve the permittee
from any respon8ibrljties, liabilities, or
penalties to which the permittee is or
may be subject under Section 311 of the
Act,
K. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not
convey any property rights of any sort,
or any exclusive privileges, nor does it
authorize any injury to private property
or any invasion of personal rights, nor
any infringement of federal, state or
local laws or regulations.
1.. Severn billy
The provisions of this permit are
severable, and if any provision of this
permit, or the application of any
provision of this permit to any
circumstance, is held Invalid, the
application of such provision to other
circumstances, and the remainder of this
permit, shall not be affected thereby.
M. ‘Transfers
This permit-may be automatically
transferred to a new permittee if:
1. The current pernuttee notifies the
Director at least 30 days in advance of
the proposed transfer date;
2. The notice includes a written
agreement between the existing and
new permittees containing a specific
date for transfer of permit responsibility
coverage, and liability between them:
and,
3. The Director does not notify the
existing pern ’uttee and the proposed new
permittee of his or her intent to modify,
or revoke and reissue the permit. If this
notice is not received, the transfer is
effective on the date specified in the
agreement mentioned in paragraph 2.
above.
N. State L.a
Nothing in this permit shall be
construed to preclude the Institution of
any legal action or relieve the permittee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or
penalties established pursuant to any
applicable state law or regulation under
authority preserved by section 510 of the
Act.
0. Reopener Pm vision
This permit may be reopened and
modified Include the appropriate
effluent limitations or other appropriate
requirements if one or more of the
following events occurs:
1. Water Quality Standards
The water quality standards of thi’
receiving water(s) to which the
permittee discharges are modified in
sucJ a manner as to require different
,effhjent limits than contained in this
permit.
2. Wasteload Allocation
A wasteload allocation is developed
and approved by the State and/or EPA
for incorporation in this permit.
3. Water Quality Management Plan
A revision to the current water quality
management plan is approved and
adopted which calls for different
effluent limitations than contained in
this permit.
P. Requiring an Individual NPDES
Permit
The Director may require any owner
or operator covered under this permit to
apply for and obtain an indivldu3l
NPDES permit if:
1. The discharger is not in compliance
with the conditions of this General
Permit: or.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 190 / Tuesday. October 3. 1989 I Notices
40737
2. ConditIons or standards have
changed so that the discharge no longer
qualifies for a General Permit
The owner or operator must be
notified in writing that an application
for an individual NPDES permit is
required. When an individual NPDES
permit Is issued to an owner or operator
otherwise covered under this General
Permit, the applicability of the general
permit to that owner or operator is
automatically terminated upon the
effective date of the individual NPDES
Permit
C Requesting an Individual NPDE.S
Permit
Any owner or operator covered by
this general permit may request to be
excluded from the coverage by applying
for an individual NPDES Permit.
R. Requesting Covemge Under the
Genervi Permit
The owner or operator of a facility
excluded from coverage by this General
Permit, solely because that facility
already has an uidividual permit. may
request that the individual permit be
revoked and that the facility be covered
by this General Permit Upon revocation
of the Individual permit. this General
Permit shall apply to that facility.
Si ed thl. 20th day of September 1989.
Kerrigan Cough.
Acting RegzonoiAdministmtor. Region V I I!.
(FR Dec. 89-23298 Flied 10-2-dR &45 am)
COOS S6 IO
FEDERAL MARITiME COMMISSION
Iteni Submitted for 0MB RevIew
The Federal Maritime Commission
hereby gives notice that the following
item has been submitted to 0MB for
review pursuant to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980(44 U.S.C. 3801. at
seq.). Requests for information,
Including copies of the collection of
information and supporting
documentation. may be obtained from
John Robert Ewers, Director. Bureau of
Administration, Federal Maritime
CommIssion. 1100 L Street, NW., Room
12211. Washington. DC 20573. telephone
number (202) 523—6888. Comments may
be submitted to the agency and to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs. Office of Management and
Budget, Washington. DC 20503.
Attentioru Desk Officer for the Federal
Maritime Commission, within 15 days
after the date of the Federal Register in
which this notice appears.
SInnm vy of Item 5uh ,n1fti d for 0MB Review
48 CFR part 580 (DefinItion of. Shipper and
AvailabWty of Mixed Commodity Rate*-.
Docket 89-20)
FMC requests clearance of an
amendment to 48 CFR part 580 which
would (1) amend the definition of
“shipper” to darify the scope of the
term, and (2) require that mixed
commodity rates be made available only
to a “shlppper, ” as proposed, and to
“shipp rs’ eseoclatlona’ as presently
defined in the Commission rule,. A
shipper using a mixed commodity rate
would be required to furnish the ocean
common carrier a listing of commodities.
If the shipper is a non.vessei.operating
common carrier (NVOCC), it wduld also
have to indicate its FMC tariff number
on the ocean carriers bill of lading and
on any service contracts to which it is a
party. The Commission estimates a filing
burden of 30.000 hours for 2105 carriers
to implement the proposed rule’s
provisions. There will be no additional
cost to the Federal Government for this
amendment. Estimated coat to
respondents for this amendment Is
$150.000.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secrs
[ FR Doc. 89-23230 Filed 10-2--SR 8.45 arc)
COOS
San FrancIsco Port Commission
Terminal Agreement
The Federal Maritime Commission
hereby gives notice of the filing of the
following agreement(s) pursuant to
section 5 of the Shipping Act of 1984.
Interested parties may inspect and
obtain a copy of each agreement at the
Washington. DC Office of the Federal
Maritime Commission. 1100 L Street
NW., Room 10220. Interested parties
may submit comments on each
agre’ment to the Seci-etaiy. Federal
Maritime Commission. Washington. DC
20573. within 10 days after the date of
the Federal Register in which this notice
appears. The requirements for
comments are found in 572.603 of title
48 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Interested persona should consult this
section before communicating with the
Commission regarding a pending
agreement
Agreement No. 224-20 89
Tide: San Francisco Port Commission
Terminal Agreement
Parties: San Francisco Port
Commission (Port) American Niugini
Shipping (ANS)
Synopsis: The Agreement provides
that ANS will make San Francisco its
Northern California port of call and wiil
pay the Port 60% of the Port’s tariff
charges for all revenue derived from
dockage and wharfage at the Port e
facilities. The terms of the Agreement is
for five years and may be extended for a
similar term. —
By Order of the Federal Maritime
Commission.
Dated: September 27. 1989.
Joseph C. Polidag,
Secrelaiy.
[ FR Dec. 89-23231 Filed 10- 2-dR 8.45 am)
U iUtQ COOS S7 5041-M
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
A .B.PL—Slichting, at aL—Formulations
of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of
Bank Holding Companfee and
Acquisitions of Nonbanking
Companies
The companies listed in this notice
have applied under * 225.14 of the
Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.14) for
the Board’s approval under section 3 of
the Bank Holding Company Act (12
U.S.C. 1842) to become a bank holding
company or to acquire voting securi ties
of a bank or bank holding company. The
listed companies have also applied
under 225.23(a)(2) of Regulation Y (12
CFR 225.23(a)(2)) for the Board’s
approval under section 4(c)(8) of the
Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C.
1843(c)(8)) and 225.21(a) of Regulation
Y (12 CFR 225,21(a)) to acquire or
control voting securities or assets of a
company engaged in a nonbanking
activity that is listed in * 225.25 of
Regulation Y as closely related to
banking and permissible for bank
holding companies, or to engage in such
an activity. Unless otherwise noted.
these activities will be conducted
throughout the United States.
The applications are available for
immediate inspection at the Federal
Reserve Bank indicated. Once the
application has been accepted for
processing. it will also be available for
inspection at the offices of the Board of
Governors. Interested persona may
express their views in writing on the
question whether consummation of the
proposal can “reasonably be expected
to produce benefits to the public. such
as greater convenience, increased
competition. or gains in efficiency, that
outweigh possible adverse effects, such
as undue concentration of resources.
decreased or unfair competition.
coi 0lcts of interests, or unsound
banking practices.” Any request for a
hearing on this question must be
accompanied by a statement of the
reasons a written presentation would
-------
40664 Federal Re leter I Vol. 54. No. 190 / Tuesday. October 3, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
A Notice announcing this delegation will
be published in the Fedeml Register in the
near future The Notice will state, among
other things. that effective immediately, all
reports required pursuant to the above.
enumera ted Federal NSPS and NESHAJ’
reg’.ilatiors by sources locaied in the State of
Delaware should be submitted to the
Delaware Department of Natural Resource,
and Environmental Control. 89 Kings
Highway. Dover Delaware lQtJOl In addition
to EPA ReQlon lii. any original reports which
are received by EPA region Ill will be
promptly transmitted to DNREC.
Since this delegation is effectIve
immediately, there is no requirement that
DNREC notify EPA of its acceptance. Unless
EPA receives from ONREC written notice of
objection, within ten (10) days of receipt of
this letter DNREC will be deemed to have
accepted aU of the terms of the delegation.
Sincerely.
Edwin B Erickson.
Regional .4dm,n,stro top.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this delegation of
authority from the requirements of
section 3 of the Executive Order 12291.
Authority Secs 11(c) and iiZ (dJ. the Clean
Air Act. 42 (1 S C ‘412(di.
Edwin 8. Erickson,
RegianaJAdonrsjs
Title 40. chapter! of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 60—(AMENDEDJ
1. The authority citation for part 60
continues to read as follows:
Authonty 52 U.S C. 7401. 7411. 7414. 7416.
and 7601.
§60.4 (Amendedj
2. Section 60.4(b)(T) is amended by
removing the parenthetical statement
PART 61—(AMENDEDJ
3. The authority citation for part 61
continues to read as follows:
Authonly Secs. 101. 112. 114. 116. and 301
of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 u.s C.
7401. 7412. 7414. 7416. and 7891 ).
081.04 (Amended)
4. Section 81.04(b)(l) Is amended by
removing the parenthetlcaj statement.
(FR Doe. 89-22694 FlIed 1O-Z-89 8:45 amf
-- ssee.eo
40 CFR Parts 123 and 403
(FRL 3652-21
Approval of California’. Revisions to
the State NatIonal Pollution Discharge
Elimination System Program
AOENC’r Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTiOI Notice of approval of the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
Pretreatment Program, approval to issue
NPDES genera) permits and approval of
revisions to the existing NPDES permit
regulations of the State of California.
SUMMARY On September 22. 1989. the
En ironrnental Protection Agency.
Region IX aporoved the State of
California NPDES Pretreatment Program
which authorizes the State of California
to administer the National Pretreatment
Program as it applies to municipalities
and industries within the State. EPA.
Region IX also approved authority of the
State of California to issue N’PDES
general permits and approved revisions
to the State’s existing NPDES permit
regulations.
EFFECTiVE OATE September 22. 1989.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION COWTAC ’ri
William H. Pierce, Chief, Permits
Branch. Water Management Division.
215 Fremont Street. San Francisco. CA
94105 (415—974—8110).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMAT 1OPI Section
402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33
U.S.C. 1251 er seq ) requires EPA to
administer the NPDES permit program
under which the Agency may issue
permits for the discharge of pollutants
into waters of the United States in
accordance with conditions required by
the Act. Section 402(b) of the CWA
provides for States to assume NPDES
permitting responsibilities upon
approval by EPA, States also may
request authority to issue general
permits for similar dischargers with the
same effluent limitations. (See 40 CFR
122.23,) Ia addition, under section 54 of
the 1977 amendments to the CWA.
States requesting NPDES permitting
authonty, as well as States already
approved to administer the NPDES
permit program, must also request
permitting authority over discharger,
from federal facilities located within the
State and authority to administer the
federal pretreatment program governing
the introduction of non-domestic
pollutants into publicly owned treatment
works (POTWsJ. (Cf. CWA section
402(n) 33 U.S.C. 1342(n).) After EPA
approves a State’r request for NPDES
permit and/or pretreatment authority.
the State must thereafter submit any
proposed program revisions to EPA for
reapproval pursuant to 40 CFR 123.82(b).
On May 14. 1973. California became
the first State to be approved by EPA to
administer the NPDES permit program.
On May 5. 1978. it also became the first
State to receive EPA approval to
regulate thschar3es from federal
facilities.
On June 6. 1989, California submitted
an application to EPA for approval of
revisions to its approved NPDES
program in accordance with 40 CFR
123 62 arid 403.10. This application
included a request to add pretreatment
and general permit authority to its
approved program. It also included a
request for EPA approval of revisions to
the State’s existing NPDES permit
regulations. (California does not have.
and has not requested. EPA approval to
administer the NPDES and pretreatment
programs on Indian lands.) Pursuant to
40 CFR 123 62(b) and 403.10(g).
California submitted in support of its
application an Attorney General’s
Statement (including copies of all
applicable State statutes and
regulations) certifying that the State has
adequate authority to administer the
NPDES program being sought. a program
description describing how the State
intends to carry out its responsibilities.
and a proposed EPA/California
Memorandum of Agreement. These
documents were revisions of the original
copies submitted to EPA when
California sought approval of its existing
NPDES permit program.
With respect to California’s request
for approval of revisions to the State’s
existing NPDES permit regulations, EPA
has approved the State’s request to
implement the State permit program
under State law, which, according to the
California Attorney Genera ).
incorporates by reference all existing
and future federal NPDES law and
regulations. Specifically, the Attorney
General has certified that the Porter.
Cologne Water Quality Control Act
(Porter’Cologne Act), which implements
the California NPDES program.
incorporates federal (“fPDES arid
pretreatment law and regulations
prospectively, meaning that future
amendments to federal law and
regulations are automatically
incorporated into State law without the
need for amendment of State statutes
and regulations. (In support of this
authority for prospective incorporation
by reference, the California Attorney
General has cited the Porter .Cologne
Act. Water Code sections 13160. 13170.
13177. 13385. 13388. and 13387.) The
California Attorney General also has
certified that regulations adopted by the
California State Water Resources
Control Board, the Statewide NPDES
permitting agency, prospectively
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 1989 1 Rules and Regulations
685
incorporate EPA regulations applicable
to the processing of NPDES applications
and issuance of NPDES permits. (The
cited State regulations in the Attorney
Generals Statement are 23 Cal. Admin.
Code sections 2235 1(c), 2235 2, and
2235 4) Such prospective incorporation
of federal law and regulations is.
according to the California Attorney
General, authorized under California
law and the States Constitution,
As discussed above. California also
has requested authonty to issue NPDES
general permits and administer the
pretreatment program. With respect to
general permit authority. EPA
regulations at 40 CFR 122.28 provide for
the issuance of general permits to
regulate discharges of waste water
which result from similar operations, are
of the same type of wastes, require the
same effluent limitations, require similar
monitoring, and are more appropriately
controlled under a general permit rather
than by individual permits. EPA is
approving Californias request for
general permit authority. Each general
permit proposed by the State will be
subject to EPA review and approval as
provided by 40 CFR 123 44(a)(2). Public
notice and opportunity to request a
hearing also must be provided for each
general permit.
EPA is also approving California’s
request for pretreatment authority.
California has demonstrated that there
is appropriate legal authority.
procedures, available funding, and
qualified personnel to implement the
program as specified in 40 CFR 403.10.
The State will implement its
pretreatment program under the Porter-
Cologne Act provisions which
prospectively incorporate federal law
and regulations. Under the CWA and
EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 403. the
primary objectives of the pretreatment
program are to: (1) Prevent the
introduction of pollutants into POTWa
which will interfere with plant
operations and/or disposal or use of
municipal sludge: (2) prevent the
introduction of pollutants Into POTWe
which will pass through treatment
works in unacceptable amounts to
receiving waters; and (3) Improve the
feasibility of recycling and reclaiming
municipal and industrial wastewater
and sludge Local pretreatment
programs will be the primary vehicle for
administering, applying, and enforcing
Californias pretreatment requirements.
Currently. 102 such programs have been
approved by EPA. Where local programs
have not yet been required or developed
in California. the State must apply and
enforce the pretreatment requirements
directly against industries that discharge
to POTWa (eg.. 40 CFR 403.1O(fl(2)(i)).’
The Regional Administrator’s decision
to approve Californias proposed
program revisions, including its request
for pretreatment and general permit
authority, is based on a determination
that the program meets the requirements
of the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR
parts 122, 123. 124, and 403. The public
was notified in the uly 20, 1989 Federal
Register (54 FR 30405) of the submittal,
public comment period and opportunity
to request a public hearing, and EPA’s
proposal to approve all requested
program revisions. in addition, notice
was provided in four major newspapers
in the State on fuly 20. 1989 and notice
was provided to all POTWs with
approved pretreatment programs. No
comments were received by EPA during
the public comment period which ended
September 5. 1989.
California’s pretreatment program, as
well as its revised NPDES permit
program, is administered by the
California State Water Resources
Control Board and nine Regional Water
Quality Control Boards.
Review Under Executive Order 12291
and the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Offlceof Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the review
requirements of Executive Order 12291
pursuant to section 8(b) of that Order.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
EPA is required to prepare a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis for all rules which
may have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Approval of California’s NPDES
program revisions, including the
addition of pretreatment and general
permit authority, does not alter the
regulatory control over any municipal or
Industrial category. No new substantive
requirements are established by this
action, Therefore, since this notice does
not have a significant Impact on a
substantial number of small entities, a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not
necessary.
Datedi September 22. 1989.
fobe WI , .,
Acting Reg:ono1Adm:ni :rato,’for Region IX.
(FR D cc. 89-23163 Filed 10-2-ag: 8.45 aml
SiUJNO COOS SisO-iO-
‘According to the C.ilifornia Attorney C.rneroj,
the requirements of hi CWA and implementing
regulations incorporeted by reference by the Porter’
Cologne Act, include but are not limited to the
prelre.Imen, ,tandards and reportin, requirement,
for il. of POTWs (for example 40 CFR 403 5. 403 5
and 403 1 )
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 531
(Docket No. LVM 89-01; NotIce IJ
Passenger Automobile Average Fuel
Economy Standards; Denial of
Petitions for Exemption by Low
Volume Petitioners
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Denial of petitions for
exemption from average fuel economy
standards and for establishment of
alternative standards.
SUMMARY: This consolidated notice
responds to individual petitions filed by
four low volume manufacturers, Bitter.
Ferrari, Lotus, and Maserati. each
requesting exemption from the generally
applicable passenger automobile
average fuel economy standards, ar.d
that lower alternative standards be
established for each model year (MY)
from which they seek exemption. This
notice denies each petition as follows:
Bitter Automobile of Aznenca. Inc.
(Bitter) petitioned to be exempted for
MYs 1983 through 1987. This notice
denies Bitter’s request because the B,tter
petition and its amendment were not
timely filed for those years and good
cause was not shown for the late filing
Ferrari S p.A. (Ferrari) petitioned to be
exempted for MYs 1988 through 1988. A
separate notice published on December
10. 1988 (51 FR 44492) proposed to grant
Ferrari’s petition for MY 1988.
establishing an alternative standurd of
18.0 mile, per gallon (mpg) and for MY
1988. establishing an alternative
standard of 16.6 mpg. For MY 1987, this
notice denies Ferrari’s request because
Ferrari was not eligible for an
exemption as a low volume
manufacturer for that model year.
Lotus Cars Ltd. (Lotus) petitioned to
be exempted for MYs 1983 through 1987.
This notice denies Lotus’ request
because the Lotus petition was not
timely filed for MYs 1983 through 1985
and good cause was not shown for the
late filing. This notice also denies Lotus’
request for MYs 1986 and 1987. The
agency concludes that Lotus was
ineligible in those years for exemption
as a low volume manufacturer.
Officine Alfiert Maserati S.p.A.
(Maserati) petitioned to be exempted for
MYs 1982 through 1985. This notice
denies Maserati’s request for MYs 1982
through 1983 because the Maserati
petition was not timely filed for those
-------
AGENCY: Environmental Protectior ,, -.
A2ency - -
ACflOsc Notice of approval of ‘
Washington’s National Pollut ’ - - -
Discharge Elmimation System G .r.i•vi
Permits Program.
SUMMARY: On September 28. 1989,
Regional Administrator of th.
Environmental Protection ______
Region 10, approved the
Washington a NTDES _____ _____
Program. This action au
issuance of general r —— —.
individual NPDES permit
FOR FURTHER LNFORMAT10ISC
Ms Andi Manzo, Water Permlli Seettna,
up Wa.h1. 9 .n. wu glam desaip non
and up th. S a ‘penence in.
administering an approved NPfl
program. A h co thvied th.
Slate has the necessary re.mar s and
procedures to adnthu tar the general
permits program.
The following ire responses to major
comments.
Response to Comments
the
MOA thil r -bC i*lsfënt with the
SE heimee • tfls A may not
vEr1cWTh MtyA Phge !oftff , MDA
a lr, e. this Auua by stating that “all
spec c state comixütm.en e regarding
the lasaaaca and enforcement of genera)..
— wW d emun.d through the
annual 1O wo pb.njSEA. pruceu.”
2.Comi y.ffevThj M 1.1989,
WAC i7 - 3 lermit fees) wifl be
changed to WAC 1.75-224.
ffespo 1e The reference has been
changed accordingly,
Fd.sI gs 1 l .r . ‘-• OL.Ap OV.J 0 1
Stats NPDE9 e i Moth&stloa .
A Wf twyf E Federal egla*sr
notice of any action by the Agency
appr 4ng or i l lng sate NP!)ES
progrsm 1 e flflüwhsg table jssovide.
the pub fra tjp to.dits1f,t of the
status of N psiiwttfn authorIty
throughout the cu th
eti—JI I _____
‘JaUcnaj Pollutant DlgcU 1 -. - WD-134. E frmmisutjj Pre4ee on’ _____ ____
Elimination System (NPD permit No Agency. t O Sixth Avenue. SeetHe.
KSoosz ’22. Washington 98101.
Persons wishing to re pyof vop vio, EPA ______
EPAs Consohdated Rules. iwiew the regulations al 40 CFR 122.28 provide for
Complaint or other docum filed in the issuance of general permits to
this proceeding comment oa the regulate discharges of wastewater
oroposed pe’ h. 4 r,qm flt or whicn result from substantially similar
otherwise pari: pate in the proceeding operations, are of the same type wastes.
should contact the Regional Hearing require the same effluent lImitations,
clerk identified above require sunder morutoririg, and are more
The administratIve record for the appropriately controlled under a general i. Conwne,,e The Memorendamn of
proceeding is located in the EPA permit rathe, than by itidividnal permits. Agreement (MOA) should clanfy that
Regional Office at the address stated. State authority to Issue general permits any general permuita issued by Ecology
above, and the file wdl be open for will reduce the bac1o ofuniseued in the PegetSoundBagm will comply
public inspection during normal NP!I pernute andreaijou the with feqiareme of the Ieee Puget
business howe. Al] information ailmmist,itjv, hurries and cast of Sound Watej Qaaifly Management Plan
submitted by the City of Topela. Kansas - Iaeanglnatpe r j 1 (PSWQMPJ and the 1989 State/EPA
is available as part of the adznlni.trstjve Ea general tiermft will be subject to Am t (SEA).
record, subject to provisione of law’ - EPA rev ew approval as provided. RssponsurTh MOA isa binding.
restricting public disdosure 01 by 40(71123.44. Puhhc.noUc. lon -temi agreement between EPA
confidential information. La order to. oppostwsity to zequeat-a hearing Is also Wf, io the Waskungtoa
provide opportunity for publl comment - provided for each general P ’ Department of lugy. The MOA is
EPA will issue no final order assessing On November 14, 1973, Washington - tooutijjp breed. long.term
penalty in this proceeding fwAhirty days. reCeived authority to &thsitniat . the cam jl nt, between these two
from the date of this Noflas. - - - - NPOES program under section 402 Of the agejlaes related to Ecology.
FOR FURTHER in osmerios .Iyac1r: - Cleasi Water Act. Thew irograixi,as M pl snta tine of the NPE)FS General
Jean Crank at (913) 238-28Q - previously approved. dl
_____ Permit, Pro um. hi assuming this
Dat&i September 13, — . — 1 oiesmon.u for the l’ -iiiani e orsexni... pregram. Ecology will be required ti
- I - - —— p ita. Th. stats’, final application for a. it •Iain&
Moms Kay. • -—---- eatoovty to Issue general permit, was -
Reg Adnup t, -, ‘ k— rscgwvd’p ovember ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ permits. It to b . . 7 u.IIII the scop. of thI
R Doc. 89-a3iea Ftkd 9- e sa $mt in iJ Included letier from the iIal& est a sp stats
LL Q Ot UIO-4 n.Llng fcx ap ovaJ, a copy of the— .—---________ -
M.e oyandmn of Agreement (M AL % -
[ FRL-3855- I I spLemmntar NPO proerp , -
f do p4 copies ao 1*aIs, ____
Approval of Wa hlngto ’g N8tl nsi ’ statiftte an regulation.. afl unl!taI
Pollutant Discharge EHmfriat e, “ also lndliidècla statement byihe
System (NPDES) G.ne p p,,gw — Attoroep General certifying. witr
Program appmpri , te citations to the statutes and
regulati ns that the state has adequate
to administer the general’
permits program.
A termined that the Statd’i ,,
appliEathni was complete and, as’
nxider 40 CFR 123.02. fasueA..
_________________________________ bile notice of the Stat&s
____ tiionty to Issue general
comment letter, were
M (ved d tig the comment period.
_____ fre expressed support for
___ ___ deI a tine of the General Permits -
____________ Progreor to Washington.
echided. upon review of the
St*Wieppilcatlo and all public
cc 1 nt that the State has legal
anttslrftyte administer the general
permits program. In addition, based
-— •JCI
AIaDam
ArI ,ari a ’
CaIifory a I — — —
Coioiaoo’
1 T;;e.
, E3

F. ’u

plereel-
- - - ,_. . 10/19179
— —— — .J 11/01/56
- 4
ØI0
11/01/55
10/19/70
11i0t,e
09/22/89
-------
‘tn cata Stat. ap(au ed to asue Gsner P mv
09126173
04/01/74
06/28/74
11/28174
10/23177
01/0 1175
08/10/78
06/28/74
09/30/83
09/05/74
10/17/13
06130/74
05/01/74
10/30/74
06/10/74
06/12/74
09/19/75
04/13/82
10128175
10/19/75
06/13/75
03/11/74
09/26/73
06/30/78
09/17/84
06/ 10/75
1.2/28/77
07/07/87
03111/74
06/30/78
03/31/75
11/14/13
05/10/82
02/04/74
01/30/75
01/09/89 06/03/81
12/08/60 Q3 12/81
05/01/79 08 /12/83
09/20/79 1 -
12/09170 t__-_.—— —.
08/10/78 I 0603181
08/28/65
09/30/83 09/30/83
11/10/81 09/30/85
t2/09178 08/07/83
I2/09/78 07/16/79
01/28/83 05/13/82
06/28179 I 05/03/81
08/23/Bt — —
11)02/79 I 09 (07/84
08/31/78
04/13/82 04/13/82
06/13/80 -
09/28/64 06/14/82
01/26/83 07/27/83
03/02/79 03/12/81
06/30/73 - —
09/17(84 09/17184
09/26/80 04 ,09/82
-. ____ __ 33/10/83
07/07/87 I 07107187
—— 03/16/82
02/09/82 04/14189
• — 09/30/88
05/10/82 05/10/62
11/26/79 I2/24r”
05/18/81
Review Under Executive Order 1 91
and the Regulatory Flexibility Ad
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the review
requirements of Executive Order 12291
pursuant to section 8(b) of that Order.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
EPA is required to prepare a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis for all rules which
may have a significant Impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Approval of the Washington State
General Permits Program establishei no
new substantive requirements. nor does
It alter the regulatory control over any
municipal or industrial category.
Program approval merely provides a
simplified administrative process.
Because this notice does not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis is not necessdry,
Dated. September 28. 1989.
Robi. C. RusselL
Re ,onoIAdm,nisUVWr. Regiou l
(FR Doc. 89-23300 Ftied 9..29..89 8.45 am
FEDERAL MARmME COMMISSION
Agreement Filed
The Federal Maritime Commission
hereby gives notice of the filing of the
following agreement pursuant to section
5 of the Shipping Act of 1984.
Interested parties may inspect and
obtain a copy of each agreement at the
Washington. DC Office of the Federal
Maritime Commission. 1100 L Street
NW.. Room 10220. Interested parties
may submit comments on each
agreement to the Secretary. Federal
Maritime Commission. Washington. DC
20573. within 10 days after the date of
the Federal Register in which this notice
appears. The requirements for
comments are found in § 572.803 of title
48 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Interested persona should consult this
section before communicating with the
Commission regarding a pending
agreement.
Agreement Na.: 224-200078-004
T,tIe Maryland Port AdministratIon
Lease Agreement
Parties:
Maryland Port Administration (MPA).
Clark Maryland Terminals. Inc.
(C .
Synopsi& The Agreement modifies
Agreement No. 224—200078 for the use of
portions of the Dundalk Marine
T tzn2ial to reflect the division of the
d rerall leased premises into two
Parcels. A” and 8. Parcel A shall
be used for cargo for all of C 1T1s
customers, except for customers to
which Parcel ‘B shall be specially
dedIcated. Parcel 8’ shall be used
exclusively for cargo of Orient Overseas
Container Line (UK) Ltd. (OOCL UX1
and by Orient Overseas Container Line.
Inc. (“OOCLrJ and any other camers
that are party to any cooperative
working. sailing, or space charter
agreements with OOCL4JK or OOCLI
providing for use of the same terminals
facilities and associated stevedoring
services. The Agreement also replaces
Agreement No. 224—200253 between
MPA and CMTI.
Dy Order of the Federal Martitme
Commission.
Dated. September 27, 1989.
Joseph C. Polking.
Seci’efory.
(FR Doc. 89—23156 FlIed 9-.Z9-89 . 8 15 oml
WIiS coos Si3e.Oi-
405Th
Federal Ra ister I VoL 54. No. 189 I Monday. October 2. 1.989.! Notices
Stats
Ap ,vowed
NPDES
p . efl)
—
Ap oved to
regulate
FeaerW
laukoes
Stale -
oreiret
mern
p am
Conneetcut - . -. ... - - - - - - .. - - —— - - - -
Delewere — .. .- . .. . — - . - . - — — -. - - -—
Geer a.. ------.- ..- - - ..- .--.- -.• -
- — .._ .__ _ _. .__ __ -._. -- . . ..._. . _. -—
lIl ln s’ - - - .-- .. --—- --—.---..-- - -—. —
Indiana —• ——.—.—.————..—.—.—— —
— -.-.--.. - - -_.-. -.
Kansas .... . ... .. _.. . .,..,_. — ...__ _.. ..._.._. - .
Kentucky’ ..——— —
Masyland --_______ .-__-——— —.
Micitigan .......__ . . .— — . -. .... _______________________ . . -
M netotA ’ ... ... .._. - -. —. .._ ..._ —- - . ..... . —
M iss ,sa pI. .. .. ......... . ..... . .._ ._. . . -
Missoul’ . _.. . ______________ - -
Montana’. - .—-.__--
Neøras ka’ . - -..- -__. ... - - - -
Nevada. — — — ...... _.. . .——.— - —— _.. • - _— —. — -
New Jersey’ .... .. ._ - — ......-.. - .... . * . . _._ ...__. - ______ -.
New Yot*_._ — . . ... ._..... - _ - ... — . — —. ..__.—... -
Norel Carohna .. . .__ _ ___ - ._. -- . .. . -. -— _ __-—. —
Nortti Dakota .. - . ._ . .._.—. . .-.—
Ohio. —— -. ...... - . _.
Oregon’. . -, -. .
Pennsylvania .. .. — -
Rhode Island’ —-.. _ -——- — — —.. . — .. — — - ...— — —-
South Caroflna - . . _.. - -.
Tennessee . _—— — - ——— .-
__________ -- . .. . . ._. -
Ve rm ont..___ ..- .. ..- - -.
Wasflmgton’ -
WeerWgala’
-------
40178
FederalRegister/ Vol. 54 No. 188 / Frtday. September 1989 / Notices
purchased from EPA at the close of the
comment period. Copies will be
available for public inspection at the
EPA Region VU! office. 990 18th Street,
Denver. CO. after the dose of the
comment period. The coat of a copy will
correspond directly to the costs of
photocopying the number of pages
endosed within the transcript.
All written comments as well as
Information offered at the hearing will
constitute a part of the hearing file
which will become part of the
administrative record upon which the
Regional Decision Officer’s
determination will be based.
DATES: Written comments should be
submitted to the Hearing Officer at the
time of the hearing, or to the person
listed wider ‘SiDDRESS”, below, no later
than November 17, 1989.
ADDRESS: Comments should be sent to
Mary Alice Reedy, Records Clerk, U.S.
EPA, Region Vi i i, 8WM-SP. 999 18th
Street, Denver. CO. 80202-2405.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Dr. Gene Reetz, EPA. Region VU!, 8WM—
SP. 999 18th Street, Denver, CO. 80202—
2405. (303) 293—1570. If you wish to
receive a copy of the public notice
entitled “Proposed Determination to
Prohibit, Restrict or Deny the
Specification, or the Use for
Specification, of an Area as a Disposal
Site: South Platte River. Jefferson and
Douglas Counties. Colorado” publish on
September 5. 1989. please contact ? (s.
Reedy and a copy will be mailed to you.
$UP UPIENTARy tNPORMA’flO* The
September public notice entitled
“Proposed Determination to Prohibit
Restrict or Deny the Specification, or the
Use for Specification, of an Area as a
Disposal Site: South Platte River,
Jefferson and Douglas Counties,
Colorado” reviewed the 404(c) process,
provided a description of the subject
action, discussed the basis for the
proposed determination and solicited
comments.
During the scheduled heating, EPA
would like to obtain comments on the
Proposed Determination, In particular.
comments on the likely adverse impacts
to fish. wildlife and recreational values
of the rivers, streams, and wetlands In
all areas which would be affected by the
construction and operation of Two
Forks dam and reservoir are requested.
All relevant data, studies, knowledge of
studies, or informal observations are
appropriate. Where comments or
materials have been previously
submitted to EPA, they will be included
in the administrative record, If desired.
participants may reference them by title
and date of submission rather than re-
submitting them.
While the significant loss of aquatic
and recreational values and the
availability of less damaging practicable
alternatives serve as EPA’s main bases
for this proposed 404(c) determination.
EPA Region vm has additional concerns
with the proposed project. including
water quality impacts, threatened and
endangered species, alternatives and
project need. Therefore, EPA also
solicits comments on the following
aspects of the project
(1) The potential for the Two Forks
dam and reservoir project to violate
State water quality standards.
especially as related to potential
channel stability alteralionE
(2) Whether, based on information
collected since preparation of the
biological opinions, the threatened and
endangered species consultation should
be reinitlated for any of the species
potentially affected by the Two Forks
dam and reservoir project.
(3) Information on the wildlife species
which would be affected by changes in
the aquatic ecosystem:
(4) Information on the recreational
uses which would be affected.
(5) Information on the availability of
less environmentally damaging
practicable alternatives to satisfy the
basic project purpose of muwclpal and
Industrial water supply, taking into
account cost. technology, and logistics,
and including other alternatives which
do not require the discharge of dredge
material into the waters of the United
States;
(6) Whether the discharge should be
prohibited forever, allowed as proposed
by the COE, or restricted in time, size or
other mannen and
(7) Information ott recent population
projections by DRCOG. information on
what criteria Denver should utilize to
supply water under its charter
obligation. and the affect of planning
uncertainties on water supply planning.
Dated: September 21. 1989.
La. A. DeHthns , EU,
Regional Decision Officer.
(FR Doc. 89-23007 Filed 9-20-1 19. 1L45 amj
1 cocs sa a u
(FRL-3853-2j
Relssuance of General NPDES Permit
for Seafood Processors In th. Stats of
Alaska
AGENCY: Envrionmerital Protection
Agency.
Acno,c Notice of the reissued general
NPDES permit for Alaskan seafood
processors (No. AX—C—52-0000) .
SUMMARY. The Regional Administrator
of Region 10 is today reissuing the
general National Pollutant Dtschar e
Elimination System (NPDES) permit for
seafood processors in Alaska. The
general permit establishes effluent
limitations, monitoring requirements.
and reporting requirements for -
discharges from Alaskan seafood
processors. This permit will cover
mobile and shore-based seafood
processing facilities in all waters under
U.S. Jurisdiction off the coast of Alaska.
other than those waters listed as
exduded areas.
On May 18, 1989. Region 10 of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published in the FEDERAL REGISTER (54
FR 21470) a notice of the draft general
permit (proposed reissuance) which is
being reissued as a final permit today.
Today’s notice includes a copy of the
final permit and the Agency’s response
to comments.
DATES: The reissued permit is effective
October 30, 1989. In order to be covered
under this reissued permit, facilities
must submit to EPA a “Notice of Intent
to be Covered” no later than 30 dat’s
after today’s reissuance date, unless this
information has aLready been submitted
for the 1989 processIng year. New
facilities are required to submit the
Notice of Intent at least 30 days prior to
commencement of operations. The
required information in the Notice of
Intent is described In part ILC. of the
permit.
ADDRESS: Submittals related to this
permit should be sent to the following
address: Environmental Protection
Agency. Water Permits and Compliance
Ure11 h. WD-434. 1200 Sixth Avenue.
Seattle, Washington 98101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTAC’ri
Ben Cope. Region 10. at the Seattle
address above or by telephone at (ZOO)
442-1442 or FTh 399-1442.
Dated: September 22.1989.
Robest S. Sued,
Acting Re ’jionolAdmin,strator, Region 10
SUP9 .EMENTARY INFORMAT1Q C
A. State Certification and Coastal Zone
Management Act
In accordance with Section 401 of the
CWA. the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (ADEC)
has conditionally certified that this
reissued general permit will comply with
the Alaska Water Quality standards. All
of ADEC’s conditions have been
incorporated into the final permit.
The Alaska Division of Environmental
Coordination has determined that the
general permit is consistent with the
-------
Federal Register I VoL No,1 g / Friday. September 29. 1989 / Notices
40179
Aiaska Coastal Management program
provided that the ADEC conditions are
included In the permit.
B Response to Comments
The public comment period for the
General Permit for Alaskan Seafood
Processors began May 18. 1989, and
expired on June 18, 1989. Comment
letters were received from the following
parties: East Point Seafood Company.
Bering Sea Fishermen’s Association.
Bogle and Gates. Alaska Trollers
Association. State of Alaska,
Department of Environmental
Conservation. Douglas and Janice Lana,
Clark Eaton. Donald E. Power. Walkers
Alaskan Seafood. Stan Wood. Eyak
Packing Company, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Significant comments received during
the public comment period were
reviewed by EPA and considered during
finalization of the general permit As a
result, several changes have been made
to the final permit. The responses to
these comments are as follows:
1. Comment It was requested that the
permit exclude discharges to lakes.
Response: The permit has been
revised in this manner, based on the
extremely poor flushing characteristics
of lakes.
2. Comment’ One commenter
recommended that the terms “vicinity”
and “poor flushing” be defined in the
permit
Response: The term “vicinity” has
been defined as one mile in the permit
“Poor flushingi’ is defined as “lacking
currents, flows, and/or tidal forces to
adequately disperse pollutants.”
3. Comment,,’ It was requested that the
permit language regarding foam be
revised to prohibit the discharge of foam
in accordance with the state water
quality standards.
Response: In accordance with state
standards, foam is now prohibited from
discharge.
4. Comment It was requested that
diva surveys be required for processors
using fine screens, based on past water
quality impacts from screened
discharges,
Response: The state certification
stipulates that dive surveys shall be
required for processors using screens.
The final permit has been changed
accordingly.
5, Comment’ It was recommended that
chlorine samples be obtained during
plant washdown. when chlorine .based
solutions are often used to sanitize
equipment. In addition, it was
recommended that the permit authorize
EPA and ADEC to modify the permit if
chlorine samples indicate violations of
state water quality standards,
Response: EPA agrees with both
comments. Chlorine sampling is now
required during washdown, and a permit
reopener clause for chlorine has been
added to the permit
6. Comment’ It was requested that
water used to transfer seafood to the
facility be routed through the
wastehandling system (i.e,. the outfall)
in enclosed harbors, based on concerns
over foam generation.
Response: The permit already requires
the discharge of fish transfer water
through the wastehandling system if
discharges through separate
conveyances are not in compliance with
state standards.
7. Comment.’ It was recommended that
weekly rather than monthly sampling for
chlorine be required in the permit
Response: Based on the state
certification, weekly sampling (for one
year) is required in the permit
8. Comment,’ One commenter
requested clarification of the sampling
requirements presented in attachment 3.
It was asked whether all freshwater
streams are included under these
scenarios. In addition, the commenter
asked if additional samples would be
required if waste accumulations are
discovered, in order to delineate the
extent of accumulation. Finally, it was
noted that a diagram under part II was
absent Tram the draft permit.
Response: Freshwater dlschargers are
required to conduct bottom sampling,
unless a waiver is obtained based on
site-specific information (most likely
high flow velocities and/or sample
collection problems). The permit has
been revised to require freshwater
facilities to,follow the second sampling
scenario. This will insure that the
discharge point and at least one
downstream location are sampled (the
diagram Th now included). If bottom
samples reveal accumulated seafood
wastes, the permit authorizes EPA and
ADEC to require additional sampling
(part li.R5).
9. Comment.’ It was recommended that
the permit be clarified with regard to the
discharge of graywater. The commenter
noted that the discharge of graywater
&om shore based facilities must receive
the same treatment as sewage.
Response: “Graywater” is defined in
the permit as a wastewater generated on
a vessel, The permit therefore authorizes
the discharge of graywater without
treatment only from a vessel. Similar
wastewaters generated in a shore-based
operation are considered sanitary
wastes and must meet the permit
requirement for those wastes, The
phrase “vessels only” has been added to
the section authorizing the discharge of
graywa er for clarification. In addition, a
definition for “sanitary wastes” has
been added to the permit
10. Comment.’ Several comments were
received which pertain to EPA’s
proposal to extend coverage under this
permit to all processors in Alaska. The
expiring permit excepted from coverage
processors who met the following
criteria:
A. Discharge less than four tons per
day of processing waste;
B. Discharge at least Vs mile off-shore
from the outer coast at a depth of at
least 42 feet
C. DIscharge at least 300 yards away
from any other vessels so as not to
cause a nuisance in generak
D. Do not discharge in bays. harbors,
inlets. ccves. lagoons or other protected
areas a the Alaska coast and
E. D t cause any floating solids,
visible im in other than trace amounts
or oily .. astes which produce a sheen on
the surface of the receiving waters.
Several commenters stated that small
processors will be significantly
impacted by this change to the permit.
They commented that an unreasonable
financial and operational burden is
placed on small processors and catcher.
processor vessels to meet the 0.5 inch
discharge limitation, In particular, it was
noted that trolling vessels may not have
the physical space and generator
capacity needed to operate a grinder.
These vessels are highly mobile and
generate less than 1000 pounds of
seafood waste per day. It was also
noted that the discharge of small
amounts of seafood waste at sea is not
causing environmental degradation.
Response: The expiring general permit
for Alaskan seafood processors
excluded from coverage facilities that
discharged less than four tons per day of
seafood waste at sea. However, the
exclusion of processors from the general
permit did not exempt them from the
requirement to have a NPDES permit or
the requirement to meet a 0.5 Inch
discharge limitation. The Clean Water
Act requires anyone discharging
pollutants to waters of the United States
to obtain an NPDES permit. For remote
Alaskan seafood processors, EPA
regulations have required compliance
with a 0.5 Inch discharge limitation since
their final promulgation in 1975.
EPA and the state of Alaska are
concerned about the large number of
medium to small discharges which have
been leLt largely unregulated in Alaska.
In addition. some environmental groups
are concerned about environmental
problems resulting from unregulated
minor discharges. Rather than requiring
Individual permits for small seafood
processors, EPA proposed to cover all
-------
40180
Federal Regjstar I VoL 54 , No. 188 / Friday, September 1989 I Notices
processors under the reissued general
permit. This change would enable small
processors to obtain NPD permits
without submitting lengthy application
materials and completing the
adnumatrative process for reissuance of
individual permits. Currently, the state
uniform application for seafood
processing is accepted as the “Notice of
Intent to be Covered” under the general
NPDF permit, and no other aubmittals
are needed to obtain coverage. This
greatly reduces the paperwork burden
and time requirements for the perinittee.
After reviewing the comments
described above, we are now proposing
changes to the permit with regard to
coverage of small processors at sea.
These sources are not expected to cause
environmental problems La addition.
EPA acknowledges that trolling vesseLs
may face unique problems complying
with the general permit. Therefore.
based an these comments, the proposed
permit now excludes from coverage
vessels discharging less than 1000
pounds of seafood waste per day at sea.
ii. Comme.nü On commenter noted
that the expiring permit contained a
clause prohibiting the discharge of
floating solids “in other than trace
amounts.” The proposed permit
prohibits any discharge of floating
solids. The comr! enter requested that
the phrase “in other than trace
amounts” be restored In the permit.
Respozise. The Alaska state standards
prohibit the discharge of floating solids.
There is no reference to “trace amounts”
in the standard. Therefore, the permit
remains unchanged.
12. CornmeaL’ One camnienter stated
that the requirement for additional
bottom sampling in the Kenal River,
Kasdof River and all freshwaters was
not supported in the fact sheet In
addition. it was suggested that the
language under this part be clarified to
read “and all freshwater, not tidally
Influenced.”
Response: The Kensi and Kasilof
RIvers are now excluded front coverage,
based on the state certification (see
comment w17). With regard to
clarification of the definition of
“freshwater.” the term is already
defined In the permit as “weter not
subject to tidal influences” (part US).
13. Comment Two commenters
objected to the provision prohibiting
discharges from vessels docked at or
otherwise tied up to the perinittee’s
facility. It was stated that perinittees do
not have control over the activities of
vessels docked at a facility, since the
vessels are not usually owned by the
permittee. The coinmenters stated that
EPA must regulate vessels docked at
processing facilitIes under a sepeate
permit or action. They recommend that
this provision be deleted from this
permit
Response.’ EPA acknowledges that
discharges from vessels may be more
appropnately controlled by direct
regulations of the vessels rather than
stipulations in the processing facility’s
permit. Therefore, this condition has
been deleted from the permit However.
it is important to note that untreated
seafood accumulations near a seafood
processing facility constitute a violation
of the Clean Water Act, and their
proximity to the processor lands strong
weight to the culpability of the
processor. In addition, any vessel
discharging seafood water without a
permit (such as dumping of “dead loss”
near a processor) is subiect to an
enforcement action. Processors should
monitor the actions of vessels docked at
seafood processing facilitIes to insure
that unlawful discharges do not occur
(and are reported if they do occur).
14. Comment It was stated that trade
secrets will be revealed if permittees are
required to submit information on
processing locations and raw production
of seafood. It was also commented that
this information is not necessary and
that daily records are not required under
individual permits.
Response: In accordance with 40 CFR
Part 2 (Public Information), any
monitoring information submitted to
EPA may be daimed as confidential by
the perruittee. The claim must be made
at the time of submission. U a third party
requests this information. EPA will
require the permittee to submit an
explanation of the casual relationship
between disclosure of the information
and any resulting harmful effect on the
business competitive position. EPA will
then make a determination as to
whether the business information is
entitled to confidentiality treatment
Regarding the necessity of these
subauttals, permittees are required
under the NPDES program to submit to
EPA the location of each outfall (40 CFR
122.21), SInce mobile facilities are
covered by the permit. each discharge
location must be reported. This
Information Is also needed to determIne
compliance with excluded areas in the
permit. Momtormg of raw product
processed is necessary to determine
compliance with the lImitation on
quality of waste discharged. Finally.
individual permits do require submittal
of daily production data in most cases.
15. Comment One commenter stated
that submittal of daily processing
records will create a paperwork burden
on the processor.
Response. Processing records can be
summarized into a concise format that
will not create an undo burden.
16. Comment It was conunented that
the daily maximum limit on the amount
of waste discharged is a limit on the
production potential of a facility.
Response. The maximum production
capacity of the facility is not limited to a
fix level by the pernut. The permit does,
however, require the applicant to
discharge in accordance with the
application (Notice of Intent to be
Covered). Any increase in production
capacity anticipated by the permittee is
automatically authorized, if the
permittee updates the Notice of Intent
with the new production information
and EPA determines that the increase
will not necessitate issuance of an
individual permit.
17. Comment The state of Alaska
requested that the Kenai River. Kasilof
River and Alsek River be excluded from
coverage under the general permit. Bath
the Kenai and Kaailo( Rivers are
considered priority streams based on
their multiple uses. including sport and
subsistence fishing. The state
commented that it needs to select
discharge and monitoring conditions on
a site.speciflc basis. On the Alsek River,
the state has required a processor to
landfill seafood wastes in order to
protect a set net fishery downstream of
the processor. SInce grinding of seafood
wastes is unacceptable in this area, the
state requests that this river be excluded
from coverage.
Response: Based on the state
certification. the final permit excludes
these rivers from coverage. Individual
will be required for these
receiving waters,
16. Comment It was comm uted that
separate general permits should be
issued for shore-based and mobile
processors, based on the differences in
the nature of the operations and the
discharge locations.
Responser EPA has determined that
above mobile and shore-based facilities
can be adequately covered under a
single general permit The permit
conditions are designed to account for
different processing scenarios, and these
conditions would not change if the
permit was to be divided In the manner
discussed. For simplicity, both are
covered in the final permit.
19. CornmeaL’ It was requested that
the minimum depth for discharges in
areas with poor flushing be iiicreascd
from 42 feet to 60 feet to protect bottom-
dwelling marine resources. It was also
recommended that discharges be
located a minimum distance of one-haLt
mile from special concern areas.
-------
Feder 1 Resister I VoL 54, No. 188 I Friday. September 29, 1989 I Notices
40181
Response: No evidence has been
supplied to EPA Indicating that an
additional 18 feet of depth at the
discharge point will measurably reduce
the impacts of seafood waste
discharges. Therefore, this condition
remains unchanged. With regard to
discharge in the vicinity of special
concern areas. EPA agrees to exclude
discharges within one-half mile from
special concern areas. The permit has
been changed accordingly.
20. CommenL One commeater stated
that wastes from herring roe stripping
operations should not be authorized for
discharge: instead. EPA should require
reduction of the waste to produce fish
meal. Discharging of the fish carcasses
was stated to be a waste of the resource.
Response: EPA cannot require any
limitation more stringent than the
guideline limitation (0.5 inch size
limitation), unless discharges are
causing a violation of state water
quality standards. EPA has no authority
to control the use of fishery resources.
By-product recovery can only be
required if reductions in the amount of
waste discharged are necessary to meet
state water quality standards.
21. Comment One commenter
suggested that suruni processors be
required to obtain individual permits
until adequate information regarding the
characteristics of surlmi wastewaters is
acquired.
Response: Although detailed
information on the characteristics of
surimi wastewater Is not available, It Is
expected cliatihe contribution of
nutrients from these operations is not a
major component of the discharge in
comparison to the ground (In most
cases) seafood wastes from the filleting
process. Therefore. EPA has determined
that surimi operations will be covered
under the general permit. It Is important
to note that EPA can require an
individual permit for sunm.I plants if
these discharges are causing an adverse
environmental Impact.
22. Comment It was recommended
that periodic inspection of outfalls be
conducted during dive surveys to insure
that breakage points are repaired.
Response: The permit already requires
that the dive survey report submitted to
EPA include a description of the outfall
condition. Since most permittees will
only perform one dive survey over the
five-year term of the permit, an annual
dye test of the outfall is required in
order to determine if there are any
breaks in the outfall in the four
remaining years of the permit.
23. Comment. One commenter stated
that violations of permit conditions have
been documented by dive surveys, In
which large accumulations of seafood
waste in excess of 0.5 Inch in size were
observed. It was stated that these -.
violations have not resulted In penalties
to the responsible parties. It was
recommended that these parties be fined
for violations.
Response: In the past two years. EPA
has fined 13 companies for violations of
seafood processing permits. Most of
these penalties were levied as a result of
Information collected during dive
surveys at the facilities by EPA
personnel. EPA will continue to Levy
administrative penalties on facilities
that violate permit conditions. and the
Agency encourages outside parties with
documented evidence of violations to
submit that information to EPA.
C. Final Permit
Cenerel Permit No.. AI(-C—52-0000. Uruted
States Environmental Protection Agency.
Region 10. 1200 Sixth Avenue. Seattle.
Washington 98101.
Authorization To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System for Alaskan
Seafood Processors
In coppliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq., as amended by the Water Quality
Act of 1987. PublIc Law 100-4, the “Act’.
Owners and operators of facilities
engaged in the processing of seafood.
both mobile vessels and shore-based
facilities, except facilities identified In
part I hereof, are authorized to discharge
to waters of the State of Alaska and
waters of the United States adjacent to
State waters. In accordance with
effluent’flmitations. monitoring
requirements. and other conditions set
forth herein.
The existing (or continued under the
Administrative Procedures Act) general
permit is invalid as of the effective date
of this reissued general permit.
A copy of this general permit must be
kept at the plant or vessel where the
discharges occur.
This permit shall become effective
October 30. 1989.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight. on
October 31. 1994.
Signed this 28th day of September 1989.
Robert S. 8usd.
Director. Water Omsion. Region 10 U S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Table of Content,
Cover Sheet—lasuance and Expiration
Dates
L Exclusions from this Ceneral Permit
A. Excluded Areas.
B. Discharges in Areas of Concern.
C. Discharges to Fresh Water in the Vicini-
ty of Drinking Water Sources.
0. Discharges to Lakes.
E. Minor Discharges at Sea.
F Waivers.
IL Effluent Limitations. Monitoring and Re-
porting Requirements, and General Permit
Conditions
A. Effluent Limits.
8. Monitonng Requirements.
C. Reporting Requirements.
0. General Permit Conditions.
B. Reopener Clause.
F. Definitions.
IlL Standard Monitoring and Reporting Re-
quirements
A. Representative Sampling.
B. Morutoring Procedures.
C. Reporting of Monitoring Results.
0. Additional Morutonng by the Perrnittee.
E, Records Contents.
F. Retention of Re ods.
G Notice of Noncompliance Reporting.
H. Other Noncompliance Reporting.
I. Inspection and Entry.
IV. Compliance Responsibilities
A. Duty to Comply.
B. Penalties for Violations of Permit Condi-
tions.
C Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a
Defense.
D. Duty to Mitigate.
B. Proper Operation and Maintenance.
F. Removed Substances.
C. Bypass of Treatment Facilities.
H. Upset Conditions.
L Toxic Pollutants.
V. General Requirements.
A. Changes in Discharge of Toxic Sub.
stances.
B. Planned Changes.
C Anticipated Noncompliance.
D. Permit Actions.
B. Duty to Provide information.
F. Other Information.
C. Signatory Requirements.
H. Availability of Reports.
L Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability.
1. Property Rights.
K. Severability.
I. Transfers.
M. State Laws.
Attachment 1
Attachment Z
Attachment 3
I. Exclusions From This General Permit
A. E . cluded Areas.
This permit does not authorize
dlscha ges in the following areas:
Akutan: Akutan Harbor. if the amount of
waste exceeds 310.000 pounds per
month
-------
Federal Re ia*er/ VoL 54. No. 188 I FrIday, September 29. 1989 I Notices
Kodiak: Gibson Cove, Near Island
Channel. St. Paul Harbor. and
Women’s Bay
Unalaska/Dutci, Harbon Iliuliuk Bay.
Ill ulluk Harbor, Dutch Harbor. and
Captain’s Bay: Unalaska Bay, south of
the northermoat point of I-log Island
)Cenai Peninsula Kenal River and
Kasilof River
Yakutat: Alsek River
B. Discharges in Areas of Concern.
This permit does not authorize
discharges in the following aieaa
1. Areas with water depth less than 42
feet that are likely to have poor flushing
(Including, but not limited to protected
areas such as bays, harbors, inlets,
coves, and lagoons). EPA and the
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC) shall determine
the adequacy of flushing on a case-by-
case basis. or
2. Within one-ha/f mile of areas of
special concern (i.e.. spawning areas.
State Critical Habitat Areas and Game
Refuges. National Wildlife Refuges, and
the seaward boundaries of Wilderness
Refuges. National Parks and
Monuments, and wilderness classified
lands).
C. Discharges to Fresh Water in the
Vicinity of Drinking Water Sources.
This permit does not authorize
discharges to fresh waters within one
mile (upstream) of drinking water
sources.
D. Discharges to Lakes. This permit
does not authorize discharge, to lakes.
E. Minor Discharges at Sea. Vessels
discharging less than 1000 pounds of
seafood waste per day at sea are
excluded from coverage under this
general permit.
F. Waivers. A facility may request a
waiver to be covered under the general
permit in Urialaska Bay or Akutan
Harbor. Before ouch a request can be
considered, the permittee must, at a
minimum, submit the following
Information to EPA and ADEC
1. A Notice of Intent to be Covered
2. A detailed bathymetric map
showing the facility location, outfall
location, receiving water, and
surrounding topography.
3. A detailed description of the
circumstances requiring discharges to
the excluded area (e g.. short.term
processing) and the dates when the
facility will operate in this area.
4. A demonstration that the discharges
will not cause water quality
degradation, including but not limited to
waste pile accumulations, aesthetic
impact s. and shoreline impacts. Site-
specific water quality studies may be
required to make this demonstration.
A waiver cannot be granted unt:l after
consultation betwean EPA and ADEC to
determine that the discharge will meet
state water quality standards,
IL Effluent Limitations, Monitoring and
Reporting Requirement,, and General
Permit Conditions
A. Effluent LimjLq.
1. Amount of Waste Dzschargeth The
amount of waste discharged per day
shail not exceed that which results from
processing the maximum quantity of
product reported in the Notice of Intent
to be Covered.
2. Treatment of Wastes.
a. Process Wastes: All process wastes
(as defined In 112) except as provided
for in e. below must be routed through
the was tehandling system.
b. Sanitary Wastes: All sanitary
wastes must be routed into the sanitary
waste treatment system, Nonfunctioning
and undersized systems are prohibited.
Sanitary wastes must be:
I. Discharged to a shore-based septic
system or a municipal treatment works.
or
ii. Treated prior to discharge by an
approved marine sanitation device that
complies with pollution control
standards and regulations under section
312 of the Act, or
in. Treated to meet the secondary
treatment effluent limitations below:
Wes
MoniNy
Osply
8Ioct lefT .
caJ
Demaed
(BOO,).
To j
Su
pended
ScUds
(TSS)
4SnlgIl..... iQmg/t...... 60mg/I
C. Other Wastewaterm The following
wastewaters need not be discharged
through the wastehandling system
provided these discharges have had no
contact with the process wastes, do not
contain pollutants in excess of 0.5 inch
in any dimension, and comply with part
ILA.4. of this permit: Cooling water,
boiler water, gray water (vessels only),
freshwater pressure relief water.
refrigeration condensate, water used to
transfer seafood to the facility, and live
tank water.
d. Garbage: Discharge of garbage.
especially plastics, is prohibited.
e. Scuppers and Floor Drains:
Incidental discharges from scuppers or
floor drains must be routed to the
wastehandling system or screened to 0.5
inch.
3. Effluent Limitation: Process
Was:os.
Process wastes may be discharged
only if they do not exceed 1.27 Cm (0.5
Inch) In any dimension.
4. Limitations on all Wastewater
Discharges: All wastewater discharges
shall meet the following llmitatlons
a. Environmental Effects:
i. There shall be no discharge of: (a)
Oily water or oily wastes that produce a
sheen on the water surface, (b) grease,
(c) foam or Cd) floating solids.
ii. No wastes shall accumulate on the
shoreline nor float on the receiving
water surface.
b. Alaska State Water Quality
Standards: Discharges must not violate
any Alaska State Water Quality
Standards (18 AAC 70).
5. Discharge Location,
a. Process wastes must be discharged
into a receiving water with a m .inimu,-n
depth of 20 feet at Mean Lower Low
Water (MLLW]. Within this total water
depth, the point of discharge must be
located as specified below:
I. For facilities at sea, process wastes
must be discharged below the water
surface.
ii. For facilities near shore, process
wastes must be discharged at least 10
feet below the water surface at MLLW.
b. A facility may request a waiver to
discharge at shallower depths than
specified in (a) above. The waiver
request must be submitted, with
adequate justification, with the Notice of
Intent to be Covered (part ILC,1.).
Waivers and waiver requests shall be
kept onsite and be available to
inspectors.
Adequate justification must include:
(I) i\ demonstration of the need to
,ds iarge at a shallower depth (such as
physical constraints at the discharge
location), (ii) bathymetric map showing
the discharge location, (ill) any history
of impacts from seafood wastes, (iv)
maximum and average current strength
(if no measurements have been made.
estimates may be used) in the vicinity of
the discharge, and (v) a proposed
alternate discharge location to be used if
the existing location results in any
documented environmental effects.
c. Case-by-case adjustments of the
discharge location may be required by
the Director, following consultation with
ADEC, to prevent benthic and shoreline
accumulation of pollutants and to
promote their dilution and dispersion.
d. There shall be no discharge if the
outfall line is severed or fails.
B. Monitoring Requirements.
1. Doily Records. The following shall
be mom bred and recorded DAILY for
each process waste discharge locat on.
These records form the basis for the
Annual Report. They shall be kept at the
-------
Federal Regletes’ / VoL 54 No. 188 I Fñday. September 29. 1969 I Notices
facility and be made available to any
authorized inspector
a. For each finished producti
I. Type of product (e.g.. canned
salmon. Opillo crab sections, gurfnsi. cod
fillets. fish meal, oil. etc.)
ii. Pounds of raw prcduct I inc!ndthq
any spoiled product subsequently
discharged)
iii. Pounds of finished product
b. Visual inspection of the water
surface and shoreline for the presence or
absence of floating solids. garbage.
grease. foam, or oily wastes that
produce a sheen on the water surface.
c. None of the receiving waters and
specific location of the discharge on the
r t day at each new location.
2. Dive Surveys: The objective of the
dive surveys is to document the extent
of any seafood waste accumulation, the
dispersion of the waste, and any
impacts on the benthic commwuty and
water column.
a. Two dive surveys are required
during the term of this permit to assess
the environmental effects of any wastes
and their persistence between
successive processing seasons.
The first dive must be conducted at
each discharge location in the first year
the facility operates under this permit.
within is days after the end of
processing at each L ocation, but no later
than December 30 of that first year.
ii. The second dive must be conducted
prior to processing in the second year
the facility operates under this permit.
iii. For facilities that operate
contlnuou.iIVlless than a two month
break in processing), the second dive
must be conducted in the mouth of
December in the second year the facility
operates under this permit.
b. Two dives per year are required in
the following areas (on the dates
prescribed in a. above ‘): Unalaska Bay.
Akutan Harbor. Wrangell Narrows, and
Orca Inlet
c. Dive Survey Reports. Each survey
shall result in a report to EPA and
ADEC which Includes, at a min mU ,
the information in attachment 1.
d. Dive surveys are NOT required for
any of the following:
L Low volume discharges (less than
0O pounds per day of seafood waste).
Ii. Deep discharges (depths greater
than 90 feet).
iii. Hazardous diving conditions (low
visibility, treacherous currents. or other
conditions that unduly compromise
diver safety). A detailed explanation of
local conditions must be provided with
the Notice of Intent to be Covered (part
ll.C.1.).
‘Fecildie. that operele contlnuou.ly in the..
ales, itiaff mndact dive, in October and Apill
v. Low frequency discharges (less
than 30 days cumulative per location per
year). unless the facility operates under
a waiver In an excluded area (part LA.).
Nots Wheti dive surveys are waived under
(.11 or tiL above, bottom sampLing is required
(part 118.3
3. Bottom Saznplin ’ When dive
surveys are waived under parts [ LB.2.d.
(i), (ii) or{ui) above, bottom samples
shall be obtained and a report submitted
to EPA and ADEC.
a. Two bottom samples are required
during the term of this permit to assess
the environmental effects of any wastes
and their persistence between
successive processing seasons.
i. The fIrst sample niust be collected at
each discharge location in the first year
the faciLity operates under this permit.
within 15 days after the end of
processing at each location, but no later
than December 30 of that first year.
iL The second sample must be
collected prior to processing in the
second year the facility operates under
this permit
iii. For facilities that operate
continuously (less than a two month
break in processing), the second sample
must be collected in the month of
December in the second year the facility
operates under this permit.
b. TWo bottom samples per year are
required for all facilities discharging to
fresh waters (on the dates prescribed in
a. above).
c. Samples shall be collected from the
bottom of the receiving water at the
locations shown in attachment 3.
d. A grab sampler (dredge). core
sampler. ap underwater device that
takes video or still photographs. or any
similar device (provided it can meet the
aamphn objective and is approved by
the Director) may be used.
e. A report shall be submitted to EPA
and ADEC that includes the information
In attachment 2.
f. A facility may request a waiver of
the bottom sampling requirement. The
waiver request must be submitted, with
adequate jutificatlon. with the Notice of
Intent to be Covered (part 11.C.1.).
Waivers and waiver requests shall be
kept onsite and be available to
inspectors.
4. Waste Pile Accwnulations.? If dive
surveys or bottom samples Indicate the
presence of a persistent (year-round)
waste pile ott the bottom of the receiving
water, the facility shall submit a written
request for a state.designated zone of
deposit to EPA and Alaska Department
of Environmental Conservation (ADEC).
The request shall iclude the dive survey
or bottom sampling report. A detailed
rationale shall support the request.
including a discussion of alternative
disposal and treatment options along
with associated coat and operational
considerations. Requests shall be
submitted wIthin 30 days of the second
dive survey or bottom sample.
Within six months of any ADEC
decision on the above request. the
facility shall be in compliance with the
stipulations of that decision.
5. Additionai Dives and Bottom
Samples: Additional dives or bottom
sampling may be required when any of
the following occur
a. Wastes on the bottom appear to be
accumulating.
b. The facility Increases the amount of
waste discharged beyond the amoi.int
estimated from the information in the
Notice of Intent to be Covered.
c. The facility moves to a new
location.
& Tote.! Residuoi Chlorine Monitoring
(shore-based and near-shore facilities
only) Effluent samples shall be
collected and analyzed for total residual
chlorine once per week for one year.
Samples shall be taken during
washdown. This requirement may be
waived if process water is not
chlorinated and disinfection solutions
used during washdown do not contain
chlorine. Adequate justafiction for a
waiver shall be submitted with the
Notice of Intent to be Covered.
11 discharges of chlorine from facilities
covered by this permit exceed Alaska
water quality standards, this permit may
be reopened to Include chlorine
limitations. dechlorination, use of
alternative sanitation chenucals.
additonal monitoring and/or a mixing
zone.
7. Dye ThsL A dye test of the
wastehandling system shall be conductd
once per yean Test results shall be
rcorded and retained on site.
If the dye test reveals leaks or
bypasses In the wastehandling system.
EPA and ADEC shall be notifled In
accordance with part 11W. of the permit.
Repairs of the system shall be
completed within 30 days of the test. A
second test shall be conducted after
repairs are completed to confirm that
the system operates properly.
Facilities conducting annual dive
surveys are exempted from this
requirement.
8. Sqn:tary Waste water Facilities
subject to secondary treatment
limitations for sanitary wastes (part
II.A .lb.ili.) shall collect and analyze
grab samples for SOD and TSS once per
month to determine compliance with
limitations.
-------
40184
Federal Register I VoL 54 , No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 1989 I Notices
C. Reporting Requirements.
Permittees shall submit the following
reports to EPA and ADEC
1. Notice of Intent to be Covered.
a. For existing diachargere, the Notice
of Intent must be submitted no later
than 30 days after the effective date of
this general permit. For new diachargers.
the Notice of Intent must be submitted
30 days prior to commencement of
operations.
b. The following information must be
Indudeth
(1) NPDES permit number previously
assigned (if any) State seafood
processing permit number
(2) Owner: name, address, phone
number
(3) Operator name, address, phone
number
(4) Facility: name, address, location.
vessel registration number, previous
facility and/or vessel name date of
purchaseltransfer, number of employees
(5) Treatment Methoth method of
treating seafood and salutary wastes,
method of garbage/plastics disposal.
depth of discharge below the water
surface, total water column depth at the
discharge location. water use diagram
(estimates of flows used in seafood.
processing, sanitary system. freezing.
etc.)
(6) ReceIving Water(S): name of
receiving water(s), bathymetric map of
receiving water showing the, outfall
location (near-shore facilities only), the
velocity, depth and width of the
receiving water at the outfall Icoatfon of
the nearest spawning areas, and the
distance of those areas from the outfall
location (freshwater facilities only).
(7) Production Data: (for each type of
raw product processed), name of raw
product, type of finished product.
maximum quntity processed per day,
projected dates of each operating
season, and projected number of
processing days per season
c. Submittal (to EPA) of the State of
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation Annual Uniform Permit
Application for Seafood Processors, if It
Includes all of the Information In b.,
above, will also satisfy this requirement
d. Requests for waivers of
requirements for outfall depth, dive
surveys, bottom sampling, and/or
residual chlorine monitoring must be
submitted with the Notice of Intent,
Justification for these waivers Must
accompany the request.
NotE The permitee may discharge to the
requested depth 60 day. alter eubmittsl of
their request, unless EPA or ADEC
disapproves this request.
2. Annual Report. An Annual Report
shall be submitted by the end of the
processing season or by January 31 of
each year, whichever is sooner, and
shall include the followingi
a. Dive or Bottom Sampling Reports.
The ADEC Dive Survey Report Form
may be submitted if It Includes all of the
information required in attachment ‘I.
b. Monitoring Results required under
part ILB.6. and U.B.8.
C, Dye Test Results required under
part ILB.7.
d. Production Data for the previous
year (a copy of the daily records will
suffice) Including, for EACH location:
Dates of operations at each location,
production data (raw and finished
product for each type of product), and a
map showing the bathymetry at each
location (when locations are within Vs
mile of shore or in less than 90 feet of
total water depth).
e. Summary of Periods of
Noncompliance. A summary of periods
of noncompliance during the year (e g.,
bypasses or breakdowns of grinders).
1. Updated Notice of Intent to be
Covered. A statement of any changes to
the information in the Notice of Intent to
by Covered (part ll.C.1.b.) for the
facility.
Please note signatory requirements
under part V.G. of this permit
3. Special Reporting Reqwrernents in
Areas of Concern. Facilities discharging
to Unalaska Bay, Akutan Harbor.
Wrangell Narrows, and Orca Inlet shall
submit monthly Discharge Monitoring
Reports (DMRsJ that include the
information in 2(b) and (d) above. The
remainder of the information above (a.
C, and e) may be submitted in an Annual
Report.
D. General Permit Conditions.
1, The Director may require any
permittee discharging under the
authority of this permit to apply for and
obtain an individual NPDES permit
when:
a. The discharge Is a significant
contributor of pollution:
b. The permittee Is not In compliance
with the conditions of this permit
c. A change has occurred In the
availability of the demonstrated
technology or practices for the control or
abatement of pollutants applicable to
the point source:
d. New effluent limitation guidelines
are promulgated for point source
covered by this periniti
e. A Water Quality Management Plan
containing reqwrements applicable to a
such point sources is approved or
f. An Individual Control Strategy (ICS)
is required under section 304(L) of the
Clean Water Act or
g, The point source(s) covered by this
permit no longer
(1) Involve the same or substantially
similar types of operations;
(2) DIscharge the same type of wastes:
(3) Require the same effluent
limitations or operating conditions;
(4) Require the same or similar
morutorlng and
(5) In the opinion of the Director, are
more appropriately controlled under a
general permit than under individual
NPDES permits. -
2. The Director may require any
permittee authorized by this permit to
apply for an individual NPDES permit
by notifying the permittee in writing that
a permit application is required. After
review of a Notice of Intent, ADEC may
request that an individual permit be
processed for that facility.
3. Any perinittee covered by this
permit may request to be excluded from
the coverage of this general permit by
applying for an individual permit. The
owner or operator shall submit an
application together with the reasons
supporting the request to the Director rc
later than 90 days alter the effective
date of the reissued permit
4. When an individual NPDES permit
Is issued to a perinittee otherwise
subject to this general permit, the
applicability of this permit to that owne
or operator is automatically terminated
on the effective date of the individual
permit
5, A source excluded from a general
permit solely because it aleady has an
individual permit may request that the
individual permit be revoked. and that i
be covered by the general permit. Upon
revocation of the individual permit, the
g era1 permit shall apply to the source
‘ E. Reopener Clause.
Upon promulgation of effluent
limitation guidelines applicable to the
facilities covered by this permit, the
permit shall be modified, if the
guidelines contain limits different from
those contained in the permit
P. Definitions.
1, “ .4 ccumulation”ref era to the
presence of any measurable amount of
seafood waste present on the bottom
substrate. For purposes of this permit,
measureable is defined as a thickness oi
one centimeter or more.
2. “Atsea”meana outside of protectec
areas such as bays, harbor,, Inlets,
coves, and lagoons, and Vs mile or more
from shore anywhere in the contiguous
zone, territorial seas, or open ocean out
to the 200 mile limit
3. “Bypass” means the intentional
diversion of waste streams from any
portion of a treatment facility.
4. “Contiguous zone” means the entire
zone established or to be established by
the United States under article 24 of the
-------
Federal Register I VoL 54. No. 188 I Fri day. September’ , 1989 / NotIces
4 85
Convention of the Territorial Sea and
the Contiguous Zone.
5. “Da ily Maximum” means the
maximum value recorded during a
calendar month.
8. “Fresh Water” means water that Is
not subject to tidal influences.
7. “Gray Water” means wastewater
generated from such sources as
showers, sinks, laundry areas, and food
preparation areas on a vesseL
& “MonthlyAvernge” [ a the
arithmetic mean of samples collected
during a calendar month.
9. “Near shore” means at the
shoreline, less than 4 male from shore.
or inside protected areas such as bays.
harbors, inlets, coves, and lagoons.
16. “Ocean” means any portion of the
high seas beyond the contiguous zone.
11. ‘Outfall site” refers to the location
of the discharge into a particular bay.
habor. embayment or other defined area
which is considered the receiving water.
12. “Poor flushing” means lacking
currents, flows and/or tidal forces to
adequately disperse pollutants.
13. “Process wastes” refers to wastes
end waters resulting from processing
seafood Including, but not limited to.
cleaning cutting, chopping, heading,
sliming, evisceration, mincing, transfer
within the facility. etc.
14. ‘Relocation” means moving the
vessel or mooring or iindmruig at least
five (5) males from the previous
discharg
15. anitaiy wastes”meana
wastewaters and human body wastes
generated from such sources as toilets.
showers, sinks and food preparation
areas.
16. “Shore-based’ means the facility
does not move up and down with the
tide.
17. ‘Temtonoi seca” means the belt
of the seas measured from the line of
ordinary low water along that portion of
the coast which Is in direct contact with
the open sea and the line inarkizig the
seaward limit of Inland waters and
extending seaward a distance of three
miles.
18. “Wastehandling system” refers to
that system used to collect, transfer,
treat (e.g.. grind, chop, remove via
screens. etc.). and dispose of process
wastes, This includes, but is not limited
to. flumes, pipes, screens, grinders.
evaporators, centrifuges. outfalls. etc.
19. “Waters of the Slate of Alaska”
means the inland waters and the
territorial seas.
Z0. ‘Weekly Averege” means the
arithmetic means of samples collected
during a calendar week.
II I. Standard Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
A. Representative Sampling. Samples
taken in compliance with the monitoring
requirements established under part U
shall be collected from the effluent
stream prior to discharge into the
receiving waters. Samples and
measurements shall be representative of
the volume and nature of the monitored
discharge.
B. Monitoring Procedures. Monitoring
must be conducted according to test
procedures approved under 40 CFR part
136. unless other test procedures have
been specified in this permit
C. Reporting of Monitoring Results.
Monitoring results shall be summariied
in the Annual Certification of
Compliance. Legible copies of these, and
all other reports. shall be signed and
cerh’led in accordance with the
reqwrements of part V.G., Signator,’
Requirements. and submitted to the
Director, Water Division and the State
agency at the following addresses:
original to; United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Region 10,-
1200 Sixth Avenue. WD—135, Seattle,
Washington 981111.
If you process in Southcentral Alaska
(west of Icy Bay), send copy to: Alaska
Depanment of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC). Southcentral
Regional Office (SCROJ. 3601 “C” Street.
Suite 1334. Anchorage. Alaska 99503.
If you process in Southnani PJ ,gk
(east of Icy Bay). send copy to: Alaska
Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC). Southeastern
Regional ,Qfflce (S O). P.O. Box 32420.
Juneau. Alaska 09803.
If you process in Northern Alaska
(north of a line drawn between Cantweil
and K411lk), send copy to: Alaska
Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC). Northern
Regional Office. 1001 Noble Street. Swte
350. Fairbanks, Alaska 99701.
a Additional Monitoring by the
Permittee. If the permlttee monitors any
pollutant more frequently than required
by this permit. using test procedures
approved under 40 CFR part 138 or as
specified in this permit. the results of
this monitoring shall be included In the
calculation and reporting of the data
submitted in the DMR. Such increased
frequency shall also be indicated.
E. Records Contents. Record of
monitoring information shall lncludm
1. The date, exact place. and tIme of
sampling or measurements:
2. The Individual(s) who performed
the sampling or measurements;
3. The date(s) analyses were
pedotmed
4. The Individual(s) who performed
the analyses;
5. The analytical techniques or
methods usedi and
8. The results of such analyses.
F. Retention of Records. The permit tee
shall retain records of all monitoring
information, including all calibration
and maintenance records and all
original strip chart recordings for
continuous monitoring instrumentation.
copies of all reports required by this
permit, correspondence concerning
waivers of dive or depth requirements.
and records of all data used to complete
the application for this permit. for a
period of at least five years from the
date of the sample. measurement report
or application. This period may be
extended by request of the DIrector or
ADEC at any time. Data collected on-
site, copies of Discharge Monitoring
Reports, and a copy of this NPDES
permit must be maintained on-site
during the duration of activity at the
permitted location.
C. Notice of Noncompliance
Reporting.
1. Any noncompliance which may
endanger health or the environment
shall be reported within 24 hours from
the time the permmttee becomes aware of
the circumstances.
2. The following occurrences of
noncompIinnr n shall be reported in
writing to EPA and ADEC within 5 days
from the time the permittee becomes
aware of the circumatancee:
a. Any unanticipated bypass which
exceeds any effluent limitation in the
permit (See part IV C., 3 w° of
Treatment Facilities.); or
b. Any upset which exceeds any
effluent limitation in the permit (See
port IVJI., Upset Condition&)
3. The written submission above shall
containi
a. A description of the noncomphance
and its cause:
b. The period of noncompliance.
including exact dates and times:
c. The estimated lime noncompliance
Is expected to continue if it has not been
corrected and
di Steps taken or planned to reduce.
eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of
the noncompliance.
4. The Director may waive the written
report on a case-by-case basis if an oral
report has been received within 24 hours
by the Water Compliance Section in
Seattle. Washington. by phone. (206)
442—1213 or the Alaska Operations
Office in Anchorage at (907) 271—5083.
5. Reports shall be submitted to the
addresses In port IlL C.. Reporting of
Monitoring Results.
-------
40188
Federal Register / Vol 54. No. 188 / Friday, September 29. 1989 / Notices
H. Other Noncompliance Reporting.
Instance, of noncompliancee not
required to be reported withIn 5 days
shall be reported at the time that
monitoring reports for part IILC. are
subm,ttrd. The renorts shall contain the
information listed in part LILC.3.
• L Inspection and Entry. The permittee
shall allow the Director, ADEC, or an
• authorized representative (including an
authorized contractor acting as a
representative of the Administrator),
upon the presentation of credentials and
other documents as may be required by
law, to: -
1. Enter upon the permattees premises
where a regulated facility or activity is
located or conducted, or where records
must be kept under the conditions of this
permit:
2. Have access to and copy, at
reasonable times, any records that must
be kept under the conditions of this
permit
3. Inspect at reasonable times any
facilities, equipment (including
monitoring and control equipment),
practices, or operations regulated or
reqwred under this permit and
4. Sample or monitor at reasonable
times, for the purpose of aasunng permit
compliance or as otherwise authorized
by the Act, any substances or
parameters at any location.
IV. ComplIance Responsibilities
A. Duty to Comply. The permittee
must comply with all conditions of this
permit. Any permit noncompliance
constitutes a violation of the Act and is
grounds for enforcement action; for
permit termination, revocation and
reissuance. or modification: or for denial
of a permit renewal application. The
permittee shall give advance notice to
the Director and ADEC of any planned
changes in the permitted facility or
activity which may result In
noncompliance with permit
requirements.
B. Penalties for Violations of Permit
Conditions.
1. Civil Penalty. The Act provides that
any person who violates a permit
condition implementing sectIon 301. 302,
306, 307. 308, 318, or 405 of the Act shall
be subject to a civil penalty, not to
exceed $25,000 per day for each
violation.
2. Criminal Penalties:
a. Negligent Violations. The Act
provides that any person who
negligently violates a permit condition
implementing section 301, 302, 306, 307,
308, 318, or 405 of the Act or negligently
introduces into a sewer system or into a
publicly owned treatment works any
pollutant or hazardous substance which
such person knew or reasonably should
have known could cause personal injury
or property damage or, other than in
compliance with all applicable federal,
state, or local requirements or permits,
which causes such treatment works to
violate any effluent limitation or
condition in a permit issued to the
treatment works under SectIon 402 of
this Act shall be punished by a fine of
not less than $2,500 nor more than
$25,000 per day of violation. or by
imprisonment for not more than 1 year.
or by both.
b. Knowing Violations. The Act
provides that any person who
knowingly violates a permit condition
iznnplementmg section 301, 302, 306, 307,
308, 313, or 405 of the Act or knowingly
introduces into a sewer system or into a
publicly owned treatment works any
pollutant or hazardous substance which
such person knew or reasonably should
have known could cause personal injury
or property damage or, other than in
compliance with all applicable federal.
state, or local requirements or permits,
which causes such treatment works to
violate any effluent limitation or
condition in a permit issued to the
treatment works under section 402 of
this Act shall be punished by a fine of
not less than $5000 nor more than
$50,000 per day of violation. or by
Imprisonment for not more than 3 years.
or by both.
c. Knowingly Eadangerment The Act
provides that any person who
knowingly violates a permit condition
Implementing section 301, 302, 306, 307,
308, 318, or 405 of the Act, and who
knows at that time that he thereby
places another person in imminent
danger of death or serious bodily injury,
shall, upon conviction, be subject to a
fine of not more than $250,000 or
imprisonment of not more than 15 years.
or both. A person which is an
organization shall, upon conviction of
violating this subparagraph, be subject
to a fine of not more than $1,000,000.
di False Statements. The Act provides
that any perosn who knowingly makes
any false material statement,
representation. or certification in any
application, record, report, plan, or other
document filed or required to be
maintained under this Act or who
knowingly falsifies. tampers with or
renders inaccurate any monitoring
device or method required to be
maintained under thi8 Act, shall upon
conviction, be punished by a fine of not
more than $10,000, or by imprisonment
for not more than 2 years, or by both.
Except as provided in permit
conditions in port IV C.. Bypass of
Treatment Fac,lit.es and part IV ! - !.,
Upset Conditions, nothing in this permit
shall be construed to relieve the
permittee of the civil or cr niinnl
penalties for noncompliance.
C. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity
not a Defense. It shall not be a defense
for permittee In an enforcement action
that It would have been necessary to
halt or reduce the permitted acuvuy in
order to maintain compliance with the-
conditions of this permit.
D. Duty to Mitigate. The perrnittee
shall take all reasonable steps to
minimize or prevent any discharge in
violation of this permit which has a
reasonable likelihood of adversely
affecting human health or the
environment.
E. Proper Operation and
Maintenance. The permittee shall at all
times properly operate and maintain all
facilities and systems of treatment and
control (and related appurtenances)
which are installed or used by the
perimttee to achieve compliance with
the conditions of this permit. Proper
operation and maintenance also
includes adequate laboratory controls
and appropriate quality assurance
procedures. This provision requires the
operation of back-up or auxiliary
facilities or similar systems which are
installed by a permittee only when the
operation is necessary to achieve
compliance with the conditions of the
permit
F. Removed Substances. Collected
screenings, solids, sludges, or other
pollutants removed in the course of
treatment or control of wastewaters
shall be disposed of in a manner such as
to prevent any pollutant from such
materials from entering waters of the
Umteçl State,.
- 11ypass of Treatment Fac:Iities
1. Notice:
a. Anticipated bypass. If the permittee
knows in advance of the need for a
bypass. It shall submit prior notice, if
possible at least 10 days before the date
of the bypass.
b. Unanticipated bypass. The
permittee shall submit notice of an
unanticipated bypass as required under
part 1 /1G., Notice of Noncompliance
Reporting.
2. Prohibition of bypass.
a. Bypass Is prohibited and the
Director or ADEC may take enforcement
action against a permittee for a bypass,
unless:
(1) The bypass was unavoidable to
prevent loss of Life, personal injury, or
severe property damage;
(2) There were no feasible alternatives.
to the bypass, such as the use of
auxiliary treatment facilities. retention
of untreated wastes, or maintenance
during normal periods of eqwpmPnt
downtime. This condition is not satisfied
-------
- Federal_Register I VoL 54. No. 188 / Friday. September 29. 1989 I Notices
40187
if adequate back-up equipment should
have been installed in the exercise of
reasonable engineering judgment to
prevent a bypass which occurred during
normal periods of equipment downtime
or preventive maintenance: and
(3) The permittee submitted notices as
required under paragraph 2 of this
section.
b. The Director and ADEC may
approve an anticipated bypass, after
considering its adverse effects, if the
Director and ADEC determine that it
will meet the three conditions listed
above in paragraph 2.a. of this section.
H. Upset Conditions.
I. Effect of an upset. An upset
constitutes an affirmative defense to an
action brought for noncompliance with
such technology based permit effluent
hnutations if the requirements of
paragraph 2 of this section are met. No
determination made during
administrative review of claims that
noncompliance was caused by upset.
and before an action for noncompliance.
is final administrative action subject to
judicial review.
2. Conditions necessary for a
demonstration of upset. A permittee
who wishes to establish the affirmative
defense of upset shall demonstrate.
through properly signed.
contemporaneous operating logs, or
other relevant evidence that
a. An upset occurred and that the
permittee can identify the cause(s) of
the upset
b. The permitted facility was at the
time being properly opera tedi
c. The perEitfee submitted notice of
the upset as required under part 111G.
Notice of Noncompliance Reportrng .
and
d. The permittee complied with any
remedial measures required under port
(VD.. Duty to Mitigate.
3. Burden of proof. In any enforcement
proceeding, the permittee seeking to
establish the occurrence of an upset has
the burden of prooL
L Toxic Pollutants. The permittee
shall comply with effluent standards of
prohibitions established under section
307(a) of the Act for toxic pollutants
within the time provided in the
regulations that establish those
standards of prohibitions, even iithe
permit has not yet been modified to
incorporate the requirement.
V. General Requirements
A. Changes in D:schaiye of Toxic
Substances. Notification shall be
provided to the Director and ADEC as
soon as the permittee knows of. or has
reason to believe:
1. That any activity has occurred or
will occur which would result in the
discharge, on a routine or frequent basis.
of any toxic pollutant which is not
limited in the permit. if that discharge
will exeed the highest of the following
“notification levels”:
a. One hundred micrograms per liter
(100 g g/l):
b. Two hundred micrograms per liter
(200 jig/I) for acrolein and acrylonitrile;
five hundred micrograms per liter (509
Mg/I) for 2.4-dinitrophenol and for 2-
methyl-4. 6-dinitropheriol: and one
milligram per liter (1 mg/I) for antimony
c. Five times the maxim concentration
value reported far that pollutant In the
permit application in accordance with 40
GFR 122.21(g)(7): or
d. The level established by the
Director in accordance with 40 CFP.
122,44( 1 ).
2. That any activity has occurred or
will occur which would result in any
discharge. on a non-routine or infrequent
basis, of a toxic pollutant which is not
limited in the permit, if that discharge
will e’weed the highest of the following
“notification levels’:
a. Five hundred micrograms per hter
(500 jig/I);
b. One milligram per liter (1 mg/I) for
antimony
c. Ten (10) times the maximum
concentration value reported for that
pollutant in the permit application in
accordance with 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7); or
d. The’Ievel established by the
Director in accordance with 40 CFR
122.44(f).
8. Planned Changes. The permittee
shall give notice to the Director and
ADEC as soon as possible of any
planned physical alterations or
additions to the permitted facility.
Notice is reqjired only whern
1. The alteration or addition to a
permitted facility may meet one of the
criteria for determining whether a
facility is new source as determined In
40 CFR 122.29(b); or
2. The alteration or addition could
significantly change the nature or
increase the quantity of pollutants
discharged. This notification applies to
pollutants which are subject neither to
effluent limitations in the permit. nor to
notification requirements under part
V.A.1.
C. Anticipated Noncompliance. The
permittee shall also give advance notice
to the Director and ADEC of any
planned changes in the permitted
facility or activity which may result in
noncompliance with permit
requirements.
0. Permit Actions. This permit may be
modified, revoked and reissued. or
terminated for cause. The filing of a
request by the permittee for a permit
modification, revocation and reissuance.
or termination, or a notification of
planned changes or anticipated
noncompliance, does not stay any
permit condition.
E. Duty to Pruvide Information. The
pemuttee shall furnish to the Director
and ADEC, within a reasonable time.
any information which the Director or
ADEC may request to determine
whether cause exists for modifying.
revoking and reissuing, or terminating
this permit, or to determine compliance
with this permit. The permittee shall
also furnish to the Director or ADEC,
upon request copies of records required
to be kept by this permit.
F. Other Information. When the
perinittee becomes aware that it failed
to submit any relevant facts in a permit
application, or submitted incorrect
information in a permit application or
any report to the Director or ADEC. it
shall promptly submit such facts or
information.
C. Signatory Requirements. All
applications, reports or information
submitted to the Director and ADEC
shall be signed and certified.
1. All permit applications shall be
signed by either a principal executive
officer or ranking elected officiaL
2. All reports required by the permit
and other information requested by the
Director or ADEC shall be signed by a
person described above or by a duly
authorized representative of that person.
A person Is a duly authorized
representative only th
a. The authorization is made in
writing by a person described above
and submitted to the Director and
ADEC and
b. The authorization specified either
an individual or a position having
responsibility for the overall operation
of the regulated facility or activity, such
as the position of plant manager.
operator of a well or a well field.
superintendent, position of equivalent
responsibility, or an individual or
position having overall responsibility for
environmental matters for the company.
(A duly authorized representative may
thus be either a named individual or any
Individual occupying a named position.)
3. Changes to authorization. If an
authorization under paragraph V.G.2. Is
no longer accurate because a different
individual or position has responsibility
for the overall operation of the facility, a
new auttlorlzation satisfying the
requirements of paragraph V.G.2. must
be submitted to the Director and ADEC
prior to or together with any reports.
information, or applications to be signed
by an authorized representative.
-------
40188
Federal Register I Vol 54, No. 188 I Friday, September 29.. 1989 / Notices
4. Certification. Any person signing a
document under this section shall make
the followIng cerliflcatiom
I certify under penalty of law that this
document and all attachments were prepared
under my direction or supervision in
accorcance with a system designed to assure
that qualified personnel properly gather and
evaluate the information submitted. Based on
my inquiry of the person or persons who
manage the system, or those persons directly
responsible for gathering the information, the
Information submitted is, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, true, accurate. and
complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false
information. Including the possibility of fine
and imprisonment for knowing violations.
H. Availability ofReports. Fxcept for
data determined to be confidential
under 40 CFR part 2. all reports prepared
in accordance with the terms of this
permit shell be available for public
Inspection at the offices of the Director
and ADEC. As required by the Act.
permit applications, permits and effluent
data shall not be considered
confidential.
I. 0,/and Hazardous Substance
Liability. Nothing in this permit shall be
construed to preclude the institution of
any legal action or relieve the pernuttee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or
penalties to which the permittee is or
may be subject under section 311 of the
Act.
J. Property Rights. The issuance of
this permit does not convey any
property tights of any sort, or any
exclusive privileges, nor does it
authorize any injury to private property
or any invasion of personal rights, nor
any infringement of federal, state or
local laws or regulations.
L Severability. The provisions of this
permit are severable, and If any
provision of this permit, or the
application of any provision of this
permit to any crcumstance. Ii held
invalid, the application of such provision
to other cranmatances, and the
remainder of this permit, shall not be
affected thereby.
M. Transfers, Coverage under this
permit may be automatic*lly transferred
to a new permittee if:
I. The current permittee notifies the
Director at least 30 days in advance of
the proposed transfer date
2. The notice includes a written
agreement between the existing and
new perinittees containing a specific
date for transfer of permit responsibility.
coverage, and liability between them;
and
3. The Director does not notify the
existing permittee and the proposed new
pernuttee of his or her intent to modify,
or revoke and reissue the permit, If this
notice is not received, the transfer is
effective on the date specified in the
agreement mentioned in paragraph 2
above.
N. State Laws. Nothing in this permit
shall be construed to preclude the
institution of any legal action or relieve
the permittee from any responsibilities,
liabilities, or penalties established
pursuant to any applicable state law or
regulation under authority preserved by
section 510 of the Act.
Attachment 1—Dive Survey Report
Background Information
—Length of period of discharge at this
location prior to the dive (day3,
months. years).
—Production data for this location for
the month prior to the dive (a copy of
the daily records(part [ LB 1.) for the
previous month will suffice).
Dive Identification
—Facility location at the time of the
dive (receiving i ater. longitude,
latitude).
—Date of the survey.
—Name and signature of the diver.
—‘Recent local weather, current and
wave surge conditions which may
influence the extent of long term
impacts from discharged wastes.
Dive Diagram
—A scale diagram (suggested 1 ” = 10’)
showing (1) the area! extent of
accumulated (1 or more) waste. (2)
the thickness of the waste pile at
sufficient locations to draw thickness
contours, (3) depth of the pile (In feet)
below Mean Lower Low Water
(MLLW). and (4) the type of waste
(e.g.. fish bones, ground crab shells,
etc.).
Dive Description
—A list of any observed environmental
effects that could be attributed to the
discharge of processing wastes.
including (1) Dead or stressed sealifa
such as clams, tube worms, oysters. or
sea anemones, (2) scavenger fish. (3)
hydrogen sulfide gas. or (4) any other
effects,
—A list of the types of waste particles
and an estimate of the percentage of
the wastes greater than: 1 millimeter
(processors using screening
technology), or 0.5 inches (processors
not using screening technology). -
—Condition and estimated depth of the
outfall line.
Attachment 2—Bottom Sampling Report
Background Information
—Length of period of discharge at this
location prior to the sampling (days
months. years).
—Producton data for this location for
the month prior to the sampling (a
copy of the daily records (part II 8.1 J
for the previous month will suffice).
Sampling identification
—Facility location at the time of the
sampling. (receiving water, longitude.
latitude)
—Sampling date.
—Name and signature of the person(s)
collecting the samples.
—Recent local weather, current, and
wave surge conditions which may
influence the extent of long term
impacts from discharged wastes.
Description of Sample Contents
—A list of any observed environmental
effects that could be attributed to the
discharge of processing wastes.
lnduding (1) Dead or stressed sealife
such as dams, tube worms. oysters. or
sea anemones. (2) scavenger fish. (3)
hydrogen sulfide gas. or (4) any other
.jffects.
—A description o the types and
amounts of wastes in the samples. the
size of the waste particles, and an
estimate of the percentage of the
wastes greater than: 1 millimeter
(processors using screening
technology). or 0.5 inches (processors
using grinding or equivalent
technology).
Attichmamt 3 . ’ . .Bottcm Sampling
Locations
I. Outfalis located near the bottom
Facilities that discharge at a point less
than 10 feet from the bottom shall
collect bottom samples at the locations
shown below:
-------
Foder4 Register ’ I- Vol Mi No. 108 I Friday, September 29, 1989 / Notices
40189
* Sampling location
PLAN VIEW
outfall
I/I //... . .==. .a.
15 ft
25 ft
*
a
8 ft
8 ft
II. Outfalls greater than 10 feet from the
bottom (and all freshwater out/ails)
Facilities that discharge more than 10
feet above the bottom shall collect
bottom samples at the locations
described below:
A. Directly beneath the discharge
point: and
B. At a radius equal to the depth of
the receiving water at the discharge
point. In each compass dIrection (4
samples).
PLAN VIEW
R • radius from discharge point • depth of water at discharge point
* — sampling location
a
R
a a a
a
(F1 Doc. 9- 7 Filed 9-28-89 45 aml
nw o co u e
FEDERAL MAR ME COMMISSION
Ocean Freight Forwarder Llcens
Applicants
Notice Is hereby given that the
following applicants have filed with the
Federal Maritime Commission
applications for licenses as ocean freight
forwarders pursuant to section 19 of the
Shipping Act of 1984 (48 U.S.C. app. 1718
and 48 CFR 510).
Persons knowing of any reason why
any of the following applicants ahouid
not receive a license are requested to
contact the Office of Freight Forwarder
and Passenger Vessel Operations.
Federal Maritime Commission.
Washington. DC 20573.
Wisco International Forwarders Inc..
211-3799th Ave.. Jamaica. New York
11429. Officer Angel Ithier. President.
Peter A. Holzer. One Harding Road. Red
Bank. New Jersey 07701, Officer: Peter
Alexander Hoizer. Sole Proprietor.
Sumitrans Corporation. 1981 Marcus
Ave.. Lake Success. New York 11042.
Officers: Yoshihiro Hatanaka.
President/Director, Toshiaki Ooka.
Director. Tomojiro Arita. Director.
Sumitomo Corp. of America.
Stockholder.
Atrade Forwarding Corp.. 145-18158th
St.. Jamaica. New York 11434. Officer
Raul Barbosa. President.
By th Federal Mentiine Cwnmiseion.
LF.S. of IndIana. 390 Nottlnghill Court
IniIlnnsipolls, IndIana 48234. Officer
Virginia A. Smith. PresideuL
By the Federal Maritime Commiuioa.
Dated: September 25.1989.
JosspbC. Polking.
Secrs
(FR Dcc. 89- 955 Filed 9- 2B-89 ’. &45 ami
— ‘ ‘ cc c i sris .ei-u
(Pevtion No. P5-eel
Sea4..and Service, Inc., Application for
SectIon 35 Exempdon Filing
Not6 is hereby given that Sea-Land
Service. Inc. (“Sea-Land”) has applied
for an exemption pursuant to section 35
of the Shipping Act. 1916. 48 U.S.C. app.
833a. and Rule 69 of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure. 48 CFR
-------
39574
Federal Register I VoL 54. No. 188 / Wednesday . September 27.. 1989 / Notices
and
Tim Hunt. Office of Management and
Budget. Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs. 725 fackson Place.
NW.. Washington. D.C. 20503.
(Telechone (202) 395—3084).
0MB Responses of Agency PRA
Clearance Request
EPA ICR *1390.01; State Revolving
Fund Report to Congress Questionnaire;
was approved 09/01/89; 0MB #2040—
0131; expires 10/31/90.
Dated September 15. 1989.
Paul Lapaley.
Director. Information and Regulatory Systems
Division
IFR Doc. 89-22791 Filed 9-28-89; 8:45 am)
WLUNQ cOOS . 5 50-so-u
(FRL—3651—41
Agency Information Collection
Activities Under 0MB RevIew
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AC ’flON: Notice.
SUMMARY: In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 etseq.). this notice announces that
the Information Collection Request (ICR)
abstracted below has been forwarded to
the Office of Management and Budget
(0MB) for review and comment. The
ICR describes the nature of the
information collection and its expected
cost and burden.
DATE: Comments must be submitted on
or before October 27, 1989.
FOR FURThER INFORMAT iON CONTACT:
Sandy Farmer of EPA. (202) 382—2740,
SUPPWIENTARY INFORMATIOPC
Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substance.
Title: Date Call-In/Registration
Standards Program (EPA ICR #0922.03
0MB *2070-0057). ThIs ICR requests
renewal of the existing clearance.
AbstracL ’ Under section 3(c)(2)(B) of
FIFRA. EPA may require pesticide
registrants to generate and submit data
on the nska and benefits of pesticide
use. The Agency uses this information to
assess whether the subject pesticide
causes an unreasonable adverse effect
on human health or the environment and
to determine whether to maintain the
registration. With the inception of the
reregistration program under FIFRA ‘88.
EPA will rely on this ICR primarily to
conduct special chemical reviews and to
complete collections of genenc data
begun prior to reregistration.
Burden SiatemenL The public
reporting burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average
9.456 hours per response for registrants
with special review chemicals. 3 hours
per response for registrants with generic
data exemptions, and 35 minutes per
response For registrants under other
generic data call-ins. These estimates
include the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the
data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information.
Respondents: Pesticide registrants
Estimated No. of Respondents.- 25.408
&timated Total Annual Burden on
Respondents: 177,500 hours
Frequency of Collection: On occasion
Send comments regarding the burden
estimates, or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to:
Sandy Farmer, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Information Policy
Branch (PM-223) 401 M Street. SW..
Washington, DC 20460
and
Tim Hunt, Office of Management and
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project
(2070-0057), Washington. D.C. 20503,
(Telephone (202) 395—3084)
0MB Responses To Agency PRA
Clearance Requests
EPA ICR #0270.15; PublIc Water
System Program Information; was
approved 08103/89: 0MB #2040-0090;
expires 09/30/90.
EPA ICR *0270.1&’ Public Water
System Program Informatlon was
approved 08/02/89; 0MB *2040-0090;
expires 09/02/89/
EPA ICR #1230.04: New Source
Review and Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Permitting Programs was
approved 07/31/89; 0MB #2060-0003;
expires 07/31/90.
EPA ICR *018703; Letter of
Verification of Test Parameters and
Parts Lists—4.ight Duty Vehicles and
Light Duty Trucks; was approved 07/31/
89; 0MB *2060-0094; expires 07/31/92.
EPA ICR i418.Oz; Survey of Private
Sector Randon Reduction Act was
approved 08/03/89; 0MB *2060-0179;
expires 03/31/90.
Dated. September 15. 1989.
Paul Lapsisy.
Director. Information and Regulatory Systems
Division
LFR Doc. 89—227 2 Filed 9—20-89. 8.45 ainl
GILUNG COO! . 5 .0— 50—u
(FRL-385l—81
Final ModIfications of NPOES General
Pern ft for Oil Md Gas Operations on
the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and
In State Waters of Alaska; Beaufort
Sea Ii
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
Ac ’floN Notice of Final Modification of
NPDES General Permit.
SUMMARY: The Regional Administrator,
Region 10 (the Region or EPA). is
modifying the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES]
general permit for the Beaulort Sea (No.
AKG2B4100, hereafter referred to as the
- Beaufort Sea U general permit) which
appeared in the Federal Register on
September 28, 1988 (53 FR 37846). The
Beau.fort Sea 11 general permit
authorizes discharges from offshore
operations in all areas offered for lease
by the U.S Department of Interior’s
Minerals Management Service (M’vfS)
during Federal Lease Sale 97.
The Region is modifying the Beaufort
Sea LI general permit by extending its
coverage to include all areas now
covered by the initial Beaufort Sea
general permit (No. AKG284000. 49 FR
23734, June 7, 1984), which expired on
May 30. 1989. The expired general
permit authorized discharges from
offshore facilities in areas offered and
leased by (1) MMS during Federal Lease
Sales 71 and 87, (2) the state of Alaska
In State Lease Sales 36, 39. 43. and 43A.
and (3) MMS or the state of Alaska in
Federal/State Lease Sale SF and
contiguous inshore state lease sales.
in 1 the recently expired general
permits covers nearshore area8. EPA
also is modifying the permit to include a
prohibition on discharge within 1000
meters of nvei mouths or deltas during
unstable or broken ice or open water
conditions (“the 1000 meter discharge
prohibition”). The Region is also
modifying the permit to Include the Land
Management Admimatrator of the North
Slope Borough among the parties to be
consulted by the Director during the
development of environmental
monitoring program. required in areas
added under this permit modification.
These modifications do not affect
facilities that are now covered by the
Beaufort Sea II permit.
The area covered by the expired
Beaufort Sea permit overlaps with, is
adjacent to. or is nearly adpacemit to the
area covered by the Beaufort Sea U
general permit. The expired Beaufort
Sea permit addresses the same types of
operations, discharges, and operating
conditions as the Beaufort Sea 11 general
-------
Federal Ra ister / Vol. 54. No. 188 I Wednesday, September 27. 1989./ Notices
39575
permit. Therefore, the Agency believes
that the areas covered by the expired
general permit (No. AKC2S4000) would
be more appropriately controlled under
the Beaufort Sea U general permit (No.
AKG284100.) than under individual
perrr.its or a separate NPDES general
permit.
A new administrative record has been
developed to support the modifications.
The notice of the Beaufort Sea LI
genera 1 permit (53 FR 37846. September
28. 1988) set forth the principal facts and
the significant factoal. legal. and policy
questions considered in the
development of the terms and conditions
of the original permit. Region 10
published a notice of proposed
modification and a fact sheet on May 1.
1989 (54 FR 15587). The basis for the
final modifications is given in the fact
sheet for the proposed modificatIons (54
FR 13587. May 1. 1969) and in the
supp!emeiitary tn.fcrmation published
below.
DATEni These modifications to the
Beaufort Sea U general permit shall
become effective October 27, 1989. The
permit shall expire at nudxught on
September 27. 1993.
ADORES The adminiatrative record for
the final modifications to the Beau.fort
Sea II permit is available for public
review at EPA. Region 10. Ocean
Programs Section. WD—l37. 1200 Sixth
Avenue. Seattle. WRnhington 98101.
FO FURThER INFORMATION CONTAC1
Anne Dailey. Region 10. at the above
address or telephone (200) 442—2110.
Copies of today’s notice, the final
modifications, response to comments.
today’s final notice, and the permit may
be obtained by writing to the above
address or by calling Kris Flint at (206)
442—8155.
SUPPL 4ThTARY INFORMATION AND
FACT SHEET
Organiuthm of This Nutim
I. Introduction
IL Final Modification, to the General Permit
IlL Other Legal Req ufrements
A. Oil Spill Requirements
8. Endangered Spemee Act
C. Coastal Zone Mans cment Act
0. Marine Protection. Research end
Sanctuaries Act
2. State Water Quality Standards and State
Certification
F. Executive Order 12191
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
U. Regulatory flexibility Ai.t
Appendix A—List of Changes Made in the
Final Modification.
L Introduction
The Regional Adinuustrator of Region
10 is today issuing final modifications to
the Beaufort Sea 11 NPDES general
permit The original Beaufort Sea 11
general NPDES permit (No. AKG2841D0.
53 FR 37853. September 28. 1988)
authorized discharges from offshore oil
and gas facilities operating in areas
leased by Minerals Management Service
(MMS) in Federal Lease Sale 97. Region
10 is making three modifications to the
Bee ufort Sea II general permit. The
Region is modifying the permit to
include the geographical area covered
by the recently expired general permit
for the Beaufort Sea (No. AKG284000. 49
FR 23734, lune 7, 1984). The area
covered by the expired permit
overlapped with, was ad)acent to. or
was nearly adjacent to the area covered
by the Beaufort Sea U general permit.
Since the expired general permit
covered nearshore areas, EPA Is also
including a prohibition on discharge
within 1000 meters of river mouths or
deltas during unstable or broken ice or
open water conditions. In response to
the Alaska Coastal Management
Program’s Concluswe Consistency
Finding, the Region has also modified
the permit to include the Land
Management Administrator of the North
Slope Borough among the list of parties
to be consulted by the EPA Region 10
Water Division Director during the
development of the specifics of each
monitoring program required ln.areas
added under this permit modification.
Appendix A includes the language at the
final modifications to the general permit.
On May 1. 1989 (54 FR 18587), the
Agency published a notice of the
proposed modifications to the Beaufort
Sea JI general permit. which are being
issued in final form today. The public
commeftt period closed on May 31. 1989.
Comments and supporting documents on
the proposed modifications were
recei d from four parties. No public
hearing was held since no request to
hold a hearing was received.
Region 10 published a document
containing supplementary urformatlon
and a fact sheet for the proposed
modifications (54 FR 18587. May 1, 1989).
Part U of the fact sheet (Proposed
Modifications to the General Permit) has
been included by reference with further
detail added below. The material in the
above referenced document should be
consulted in reviewing the applicability
and scope of the final modifications.
A detailed listing of and response to
public comments received on the
proposed modifications is presented in
the document entitled “Response to
Comments Received on the Proposed
Modifications to the Beaufort Sea II
General PermiL” The document and the
original comment letters have been
included in the administrative record for
the permit modifications. The document
is being sent to all commenters and is
also available upon request for EPA
Region 10 at the address listed above.
U, Final Modifications to the Gcneral
Permit
The Director of a NPDES permit
program may modify a NPDES permit
upon receipt of new information not
avadahle at the time of permit issuance.
if the new information would have
justified the application of different
conditions at the time of issuance (40
CFR 122.e2 [ aJ(zfl. Region 10 recently
was informed by the Alaska Oil and
Gas Association about upcoming
exploration activities planned for 1983
in the lease sale areas covered by the
expiring Beaufort Sea general permit
Had the Region been aware of this
information at the time of issuance of
the Beaufort Sea U general permit, the
area of coverage would have been
expanded to include these areas.
The Beaufort Sea U general NPDES
permit (No. AKG224100) authorizes
discharges from offshore oil and gas
facilities in the area offered for lease in
the Beaufcrt Sea under the Federal
Lease Sale 97. EPA is modifying the
geographic area covered by this general
permit to include authorization to
discharge on the tracts covered by the
expired Beaufort Sea permit No.
AKG284000 (54 FR 18591, May 1.1989).
This modification continues
authorizatioa to discharge from oil and
gas operations in areas which overlap.
are adjacent to. or are nearly adjacent to
those areas already covered by the
Beaufort Sea U general permit
The fact sheet accompanying the
issuance of the Beaufort Sea U general
permit (53 FR 37846. September 28. 1983)
set forth the principal facts and the
significant factual, legal, and policy
questions considered in the
development of the terms and conditions
of the permit. EPA believes that these
terms and conditions are also
appropriate, with the exception of the
provisions described In the following
paragraph, for the areas covered by the
expired Beaufast Sea permit
Since the expired Beaufort Sea
general permit covered nearshore areas
within 1000 meters of river mouths or
deltas, a provision prohibiting discharge
within 1000 meters of river mouths or
deltas during unstable or broken ice or
open water conditions (part ILB.3.e.J has
been included in the modified Beau.fort
Sea U general permit. Part LI of the fact
sheet (Proposed Modifications to
General Permit) for the proposed notice
descnbee the basis for this permit
modification and Is herein included by
reference (54 FR 18588-89, May 1. 1989).
-------
3957G
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 188 I Wednesday , September 21 1989 I Notices
in response to the Alaska Coastal
Management Program’s Conclusive
Consistency Finding, the EPA Region 10
Water Division Director will consult
with the Land Management
Administrator of the North Slope
Borough during the development of the
specifics of each environmental
monitoring program required in areas
added by this permit modification. This
provision was necessary for the permit
modification to be consistent with the
Alaskan Coastal Management Program.
The Region also believes that it is
reasonable and appropriate to consult
the Borough concerning development of
the rnorutoring plans.
This provision applies only to areas
offered and leased by (1) MMS during
Federal Lease Sales 71 and 87, (2) the
State of Alaska in State Lease Sales 38.
39, 43. and 43A. and (3) MMS or the
State of Alaska in Federal/State Lease
Sale EF and contiguous inshore state
lease sales. This provision does not
apply to tracts leased under Federal
Lease Sale 97 since the Region did not
reopen or propose to modify any permit
conditions which are applicable to
facilities covered by the existing
Beaufort Sea II general permit (i.e.. areas
offered for sale under Lease Sale 9?).
ilL Other Legal Requirements
A. Oil Spill Requirements
Section 311 of the Clean Water Act
(“the Act”) prohibits the discharge of oil
and hazardous materials in harmful
quantities. Routine discharges
specifically controlled by the permits
are excluded from the provisions of
section 311. However, these permit
modifications do not predude the
Institution of legal action or relieve
permittees from any responsibilitles.
liabilities, or penalties for other
unauthorized discharges of oil and
hazardou, material, which are covered
by sectIon 311 of the Act.
B. & dan , ered Species Ao l
Based on information in the Final
Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluations
and in the Final Environmental Impact
Statements prepared for the lease sales
covered by the expiring Beaufort Sea
and Beaufort Sea LI general permits,
Region 10 has concluded that this fInal
permit modification is not likely to
adversely affect any endangered or
threatened species nor adversely affect
it critical habitat. Region 10 requested
comments from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the National
Marine Fisheries Service. Both agencies
concurred with EPA’. determination.
C. Coastal Zone Management Act
The proposed modifications and
consistency determination, were
submitted to the State of Alaska for
state interagency review at the time of
public notice. The State of Alaska has
concurred that the activities allowed by
this permit are consistent with local and
state Coastal Management Plans.
D. Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act
No marine sanctuaries as designated
by this Act exist in the vicinity of the
permit areas.
E. State Wafer Quality Standards and
State Certification
The State of Alaska has certified
pursuant to section 401 of the Act that
the discharges authorized in state
waters by this permit comply with stdte
water quality standards and regulations,
F E,recufjve Order 12291
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this action from the
review reqwrements of Executive Order
12291 pursuant to section 8(b) of that
order.
C. Papevwork Reduction Act
The information collection required by
these permit modifications has been
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (0MB) under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act. 44
U S.C. 3501 et seq.. in submissions made
for the NPDES permit program and
assigned 0MB control numbers 2040—
0088 (NPDES permit application) and
2040-004 (discharge monitoring reports).
All facilities affected by these
modifications will need to submit a
request for coverage under the Beauiort
Sea U general permit. EPA estimates
that it will take an affected facility three
hours to prepare the request far
coverage. All affected facilities will be
required to submit discharge monitoring
reports (DMR s). EPA estimates the
DMR burden to be 36 hour. per facility
per year. Facilities requesting coverage
in areas of biological concern will be
required to develop ocean discharge
information (i.e., conduct an
environmental monitoring program, see
part ILB.4. of the Beaufort Sea 11 general
permit) and submit a report. EPA
estimates that each of these facilities
will spend an average of 778 hours
preparing these reports. All facilities
affected by these modifications were
subject to similar information collection
burdens under the expired Beaufort Sea
I permit that this modified permit
replaces.
The public is invited to send
comments regarding this burden
estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of Information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to
Chief. Information Policy Branch. PM—
223, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M St SW. Washington, DC
2O460 ’ and to the Office of Management
and Budget. Paperwork Reduction
Project (2040—0088 and 2040—0004),
Washington. DC 20503. marked
“Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.”
H. Regulatory Flexibility Act
After review of the facts presented in
the notice of intent printed abo e. I
hereby certify, pursuant to the provision
of 5 U.S C. § 605(b), that these permit
modification will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of smoll
entities, This certification is based on
the fact that the regulated parties have
greater than 500 employees and are not
classified as small businesses under the
Small Business Administration
regulations established at 49 FR 5024 et
seq (February 9. 1984). These facilities
are classified as Major Group 13 0il
and Gas Extraction SIC 1311 Crude
Petroleum and Natural Gas.
Dateth September 12. 1989
Robert S. 8usd.
Acting Reg,onolAdnnn,sgpizgop. Region 20.
Appendix A—Seaufort Sea 11 General
Permit List of Changes Made in Final
Permit Modifications
Preamble, third paragraph:
The existing permit reads (53 FR 37853.
Sep ber 28. 1988); “The authonzed
dl1 harge sites include all blocks offered for
lease from the US. Department of the
Interior’s Minerals Management Service
(MMS) in Federal Lease Sale 97 (Bea fort and
Chukchj seas). Some of the lease blocks
offered but not teased in pnor leaze sales (BF.
71, end 87) may be reoffered in Lease Sale 97
In this case, EPA will grant coverage tinder
thi. general permit rather than under the
previous general permit (AXCZ84000, 49 FR
23734. June 7. 1984).”
The modified permit read& ‘l ’he
authorized discharge sites include all blocks
offered for lea., from (1) the U.S Department
of the Inienor’s Minerals Management
Service (MMS) in Federal Lease Sales 71. 87.
and 97. (2) the State of Alaska in State Lease
Sales 38. 39, 43. and 43A. and (3) MMS or the
State of Alaska in Federal/State Lease Sale
BF and contiguous inshore state lease sales.”
Part l1.8 ,3.e.:
The modified permit reads: “For areas
offered and leased by (1) f v1S during
Federal Lease Sales 71 and 87. (2) the State of
Alaska In State Lease Sales 38, 39. 43. and
43A, and (3) MMS or the State of Alaska in
Federal/State Lease Sales OF and contiguous
state tease sales, discharge is prohibited
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 188 / Wednesday. September 27, 19fl9 I Notices
39577
within 1000 ‘ii of river mouths or deltas
during unstdble or broken Ice or open water
conditions.”
(This provision was not part of the final
Beaufort Sea II general permit, but was
included in the draft general permit at Part
II B 3 b and did read: ‘Discharge is
prohibited within 1000 m of river mouths or
deltas during unstable or broken ice or open
water conditions.”)
PaM !l.B 4.
This provision was added as a result of the
Alaska Coastal Management Pmgram s
Conclusive Consistency Finding.
The modified permit reads: ‘ and for
the pertmttee. For environmental morutonng
programs in areas offered and leased by (1)
MMS during Federal Lease Sales 71 and 87.
(2) the State of Alaska in State Lease Sales
313. 39. 43, and 43A. and (3) MMS or the Slate
of Alaska in Federal/State Lease Sale BF and
contiguous inshore state lease sales, the Lend
Management Administrator of the North
Slope Borough shall be consulted by the
Director in addition to the parties listed
above. Such morntonng *
(FR Doc. 89—22793 Filed 9—20-09. 845 amj
81 WNG Coca 6 5 50-9O-M
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
PublIc Information Collection
Requirements Submitted to ths Office
of Management and Budget for Review
September18. 1989.
The Federal Communications
Commission has submitted the following
inforfffätlon collection requirements of
0MB for review and clearance under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44
U.S.C. 3507).
Copies of these submissions may be
purchased from the Commission’s copy
contractor. International Transcription
ServIce. (202) 857—3800, 2100 M Street
NW., Suit 140. Washington. DC 20037.
For further Information on these
submissions contact Judy Boley. Federal
Communications Commission. (202)632—
7513. Persons wishing to comment on
these information collection’ should
contact Eyvette flynn, Office of
Management and Budget. Room 3225
NEOB. Washington. DC ‘ fl503 , (202) 395-
3785.
0MB Nwnber 3000-0089.
Titie. Application for Land Radio
Station Ucense In the Maritime
Services.
Form No.: FCC 503.
Action: Extension.
Respondents: Individuals or
households. state or local governments.
non-profit institutions, businesses
(including small businesses).
Frequency of Response: Cci occasion.
Estimated Annual Burden: 2.923
Responses: 2.923 Hours.
Needs and Uses: FCC Rules require
that applicants submit the necessary
data on an FCC 303 for evaluation for a
new or modified station authorization in
the Maritime Mobile Service or an
Alaska Public Fixed Station. The
technical data will be used by FCC staff
to evaluate a request for station
authorization.
0MB Number? 3060-0004.
Title: Application for Station
Authorization in the Private Operational
Fixed Microwave Radio Service.
Form No.: FCC 402.
Action: Extension.
Respondents: Individuals or
households, state or local governments.
non-profit institutions, businesses
(including small businesses).
Frequency of Response: On occasion.
Estimated Annual Burden: 7.619
Responses; 45.714 Hours.
Needs and Uses. FCC 402 is used to
apply for a new, modified or renewed
station authorization for private
operational fixed microwave stations.
The technical data is necessary to
evaluate a request for Microwave
station authorizations, to coordinate
that request. and to provide interference
protection if the request is granted.
Federal Communication, Commission.
- D mnsLSe srcy.
Secaetary.
(FR l)oc. 89-22739 FIled 9-28-89. 9.45 am)
• LuiU coni siis-oi-e
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
Agreement(s) Filed
The Federal Maritime Commission
hereby gives notice of the filing of the
fo1! wlng agreement(s) pursuant to
section 5 of the Shipping Act of 1984.
Interested parties may inspect and
obtain a copy of each agreement at the
Washington. DC Office of the Federal
Maritime Commission. 1100 L Street
NW.. Room 10325. Interested parties
may submit comments on each
agreement to the Secretary. Federal
Maritime Commission. Washington. DC
20573, wIthin 10 days after the date of
the Federal Register in which this notice
appears. The requirements for
comments are found in 572.603 of title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Interested persons should consult this
section before communicating with the
Commission regarding a pending
agreement
Agreement No.: 217-011250.
Tide: Companhia de Navegacao Uoyd
Brasilelro and Empresa Linens
Maritimas A.rgentinas S.A. Slot Charter
Agreement.
Port Jon: Companhia de Navegacao
Lloyd Brasileiro Empresa Lineas
Maritimas Argentinas S.A.
Synopsis.’ The proposed Agreement
would permit the parties to charter
space to one another aboard their
respective vessels in the trade between
U.S. Atlantic and Gulf ports and ports iii
Brazil. Paraguay and Argentina.
By Order of the Federal Maritime
Commission.
Datecli September 21. 1989.
Ronald a Murphy.
ASS!9tont Sesretaiy.
[ FR Doc. 89-21751 FIled 9-28-89. 8.45 a m I
0008 6 O1-
Agreement(s) Filed
The Federal Maritime Commission
hereby gives notice of the filing of the
following agreement(s) pursuant to
section 5 of the Shipping Act of 1984.
interested parties may inspect and
obtain a copy of each agreement at the
Wasington. DC Office of the Federal
Maritime Commission. 1100 L Street.
NW., Room 10220. Interested parties
may submit comments on each
agreement to the Secretary. Federal
Maritime Commission. Washington, DC
20573, within 10 days after the date of
the Federal Register in which this notice
appears. The requirements for
comments are found in section 572.603
of title 48 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, interested persons should
consult this section before
communicating with the Commission
regarding a pending agreement
Agreement No.: 224-200207-001.
Tide: Tampa Port Authority Terminal
Agreement.
Parties: Tampa Port Authority.
Harborside Refrigerated Services. Inc..
(Harborside).
Synopsis: The Agreement provides
that the basic wharfage rate incentive
agreement (Agreement No.224-200207)
is restricted to apply only to imported
Chilean fruit and that other fruits
moving through Harborside’s leased
cold atorage terminal facility will be
charged according to the Port’s Terminal
Tariff FMC No.10.
4greement No..’ 224—200288.
Tide: Port of Seattle Terminal
Agreement -
Parties: Port of Seattle (Port).
h 1 ternatlonal Terminal Company (ITCJ.
Synopsis: The Agreement provides for
ITC’s lease and operation of a 275 acre
break.bulk/neo-bulk facility at the
Port s Terminal 115. ITC will also have
non.exdusive use of berth at Terminal
28. and use of terminal 115 for loading
and unloading of railcars. ITC agrees to
-------
35930
Federal Registarf Vol 54. No . 167 I Wednesday. August 30, 1989 I Notices
adverse impacts from occurring at the
Leonard Pond site. The types of
activities proposed for restriction.
nonwater dependent fill projects, as a
class ccinpriae the most
environmentally destructive and the
most frequently avoidable types of
discharge. The 404(b)(1) guidelines
contain a strong presumption against
permitting such discharges. Moreover. In
hght of the outstanding value of the site
for wildlife. nonwater dependent
projects would likely violate the
guidelines by causing or contributing to
significant degradation. Therefore, by
this proposal we intend to enforce the
requirements of the section 404(b)(1)
guidelines, a function envisioned by the
section 404(c) regulations.
V. Solicitation of Comments
EPA solicits comments on all Issues
raised by this proposed determination.
In particular, we are interested in
receiving information pertaining to the
environmental values of the Leonard
Pond area and any current or proposed
threats to these aquatic resources. We
also are interested In receiving
comments on the boundary of the 404(c)
action and the activities affected (and
not affected) by the proposal.
Specifically, (1) whether placing dredged
or fill material Into Leonard Pond and its
wetlands would have an unacceptable
adverse effect on fish and wildlife
habitat (2) existence of any endangered
or threatened species at the site (3)
cumulative impacts that may result from
filling these wetlands; (4) whether the
geographic limit of this action I.
reasonable and approprlate (5) what, if
any, type of filling activity occur
without Individually or cumulatively
causing unacceptable adverse impacts,
and (6) whether the relocated Route 57,
which would fill wetland, at the site,
would cause s’gr4fi ”t loss or damage
to wildlife.
Comments should be sent withIn 45
days from the date of publication of this
Federal Register notice to the person
listed above under Aecassaxa. If the
Regional Administrator finds a
significant degree of public Interest in
this announcement or that it would be
otherwise in the public interest to hold a
hearing, a hearing will be held. AU
comments received, as well as any
hearing record will be fully considered
by the Regional Administrator in making
the decision to prepare a recommended
determination to prohibit or restrict
filling Leonard Pond and its wetlands or
to withdraw this proposed
determination.
PaulO. Keough.
Acting RegzonoiAdm,nlso7ltor. Region I.
[ FR Doc. 89-Z0441 Filed 8- -89 845 aml
BtWNG OI WO- 5O-d
(FRL-3837-4j
Proposed NPDES General Permits for
ths OH and Gas Extraction Point
Source Category, Onshore
Subcategory—State. of Louisiana,
New Mexico, Oldahoma, and Texas
AOENCY Environmental Protection
Agency.
acnwc Notice of Four Proposed NPDES
General Permits.
suuuanv The Regional Administrator
of Region 8 (the “Region”) Is today
proposing to issue four National
Pollutant Discharge Flirnination System
(NPDES) general permits for facilities in
the Onshore Subcategory of the Oil and
Gas Extraction Point Source Category
(40 CFR Part 435, Subpart C). These
proposed general permits implement the
no discharge requirement of the
Onshore Subcategory regulations for oil
and gas facilities conducting exploration
dnlllng. development drilling well
completion, production and well
treatment operations. These proposed
permits are being issued as a Best
Professional Judgement (BPJ)
determination of Best Available
Technology Economically Achievable
(BAT) and Best Conventional Pollutant
Conn o1 Technology (BCT) levels of
pollution controL These permits, when
Issued, will prohibit discharges from oil
and gas facilities in the Onshore
Subcategory located in the States of
Louisiana. New Mexico. Oklahoma. and
Texas.
All four permits are proposed In one
notice to take advantage of permit
language that is common to all four
permits.
DATE Comments must be received by
October 18, 1989.
ADDRESS: Comments should be sent to
the Regional Administrator Region 6.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1445 Ross Avenue. Dallas. Texas 75202-
2733.
FOR FURTHER INFORMAT ION CONTACTi
Ms. Ellen Caldwell, Region 6, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1445
Rosa Avenue. Dallas. Texas 75202—2733.
TelephoneS (214) 655—7190.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIOPC
Legal and Regulatory Authority
These general onshore permits have
been prepared pursuant to sections
301(b) and 304(b) of the Clean Water
Act. Section 301(b)(1) recuires
attainment of effluent limitations based
on the application of “best practicable
contioi technology currently available”
(BPT) by July 1, 1977. Section 305(b)
provides for the promulgation of
regulations defining a technology as
“best practicable control technology
currently available” and specifies the
factors to be considered in defining BPT.
This effluent limitation has been
promulgated for the oil and gas industry
as the Oil and Gas Extraction Point
Source Category, final and interim final
Rules at 44 FR 22069 (April 13, 19791 and
amended at 47 FR 31554 (July 21. 1982)
The Federal Regulations governing the
Onshore Subcategory are codified at 40
CFR Part 435. Subpart C.
The Environmental Protection Age icy
has issued a report entitled
“Development Document for Interim
Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Proposed New Source Pei fcrmance
Standards for the Oil and Gas
Extraction Point Source Category” (41
FR 44942, October 13. 1976) which was
prepared in support of the initial Interim
final BPT limitations promulgated in the
Federal regulations cited above. This
document discussed the oil and gas
industry, available waste treatment
technology and the result8 of the
technical study which resulted in the
limitations contained in the regulations
(40 CFR Part 435). Additionally, a
,aii plementary report on the possible
economic impacts of the regulations was
issued at that time.
Since publication of the interim final
regulations, interested parties have
submitted comments and new data for
the consideration by the Agency. The
promulgated regulations are based on
the analyses of these comments and
data. For the most part, the analysis
merely danfled the interim final
regulations. In applying the BF
limitations of these permits, the Region
cannot eats bish limitations less
stringent than those already defined In
the Federal regulation,.
Many owners and operators of oil and
gas facilities located In the Onshore
Subcategory have applied for a NPDES
permit: however, no such individual
permits have been issued because
priorities for NPDES permit issuance did
not Include these facilities. The permits
proposed here will apply to all Onshore
Subcategory oil and gas facilities
-------
Federal Register I VoL 54, No . 187 I Wednesday, August 30, 1989 / Notices
35931
located In Louisiana. New Mexico.
Oklahoma. and Texas whether or notan
application ha. been previously flled
with EPA. In effect these permits
implement the effluent guideline, forth.
Onshore Subcategory at 40 CFR 435.30.
and thereby prohibit the discharge of
any pollutants from these facilities into
waters of the United States.
A permittee may request to be
excluded from coverage of these permits
by applying for an individual permit
within 90 day. after publication of these
permits in the Federal Register (40 CFR
122.28(b)(2J(IiI). In this case however the
Region cannot foresee any case where
the reasons cited by the owner or
operator will be adequate to support a
discharge since the Onshore
Subcategory regulation has required no
discharge for over 10 years. Applying for
an individual permit does not authorize
the discharge, and no discharges will be
allowed after the effective date of this
permit.
General Applicability
These proposed general permits apply
to facilities in the Onshore Subcategory
of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point
Source Category within the States of
Louisiana. New Mexico, Oklahoma. and
Texas (as defined at 40 CFR Part 435.40
Subpar(C and as amended at 47 FR,
31554 (July 21. 1982).
These permits do not apply to those
facilities which are located Inland from
the inner boundary of the territorial seas
in areas classified as Coastal as defined
at 40 CFR 43540 Subpart D and as
amended at 47 FR. 31554. Likewise.
these permits do not apply to “stripper”
wells as defined at 40 CFR 435.60 and
which are so classified before the
effective date of these permits: nor do
they apply to some exploration or
producing facilities located west of the
98th meridIan as defined at 40 CFR Part
435. Subpart E (Agricultural Wildlife
Water Use Subcategory) which
discharge potentially beneficial
produced waters.
Facility location determines the
applicable subcategory In 40 R Part
435. and pollutant discharges which are
prohibited at the location of the facility
may not be discharged at other
locations.
Applicability Specified
Geographic Limit.,: These permits.
based on Federal regulations. apply to
the Onshore Subcategory as defined at
40 CFR 435.30. The Onshore
Subcategory geographically also applies
to an area that In part I. also covered by
the Coastal Subcategory as defined at 40
CFR 435.40. except as amended at 47 FR
31554 (July 21. 1982). The seaward
boundaries of both subcategories are
defined as the inner margin of the
territorial seas and both extend Inland
with the inner or landward boundary of
the Coastal Subcategory Including any
body of water landward of the territorial
seas or any wetlands adlacent to such
waters. The Coastal Subcategory is not
geographically defined and. as
promulgated, It applies to facilities
operating in lakes. rivers, and streams.
Oil and gas operations In the Coastal
Subcategory are, on this basis, excluded
from these permits; they will be
regulated under separate general
permits.
Onshore oil and gas operations
located west of the 98th meridIan in the
states of New Mexico, Oklahoma or
Texas and which qualify for coverage
under 40 CFR 435.50 (Agricultural and
Wildlife Water Use Subcategory) are
likewise not included In these general
onshore permits because the allowed
use of produced waters for purposes
defined in the subcategory requires
evaluation of applicable water quality
standards and criteria. Facilities in the
Agricu.ltural and Wildlife Water Use
Subcategory will therefore be covered
under separate genera! permits.
Location: Location of the oil and gas
facility is determinate and discharges at
other locations Is prohibited. In taking
this pobition, It is the A.gency e intent
that the location of the well head shall
be the determining factor In defining
within which subcategory a permittee is
operating. It I . also the Agency’s intent
that geographic location is also to
determine the conditions under which
dlschapges may or may not occur. Since
dlscharges,,are meant to refer to the
surface release of pollutants to watere of
the United States, disposal by other
methods approved by State Agencies.
such as ubaurface uilection, Is not
prohibited by these permits.
Oth F emptions. “Stripper” wells as
defined at 40 CFR 435.60, Subpart F. and
which are classified as “snipper” prior
to the date of this permit are not
Included In these general onshore
permits. This aubcategory. which applies
to wells which produce 10 barrels of oil
per day or a well with greater than
15,000 cubic feet of gas per barrel of oil
per day, applies to single wells or fields
wherein, as is the Agency’s intention.
production linuts shall apply to an
average expressed on a per well basis.
See 44 FR 22073 (April 13. 1979).
Wells which become classified as
“snipper” after the effective date of this
permit are covered by this permit.
Although no specific limitations have
otherwise been promulgated for the
Stripper Subcategory at this time, the
proper classification of this source as a
separat subcategory Is regarded
significant since It does exclude the
source from other subcategories.
allowing the establishment of more
directly applicable limitations under
section 402(aJ(1) of the Clean Water Act.
Effluent limitations regarding the
Stripper Subcategory will be considered
as separate general permits.
Consideratioa of Technology
These permits are based on the
Agency’s promulgated interim final
effluent limitations which are based on
the application of “best practicable
control technology currently available”
(BPTJ for the Onshore Subcategory of
the Oil and Gas Extraction point source
Category. See 44 FR 22069 (April 13.
1979); 40 CFR Part 435, Subpart C. The
Federal r gulafiona applying to this
subcategory incorporate terms based on
comments received after publication of
the interim final regulations and the
Agency’s stipulated agreements in
litigation. In the absence of other
guidelines for the onshore area, the
Agency has taken the position that since
the Federal regulations prohibit the
discharge of pollutants from any source
in the subcategory, that on the basis of
best professional judgment (BPJJ, the
best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT) equals best available
technology economically achievable
(BAT) and that this equals the best
practicable control technology (BPT)
applied In the Onshore Subcategory.
The no discharge limitation on onshore
activities associated with the
exploration and production of oil and
gas is therefore in accord with the
Federal regulations at 40 CFR Part 435,
Subpart C. wherein the discharge of
waste pollutants from any source
related to oil and gas exploration and
production activities in the Onshore
Subcategory I. prohibited. In applying
the no discharge limitation in this
permit, the Agency cannot establish
ilmitati one that are less stringent than
those limitations defined in the Federal
regulations.
Ultlmat. Disposal of Wastes
These proposed permits prohibit the
direct discharge of pollutants to waters
of the United States from oil and gas
wells in the Onshore Subcategory and
their appurtenant facilities, e.g.. mud
pits, reserve pita, oil/water separators.
They do not, however, apply to the
ultlmat,e disposal of wastes derived (rain
oil and gas activities. If such disposal
involves a discharge a pollutants to
waters of the United States, the disposal
facility must obtain an individual
NPDES permit prior to commencing the
discharge. Generally. State permits are
also required for such discharges.
-------
35932
Federal Register / VoL 54. No. 167 I Wednesday , August 30, 1969 I Notices -
Moreover, disposal of wastes from oil
and gao operations through methods
which do not Invol ,. discharge, to
waters of the United States, e.g.. land
farniuig. backfilling , subsurface
Iniection. is also regulated by state
agencies. Although other state agencies
may also have jurisdiction. EPA
8uggests that parties desiring approval
for such disposal methods contact the
Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality (surface disposal), the Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources
(Subsurface disposal), the New Mexico
Conservation Division, the Oklahoma
Corporation Commission, or the
Railroad Commission of the State of
Texas. as appropriate.
Other Legal Requirements
State Certification: Section
3O1(bj(1)(C7 of the Clean Water Act
requires that NPDES permits contain
conditions which ensure compliance
with applicable State water quality
standards or limitations. Under section
401(81(1) of the Act. EPA may not issue a
permit until the State grants or waives
certification to ensure compliance with
appropriate requirements of the Act and
State law. The proposed permits, in not
allowing discharges Into waters of the
United States. Is In conformity with
existing Federal regulations.
The Endangered Species Act The
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and its
Implementing regulations (50 FR Cl ’R
Part 402) requires that each Federal
Agency ensure that Its action,, such as
permit i.ssuance, do not jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species or result In the
desti ’uctlon or adverse modification of
their critical habitats. In view of the fact
that these permits will not allow
discharges Into the waters of the United
States and are therefore unlikely to
effect changes In the enviromnent, EPA
has concluded that their Issuance Is
unlikely to adversely affect any of the
listed spedel or thaU’afftcal habitats. It
I, seeking concmven In this
determination from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Economic Impac (Executive Order
12292): The O cs of Management and
Budget has exempted this action from
the review requirements of Executive
Order i2 i pursuant to section 8(b) of
that order. The economic and
inflationary effects of the regulations (40
CFR Part 435) upon which this permit is
based have been evaluated In
accordance with Executive Orders 11821
and 1 )44.
The Paperwork Reduction Act EPA
has reviewed the requirements Imposed
on regulated facilities In these general
permits under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980. 44 U.S.C. 3501 at. seq. The
information collection requirements of
these permits have been approved by
the Office of Management and Budget in
submission, made for the NPDES permit
program under provision of the Clean
Water Act.
The Regu1ator Flexibility Act.’ EPA
does not anticipate that these general
permits will have a aigeificant impact on
the majority of the parties. Induding
those with greater than and those with
less than 500 employees, dne to the fact
that the no discharge limitations
proposed are in effect In the farm of
existing State and Federal regulations.
After review of the facts presented In
the notice printed above. I hereby certify
pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that these general NPDES permits
will not have a siguificant Impact on a
substantial camber of small entities.
Moreover, the permits reduce a
significant administrative burden of
applying for indlvtdual permits, on
regulated sources.
Date Augu.,t 22, 1O
Robert E. Layton jr.,
RegionoiAdaunistmior. Region &
General NPDES Permit for the Oil and
Gas Extraction Point Source Category.
Onshore Subcategory
Permit No. LAG3 20000—State of
Louisiana
Permit No. NMG3Z0000—S tate of New
Mexico
Permit No. Ol(G320000—.State of
Oklahoma
Permit No. TXG3Z0000— .State of Texas
This permit. Issued under the
provisions of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended (33
U.S.C. 1251 et eeq: The “Act”), prohibits
the discharge of pollutants from any
onshore oil and gas wells and facilities
as defined in 40 ‘R Part 435, Subpart C
(Onshore Subcategory) and modified at
47 FR, 31554. fuly 21. 1982. It does not
apply to wells or facilities in the
Agricultural and Wildlife Use
Subcategory (as defined at 40 CFR 435.
Subpart E). Likewise, it does not apply
to existing wells which, at the time of
permit Issuance, fall within the Stripper
Subcategory as defined at 40 CFR 435,
Subpart F, but later wells In which
production falls below 10 barrels per
day shall remain subject to this permiL
This permit also does not apply to those
wells or appurtenant facilities whose
well heads are located in any body of
water or adjacent wetlands (as defined
at 40 CFR 435, Subpart D).
To the extent that applicability of this
permit Is based on the geographical
location of wells or facilities, the
location of the wellhead shall be
determinative, I.e., pollutant discharges
which are prohibited at the location of
the well head may not be discharged at
other locutions.
This permit prohibits the discharge of
any pollutant from wells or faaul ties
subject to its terms, Said pollutants
include (but are not limited to):
Drilling Fluids
Drill Cuttings
Produced water
Produced sand
Deck and Rig Floor Dramage
Blowout Preventer fluid
Well Treatment Fluids
Further description of said pollutants.
as well as monitoring, reporting, and
other requirements are set forth in Parts
L I i. and I II of this permit.
This permit shall become effective
when issued, and expire at midnight on
(five years after final permit effective
date).
Myron 0. Knudson.
Dir’ectop. Water Management Division PA
Region 6
Part I
(Applicable to LAG320000, N? 1G 3 DOOO.
0KG320000 , TXG3ZOOc0)
Section A. General Permit Covercge
General Permit Limits
(Applicable to LAG3200IX))
This permit prohibits discharges into
waters of the United States as defined in
40 CFR Part 435. The disposal of waters
and waste resulting from oil and gas
exploration and producing activities in
manners other than by discharges into
waters of the United States are limited
Department of Natural Resources.
Office of Conservation of the State of
Louisiana according to Amendment to
Statewide Order No. 29-B and the water
quality standards of the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality
(Louisiana Revised Statute. LR.S.
30:1091—1096).
(Applicable to NMG3ZOXOJ
This permit prohibits discharges into
waters of the United States as defined in
40 CPR Part 435. The disposal of waters
and waste resulting from oil and gas
exploration and producing activities in
manners other than by discharges into
waters of the United States are
otherwise limited by the New Mexico
Oil Conservation Division (NMOCD)
Rules 01 through 1304 and regulations of
the State Oil and Gas Act (Sections 70-
2-1— through 70—2—38 NMSA. 1978) and
as may be amended, and the water
quality standards of the New Mexico
Health and Environment Department.
Environmental Improvement Division.
-------
Federal Register I VoL 54, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 3O 1989 / NotIces
35333
SectIons 1—100 to 3101 and as explained
In Water Quality and Water Pollution
Control in New Mexico (1988), and as
may be amended.
(Applicable to 0KG320000)
This permit prohihits discharges into
waters of the United States as defined In
40 CFR Part 435. The disposal of waters
and waste resulting from oil and gas
exploration and producing activities in
manners other than by discharges into
waters of the United States are
otherwise limited by the Oklahoma
Corporation Commission according to
Rules of Practice 1 through 28 (1988) and
the water quality standards of the
Oklahoma Water Resources Board.
Water Quality Division. SectIons 1
through 8 and as appended (1985) and as
may be amended.
(Applicable to TXG3Z0000)
This permit prohibits discharges into
waters of the United States as defined In
40 CFR Part 435. The disposal of waters
and waste resulting from oil and gas
exploration and producing activities in
manners other than by discharges into
waters of the United States are
otherwise Limited by the Railroad
Commission of the State of Texas
according to Rules 79 through 85(1987)
and the water quality standards of the
Texas Water CommIssion (12 TexReg
3642.13 TexReg 1778).
Section 8. NPDF.S Individual versus
General Permit Applicability
The Regi ’ l Administrator may
require any person authorized by this
permit to apply for and obtain an
individual NPDES permit wham
1. The dIscharge(s) I . a significant
contributor of pollutlon
2. The discharger Is not in compliance
with the conditions of this permit;
3. A change has occurred In the
availability of the demonstrated
technolo or practices for the control or
abatement of pollutants applicable to
point sources
4. A Water Management Plan
containing requirements applicable to
such a point source Is approved
S. The point source(s) covered by this
permit no longer
(a) Involves the same or substantially
similar types of operations.
(b) Is no longer limited to the same
types of wastes.
(c) requires the same effluent
limitations or operating conditions, or
(d) In the opinion of the Regional
Admurustrator. Is more appropriately
controlled under an individual permit
than under a general permit.
Operators required to apply for an
Individual permit shall be notified In
writing by the Regional Administrator.
A source excluded from coverage
under this general permit solely because
It already has an individual permit may
request that its individual permit be
revoked. Upon revocation of the
ind ividual permit, this general permit
shall apply to the source.
Part II
(Applicable to LAC3Z0000, NMG320000,
OKG3Z0000, TXG320000)
Section A. Effluent limitations and
Monitoring Requfrementr, Onshore
Subcotego,y
(Applicable to LAG320000)
The oil and gas exploration and
production activities covered by this
permit apply to the onshore area of the
State of Louisiana as defined in Part L
(Applicable to NMG320000)
The oil and gas exploration and
production activities covered by this
permit apply to the onshore area of the
State of New Mexico as defined In Part
L
(Applicable to 0KG320000)
The oil and gas exploration and
production activities covered by this
permit apply to the onshore area of the
State of Oklahoma as defined in Part!.
(Applicable to TXG320000)
The oil and gas exploration and
production activities covered by this
permit apply to the onshore area of the
State of Te cas as defined In Part!.
1. Drilling Fluids
(a) Applicability
Permit conditions apply to all drilling
fluids (muds), whether oil, mineral oil or
water based, and include fluids adhering
to drill cuttings. used as the result of
activities associated with the
exploration and the production of oil
and gas.
(b) Prohibitions
The discharge of drilling fluids Into
waters of the United States Ii
prohibited.
(Applicable to LAG3Z0000)
Rest management practices (EMP)
shall be used in accordance with the
treatment and disposal critena of the
State of Louisiana, Department of
Natural Resources, Office of
Conservation (Statewide Order 29—B) to
ensure that receiving pits will not allow
discharge or seepage of drilling fluids
into waters of the United States.
(Applicable to NMG320000)
Best management practices (BMP)
shall be used In accordance with the
rules and regulations of the New Mexico
Oil Conservation Division (Rules and
Regulations) to ensure that receiving
pits will not allow discharge or seepage
of drilling fluids into waters of the
United States.
(Applicable to 0KG320000)
Best management practices (BMPJ
shall be used In accordance with the
rules and regulations of the Oklahoma
Corporation Commission. Oil and Gas
Conservation Division (General Rules
and Regulations, 1988) to ensure that
receiving pits will not allow discharge or
seepage of drilling fluids into waters of
the United States.
(Applicable to TXG320000)
Best management practices (BMP)
shall be used in accordance with the
treatment and disposal criteria of the
Railroad Commission of Texas
(Statewide rules for Oil. Gas and
Geothermal Operations. RRCT. 1987) to
ensure that receiving pits will not allow
discharge or seepage of drilling fluids
into waters of the United States.
2. Drill Cuttings
Special note: The permit prohibitions
and limitations that apply to drilling
fluids also apply to cuttings as well as to
the fluids that adhere to them. Any
permit condition that applies to the
drilling fluid system therefore also
applies to cuttings.
3. Produced water
(a) Applicability
This permit applies to all formation
watere recovered during activities
associated with the exploration and
production of oil and gas, Including
those recovered during production tests.
(b) Prohibitions
The discharge of produced water or
produced water associated with oil Is
prohibited.
(Applicable to LAC320000)
Produced water, whether from well
drilling, production or workover
operations, as well as waste waters
from storage tanks, separators.
saltwater or brine pit . are prohibited
from being discharged Into waters of the
United States. Best management
practices (BMP) shall be used In
accordance with the treatment and
disposal criteria of the Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources. Office
of Conservation (Statewide Order 29-B)
to ensure that receiving pits will not
-------
35934
Federal Register I VoL 54. No. 107 / Wednesday . August 30. 1989 I Notices
allow discharge or seepage of drilling
fluids into waters of the United States.
(Applicable to NMC320000J
Produced water, whether from well
drilling. production or workover
operations, as well as waste waters
from storage tanks, separators.
saltwater or brine pits are prohibited
from being discharged into waters of the
United States. Best management
practices (BMP) shall be used In
accordance with the treatment and
disposal criteria of the New mexico Oil
Conservation Division (Roles and
Regulations) to ensure that receiving
pita will not allow discharge or seepage
of drilling fluids into waters of the
United States.
(Applicable to 0KG320000)
Produced water, whether from well
drilling, production or workover
operations, as well as waste waters
from storage tanks, separators.
saltwater or brine pits are prohibited
from being discharged Into waters of the
United States. Best management
practices (BMP) shall be used In
accordance with the treatment and
disposal criteria of the Oklahoma
Corporation Commission. Oil and Gas
Conservation Division (General Rules
and Regulations, 1998) to ensine that
receiving pita will not allow discharge or
seepage of drilling finds Into waters of
the United States.
(Applicable to TXG3Z0000)
Produced water, whether from well
drilling, production or workover
operations, as well as waste waters
from storage tanks, 8eparatora,
saltwater or brine pits are prohibited
from being discharged Into waters of the
United States. Best management
practices (BMP) shall be used In
accordance with the treatment and
disposal criteria of the Railroad
Commission of Texas (Statewide Rules
for Oil. Gas and Goathermal Operations,
RRCr, 1987) to uu that receiving pita
will not allow discharge or seepage of
drilling fluidi Late waters of the United
States.
4. Produced Sand
Special notei The prohibitions and
limitation that apply to drill cuttings,
drilling fluids, well completion finids
and fluids that adhere to cuttings also
apply to produced sand.
5. Deck or Rig Floor Drainage
(a) Applicability
This permit applies to material or fluid
spillage. including drilling muds (oil.
mineral oil or water based), wash-down
water. cease, waste oil. lubricants, or
hydraulic fluidi resulting from activities
associated with the exploration and
production of oil and gas.
(b) Prohibitions
The discharge of rig floor or deck
drainage into waters of the United
States is prohibited.
(Applicable to LAG32Q000)
Best management practices (BMP)
shall be used in accordance with the
treatment and disposal criteria of the
State of Louisiana. Department of
Natural Resources, Office of
Conservation (Statewide Order 29—B) to
ensure that rig floor or deck drainage
will not discharge, seep or otherwise be
released Into waters of the United
States.
(Applicable to NMG320000)
Best management practices (BMP)
shall be used in accordance with the
treatment and disposal criteria of the
New Mexico Oil Conservation Division
(Rules and Regulations) to ensure that
rig floor or deck drainage will not
discharge, seep or otherwise be released
Into waters of the United States.
(Apphcable to OKG320000)
Best management practices (EMP)
shall be used In accordance with the
treatment and disposal criteria of the
Oklahoma Corporation Commission. Oil
and Gas Conservation Division (General
Rules and RegulatIons. 1988) to ensure
that rig floor or deck drainage will not
discharge. seep or otherwise be released
into waters of the Umted States.
(Applicable to TXC320000)
Best management practices (BMP)
shall be used in accordance with the
treatment and disposal criteria of the
Railroad Commission of Texas
(Statewide rules for OIL Gas and
Geothermal Operations, RRCT. 1987) to
ensure that rig floor or deck drainage
will not discharge, seep or otherwise be
released into waters of the United
States.
6. Blowout Preventer Fluid
(a) Applicability
This permit applies to all oil or
hydraulic fluids used En blowout
preventer mechanisms used in activities
associated with the exploration and
production of oil and gas.
(b) Prohibition
The discharge of blowout preventer
fluids are prohibited.
7. Well Treatment Fluids, Completion
fluids, Workover Fluids
(a) Applicability
This permit applies to well treatment
fluids, including well completion fluids.
workover fluids well stimulation fluids
or fluids resulting from well tests used i
activities related to the exploration and
production of oil and gas.
(b) Prohibition
The discharge of well treatment.
completion, well testing and workover
fluids, as well as discharges from
production test, flare, completion or
otherwise designated temporary storag’
pits. into waters of the United States is
prohibited.
(Applicable to LAG320000)
Best management practices (DM2)
shall be used in the disposal of these
wastes shall be In accordance with the
treatment and disposal criteria of the
State of Louisiana, Department of
Natural Resources, Office of
Conservation (Statewide Order 29-B) tc
ensure that there will be no discharges
into waters of the United States.
(Applicable to NMG320000)
Best management practices (BMP)
shall be used in the disposal of these
wastes shall be in accordance with the
treatment and disposal criteria of the
New Mexico Oil Conservation Division
( iiles and Regulations) to ensure that
¶ere will be no discharges into waters
of the United States,
(Applicable to 0KG320000)
Best management practices (BMP)
shalt be used in the disposal of these
wastes shall be in accordance with the
treatment and disposal criteria of the
Oklahoma Corporation Commission. Oi
and Gas Conservation DIvision (Genera
Rules and Regulations, 1988) to ensure
that there will be no discharges into
waters of the United States.
(Applicable to TXG320000)
Best management practices (BMP)
shall be used in the disposal of these
wastes shall be in accordance with the
treatment and disposal criteria of the
Railroad Commission of Texas
(Statewide Rules for Oil. Gas and
Geothermal Operations. RRCT. 1987) to
ensure that there will be no discharges
Into waters of the United States.
-------
Federal Register / VoL 54 No. 107 / Wednesday. August 30, 1989 / Notices
Part I lL
(Applicable to LAG320000, NMG3Z0000.
0KG320000, TXG320000)
Section A. General Conditions
1. introduction. In accordance with
the provisions ot .3 CFR P3rt .4i et
seq., this permit incorporates by
reference ALL conditions and
requirements applicable to NPDES
permits set forth Lu the Clean Water Act,
as amended (hereinafter known as the
“Act”) as well as ALL applicable CFR
regulations.
2. Duty to Comply. The perniittee must
comply with all conditions of this
permit Any permit non-compliance
constitutes a violation of the Clean
Water Act and Is grounds for
enforcement action and/or for requiring
a permittee to apply for and obtain an
Individual NPDES permit.
3. Permit Flexth ,lity. This permit may
be modified, revoked and reissued, or
terminated for cause, In accordance
with 40 CFR 12182—84. The filing for a
permit modification, revocation and
reissuance, or termination, or a
notification of planned changes or
anticipated noncompliance, does not
stay any permit condition.
4. Property Rights. This permit does
not convey any property rights of any
sort, or any exclusive privileges nor
does it authorrm any injury to private
property or any Invasion of personal
rights, nor any Infringement of Federal
State or local laws or regulations.
5. Duty to Provide information. The
permittee sfi ll furnish to the Regional
Administrator, within a reasonable time,
any information which the Regional
Administrator may request to determine
whether cause exists for modifying,
revoking and reissuing, or terminating
this permit, or to determine compliance
with this permit The pernuttee shall
also furnish the Regional Mmirnstrator,
upon request, copies of records required
to be kept by this permit.
& Crwzznal and Ci v ii Liability. Except
as provided in permit conditions on
‘Bypassing” and “Upsets”, nothing In
this permit shall be conat’u.ed to relieve
the permittee from avil or _____
penalties for noncompliance. Any false
or materially misleading representation
or concealment of Information required
to be reported by the provisions of the
permit, the Act or applicable CFR
regulations which avoids or effectively
defeats the regulatory purpose of the
Permit may subject the permittee to
criminal enforcement pursuant to 18
Section 1001.
7.0,/and Hazardous Substance
L ,ab ,l ,ty. Nothing in this permit shall be
construed to preclude the institution of
any legal action or relieve the permittee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or
penalties to which the permittee may be
subject under SectIon 311 of the Act,
& State Laws, Nothing in this permit
shall be construed to preclude the
Institution of any legal action or relieve
the permittee from any responsibilities,
liabilities, or penalties established
pursuant t any applicable State law or
regu1atio under authority preserved by
Section 510 of the Clean Water Act.
9. Severcbilhty. The provisions of this
permit are severable, and If any
provision of this permit or the
application of any provision of this
permit to any circumstances Is held
invalid, the application of such provision
to other circumstances, and the
remainder of this permit, shall not be
affected thereby.
Section B. Proper Operation and
Maintenance
1. Need to Halt or Reduce Not a
Defense. It shall not be a defense for a
perinittee in an enforcement action that
it would have been necessary to halt or
reduce the permitted activity in order to
maintain compliance with the conditions
of this permit.
2. Duty to Mitigate. The permittee
shall take all reasonable step. to
minimi or prevent any discharge in
violation of this permit which has a
reasonable likelihood of adversely
affecting human health or the
environment.
3. Proper Operution and Mwntenance
The permittee shall at all times properly
operate and maintain all facilities and
systems’àf treatment and control (and
related appertenances) which are
Installed and used by the permittee to
achieve compliance with the conditions
of this pe it This provision requires
the operation of backup or auxiliary
facilities of similar systems which are
Installed by a permittee only when the
operation Is necessary to achieve
compliance with the conditions of the
permit.
4. Bypass of Facilities.
(a) Definitions
(1) “Bypass” means the intentional
diversion of waste streams from any
portioa of a facility.
(2) ‘Severe property damage” means
substantial physical damage to property,
damage to the treatment facilities that
causes them to be inoperable, or
substantial and permanent loss of
natural resources than can reasonably
be expected to occur in the absence of
bypass. Severe property damage doe.
not mean economic loss caused by
delays in production.
(bj Notice
(1) AntI apated bypass. If the
permittee knows in advance of the need
for a bypass, it shall submit prior notice,
If possible at least ten days before the
date of the bypass.
(2) UnanticIpated bypass. The
perinittee shall, within 24 hours, submit
notice of an unanticipated bypass as
required in Part IILD.2.
(c) Prohibition of Bypass
(1) Bypass is prohibited, and the
Regional Administrator may take
enforcement action against a permittee
for bypass, wiless:
(a) Bypass was unavoidable to
prevent loss of life, personal injury or
severe property damage:
(b) There were no feasible
alternatives to the bypass. such as the
use of auxiliary treatment facilities.
retention of untreated wastes, or
maintenance during normal periods of
equipment downtime. This condition is
not satisfied if adequate back-up
equipment should have been installed in
the exercise of reasonable engineering
judgement to prevent a bypass which
occurred during normal periods of
equipment downtime or preventive
maintenance, and
(c) The permittee submitted notices as
required by Part IILB.t(b).
(2) The Regional Admrniairator may
approve an anticipated bypass. after
considering its adverse effects, if the
Regional Administrator determines that
It will meet three conditions listed at
Part ULB.4.(c)(1).
5. Upset Conditions. (a) Definition
“Upset” means an exceptional
Incident In which there is unintentional
and temporary noncompliance with
technology-based effluent limitations
because of factors beyond the
reasonable control of the permittee. An
upset does not Include noncompliance to
the extent caused by operational error,
improperly designed facilities,
Inadequate facilities, lack of preventive
maintenance, or careless or improper
operation.
(b) Effects of an Upset. An upset
constitutes an affirmative defense of an
action brought for noncompliance with
such technology-based permit effluent
limitations if the requirements of Part
aB.5.b. are met, No determination
made during administrative review of
claims that noncompliance was caused
by upset, and before an action for
noncompliance, is final administrative
action subiect to iuthcial review,
(c) Conditions necessary for a
demonstration of upset, The permittee
who wishes to establish the affirmative
defense of upset shall demonstrate.
through properly signed,
-------
35938
Federal Register I Vol. 54. No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30. .1989 I Notices
contemporaneous 1 ogs, or other relevant
evidence that
(1) An upset occurred and that the
pernuttee can identify the cause(s) of
the upset:
(2) The permitted facility was at the
time being properly operated;
(3) The permittee submitted notice of
the upset as required by Part W.D.Z and
(4) The perinittee complied with Part
m.B.2.
(d) Burden of Proof. In any
enforcement proceeding the permittee
seeking to establish the occurrence of an
upset has the burden of proof.
6. Removed Substances. Solids.
sludges. filler backwash, or other
pollutants removed in the course of
treatment or control of wastewaters
shall be disposed of In a manner such as
to prevent any pollution from such
materials from entering waters of the
ljruted States.
Section C. Monitorzn,g and Records
The permittee shall allow the Regional
Administrator, or an authorized
representative. upon the presentation of
credentials and other documents as may
be required by law to:
1. Enter upon the permittee premises
where a regulated facility or activity Is
located or conducted, or where records
must be kept under the conditions of this
permit:
2. Have access to and copy, at
reasonable times, any records that must
be kept under the conditions of this
permit:
3. inspect at reasonable times any
facilities, equipment (including
monitoring and control equipment),
practices or operations regulated or
required under this permit and
4. Sample or monitor at reasonable
times, for the purposes of assuring
permit compliance or as otherwise
authorized by the Act, any substances
or parameters at any location.
Section D. Repoxtth Requirements
1, Anticipated Noncompiianc& The
permittee shall give advance notice to
the Regional Administrator of any
planned changes in the permitted
facility or activity which may result In
noncompliance with permit
requirements.
2. Twenty-Four 1-four Reporting. The
perrmttee shall report any
noncompliance with this permit. bypass
or upset. Any information shall be
provided orally within 24 hours from the
time the permittee becomes aware of the
circumstancea. A written submission
shall also be provided within 5 days of
the time the permittee becomes aware of
the circumstances. The written
submission shall contain a description
of the noncompliance and Its cause; the
period of noncompliance. including
exact dates and times, and If the
noncompliance ha. not been corrected.
the anticipated time It I expected to
continue: and steps taken or plans to
reduce, eluiunate. and prevent
reoccurrence of the noncompliance. The
Regional Administrator may waive the
written report on a case-by-case basis if
the oral report has been received within
24 hours.
3. Other Information. Where the
perimttee become . aware that It failed
to 8ubmit any relevant facts In any
report to the Regional Administrator, it
shall promptly submit such facts or
information.
4. Changes in Discharges of Toxic
Substnnces. The perm.ittee shall notify
the Regional Administrator as soon as it
knows or has reason to believe:
(a) That any activity has occurred or
will occur which would result in the
discharge, on a routine or frequent basis.
or any toxic pollutant which is not
limited in the permit if that discharge
will exceed the highest of the
“notification levels” described In 40 CFR
122.42(a)(1).
(b) That any activity has occurred or
will occur which would result In any
discharge. on a non-routine or infrequent
basis. of a toxic pollutant which Is not
limited In the permit. if that discharge
will exceed the highest of the
“notification levels” described In 40 ‘R
122.42(a)(2).
5. Signatoiy Requirements. All
applications, reports, or information
submitted to the Regional Administrator
shall be signed and certified as follows:
(a) All permit applications shall be
signed as follows:
(1) For a corporation. By a responsible
corporate officer. For the purpose of this
section, a responsible corporate officer
means:
(a) A president. secretary, treasurer,
or vice-president of the corporation in
charge of a principle business function,
or decision making functions for the
corporation, or
(b) The manager of one or more
manufacturing, production. or operating
facilities employing more than 250
persons or having gross annual sales or
expenditures exceeding $25 million (In
second-quarter 1980 dollars), If authority
to sign documents has been assigned or
delegated to the manager in accordance
with corporate procedures.
(c) For a partnership or sole
proprietorship. By a general partner or
the proprietor, respectively.
(d) For a municipality, State, Federal
or other public agency. Either a principle
executive office or ranking elected
official. For purposes of this section. a
principle executive officer of a Federal
agency Includes:
(1) The chief executive officer of the
agency. or
(2) A senior executive officer having
responsibility for the overall operations
of a principle geographic unit of the
agency.
(3) Alternatively, all reports required
by the permit and other information
requested by the Regional Administrator
may be signed by a person described
above or by a duly authorized
representative only ifi
(a) The authorization Is made in
writing by a person described above;
(b) The authorization specifies either
an individual or a position having
responsibility for the overall operation
of the regulated facility or activity, such
as the position of plant manager.
operator of a well or oil field.
superintendent, or position of equivalent
responsibility, or an individual or
position having overall responsibility for
environmental matters for the company.
A duly authorized representative may
thus be either an individual or an
individual occupying a named position
and
(3) The written authorization is
submitted to the Regional
Administrator,
(c) Certification. Any person signing a
document under this section shall maka
the following certification:
I certify under penalty of law that this
document and all attachments were prepared
under my direction or supervision in
accordance with a system designed to assure
that qualified personnel properly gather and
ev luate the information submitted. Based on
my’1nqwry of the person or persons who
manage the system. or those persona directly
responsible for the gathering of the
information. the information submitted is. to
the best of my knowledge and beheL true,
accurate and complete.! am aware that there
are significant penalties for submitting false
information. Including the possibility of fine
and imprisonment for knowing violations.
6. Availability of Reports. Except for
applications, effluent data, and other
data specified In 40 CFR 122.7, any
information submitted pursuant to this
permit may be dammed confidential by
the submitter. If no claim is made at the
time of submission. Information may be
made available to the public without
further notice.
Section H. Penalties for Violations of
Permit Conditions
1. Criminal
(a) Negligent Violations. The Act
provides that any person who
negligently violates permit conditions
implementing Section 301, 302, 308, 307,
or 308 of the Act is subject to a fine of
-------
Federei Regjste, / VoL 54. No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 1989 I Notices
35937
not less than $2,500 nor more than
$25,000 per day of violation. or by
imprisonment for not more than 1 year.
or both.
(b) Knowing Violations. The Act
provides that any person who
knowingly violate, permit conditions
implementing Section 301, 302. 306. or
308 of the Act is subject to a fine of not
less than $5,000 per day of violation nor
more than $50,000 per day of violation.
or by imprisonment for not more than 3
years. or both.
(C) Knowing Endangennent. The Act
provides that any person who
knowingly violates permit conditions
implementing Section 301. 302. 306, 307,
or 308 of the Act and who knows at the
time that he is placing another person in
imminent danger of death or serious
bodily Injury IS subject to a fine of not
more than $250,000, or by imprisonment
for not more than 15 years. or both.
(d) False Statements. The Act
provides that any person who
knowlingly makes any falie material
statement, representation, or
certification In any application, record.
report, plan. or other document filed or
required to be maintained under the Act
or who knowingly falsifies, tampers
with, or renders inaccurate, any
monitoring devise or method required to
be maintained under the Act, shall upon
conviction. be punished by a fine of not
more than 310.000 per day, or by
imprisonment for not more than 2 years,
or by both. If a conviction of a person is
for a violation committed after a first
conviction of such a person under this
paragraph. punishment shall be by a fine
of not more than $20,000 per day of
violation. or by imprisonment of not
more than 4 years, or by both (See
Section 309.c.4. of the Clean Water Act).
2. Civil Penalties. The Act provide.
that any person who violates a permit
condition implementing Sections 301,
302,306.307 or 308 of the Act Is subject
to a civil penalty not to exceed $2 000
per day for each violation.
3. Administrative Penalties. The Act
provides that any person who violates a
permit condition implementing Sections
301,302,306.307,308.316. or 405 of the
Act Is subject to a civil penalty not to
exceed $25,000 per day for each
violation.
(a) Class I Penalty
Not to exceed $10,000 per violation
nor shall the maximum amount exceed
$25,000.
(b) Class U Penalty
Not to exceed $10,000 per day for each
day during which the violations
continues nor shall the maximum
amount exceed $125,000.
Section P Definitions
All definitions in Section 502 of the
Act shall apply to this permit and are
Incorporated herein by reference. Unless
otherwise specified In this permit,
additional definitions words or phrases
used in this permit are as follow.:
1. “Act” means the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq.) as amended.
2. “Appflcable effluent standards and
linutations” means all state and. Federal
effluent standards and limitations to
which a discharge is subject under the
Act, including, but not limited to,
effluent limitations, standards of
performance, toxic effluent standards
and prohibitions, and pretreatment
standards.
3. “Applicable water quality
standards” means all water quality
standards to which a discharge is
subject under the Act and which have
been (a) approved or permitted to
remain in effect by the Administrator
following submission to him/her,
pursuant to Section 303(a) of the Act, or
(b) promulgated by the Administrator
pursuant to section 303(b) or 303(c) of
the Act.
4. ‘Blowout preventer flwd” means a
fluid used to actuate the hydraulic blow
out preventer at the well site,
5. “Bypass” means the intentional
dlvers lQp of waste streams from any
portion of a treatment facility.
0. ‘Coastal” means any body of water
landward from the inner margi h of the
territorial seas; the term Includes marine
waters located landward from the Inner
margin of the territorial seas as well as
inland rivers, streams and lakes and any
wetland adjacent to such bodies of
waters.
7. “Deck drainage” means all waste
resulting form platform washings, runoff
from curbs, gutters, and drains including
spillage of drilling muds, waste from
drip pans and rig floor wash down and
fluids derived from wash areas,
8. “Drill cuttings” means particles
generated by drilling into subsurface
geologic foimations and which are
carried to the surface with the chilling
fluids,
0. “DrillIng fluid” means any fluid sent
dawn-hole, including muds and any
specialty products, from the time the
well is begun until the final cessation of
drilling.
10. “Environmental Protection
Agency” means the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
11. “FormulatIon test fluids” means
fluids brought up from wells as the
result of testing the productivity of
potentially economic oil or gas from
geologic formations encountered during
drilling.
12. “National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System” means the national
program for issuing. revoking and
reissuing. tPmini tIng. monitoring and
enforcing permits, and imposing and
enforcing pretreatment requirements.
under sections 307, 318. 402 and 405 of
the Act.
13. “Produced sand” means
particulate matter, sands, produced
along with oil, gas and water during the
production of oil and gas.
14. “Regional Administrator” means
the Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6.
15. “Severe property damage” means
substantial physical damage to property,
damage to treatment facilities which
causes them to become Inoperable, or
substantial and permanent toss of
natural resources which can reasonably
be expected to occur in the absence of
bypass. Severe property damage does
not mean economic loss caused by
delays in production.
18. “Territorial Seas” means the seas
failing seaward of a line of ordinary low
water along that portion of the coast
which is in direct contact with the open
ocean and the line marking the seaward
limit of the inland waters, extending
seaward a distance of 3 miles (CWA
Section 5Cr).
17. “Upset” means an exceptional
incident in which there is unintentional
and temporary noncompliance with
technology-based permit effluent
limitations because of factors beyond
the reasonable control of the permittee.
An upset does not include
noncompliance to the extent caused by
operational error, improperly designed
treatment facilities. inadequate
treatment facilities. tack of preventive
maintenance, or careless or improper
operation.
[ FR Doe. 89- 437 Filed &-m-an 8.15 anij
COOS USG4O
FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Louisiana; Anisndmsnt to Notice of a
M*r Cluster D.darstlon
(FEMA-a35-OR 1
AOENCV Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
ACflOIC Notice,
suuua r This notice amends the notice
of a major disaster for the State of
Louisiana (FEMA-.835--DR). dated July
18, 1989. and related determinations.
QATfi August 23. 19 1W.
-------
Fedezaj Register / VoL 54. No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 1989 / Notices
Executive Order i 9i
The purpose of Executave Order 12291.
dated February 17. 1981. is to reduce the
burdens of existing and future
regulations, increase agency
accountability for regulator7 actions.
provide for presidential oversight of the
regulatory process. niinlmize duplication
and conflict of regulations, and insure
well-reasoned regulations.
The DOE has determined that this is
not a major rule pursuant to the criteria
of section 1(b) of the order Furthermore,
Western has received an exempt ion
from sectionj 3. 4. and 7 of Executive
Order 12291, and therefore has not
prepared a regulatory impact statement.
Availability of Inforination
All brochures, studies, comments.
letters, memorandums and other
documents made or kept by Western for
the purpose of developing the proposed
alternative rates are and will be
available for Inspection and copying at
the Sacramento Area Office. Western
Area Power Administration, 1825 Bell
Street. Suite 105, Sacramento, California
95825, (916) 649—4418.
Issued at Golden, Colorado, July 21. 1989
Will isgett,

[ FR Doe, 89-189 Filed 8-11-8W 8.45 amj
w Q c0 M M
ENVIRONMEI41 ’AL PROTECTION
AGENCy
(FRL-3627.gj
Revision of Nebr i Natlonaj
Pollutant OlacIlarq. Elimination
System (NPDES) Program to Issue
Generaj Permits
AOEHCY Environmental Protection
Agency.
acytors Notice of Approval of the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System General Permits
Program of the State of Nebraska .
SUMMARY: On July 20, 1989. the Regional
Admuustmtor for the Environment.aj
Protection Agency (EPA). Region V I I
approved the State of Nebraska’s
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System General Permits
Program. This action authorizes the
State of Nebraska to issue general
permits in lieu of individual NPDES
permits.
FOR FURTHEfi INFORUAflON CONTACT:
Donald Toensing. Chief, Permits Section.
U.S. EPA, Region V I I. 728 Minnesota
A enue, Kansas City, Kansas 68101,
9131236—2817,
SUPPLEMEPITARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
EPA regulations at 40 CFR 122.28
provide for the issuance of general
permits to regulate discharges of
wastewater which result from
substantially similar operations, are of
the same type wastes, require the same
effluent limitations or operating
conditions, require similar monitoring,
and are more appropriately controlled
under a general permit rather than by
individual permits.
Nebraska was authorized to
administer the NPDES program in June.
1974. Their program, as previously
approved, did not include provisions for
the issuance of general permits. There
axe several categories which could
appropriately be regulated by general
permits. For these reasons the Nebraska
Department of Environmental Control
(NDEC) requested a revision of their
NPDES program to provide for issuance
of general permits. The categories which
have been proposed for coverage under
the general permits program include:
non-contact cooling water, heat pump
discharges, storm water discharges and
backwash waler discharges from
potable water treatment plants.
Each general permit will be sub;ect to
EPA review and approval as provided
by 40 CFR 123.44. Public notice and
opportunity to request a hearing is also
provided for each general permit.
IL Discussjo
The State of Nebraska submitted in
support of its request, copies of the
relevant statutes and regulations. The
State has also submitted a statement by
the Attorney General certifying, with
appropriate citations to the statutes and
regulations, that the State has adequate
legal authority to administer the general
permits program as required by 40 CFR
123.23(c). In addition, the State
submitted a program description
supplementing the original application
for the NPDES program authonty to
administer the general permits program.
including the authority to perform each
of the activities set forth in 40 CFR
123.44. Based upon Nebraska 9 program
description and upon its experience in
administering an approved NPDES
program, EPA has concluded that the
State will have the necessary
procedures and resources to administer
the general permits program.
III. Federal Register Notice of Approval
of State NPDES Programs or
Modifications
EPA will provide Federal Register
notice of any action by the Agency
approving or modifying a State NPDES
program The following table will
provide the public with an up-to-date
list of the status of NPDES permitting
authority throughout the country.
Today’s Federal Register notice L8 to
announce the approval of Nebraska’s
authonty to issue general permits.
Apgr ovod
State

Aov d
tOr e
Approved
State
preseat-
pro wn
mont
pro m
Alaba ma — 10/19/79
10119/79
10/19/79
California
11/01/88
lIfO l/86
11/01/86
05/14/73
05/05/78
09/27/is
-
Oe1 w re__.
09126173
01/09/09
06/03/81
04.101/74
..
Georçia.....,
06/28/74
12/08193
03/12/81
Hawe. 11/28/74
ilith oti’ - 10/23/77
08/01/79
0.9/20179
06/12/83
-
01/01/75
12109/78
--
.., 08/10/73
— 06/20/74
08110/78
08/25/85
06/03/81
.....
Kenniclry’_
09/30/83
09/30/83
0.9/30/83
Maryland .__
09/05174
11/10187
09/30/85
M.ct ig an
M,nnesota’
10/17/73
12109/78
06/07,83
08/30/74
12/09/73
07/18/Ta
MissassipØ
06/01/74
01/28/83
05/13/82
Mi ot .ai’ —
10/30/74
06/28/79
06/03/81
Nebaslia’
06/10/74
06/21/81
._
—
06(12/74
11/02/79
09/07/84
Na,.d e .
New
09/19/75
08/31/78
--
—
New York..
04/13/82
04113182
04113/82
-
N o nh
10/28/75
08/13/80
.
Carbans
10/18/75
09/28/84
06/14/82
OPso
06/13/75
01/28/83
07/27/83
09/26/73
09/02/79
03/12/81
Pew i a
rae
Rhode
08/30/79
06/30/78
1
--
S
09/17/Ga
09/17/84
09117/84
Ca,ci,ns_
I
06/10/75
09/26/80
04/09/82
-
12128/77
0 5 1 10/83
Vermont.,_
01 107/87
03/11/74
07/07/871
07/07/87
03/16/82
Virgei
lalande.
—
Virgase.
06/30/78
03/31/75
-
-_
_.
02J09/82
04/14/89
w
11/14/73
—
09/30/88
Veg.ns’ -

06110/82
02/04/74
05/10/82 05/10/82
ll/26/79 12/24/80
‘Osrems AXiowed Stat. General Permit P-
P int
IV. Review Under Executive Order
t2381 and the Regulatory flexibility Act
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this nile from the review
requirements of Executive Order 12201
pursuant to Section 8(b) of that Order.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
EPA is required to prepare a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis for all rules which
may have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Pursuant to Section 805(d) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.). I certify that this Sti te General
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No 155 / Monday, August 14. 1989 I Notices
33289
Permits Program will not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Approval of
the Nebraska NPDES State General
Permits Program establishes no new
substantive req.urements. nor does it
alter the regulatory control over any
industrial category. Approval of the
Nebraska NPDES State General Permits
Program merely provides a simphfied
administrative process.
Dated: July 28, 1989.
Morris Kay.
RegronoiAdniinistrctoz.
(FR Doc. 89-18940 Filed 8-11- 9: 8.45 a
BILLiISO COOS 65 4O .
FEDERAL COMMUP4ICA11ONS
COMMISSION
Public Information Collection
Requirement Submitted to Office of
Management and Budget for Review.
August 8. 1989.
The Federal Communications
Commission has submitted the following
information collection requirement to
0MB for review and clearance under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44
U.S.C. 3507).
Copies of this submission may be -
purchased from the Commission’s copy
contractor. International Transcription
Service, (202) 857—3800. 2100 M Street
NW.. Suite 140. Washington. DC 20037
For furtheredormation on this
submission contact Judy Boley, Federal
Communications Commission. (202) 832—
7513. Persons wishing to comment on
this information collection should
contact Eyvette Flynn. Office of
Management and Budget. Room 3235
NEOB. Washington. DC 20503. (202) 395-
3785.
OMD Numbezr 3060-0072.
Title: Airborne Mobile Radio
Telephone Ucense Application.
Form No.: FCC 400.
Action: Extension.
Respondents: Business or other for.
profit. and small businesses or
organizations.
Frequency of Respoasa On occasion.
Estimated Annual Burden: 3.000
Responses: 252 Hour,.
Needs and Uses: The FCC 409 is used
in applying for authority to operate an
airborne mobile radio telephone by
individual users who intend to become
subscribers to a common camer service.
The form is also used for the
modification and renewal of such
licenses. The information is used by the
Commission s staff to determine the
qualifications nf an applicant.
Federal Communic.iuons Commission.
Donna R. Seatcy.
Secietory
[ FR Doc. 89—18883 Filed 8—t1-89 3.45 am)
ntuiio CODe S112-43I—
IDA 89-947)
Advisory Committee on Advanced
Television ServIce Planning.
Subcommittee Meeting
AUgtBt 9, 1989.
A meeting of the Planning
Subcommittee of the Advisory
Committee on Advanced Telavisaon
Service will be held on: September 19.
1989. 10.00 a.m.. Commission Meeting
Room (Room 850). 1919 M Street. NW.
Washington. DC
The purpose of this meeting to receive
the reports of the Subcommittee s
working parties and to review the work
sta:ement for the third period of
Planning Subcommittee activities.
The agenda for the meetings is as
follows:
1. Call to Order by the Chairman
2. Adoption of the Minutes of the Fifth
Meeting
3. Introductory Remarks
4. Review of the Work Statement
5. Statsa Reports by the Working Party
and Advisory Group Chairmen
0. Other Business
7. Date and Location of the Next
Subcommittee Meeting
8. AdJournment
This meeting is open to the public.
Parijes may submit written statements
prior to or at the time of the meeting.
Oral ataIthnents and thscussion will be
permitted under the direction of the
Subcommittee Chairman.
Any. uestions regarding this meeting
should be directed to Joseph A. Flaherty
at (212) 975—2213 or William Hasslnger
at (202) 632—6460.
Federal Communciationa Cosumasion.
Donna R. Seamy.
Secm .
(FR Doc. 89.48968 Filed 8-11-89:8:45 amj
5ILUN COO! ST13-Oi—
Quarterty Report en the Travel
Reimburnement Program
AGENC’V Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTTOIC Publishing of Quarterly Report
on Travel Reimbursement Program.
SUMMARVI In Public Law 100-594, the
Congress authorized the Federal
Communications Commission to accept
reimbursement from non government
organizations for travel of employees of
the Commission. The Federal
Communication., Commission must keep
records of such tra el by each event and
prepare a report each quarter of all
reimbursements allowed and provide
copies of each quarterly report to the
Senate Committee on Appropriations.
House Committee of Appropriations.
Senate Committee on Commerce.
Science and Transportation, and the
House Committee on Eaer and
Commerce. In addition the Federal
Register must publish each quarterly
report in the Federal Register.
DATSI This report is for the period from
April 1. 1989 through June 30. 1989.
AOORESS Federal Communications
Commission. Washington. DC 20554.
FOR FURThER INFORMATiON COtfTACT
Joseph 1. HaU. Office of the Managing
Director. (202) 632—7194.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATTON The
repcrt for the quartet ending June 30.
1989 is as follows:
FEDERAL COMMUNICATiONS
COMMISSION,
TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM.
April 1, 1989—Jun. 30, 1989
Swnm.iry Report
Total Number of Sponsoring Or-
nnationa .
Total Number of Commission-
ers/Employees Atteading...._
Total Amount of Reimburse
Inent Expected: ..... .. ..... _.
Transpertation..._...
$17120 16
______— 13.714 r
Other Expenses .__..... 2.83438
Total______________ 33,668.81
Individual Event Reports Aitached.
Amount of Rehubarsement Shown May be
Estimated.
Individual Event Report
Sponsoring Organizsbon. National Cable
Television As atf on. 1724 Massachusetts
Avenue. NW., Washington. DC 20636.
Oats of £venft May 21-24.1989.
Descrmpuon of the Ei-anL 38th Annual
Convention and Exposition.
Commissioners Attending: Commissioner
James H. Quello.
Other EmpIoyee i altendui& See
Attachment A.
Total Number of Sponsored
32
30
58
Amont of Reibwsement
84 ,38800
2.95363
Other Expenses ._..__.. _. 673.59
Total -—________ 8013.24
-------
- - Federal Reginter I’ VoL 54 ‘No. 142-7 Wednesday. JiAly 28, 1989 / Notices
31081
having such agencies prepare reports on
the taxpayer for use by Federal
agencies. Accordingly, EPA will disclose
this information to consumer reporting
agencies only to obtain credit reports to
help collect debts owed the EPA.
c. To provide debtor information to
consumer reporting agencies In order to
obtain credit reports for use by EPA for
debt collection purposes.
d. To provide debtor information to
other Federal agencies to effect salary
and adimnietrative offsets.
e. To provide debtor information to
debt collection agencies under contract
to EPA to help collect debt owed EPA.
Such agencies will be required to
comply with the Privacy Act and their
agents will be made subject to the
criminal penalty provisions of that Act
L To provide debtor Information to the
Justice Department for litigation or
further administrative action In
connection with debt collection.
g. To provide debtor information to
the Internal Revenue Service for the
purpose of reporting discharged debts
declared uncollectable as a result of
defaulted obligations.
h. To provide Information as
necessary to other Federal agencies
conduQtlng computer matching pro ams
to help eliminate fraud and abuse and to
detect unauthorized overpayments made
to individuals. (In that event. EPA will
comply with the Computer Matching
and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 and
appropnaj _Qfflce of Management and
Budget guidelines.)
Note: The term “debtor information” as
used in the routine uses above is limited to
the individuals name, address, social
security number, and other information
necessary to identify the individuali the
amount status and history of the clainu and
the agency or program under which the daim
arose.
Disclosure to Consumer Reporting
Agencies
Disclosure to consumer reporting
agencies: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
552a(b)(12). disclosure may be made to a
consumer reporting agency as defined In
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C.
1681a(f)) or the Federal Claims
Collection Act of 1966 (31 U.S.C.
3701(a)(3)).
Policies and Procedures for Storing.
Retneving, Retaining, and Disposing of
Records in the System
Storege
Tapes, disks, printouts, and other hard
copies. Paper records maintained by
each Servicing Finance Office (located
in 14 offices nationwide). Computer
tapes and disks maintained in Research
.Trlangle Park—National Computer
Center, NC.
Retrievability
Records are indexed by an account
receivable control number (a number
assigned to each “incoming” account
receivable). Individual records can be
acces8ea by using a cross-reference
• table which links accounts receivable
tontrol numbers with debtor names and
associated debtor information.
Safeguards
Records are accessible only to
authorized EPA personneL For
automated records, only authorized EPA
personnel with proper passwords may
access records. Other records and
computer terminals are maintained in
offices which are locked during non.
duty hours.
Retention and Disposal
Manual records are maintained until
the indebtedness is paid, at which tune
they are disposed of in a manner which
ensures confidentiality of the
Information. Automated records are
purged annually for paid debts.
System Manager(s) and Address
Dirçctor, Financial Management
Division (PM-220P), EPA, 401 M Street
SW.. Washington, DC 20460.
Notification Procedure
To obtain Information on whether this
system contains information on you,
contact the System Manager, in writing.
at the address listed above. The request
should beriotarized to verify your
identify. You should include your full
name, current address, telephone
numbe,,.and Social Security Number
(SSN). Your SSN will be used only to
verify your identity. Providing your SSN
Is voluntary, but your failure to do so
will not effect your rights, although It
may delay the verification process. The
System Manager may require other
Information from you.
Record Access Procedure,
To obtain a copy of a record
pertaining to you, follow the Notification
Procedure described above. In addition,
specify the records being sought.
Contesting Record Procedure,
To request a correction or amendment
of a record pertaining to you, follow the
Notification Procedure descrIbed above.
In addition, you should identify the
record which you wish corrected and
the corrective action sought. and
provld supporting justification for the
correction.
Record Sow e Categories
Individuals covered by the system,
aupervi8o ’s, consumer reporting
agencies, d ebt collection agencies, the
Department of the Treasury and other
Federal agencies,
Systems Exempted From Certain
Provisions of the Act
None.
[ FR Dec. 17486 Filed 7-25-89 8 45 am
coes usoso
(FRL—382 0-7J
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General
Permit for Related
Activities In South Dakota
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Region Viii
ACTION Notice of Intent to reissue
general permit.
SUMMARY: Region VIII of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Is hereby giving notice of its tentative
determination to reissue the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) general permit for the
Construction Related Activities of
Excavation Dewatering and Hydrostatic
Testing conducted within the State of
South Dakota, NPDES permit Number
SDC—070000. The general permit
provides a more efficient means of
granting discharge authorization for
these facthties. l’his general permit was
originally issued on August 10, 1981, and
notice of the permits’ issuance published
in the Federal Register on October 19,
1984 (See 49 FR 41104). The proposed
reissued permit will continue the
established effluent requirements and
standards of the previous permit These
requirements and standards are based
on technology and water quality
considerations, prohibitions. Best
Management Practices, and other
conditions applicable to the types of
waste waters generated by construction
facilities. Persona seeking discharge
authorization under the general permit
are required to submit a request for
discharge approval prior to their
commencement of such discharge.
OATEai Public comment on this proposal
must be on or before August 25. 1989.
Aoon ss: Public comments should be
sent to: Ms. Carol L Campbell (8WM-.
C), Acting Chief, Compliance Branch.
Water Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 999
lath Street, SuIte 500, Denver, Colorado
80202-2405.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No 142 / Wednesday. July 26. 1%O I Notices
FOR FURTWER INFOR *’T1ON COWTAC7
Mr. Marshall Fischer. Region VIII at the
above-fisted address or telephone (303)
283—1592 or FTS 564—1592. Copies of the
proposed permit and Statement of Basis
and Fact Sheet will be provided upon
request.
SUPPLEMENTARY RIFORMA11OI
A. Background
Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) provides that the discharge of
pollutants is unlawful except In
accordance with an NPDES permit
South Dakota is a non-NPDES state In
which EPA retains NPDES permit
Issuance and primary enforcement
authority. Under EPA’s regulations at 40
CFR 122.26. EPA may issue a single
general permit to point sources within
the same geographic ares If the
regulated sources:
(1) Are involved in the same or
substantially similar operations;
(2) Generate and discharge the same
types of waste:
(3) Require the same permit effluent
limitations and/or operating conditlozis
(4) Reqime similar monitoring
requiremeiits and.
(5) In the opinion of the NPDES
Program Director, are moie
appropriately controlled under a general
permit than an individual permiL
As in the case of any Individual
permit issued wider the NPOES
program, violation of any condition of a
general permit constitutes a violation of
the Clean Water Act and Is fully
enforceable under section 300 of the Act
Any owner or operator authorirad by
the general permit may be excluded
from the general pernut by applying for
an individual permit as provided for by
40 CFR 1.22.28(b).
B. Construction Related Discharges
The proposed permit covers two (2)
principal types of construction related
discharges. excavation dewataring and
hydrostatic testing of pipelines or
vessels. The discharge activities may be
done in conjunction or performed
separately. Excavation dewatenng is
often necessary because of groundwater
or runoff intrusion at a construction site.
Such waters potentially contain
elevated suspended solids and oil and
grease. Improper pumping or draining of
these waters would further aggravate
the pollutant impacts.
Hydrostatic testing of pipelines and/
or vessels is normally conducted to
determine the structural integrity of the
material and installation. Relatively
clean water (i.e., raw river water,
groundwater. potable water. etc.) is
typically used as the test fluid. The
pollutant potential for such related
discharges resalta mainly from improper
discharge practices (e.g., those causing
stream channel scouring). Depending on
the source of the test fluid, other
pollutants such as suspended solids may
also be of concern.
C. Economic Impact
EPA has reviewed the effect of
Execative Order 12281 on this proposed
general permit and has determined the
proposal not to be major under that
Order. This proposal was submitted to
the Office of Management and Thidget
for review as reqwred by the Executive
Order. Any comments from 0MB to EPA
and any EPA responses to those
comments wilL be made available for
public inspection at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Compliance Branch. Water Management
Division. Denver Place. Suite 500. 9
18th Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-’
2405.
D. Paperwork Redaction Ad
EPA has reviewed the requirements
imposed on regulated facilities in these
draft general NPD permits under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 198U. 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq The information
collection requirements of these permits
have already been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget under
submissions made for the Clean Water
Act’s NPDES permit program.
K The Regulatory Flexibility Act
After review of the facts presented in
the notice of intent printed above. I
hereby certify, pursuant to the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b). that these -
general permits will not have a
significant Impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Moreover, they
reduce a significant administrative
burden on regulated sources.
Jadr W. McGraw.
Acting RegwnoiAd wistmtor. Region Vi i i
(FR Doc. 88-174a7 Flied 7-25-89. 46 asil

FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Agency Information Collection
Submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget for
Clearance
The Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FThIA) has submitted to the
Office of Management snd Budget the
following information collection
package for dearance in accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. Chapter 35).
7)’pe: New.
Title: Hazard Mitigation Planning.
AbstrocL ’ The Disaster Relief Act of
i97 as amended by the Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance
Amenduienta of 1988 require State and
local governments recmvmg Federal
disaster assistance to evaluate the
natural hazards in the disaster area, and
to take steps to mitigate these hazards,
In order to fulfill these requirements.
State and local governments must
prepare and implement a hazard
mitigation plan or plan update. Plans
will Identify measures that will reduce
potential futme losses to natural
disasters, and the subsequent need for
Federal disaster sanatance. Plans or
updates innatbe submitted to the
appropriate FEMA Regional Director
within 180 days of a disaster
declaration.
7)’pe of Respondents.’ State and local
governments.
Estimate of Total Annual Reporting
and Recvzrikeepii &rden.r 1.
NczznberofRespondenzs 1.
EstimatedAve -ua e &ru’en Hours per
Response: 1.
Frequency of Respaxzse. Annually or
after a disaster declaration.
Copies of the above information
collection request and supporting
documentation can be obtained by
calling ci writing the FEMA Clearance
Officer, Linda Shiley, (262)646-2624,500
C Street. SW., Washington. DC 20472.
Direct comments regarding the burden
estimate or any aspect of this
information collection. including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to
the F ,tA Clearance Officer at the
above address; and to Pamela Barr, (202)
395-7 ardfflce of Management and
Budgpt. 3235 NEOB. Washington. DC
20503 within two weeks of thus notice.
Date: July19. 1989.
Wesley C. Mom..
Durecwr. Office of Adnwvstrctive &g,p,Jt
(FR Don. 89-l 485 Flied 7-23-89. 5.45 am
‘ “a coos
[ FEMA-837-OR)
Ma$or Disaster and Related
Determlnations Connecticut
*GENCYi Federal Emergency
Ma-nage!ne rtt Agency.
acnoie Notice.
SuMMARY: This is a notice of the
Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Connecticut
(FEMA-837-DR), dated July 18. 1989.
and related determinations.
D*T July Ia 1989.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 140 / Monday, July 24. 1989 / Proposed Rules
‘ncluded in the Administrative
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 914
Coal Mining. Intergovernmental
i diiofls. Surface mining. Underground
:fling.
Carl C Close.
sistcnt Director Eastern Field Operations
..Ie July 13. 1989
rg Doc 89—17237 Filed 7—21—89 845 aml
BILLING COOS 43ic-o5-
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 130
I FRL—3620-.1 I
Water Quality Planning and
Management; Reopening of Comment
Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
\2ency.
AC1 ’iON: Request for comment and
extension of public comment period for
rooosed rule.
SUMMARr EPA is announcing the
reopening of the public comment period
oposed amendments to 40 CFR Part
he Water Quality Planning and
.\iciriagement Regulation. On January 12.
‘gag, EPA published a proposed rule to
a’iend Part 130 together with 40 CFR
Parts 122 and 123. and invited public
c ”1ment (54 FR 1300. January 12. 1989)
The public comment period closed
February 13. 1989 On june 2. 1989. EPA
:u’ilished a fInal rule (54 FR 23868) to
,p end Parts 122. 123 and § 13010 to
cdress. among other things. the listing
of i aters and development of individual
co itrol strategies under section 304(1) of
:he CWA However, EPA did not
alize amendments to § § 1307 and
1308. which were also included in the
Iar.uary 12 proposal, because EPA has
cec :ded to reopen and extend the public
comment period on these proposed
erner.drnents.
DA1’E Written comments must be
.ubrr.itted on or before September 22.
989
AOCRESSES Submit three copies of
comments to Judith Leckrone.
\ssessment and Watershed Protection
Di ision. Office of Water Regulations
‘id Standards (WH—553). U S.
Eri ironmental Protection Agency. 401 M
Street SW., Washington. DC, 20460 The
- “c record for this proposed
dment is available at the EPA
L....ary. U.S. Environmental Protection
• ‘ gency. 401 M Street SW.. Washington.
DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER tHEORMATtON CONTACT:
Judith Lec,krone. Assessment and
Watershed Protection Division. Office of
Water Regulations and Standards (WI-I—
553). U.S Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 NI Street SW.. Washington.
DC 20460. (202) 382—7056.
SUPPLEMENTARY UNFORMATIO t The
Clean Water Act (CWA) contains a
number of provisions for developing
pollutant discharge controls as needed
to meet water quality standards Today
EPA is reopening the public comment
penod on proposed amendments to
EPAs regulations that implement
sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Act.
Under section 303(d) of the Clean Water
Act, the States are required to identify
water quality limited segments.
establish a priority ranking for these
waters, and develop total maximum
daily toads (TMDLs). States must submit
the idenufied waters and the TNIDLS to
EPA for approval “from time to time
Under section 305(b) of the Act, states
are required to submit reports to EPA
every two years which describe the
water quality of all navigable waters
and then compare this quality with the
water quality goals of the Clean Water
Act.
On January 12. 1989. EPA proposed to
require that States submit to EPA the
lists of water quality limited segments
under section 303(d) of the CWA as part
of the biennial water quality reports
required by section 305(b) of the CWA
(54 FR 1300. January 12, 1989) EPA also
proposed certain data requirements. and
review and approval criteria to be used
by the States and EPA for development
and review of the lists of waters
developed under section 303(d)
As explained in the preamble in the
Federal Register on january 12. EPA
proposed these amendments for several
reasons. Most importantly, the changes
would provide an on.going national
inventory of waters with sater qualtiy
problems and provide a basis for setting
priorities for assessment and control
actions, enhance EP.\ s anc the State’s
abilities to track specific water quality
problems over time. help ensure that the
States develop lists of waters on a
consistent nationiil basis. dr’a ensure
that the lists are periodicaily updated
with the most recent ddta a ailable.
Improved lists of waters would also
strengthen the implementation of other
section 303(d) requirements such as
establishing a priority ranking for
developing total maximum daily loads
(TMDLs).
In the past, the quality of the State’s
section 303(d) lists and TMDLS has been
highly variable. A recent report by the
General Accounting Office. . ‘1ore EP.4
30765
Action Needed To Improve the Quality
of Heavily Polluted Water’s (January
1989. GAO/RCED—89 —38). criticized EPA
and the States for their lack of activity
and consistency in identifying needs for
and developing TMDLS. Because of this
report, and past and recent litigation.
and because permitting and nonpoint
source control programs need to be
based on reasonable, up-to-date
evaluations of water quality problems.
EPA believes that it should emphasize
the listing of waters under section
303(d), and thus strengthen the national
program for identifying and developing
controls for water quality problems.
EPA is exte iding the comment period
for these proposed amendments because
many reviewers were confused about
how these proposed amendments relate
to the lists and individual control
strategies required under section 304(l)
of the CWA, EPA did not propose to
repeat the one-time listing of waters and
developing of individual control
strategies under section 304(l) Instead.
the proposed amendments address the
on.going listing requirements of section
303(d) and the reporting requirements
under section 305(b) of the Clean Water
Act. Sections 303(d) and 305(b) are
longstanding and ongoing requirements
established by Congress in 1972.
Specifically, the proposed amendments
would require the States to include their
section 303(d) lists of waters in their
biennial section 305(b) reports.
EPA is also extending the comment
penod on the proposed amendments in
order to solicit additional comments on
the implications of adding new
emphasis to the section 303(d) program
The Agency is also responding to
requests for a longer public comment
period on these amendments in order to
evaluate how they might affect related
State and EPA programs.
In addition to all comments received
in response to this notice, EPA will
consider all the comments on the
proposed amendments to Part 1307 and
1308 and Part !II.B 4 of the preamble
which wre received by EPA during the
previous public comment period that
began January 12.
In particular. EPA is interested in
receiving responses to the following
questions.
(1) How would improved
identification and regular reporting of
water quality limited segments and the
subsequent development of TMDLs
affect the permitting process for point
sources of pollution? For example,
would it expedite or hinder the issuance
of NPDES permits?
(2) How would improved
identification and regular reporting of
rd
-------
3 1 )766
Federal Reo,ister / Vol. 54. No. 140 I Monday . My : . igag / Proposed Rules
vner quality limited segments and the
subsequent development of TMDLS
ilfect existing nonpotnt source control
programs’ How should States constuer
nonpoirit source contributions in the
ie elopment of TMDLs
ii) Should EPA require States to rely
un and Interoret the narrau e water
qu.Jllt% criteria in the absence of
nameriL. water quality criteria. For the
purposes of section 303 id).
(4) Should EPA require States to
pre ide public participat.on in the
development of the lists of water quality
limited segments?
15) Are EP A ’s propoced
di eieotthiOn requirements at
prt’rv d ; ‘orapns 130 7(b ((61
adettu.. :r? .\re they too burdensome?
S uuid the i. g. ldtIons be more or iess
c cifc ab ui the documentation
.111 emrit ’
(6( Section 303(d) requires the Si tes
ectahli b ‘ ariority rank:n or the
d - ulopment of TMDLS for the water
u .”iiy tirni ed segments that they
‘ritif.’ How shoutd States set these
priurities for the water qual:ty iimited
gmeflts For example should States
e1 orioril:es based on human health or
ua tic life concerns, or pualic interact
cnrerns’ Should EPA be more or tess
specific about how States set these
prtorities’
(7) When shc,uld these requ lrcr.ents
gn r t o effect’ Should the lists of water
quality limited segments be requ.red to
ic a part of the 1990 section 305(1,)
:‘ucrts. or should the requremente start
ri .392 or even 1994?
8) Shoutd EPA require the States to
‘porT these lists in a standard format?
0) Besides the char.gcs proposed on
inuary 12 1989. should EPA propose
ddittoncl changes to Pail 130?
I) it ful 12. 19C2
Rebecca Hanmer,
I ,i’ 4ss , :ont.4dn::n, . ’ogjr f r t1 uer
ftR t)oc 89—i 2M Filed 7—.:i--,iq ’ 845 dm1
GIL UNG COCE 6S O-6O-
DEPARTMENT OF ThE INTERIOR
Office of Hearings and Appeals
43 CFR Part 4
RIM 1094—AA37
Special Rules Applicable to Surface
Coal Mining Heannga and Appeals
AGENCY: Office of Hearings and
Appeals. Interior
ACTION: Proposed rule. reupenir.g and
extension of comment period. —
submission of comments on the
proposed rules providing procedures for
idrninistrative review of decisions of the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement under the permanent
regulatory program establtshed by the
Surface Mining Control and Ri-clamatton
Act of 1977
DATES: The comment period on tne
proposed rules is extended uotiI August
23. 198q.
ADDRESSES: Comments may he mailed
or delivered in person to: Director
Office of Hearings and Appedls. U S.
Department of the Interior. Room 1111.
44)13 Wilson Boulevard Ariir.2ton,
Virginia 22203.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Will A Irwin, Adrrirnstratite (udge.
lnter.or Board of Land Appeals OTice
of Hearings and Aopea s. U S.
Dcpar ment of the Interior. 4015 Wilson
Boulevard. Arlington Virginia 22203.
Telechone 703—235—3750
SUPPI.EMENTARY INFORMATION On
March 8. 1989. the Office of Hearings
and Appeals published proposed ‘ales
amending the procedures for
administrative review cf decisions of the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
arid Enforcement under the permanent
regulatory program (54 FR 9852—55 (Mar.
8, 1989): 54 FR 10784—10794 (Mar 15.
1989)J The National Wildlife Fedcra ion
and the Env ronmerital Policy Institute
have requested that the period ior
comment be reopened based in pat on
their interest in commenting on the
unpublished decision Pea.Duily Cool
Co v L’n:tcd States of 4rnerwa, CIV 86—
502 FCT CLI I (D Ariz.. Mar. 11. 1988J,
and on the settlement agreement tO
Peabody cool ‘o v Lii,...n. Civil No 87—
3462 (RCLJ (D C C.. filed Dec. 21, 1987),
stating that the Department would
initiate rulemaking proceedings to
amend 43 CIR 4.1J 3G—4 1388 and that
the proposed rules published on March
8. 1989. addreg’, same of the plaintiffs
concerns in the latter case
We are reopening the comment period
until August 23. 1989
List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 4
Admintstrative practice and
procedure. Mines P’ablic tands Surface
mining.
D,,ie July 14. l ’)H
James L 8)mrs.
D ,r. csor
IFR Doc 89—I7 4 Fled “-l -$Y 1145 thu
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Part 3180
IAA-630—09—421 1—021
RIM 1004 —4A67
Onshore 01! and Gas Operat:ons
Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases
Onshore Oil and Gas Order No.6—
Hydrogen Sulfide Operations;
Extension of Comment Period
AGENCV Bureau of Land Management.
Interior.
ACTtON otice of extensnn of comment
period.
SUMMARY: The proposed rule that would
issue Onshore Oil and Gas Order No S
under 43 CFR Part 3160 was published in
the Federal Register on May 16. 1989 (54
F R 21075), with a 60-day comment
period The comment period is being
extended to July 31 1989 in response to
public requests
DATE l te pcr:od for the suornisso-i of
commarits in hereby extended to Ju’ . 31
1980 (‘i)mments rece. ed ar pos.rca .¼ed
dfter this date may not be conside ed as
part of the decisionmaI ing process on
issuance of the final rule.
AOORESS Comments should be sent to
Director (140). Bureau of Land
Management. Room 5555, .lain Interii
Building. 1800 C Street ‘W.
Washington. DC 20240.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chr’s Hanson (414) 91—4421 or Sie Ling
Chian& (232) 553—217
Juk 18 l ’i119
)ames M Hughes.
Depul, lists fan, Se.retor oi the interur
(FR Doc. 89—17103 Filed 7—21—49 ’ 845 .uml
DiWNO CODE 1310—Sd —U
FEDERAL COMMUNICATiONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
1MM Docket No. 69-301, RM-6072 ard RM-
87381
Radio Broadcasting Services;
Carthage and Webb City, Mlssoun
AGENCY: Federal Communications
Commission.
AC’TIOPC Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: This document requests
comments on two separate conflictin’.l
petitions. The first petition. filed by
Carthage Broadcasting Company.
proposes the substitution of FM Chan.iul
236C2 for Channel 235A at Carthage
Missouri. and modificatior. of the l,crioe
SUMMARY: The Office of I Ieenngs and
ppenls is reopening the period fnr the
BILLING COOS 4310-7 5..M
-------
Federal Re ster / VoL 54. No. 138 I Thureday . Jaly 20, 1S89 / Not g
ManuCaciur “iat co p wsuant to
a test rule at 40 CFR 299.1250. These
were receivej by EPA on july 6. 19
The subnn.uion, descrtb (1) A
mutagencity test on ortho.aesoj in the
vitro transformation of BALB/C—3T3
cells assay in the presence of a rat liver
cell activation system. f 2) doaunani
lethal assay in mice with crtho-a’eso)
and (3) dominant lethal assay in mice
with parn-crnsoL Mratagenicity testing is
required byLhlstest nije,
EPA has initiated its review and
evaluation process tot these data
submiesion , At this tune, the Agency is
unable to provide any determination as
to the completeness of the submissions,
11. Public Record
EPA has established a public record
for these TSC section 4(d) receipt of
data notices (docket number OPTS—
44533). This record includes copies of all
studied reported in this notice. The
record is available for mspection from 8
am to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday,
except legal holidays. in the TSCA
Public Docket Office. Rm. N&-GOog, 401
NI St.. SW., Washington. DC 60.
Authonty 15 USC. 2563
Dated- July Ii. igeg.
Gary E. 11m
Acting Djrector. £ isgC7remjcaJ
Assessment Division, Office of TOxic
Substnncea.
1}’R Doc. 89—17032 Filed 7—19—89.545 am]
BIWIiG cooa 63ifl M
IFRL-351$a?J -
Proposed General NPDES Permit for
Private Domestic Discharges In the
State of Louisiana; Fact Sheet
AGENCY U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
AcTiope Notice of Proposed Cenerai
NPDES Permit.
SUMMARY: The Regional Adminii ti,atür
of Region 8 has tentatively decided to
prepare a draft general NPDES permit
for certain dischargera who treat
sanitary wastes. When Issued, this
general NPDES permit will establish
effluent limitations, standards,
prohibitions, and other condition, on
these discharges. The facilities covered
by this permit include single fumily
residences, rmiltl-family residences,
small trailer parks. lestaurants,
hospitals, shopping centers, motels and
office buildings located within the State
of Louisiana.
This draft general permit Is based art
he administrative record available for
public review in Region 6 of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The fact sheet sets forth the principal
facts and the significant factual, legal
and policy questions considered in the
development of the draft permit.. copy
of the draft permit is attached.
DATE: Interested persons may submit
Comments of the draft general permit
and administrative record to the address
below no later than August 21, 1989.
ADORES& Ma. Ellen Caldwell (6W-PS),
U.S En onmenial Protectio Agency.
Region 6.1445 Ross Avenue. Dallas,
Texas 75202—2733.
FOR RMTNER MA’fl0N CONT*C7
Ellen Caidwell (6W—PS), Permits Branch
(6W—P), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 6.1445 Rosa Avenue,
Dallas, Texas 75202—2733, Telephone:
(214) 655—7190.
SUPPLEMENTARY 1NFOHMATI0
I. Background
A. Genera! Penrnts
Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act
(the Act) provides that the discharge of
pollutants is unlawful except in
accordance with a National Pollutant
Discharge Eliminating System (NPDES)
Permit. In the past, such permits have
generally been issued to individual
diachargers. However, EPA’s regulations
authorize the issuance of general
permit,, to categories of dIscharger, (40
CFR 122.28). EPA may mae a mngje
general permit to a categoiy of point
source., located in the same geographic
area whose discharges warrant similar
pollution control mensigp . The
Regional Administrator (with delegation
to the Water Maaagem Division
Director) is authorized to issue a general
permit if there are.a number of point
sources operat ing in a geographic area
that:
1. Invelve the same or subs.tantially
similar types of operations;
2. Discharge the same types of Wastes:
3. Require the same effluent
limitations or operating conditiooa
4. Require the same or similar
monitoring requirensenin and
5. hi the opinion of the Director, are
more appropriately controlled under a
general permit than under individual
permits.
As is the case of individual permits.
viola tions of any condition of a general
permit constitutes a violation of the Act
and subjects the discharger to the
penalties specified in section 309 of the
Act. Any owner or operator authorized
by a final general permit may be
excluded from coverage by applying for
an individual permit This request may
be made by submitting a NPDES permit
application, together with reasons
supporting the request, no later than
October 18, i . New fam}itie which
qualify, are wv z’cd under this general
permit unless they apply for an
individual permit using the appropriate
application,
The Regional Administrator may
require any privately owned facility
authorized to discharge by a final
general permit to apply for and obtain
an individual permit, in addition, any
interested person may petition the
Regional Adnthiistj ator to take this
action. However, an individual permit
wrli not be issued for any point soi ue
covered by a general permit unless it
can be demonstrated that inclusion
under a general permit is clearly
inappropriate,
The Regional Admirustrator may
consider the issuance of individual
permits according to the criteria in 40
CFR 122.28{bfl2). These criteria include:
1. The discharge(s) is a mgniflcant
contributor of pollution:
2. The discharger is not in compliance
with the terms and conditions of the
genera] permit
3. A change has occurred in the
availabthty of demonstrated technology
or practice, for the control or abatement
of pollutants applicable to the point
Source:
4. Effluent limitation guidelines are
subsequently promulgated for the point
sources cuv-crrcl by the general permit
5. A Water Quality Management Plan
containing requirements applicable to
such pomt sources is approved: or
6. The requirements lIsted in 40 CFR
122.28(a) and identified in the previous
paragraphs are not lLet.
B. Evpirrrtioo Date
This NPDES general permit shall
expire five (5) years from the effective
date of the permit or for coverage of a
facility under the general permit upon
termination of discharge and closure of
the facility.
C. Water Qudity Based Effluent
Lirnitoizoju,
The Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality, Office of Water
Resources, has promulgated area wide
policies which update the Water Quality
Management Plan for all sanitary waste
treatment facilitIes which discharge to
U S. waters in the State of Louisiana.
Minimum levels of effluent quality
attainable by secondary treatment are
establlhed by 40 ‘R 133.102. The State
of Louisiana has established a more
stringent requirement for all privately
owned facilities with a design flow of
less than 2.500 gpd (0.0025 MGD). 45 mg/
1 for daily maximum for BOD and TSS.
Disinfection is required by the State of
-------
30462
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 138 I Thursday, July 20. 1989 I Notices
Louisiana. The pH limits within the
range of 6.0 and 9.0 standard units are
based on 40 CFR 133.102(c).
D. Technology Based Effluent
Limitations
This permit applies only to facilities
with design capacities (flows) of less
than 2500 gpd (0.0025 MCD).
F. Monitoring Requirements
All facilities operating under
conditions of this general permit are
required to monitor each parameter
twice per year. However, if the daily
maximum limit in any sample is
exceeded then the monitoring frequency
increases to once per month. This
increased frequency shall continue until
a sample demonstrates a value less than
or equal to the daily maximum.
II. The Nature of Discharge From
Privately Owned Sources
The source of wastewater discharges
from privately owned treatment plants
is sanitary sewage which is amenable to
biological treatment There are no toxic
or priority pollutants present.
IlL Conditions In the General Permit
A. Ceogrephic Areas and Covered
Facilities
The draft permit, when issued, will
authorize discharges from facilities at
various locations within the State of
Louisiana. to various storm sewers.
tributaries, stream segments and rivers
basins. The permit will be applicable
only to privately owned facilities which
have direct discharges to “waters of the
United Sta tea” as defined in 40 CFR
122.2 and are therefore subject to the
requirements of sections 301 and 402 of
the Act.
B. Privately Owned Disciiarges
The facilities covered by this permit
are discharges of sanitary wastes. These
facilities are not publicly owned
treatement works (POTW) as defined
under 40 CFR Part 122.2. Within the
State of Louisiana there is a significant
number of privately owned dlschargers
which are covered by the Secondary
Treatment Regulations. The nature of
effluents from these facilities involves
the same types of operations, discharge
of the same type of wastewater, and the
same effluent limitations and monitoring
requirements. Therefore, these facilities
are more appropriately controlled by a
general permit. In addition, the general
permit will eliminate or reduce, for the
Agency. the time consuming process of
drafting and issuing individual permits
and similarly eliminate, for the
dischargera, the regulatory burden of
applying for and obtaining individual
permits.
N. Other Legal Requirements
A. State Certification
Under section 401(aJ(l) of the Act.
EPA may not issue a NPDES permit until
the State ui which the discharge will
originate, grants or waives certification
to ensure compliance with appropriate
requirements of the Act and State law.
including water quality standards.
Region VI has requested the State of
Louisiana to certify this draft general
permit.
B. Water Quality Standards
Section 301 (b)(1)(C) of the Act
requires that NPDES permits contain
limitations necessary to meet water
quality standards established pursuant
to State law or regulation or any other
Federal law or regulation. or required to
implement any applicable water quality
standard established pursuant to the
Act. The maximum 30—day average load
allowed by this general permit for either
BOD or TSS is 0.6 lb/day. Therefore, no
water quality standard violations are
expected due to the de mimmus nature
of discharges.
C. Duty to Provide InformaL /on
The permittee shall furnish to the
Director, within a reasonable time, any
information which the Director may
request to determine whether cause
exists for modifying, revoking and
reisswng. or terminating this permit, or
to determine compliance with this
permit. The perinittee shall also furnish
to the Director, upon request. copies of
records required to be kept by this
permit.,
D. Planned Changes
The permittee shall give notice to the
Director as soon as possible of any
planned physical alterations or
additions to the permitted facility.
& Economic Impact (Executive Order
12297) -
The Office of Mana8ement and Budget
(0MB) has exempted this action from
the review requirements of Executive
Order 12291 pursuant to Section 8(b) of
that order.
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has reviewed the requirements
imposed on regulated facilities in this
draft general permit under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1900. 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information
collection requirements of this permit
have already been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget in
submissions made for the NPDES pern’
program under the provisions of the
Clean Water Act.
C. The Regulatory Flexibi hEy Act
After reivew of the facts presented in
the notice printed above, I hereby
certify, pursuant to the provisions of 5
USC 805(b), that this general NPDES
permit will have a positive benefit on a
substantial number of smaU entities.
Moreover, the permits reduce a
significant administrative burden on
regulated sources.
Datedi July 5, 1989.
Joseph 0. WInkle,
Acting RegionalAdm,nistrator. Region VI.
Wastewater Discharge Permit
General Permit Number LAG550200
Pursuant to the provisions of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended. (33 U S.C. 1251. et. seq; the
“Act”), and Federal Regulations
promulgated under the authority of the
Act, a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General
Permit is issued authorizing privately
owned facilities, in the State of
Louisiana, that meet the requirements of
Part U. B herein and who discharge to
waters of the United States, sanitary
wastewater totaling less than 2,500
gallons per day, in accordance with
effluent limitations. monitoring
requirements. and other conditions set
forth in Parts I and II herein. Privately
owned facilities covered Include, but are
not limited to single family residences.
multi.family residences, small trailer
pa ,s Jestaurants. hospitals. shopping
centers, inotcls and office buildings.
This permit shall become effective on
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight on
Signed this day of
Myron 0. Knudson,
Director. WoterManogement Division (6W
Part I
Section A. Effluent Limitations
During the period beginning on the
effective date of this general permit and -
lasting through the date of expiration, all
privately owned sanitary wastewater
dlschargers with facilities having a
design flow of less than 2.500 gallons per
day are covered under this general
permit and are authorized to discharge
sanitary wastewater from their
treatment plant in accordance with the
following limitations and monitoring
requirements.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 138 / Thuzaday, July 20. 1 I Notices
Sectwn B Monitoring Requirements
All sampling and testing shall be done
in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136.
“Guidelines Establishing Test
Procedures for the Analysis of
Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act.”
Samples shall be taken at the
discharge from the final freatment unit
and prior to mixing with the rumiving
waters. Prevoncins must be made during
the i.astaljat of the treatment unit for
the taiang of a proper sample. This
permit has a mmimuni reqmrement that
samples must be taken and analyzed
only twice a year. However, the
permittee shall at all ames operate and
maintain the faQjitjes used to achieve
compliance with the condilioon of this
permit. indndmg additional sampling
and testing as necessaiy to asuare tb.at
the permit liniltations are not exceeded
at any time.
Records of monitoring and testing
information shall include
a. The date, exact place and time for
sampling and rneasunn
b The uiHividual who perfomied the
sampling and measurements;
c. The dates and tune, analynes were
begun;
d. The individuals who perfurmed the
analyses:
a. The analytical techniques or
methods iised
£ The remus of inch aanlyeeet
g. The results of all quality control
procedures; and
h. The instantaneous flow Pa ima1es .
All monitoring records must be
retained for a period of at least three (3J
years from the date of the sample
measurement. Morutoring results must
be recorded on a Aii charge monitoring
report (DMR) form (EPA No. 3320—1 or
an approved subsaitnte). The permitlee
shall make available to this office and
the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality, upon request,
copies of nfl mnmlonng data required by
this permit. Upon request, the pi rmItiee
shall submit signed and ceitfled D s
and any other report. required b 1 this
office to the Regional Mnunintralor of
the En ironmestal Protection Agency
and the Lonisi.ana of Wa
Resources at the following addressee
ChieL Enforcement Branch (CW-E),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 8.1445 Ross Avenue. Dallas.
Texas 75202.
Office of Water Resources. Department
of Environmental Quality. P.O. Box
44091. CaçiLl Station. Baton Rouge,
Louisiana ‘0804-.4f L
Section C. Other Dischwye Limitationi
There shall be no discharge of floating
solids or visible loam. other than trace
amounts.
Part II
Other Requirements
The permittee mast comply with all
appbr nhl. provisions of the Ac and the
Regula ons. The following definitwa,
and additional requirements are in
accordance with the Act and the
Regulations.
Section A. Definitions
“Act” means the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. T251 at. seq.). as aa i, w4
&odiereical Oxygen Demand
(BOD5r means the amowit of oxygen
required by bacteria during the decay of
organic aj nitrogenous material In
sanitary sewage.
“Total Suspended Solids (TSS)”
means the amount of solid material
suspended in water, commonly
expressed as a concentration. in terms
of mg/L
“Fecal Coliform” means a gram
negative, non-spore forming. rod shaped
bacteria found in the intestinal tract of
warm-blooded animals.
“Facility” m ana a pollution source, or
any public or private pr rty or
and all onatigiious land and afru es,
other appurtenances and Improve m e nts,
where any activity is conducted whith
discharges or may remit n the
liidtarge of pollutants o watem of
the U.
“mgfl’ means mill ams liter It Ii
essentially equivalent to pails per
million in dilute aqueous es+ntions.
“Sanitary sewage” means treated or
untreated wastewater which contains
human metabolic and domestic wastes.
“Standard Metho ” means Standard
Methods for the am ,m3ltton of Water
and Wasiewater, American Public
Health Association, Washington, DC.
‘ 3O-day average” other than fecal
coliform bacteria, is the arithmetic mean
of the daily values for all effluent
samples collected during calendar
month, calculated as the men of all the
daily disthareges measured dining a
calendar month divided by the number
of daily discharges measured duru that
month, The 30day average for fecat
coliform bacteria is the geometric mean
of the value, for all effluent sample.
collected during a calendar month.
‘Daily Maximrm” meets the highest
allowable daily discharge during the
calender month.
“Grab Sample” means an individual
sample collected in less than 15 imnute,.
“National Pollutant Discharge
P liminatwc System” (NPDES) m ne the
national program for issuing, modifying,
revoking and reissuing, terminating.
monitoring and enforcing permits, and
imposing and enforcing pretreatment
under sections 307, 318. 402, and 405 of
the Act.
Section B. Applicability
All privately owned facilities
operating a soarce or conducting an
activity that results In a sanitary sewage
discharge as des fbed below are
covered under this general permit and
will become permittees authorized to
discharge upon the effective date of this
permit. Any discharger covered by an
individual permit may request that the
Individeal permit be nanrw’IM if the
permitted sotsue or activity I. eligible
for coverage by this general permiL A.
long as the source or activity ii covered
byan1ndjv14uaJperm , as well as this
general,pemmit, the 00 ndiltnn, , of the
individual permit will govern, until such
time as it Is reled or expires ,
Facdabes covered by this general
permit are thoet discharging only
sanitary sewage as defl. herein and
E em
P pd -—
8005 ‘ . . -
TSS’ .. . -
Oil and Grease’ —
Fecaj Coulorm Coioiw,Jire mi ... -—
-
M on
30 mg/i
30 mg/i
10 mg/I
2oonoo
-
O iy -
99
45 mg/i
45 mg/I
15 mg/I
400/100 Iii
Two/ ’
fmguency
Monaormg p----
Sampie t p.
1 ainat.
Gt
I
Grab
Grab
,,_
Two/yaw’
......
Two/yew 1
,_ ___ ____ ,_
Two/yew’
Y /yw ’
3 3
The pH shall flOt ee I Sa. 6.0 %twt$ nor grscw Sian s. D ewlGa,d ma. thiS a. mon ed t’eice/yew’ by O ’thsamp .
‘it em. value of tilts at0iiwmi thwact. ,m.X eaceeds time duty me y.Jn, nt iS Ii any sample. Own the mo(u .q bsaiamy sius mona.. fo ons#mocth. This
mcreased Cequency 5 1 1 5 5 conteeje nite a dan nes t a • 5mw, or . Ow dale jn IlnlSa00n.,
Re ua. otey for wiwoai food set e cpwaaons,
‘ aciIiiies uarig Slinitraten ponds as the pnmey tresUnei it process are WTatad to 90 ing/l for Si. 30-day eag. ale 13S mg/i lot Sm. du ly mawm.am TSS.
-------
30484
Federal Register / Vol. 54 . No. 138 / Thursday. July 20. 1989 / Notices
discharge less than 2500 gallons of
wastewater per day. Facilities covered
include, but are not limited to single
family residences. multi.family
residences, email trailer parks.
restaurants, hospitals, shopping centers
and office bwldings.
This General Permit shall not apply to:
1. Facilities having multiple
discharges. not all of which are sanitary
sewage, even though the total sanitary
discharge is less than 2500 gallons per
day. Contaminated or possibly
contaminated stormwater runoff is one
such non-sanitary discharge: or
2. Facilities built in conflict with the
State of Louisiana Sanitary Code.
The Director reserves the right to
require any discharger to apply for an
individual permit and to operate the
facility in accordance with that indiviual
permit.
Siiction C. Facihty Changes
The authorization to discharge in
accordance with this general permit is
terminated upon the increase in the
average discharge rate to 2500 gallons
per day or greater. Prior to such an
increase in the discharge rate from a
treatment unit covered by this general
permit, the permittee must submit a
modifled wastewater discharge permit
application (Form I General Information
and Form 2E—Facilities Which Do Not
Discharge Process Wastewater) to this
office and receive from this office an
individual permit with authorization to
discharge at that Increased rate.
Section D. Termination of Authonzagion
to Discharge
This office reserves the right to revoke
the authorization to discharge in
accordance with this general permit as it
applies and/or require such person to
apply for and obtain an individual
permit if
1. The covered source or activity is a
significant contributor to pollution or
creates other environmental pmblems
2. The permittee is not in compliance
with the terms or conditions of this
general permit or
3. CondItions or standards have
changed so that the source or activity no
longer qualifies for this general permit.
Section & Schedule of Compliance
Compliance by the permittee with the
effluent limitations and monitoring
requirements specified for discharges
shall be achieved upon the effective
date of this general permit.
Section F. Prohibition of Bypass
Bypass Is prohibited and the director
may take enforcement action against a
permittee for bypass.
Section C. Inspection and Ent,y
The permittee shall allow the Director
or an authorized representative upon the
presentation of credentials and other
documents as may be required by the
law to:
1. Enter upon the permittees premises
where a regulated facility or activity is
located or conducted or where records
must be kept under the conditions of this
permiti
2. Have access to and copy, at
reasonable times, any records that must
be kept under the conditions of this
permit
3. Inspect at reasonable times any
facilities. eqwpment (including
monitoring and control equipment),
practices or operations regulated or
required under this permit and
4. Sample or monitor at reasonable
times for the purpose or assuring permit
compliance, or as otherwise authonzed
by the Act any substances, or
parameters at any location.
Section II. Property Rights
This permit does not convey any
property rights of any sort, or any
exclusive privilege.
Section 1. State Lows
Nothing in this permit shall be
construed to preclude the institution
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or
penalties established pursuant to any
applicable State law or regulation under
authority preserved by section 510 of the
Act.
Section /. Signatory Requirements
All records, reports and other
information required by this permit. or
requested by the Director shall be
signed by the owner or his/her duly
authorized representative.
(FR Doc. 89-16953 Filed 7-19-8W &45 amj
ia mo com u
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Information Collection Requirements
July 13. 1889.
The following information collection
requirements have been approved by
the Office of Management and Budget as
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980. (44 U.S.C. 3507). For further
information contact Judy Boley. Federal
Communications Commission, (202) 632—
7513.
0MB No.: 3060-0010
Title: Ownership Report
Form No.. FCC 323
The approval on FCC 323 has been
extended through 6/30/92, The Marc !’
1988 edition with the previous expi’
date of 4/30/89 will remain in use i
updated forms are availble.
0MB No: 3060-022
Title: Application of Aiien Amateur
Radio Licensee for Permit to Operate
in the United States
Form No.: FCC 810-A
The approval on FCC 610—A has been
extended through 8/30/92. The August
1988 edition with the previous expiration
date of 6/30/89 will remain in use until
updated forms are avilable.
0MB No.: 3060-0027
Title: Application for Construction
Permit for Commercial Broadcast
Station
Form No.: FCC 301
A revised application form FCC 301
has been approved for use through 2/28/
92. The current edition of the form is
dated June 1989. The previous edition
dated August 1987 with the previous
0MB expiration date of 2/28/89 will
continue to be accepted until August 31.
1989.
0MB No.: 3080-0034
Title: Application for Construction
Permit for Noncommercial
Educational Broadcast Station
Form No: FCC 340
A revised application for FCC 34t.
been approved for use through 4/30/ti...
The current edition of the form is dated
May 1989. The previous edition dated
May 1985 with the previous expiration
date of 9/30/87 will continue to be
accepted until August 31, 1989.
0MB No: 3080-0355
Title: Rate of Return Report
No: FCC 492
The approval on FCC 492 has been
extended through 4/30/92. The January
1987 edition with the previous expiration
date of 4/30/89 will remain in use until
updated forms are available.
Federal Communicabona Commi ion.
Donna 5. Searcy,
Sec ietoty .
(FR Doc 89-17015 FIled 7-19-8W 8.35 arni
Sai.USU COOS I7I2-41-
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
Notice of Agreement(s) Filed
The Federal Maritime Commission
hereby gives notice of the filing of the
following agreemertt(sl pursuant to
section 5 of the Shipping Act of 1984
Interested parties may inspect an
obtain a copy of each agreement at
Washington. DC Office of the Federal
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 138 I Thursday, July 20. 1989 I Proposed Rules
30405
NW.. Washington. DC 20210. The
elephone number of the Docket Office
is 202—523—7894. and its hours qf
operation are 8.15 am to 4.45 pm
Monday through Friday except Federal
holidays. Comments of up to 10 pages
may also be transmitted by facsumle to
202—523—5048 or (for ri’s) 8—523—5046
provided the original and three copies
are sent to the Docket Office thereafter.
Additionally. OSHA requests (but does
not require) that comments prepared
with word.processing equipment be
accompanied by an MS—DOS—formatted.
5.25-inch floppy disc containing the
comments in a Wordperfect or ASCII
file. Written submissions must clearly
identify the provisions of the proposal
hith are addressed and the position
taken on each issue.
All materiai8 submitted will be
available for inspection and copymg at
this address. All timely submissions will
be part of the record of the proceeding.
Certification of Record and Final
Determination After Hearing. Following
the close of the hearing, the presiding
Admuustrative Law Judge will certify
the record of the hearing to the
Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health. The
Administrative Law Judge does not
make or recommend any decisions as to
the content of a final standard.
The proposed standard will be
reviewed in light of all testlmany and
written submissions received as part of
the record, and a standard will be
issued, or a determination will be made
not to issue a rule. based on the entire
record of the proceeding, including the
written comments and data received
from the public
Authority
This document was prepared under
the direction of Alan C. McMillan.
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health. U.S.
Department of Labor. 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW.. Washington. DC 20210.
It is issued pursuant to Sec. 6(b) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (84 Stat. 1593. 29 U.S.C. 655).
Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 9—63 (48
FR 35736), and 29 CFR Part 1911
Signed at Washington. DC. this 14th day of
uIy 1989
Alan C. McMillan,
lct,ng .Asszstont Secretory of Labor
[ FR Dcc. 89—17054 Filed 7—19—89. 845 am)
BILLiNG COOt 4510 -2$-M
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 123 and 403
EFRL-3617-5 1
California Application for EPA
Approval of Revisions to the State
National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System Program
AGENCYI Environmental Protection
Agency.
aCllOw Proposed rule.
suuuAar. California has requested
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
approval of revisions to the State’s
approved National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program.
These revisions, if approved by EPA,
will allow California to administer the
pretreatment program and also to issue
NPDES general permits. In addition,
California has repealed its previously
approved NPDES regulations, whtch
contained requirements for its existing
NPDES permit program. and now
implements the permit program by
incorporating federal NPDES
requirements and regulations into State
law. The State also has requested
approval of this revision. Today’s notice
provides for a 45 day comment period
on California’s revisions and an
opportunity for interested persons to
request a public hearing. EPA’s Regional
Administrator for Region DC will
approve or disapprove the State’s
application after taking into
consideration all comments received
DATE. Comments must be received on or
before September 5,1989. Interested
persons may also request a public
hearing on Californias application. If
significant public interest is expressed.
EPA will schedule a hearing. In the
event a hearing is held. EPA will provide
prior notice of the date, time. and
location. All requests for a hearing must
be submitted on or before expiration of
the public comment period.
ADDRESS: Comments should be
addressed to William H. Pierce. Chief,
Permits Branch. Water Management
Division. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 215 Fremont Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTAC
William H. Pierce. Chief, Permits
Branch. Water Management Division.
(415) 974-8110. 215 Fremont Street. San
Francisco, CA 94105.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Section
402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (133
U.S.C. 1251 et seq ) requires EPA to
administer the NPDES permit program
under which the Agency may issue
permits for the discharge of pollutants
into waters of the United States in
accordance with conditions required by
the Act. Section 402(b) of the CWA
provides for States to assume NPDES
permitting responsibilities upon
approval by EPA. States also may
request authority to issue general
permits for similar dischargers with the
same effluent limitations. (See 40 CFR
122,28.) In addition. under section 54 of
the 1977 amendments to the CWA,
States requesting NPDES permitting
authority, as well as States already
approved to administer the NPDES
permit program, must also request
permitting authority over discharges
from federal facilities located within the
State and authority to administer the
federal pretreatment program governing
the introduction of industrial pollutants
into publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs). (Cf. CWA section 402(n))
After EPA approves a State’s request for
NPDES permit and/or pretreatment
authority, the State must thereafter
submit any proposed program re% isions
to EPA for reapproval pursuant to 40
CFR 123.82(b).
On May 14, 1973, Califorrua became
the first State to be approved by EPA to
administer the NPDES permit program.
On May 5. 1978, it also became the first
State to receive EPA approval to
regulate discharges from federal
facilities. California has not yet been
approved to administer the pretreatment
program or issue NPDES general
permits.
On March 10. 1988. California
submitted an application to EPA for
approval of revisions to its approved
NPDES program in accordance with 40
CFR 123.62 and 403.10. This application
includes a request to add pretreatment
and general permit authority to its
approved program. It also includes a
request for EPA approval of revisions to
the State’s existing NPDES permit
regulations. (California does not have,
and has not requested. EPA approval to
administer the NPDES and pretreatment
programs on Indian lands.) Pursuant to
40 CFR 123.82(b) and 403.10(g),
California has submitted in support of
its application an Attorney General’s
Statement (including copies of all
applicable State statutes and
regulations) certifying that the State has
adequate authority to administer the
NPDES program being sought, a program
description describing how the State
intends to carry out its responsibilities.
and a proposed EPA! California
Memorandum of Agreement These
documents are revisions of the origindl
copies submitted to EPA when
-------
30406
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 138 / Thursday. [ uly 20. 1989 / Proposed Rules
California sought approval of its existing
NPDES permit program.
With respect to California’s request
for approval of revisions to the State’s
existing NPDES permit regulations.
California has repealed its approved
NPDES permit regulations and now
proposes to implement the State permit
program under State law, which.
according to the Attorney General,
incorporates by reference all existing
and future federal NPDES law and
regulations. Specifically, the Attorney
General has certified that the Porter-
Cologne Water Quality Control Act
(Porter-Cologne Act), which implements
the California NPDES program.
incorporates federal NPDES and
pretreatment law and regulations
prospectively, meaning that future
amendments to federal law and
regulations are automatically
incorporated into State law without the
need for amendment of State statutes
and regulations. [ In support of this
authority for prospective incorporation
by reference, the Attorney General has
cited the Porter-Cologne Act. sections
13160, 13170, 13177, 13385, 13388. and
13387.] The Attorney General also has
certified that regulations adopted by the
California State Water Resources
Control Board, the Statewide NPDES
permitting agency, prospectively
incorporate EPA regulations applicable
to the processing of NPDES applications
and issuance of NPDES permits. [ The
cited State regulations in the Attorney
General’s Statement are 23 Cal. Admin.
Code Sections 2235.1(c). 2235.2, and
2235.4J Such prospective incorporation
of federal law and regulations is,
according to the Attorney General.
authorized under California law and the
State’s Constitution.
As discussed above. California also
has requested authority to issue NFDES
general permits and administer the
pretreatment program. With respect to
general permit authority, EPA
regulations at 40 CFR 122.28 provide for
the issuance of general permits to
regulate discharges of waste water
which result from similar operations, are
of the same type wastes, require the
same effluent limitations, require similar
monitoring, and are more appropriately
controlled under a general permit rather
than by individual permits, [ I EPA
approves California’s request for general
permit authority, each general permit
proposed by the State would be subject
to EPA review and approval as provided
by 40 CFR 123.44(aJ(2). Public notice and
opportunity to request a hearing also
must be provided for each general
permit.
With respect to California’s request
for pretreatment authority, the State
also proposes to implement its
pretreatment program under the Porter-
Cologne Act provisions which
prospectively Incorporate federal law
and regulations. Under the CWA and
EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 403. the
primary objectives of the pretreatment
program are to: (1) Prevent the
introduction of pollutants into POTWs
which will interfere with plant
operations and/or disposal or use of
municipal sludge; (2) prevent the
introduction of pollutants into POTWs
which will pass through treatment
works in unacceptable amounts to
receiving waters; and (3) Improve the
feasibility of recycling and reclaiming
municipal and industrial waste water
and sludge. In order to be approved,
California’s request for pretreatment
program approval must demonstrate
that there Is appropriate legal authority,
procedures, available funding, and
qualified personnel to implemen the
program as specified in 40 CFR 403.10.
Generally, local pretreatment programs
will be the primary vehicle for
administering, applying, and enforcing
California’s pretreatment requirements.
Currently, 102 such programs have been
approved by EPA, Where local programs
have not yet been required or developed
in California, the State must apply and
enforce the pretreatment requirements
directly against industries that discharge
to POTWs [ e.g., 40 CFR 403,10(f)(2)(j)J,i
11 approved by the Regional
Administrator, California’s pretreatment
program, as well as its revised NPDES
permit program. will be adnunistered by
the California State Water Resources
Control Board and rune Regional Water
Quality Control Boards. The Regional
Administrator’s decision to approve or
disapprove California’s proposed
program revisions, including its request
for pretreatment and general permit
authority, will be based on a
determination of whether the proposed
program meets the requirements of the
Clean Water Act and 40 CFR Parts 122,
123, 124. and 403.
The California submi8sion may be
reviewed by the public at the State
Water Resources Control Board, 901 “P”
Street, 2nd Floor. Sacramento, CA 95814
and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Library, 6th Floor. 215 Freinont
Street. San Francisco. CA 94105. Copies
‘According to the Caitfomia Attorney General,
the requirement, of the C’.vA and implementing
regulation, incorporated by reference by the Porter-
Cologne Act. indud, but ar, not untied to the
pretreaiment etandard, and reporting requirement,
for lUe of POTWe ttor ecampie 40 CFR 403 5. 403 6
and 403 i.J
of the submittal may also be obtained
for $75.00 from these offices.
Review Under Executive Order 12391
and the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Office of Management and 8ud et
has exempted this rule from the rev ew
requirements of Executive Order 12291
pursuant to section 8(b) of that Order.
Under the Regulatory flexibility Act.
EPA is required to prepare a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis for all rules which
may have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The
proposed approval of California’s
NPDES program revisions, including the
addition of pretreatment and general
permit authority, does not alter the
regulatory control over any municipal or
industrial category. No new substantive
requirements are established by this
action. Therefore, since this notice does
not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities, a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is riot
necessary.
Dated. june 23, 1989
John C. Wise,
Acting Regional Administrator for Region I X.
[ FR Doc. 80-16880 Filed 7-19-89, 8.45 aml
W$U 0301 65 Q4e,5
40 CFR Part 261
(SW-FRL-3819 -2 1
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ac’not Proposed rule and request for
Comment
suuu y: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA or Agency) today is
proposing to grant a petition submitted
by USX Corporation, Chicago, Illinois, to
conditionally exdude certain solid
wastes generated at its Southworks
Plant, Gary Works facility from the lists
of hazardous wastes contained in 40
CFR 261.31 and 281.32. This action
responds to a delistlng petition
submitted under 40 CFR 280.20, which
allows any person to petition the
Administrator to modify or revoke any
provision of Parts 280 through 268. 124,
270, and 2fl of Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, and under 40 CFR
250.22, which specifically provides
generators the opportunity to petition
the Administrator to exclude a waste on
a “generator-specific” basis from the
hazardous waste lists. Today’s proposed
decision is based on an evaluation of
-------
29988
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 135 / Monday, uly 17. 1989 I Notidé
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON
AGENCY
(FRL.-3816-7 NPOES No. FLGO4000II
Final NPOES General Permit for
Pebo ieum Fuel Contaminated Ground/
Storm Waters In the State of Florida
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
*ciiosc Notice of Final National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) General Permit
SMM RY: The Regional Administrator
of Region IV is today issuing a final
National Pollutant Discharge
Pliminatlon System (NPDES) General
Permit No. FLCO4000I to facilities within
the political boundary of the Slate of
Florida. This NPDES general permit
establishes effluent limitations.
prohibitions, reporting requirements and
other conditions on facilities which
discharge treated groundwater and/or
atormwater incidental to the
groundwater cleanup operation which
h&,te been contaminated by automotive
gasoline, aviation and/or diesel fuels.
This final general permit authorizes
discharges from facilities currently
located In and discharging to surface
waters, or to tnbutari es/conveyances
thereof within the political boundary of
the State of Florida. and any new
treatment facility placed In operation
during the term of the permit Issuance
of this final permit will allow cleanup
actions at contaminated sites to begin
without the delays of individual NPDES
permit Issuance procedures. This
general permit will potentially cover
more than 2000 sites.
oa ’re This permit shall be effective on
July 17, 1989 at 100p.m. Eastern
Daylight Savings Time. Notification of
coverage by the general permit will be
by certified mail from the Director.
Water Management Division. EPA.
Region IV. Thu method of notification
will be applicable to both new
dischargers and existing dischargers
that submit notices of Intent for general
permit coverage. Existing dlachargers
must also request that current individual
permits be revoked upon notification of
coverage by the general permit. The
date for coverage under the general
permit will be the date the applicant
receives the aseigiied NPDES number
under the general permit.
in accordance with 40 CFR 23.2. the
Region hereby specifies that this permit
shall be considered the final agency
action for purposes of judicial review at
100 p.m. Eastern Daylight Savings Time
on the date of this notice. In order to
assist Region IV to correct any
typographical errors, incorrect cross
references. and similar administrative
errors, comments of a nonsubstantive
nature on the final permit be submitted
on or before August 28. 1989.
The administrative record, including
application, final permit, fact sheet,
public notice, comments received, and
additional Information are available by
writing the EPA. Region IV, or for
review and copying at 345 Courtland
Street NE.. 3rd Floor. Atlanta, Georgia
30385, between the hours of 8,15 n.m.
and 430p.m.. Monday through Friday.
Copies will be provided at a minimal
charge per page. Additional Information
concerning the permit may be obtained
at the address and during the hours
noted above from Ms. Dianne Brown,
Public Notice Coordinator, (404) 347-
3004.
ADORE8 Notifications required under
this permit should be sent to: Director,
Water Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Region IV, 345 Courtland Street NE..
Atlanta, George 30365.
Request For Coverage: Written
notification of intent to be covered by
the general permit shall be provided as
described in the permit Part ELF.
Request for coverage must contain
evidence that the operation has been
approved for Initial Remedial Actions
(IRA). or has obtained a Site
Rehabilitation Initiation Order and an
approved Remedial Action Plan (RAP)
from the State of Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation.
coa cunm ORMA11ON CON TACY:
Roosevelt Childress. Chief. South Areas
NPDES Permits Unit, or Larry Cole,
Environmental Engineer, Facilities
Performance Branch, Water
Management Division. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 345
Courtland Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia
30365, (404) 347—3012.
LM(NTANY INFCRMAviO*
L Introduction
On August 25,1988. EPA Region IV
published a notice of the draft general
permit (53 FR 32442) that is being issued
In final form today. The Region received
materials from fourteen (14) commenters
on the proposed permit. plus a request
for an extension of the public comment
period. On October 25. 1988 (53 FR
43035). the public comment period was
extended until November 15. 1988, All
the public comments received during
this period are included in the
administrative record and were
considered by Region IV in the
formulation of a final determination of
the conditions of today’s final permit.
The Region published a detailed fact
sheet with the draft permit in 53 FR
32442. The Region is incorporating by
reference that fact sheet and
supplementary information as part of
the final fact sheet for today’s final
permit The discussions presented in
these sections should be consulted in
reviewing the applicability and scope of
the final permit conditions.
IL Other Legal Requirements
A. Executive Ortter 12291
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this action from the
requirements of Executive Order 12291
pursuant to Section 8 [ bJ of that order.
a Papeiwork Reduction Act
EPA has reviewed the requirements
imposed on the regulated facilities in
this final general permit under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44
U.S.C, 3501 et seq. The information
collection requirements of this permit
have already been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget in
submissions made for the NPDES permit
program under the provisions of the
Clean Water Act (hereafter. “the Act”).
C. State Certification Requirements
Section 301(b)(l)(c) of the Act requirer
that NPDES permits contain conditions
which ensure compliance with
applicable state water quality standards
or limitations. Under Section 40’l(a)(l) of
the Act, EPA may not issue a NPDES
until the state in which the
discharge will originate grants or waive’
certification to ensure compliance with
appropriate requirements of the Act aria
state law. EPA requested certification ot
the permit on August 11. 1988. On June
14.1989. the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation waived
certification of the general permit.
D. Effective Dote
The final NPDES general permit
issued today Is effective on July 17. 1989
and upon written notification of
coverage from the Permit Issuing
Authority.
£ Regulatory Flex,bthty Act
After review of the facts presented in
this document, I hereby certify, pursuan
to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b). that
this general NPDES permit will not havE
a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Moreover, the
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 54. No. 135 / Monday, July 17. 1989 I Notices
29987
permit reduces a signifinant burden on
regulated sources.
Ds*flhes L U,
AcungRe jonaIAdmjnjsgmto . Region IV.
Summary of Comments
.Appendix A—Public Comeients
Public notice of the draft permit was
published at 53 FR 32442 (August 25.
1988). The comment period was
scheduled to close on September 25.
1988. Region N received a request from
the Florida Petroleum Counuil for an
extension of public comment period.
since the proposed draft raised issues of
potentially significant concern to the
petroleum industry. The comment period
was noticed at 53 FR 43035 (October 25,
1988) and extended until the close of
business on November 15, 1988.
Significant comments presented during
the public comment periods were
considered In the formulation of a final
decision regarding the proposed permit
The following parties responded with
written comments on the general permit
Total Petroleum Inc.. Kexv-McCee
Corporation. Hopping Boyd Green &
Same, Florida Petroleum Council.
Chevron U.S.A. Inc.. Shell Oil Company
Professor Richard L WIIIIamaon. Jr.,
Florida Petroleum Marketers
Association, Hunton & Williams. Florida
Department of Environmental
Regulation (FDER). Kaiser Engineers.
Conoco Inc.. and the American
Petroleum Institute.
(1) Comment Several industry
cornmentera stated that the Region has
failed to consider adequately the factors
necessary to establish technology—
based effluent limitations for benzene,
lead, and napthalene. They mentioned
that there are no promulgated effluent
guidelines applicable for these point
sources, therefore, this permit must
necessarily establish technology based
effluent limitations on a slte.by-site
basis [ 40 CFR 125.3(c)(2)J. Consequently.
the Region must consider, Inter ails, the
“engineering aspecta of the application
of various types of control techniques
and the coat of achieving such efiluent
reductions.” They stated that treating
bensene contiirv i ated groundwater to
1.0 pg/i on a consistent basis would
require optimal conditions to be met.
and also mentioned that long term
treatment could amount to $1.0O0.000 or
more per site. in some cases it may be a
technical impossibility to treat
hydrocarbon contaminated groundwater
to trace levels in the aquifer. even if the
most advanced technology currently
available is used.
Respoizse The Region agrees that
optimal conditions for complying with
the proposed bensene limit may not be
available at every site. Each operator
must consider which factors may
prevent compliance with the proposed
limits before applying for coverage
under the general permit Other factors.
such as Iron and manganese levels
above 5.0 mg/I in the infuent require
polishing steps before using carbon
absorption as a cleanup alternative.
Howeven on individual permit requests.
previous facilities were designed to
meet a benzene limit of 1.0 pg/I by
applying engineering techniques to keep
the Influent to the airstripper at low
concentrations before treatment
occurred. Some facilities were using
infiltration galleries and were in
operation before applying for an NPDES
permit and were consistently meeting
the 1.0 pg/i effluent limitation for
benzene from their treatment facllities
prior to requesting a discharge permit to
surface waters. If enormous costs could
be verified after hydrogeologic
consideration due to a long term cleanup
project, an Individual permit might seem
more appropriate; however, Chapter 17—
70 of the State Underground Petroleum
Environmental Response Program does
provide flexibility with regard to costs
and time frame after a minimum of one
year or less if data exist to verify that
the cleanup remedial action is complete.
The State of Florida would have the
responsibility to make a determination
as to whether the remedial action
operations would be deemed complete
based on concentrations found In the
groundwater and consider the technical
feasibility of other proven groundwater
techniques to further reduce
contaminant levels at the site.
Therefore, compliance with the
proposed tinuta of the general permit
does not infer high cleanup costs, since
FDER would verify whether a
remedletton plan is complete based on
Individual site data received from the
operator. Even though airatripping
Independently does very little for
removal of leaded compounds in
gasoline. alrstripplng plus other
treatment processes combined do
reduce the lead levels enough to meet
the permit limit Considering the amount
of hydrocarbons recovered In the mobile
free floating phase and the high
adsorption potential of organic leading
compounds onto the soils, treatment to
comply with the lead limit has not
raised concern at other facilities with
individual permits. The technology being
used, even though not a lead removal
technology. is able to reduce the levels
of leaded compounds.
(2) Comment: Several coinmenters
mentioned that the proposed limitations
for benzeno. lead and naphthaleno are
more stringent than necessary to meet
applicable water quality standards, The
commenters mentioned that outside of
the xnlidng zone, Florida has established
a general water quality miterla for lead
of 50.0 pg/I [ PAC 17 —3.061(2 (Ifl, yet the
Region proposed to establish end.of.
pipe effluent limitations at the point of
discharge of 30.0 pg/I, apparently
assuming that all discharges will be to
Class I Waters.Potable Water Supplies
(PAC 17-3.091(18) ) and that the drinking
water intake pipe will be adjacent to the
effluent discharge, a specifically
prohibited practice (FAC 17-4.244(1)(d)J.
It was stated that the Florida Petroleum
Council 1988 report entitled ‘Benzene in
Florida Groundwater” demonstrated
that drinking water containing less than
25 pg/l of benzene would not contribute
to leukemia. Comenters also
mentioned that 5.0 pg/I is the U.S. EPA
drinking water standard and that the
Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation is proposing to set the
benzene limit equal to EPA’s standard.
Response: The effluent limitations are
technology-based and applied at the
end.of.pipe therefore, a mixing zone is
not granted under this general permit
On previous individual permit requests
for cleanups of this type, the limits were
applied at the end.of.pipe. Zones of
mixing are granted on a case-by-case
basis by FDER and will be considered in
individual permit Issuances. The State of
Florida had considered raising their
standard to 5.0 pg/I (MCL) for beazene
In the drinking water, but these
proposed limits have not been finalized.
The 1.0 pg/i limit for benzene has been
proven to be technologically achievable,
and is coincidentally between the 10
and IO risk levels of 8.8 pg/I and 0.68
pg/l for lnciuaae in cancer over a
lifetime (EPA 440(5—80—016); therefore, a
revision upward is not justified. Also. as
discussed in response to Comment (1).
the level of Influent concentrations by
petroleum contamination to the
treatment system should be controlled
by the operator. lie., segregating the
more concentrated contamtnated
groundwaters for product reclamation or
off-site disposaL
(3) Comment Several commenters
stated that the Region’s proposed
toxicity limitations are both
procedurally and substantively infirm
and should be used for information
screening purposes only. They
mentioned the proposed toxicity
limitation is more atnn8ent than
required under applicable Florida water
quality standards and that the subject
State regulation provides that the
maximum concentration of wastes in the
mixing zone shall not exceed the
amount lethal to 50% of the test
-------
29988 Federal Regist
I VoL 54 No. 135 / Monday, July 17, 1989 I Notices
organisms In 96 hears (96 hr LC o) for a
species significant to the indigenous
aquatic 1 wwunlty (MC 17-4.244(4)(a)J.
They mentioned the Region purports to
equate the “affluent with the ‘mixing
zone’ and three appropriate test species
with a species significant to the
Indigenous aquatic community ’. an
approach at odds with the Florida
Department of Environmental
Regulation. It was also mentioned that
while this may be Agency policy, no
substitute can e,dst for the exercise of
Informed decision making. Q 1 NRDC v.
EPA. No. 80-1607 (D.C. CIr. 1988) slip op.
at 64—65.
Response: The “Whole Effluent
Toxicity Testing Policy for Florida”,
dated May 5. 1986. was developed by
EPA. Region IV, for use In writing
NPDES permits in Florida. Our
requirements. procedures and methods
do not have to correspond with those
required by the FDER.
After consideration of comments
received regarding the toxicity
requirement the language in this permit
ha8 been revised to allow additional
confirmatory testing if the toxicity tests
fad. These additional toxicity tests will
be used to determine if coverage by the
general permit should continue or If an
individual permit will be required.
Failure of the tests does not constitute a
permit violation. The use of non-
indigenous species for standard
laboratory toxicity Is consistent with
EPA’s Technical Support Document and
the final report of the Bioassay Task
Force Report of August 1985. by the
FDF.R. This report recommended that
“standard stock monocultures of known
health and sensitivity must be used In
testing.” In interpreting the meaning of
the use of organisms significant to the
indigenous aquatic community. this has
been interpreted by FDER as meaning
“any recognized orgAnisms can be used
for bioassay testing as long as that
organism Is known to be sensitive to
toxic substances that can be expected to
Impact the Indigenous rm.rnw4ty”.
(page 6. FInal Report—Bioassay Task
Force). WIth regard to allowance of a
mixing zone under Florida’s standards,
these discharge, do not have approved
mixing zones. In the absence of a mixing
zone, the least stringent rule (17—
4.244(4)). which prohibits wastes at the
point of discharge from exceeding the 96
hour LC o (IA 0 <100%). applies at the
end-of-pipe (page 5. Final Report of the
Bioassay Task Force).
(4) Comment Some commentere
stated that EPA lacks the authority to
require development of a Best
Management Practices (UMP) Plan. The
Clean Water Act (CWA) empowers EPA
to Include such requirements In an pollutants which are also discharged. It
NPDES permit only If It has published Is the Region’s view that If the treatment
Industry-specific BMP regulations end, efficiency Is adequate in the Initial
even then, only after making certain cleanup operations. the effluent quality
specified regulatory determinations. In the later stages of cleanup operations
Since EPA has yet to promulgate should not deteriorate as the cleanup
reqmrements applicable to these operations progress and the
discharges. it Is without the statutory groundwater quality is restored.
authority to Impose them in the general (7) Comment One commenter stated
permit In NRDC v. EPA. Industry that since these are technolo ’ based
petitioners, including API challenged limits, if an “upset” occurs. it
EPA’s authority under sectIons 125.100 necessarily follows that It should be
and 125.103 to Include BMPe in NPDES possible to raise that defense to any
permits on a case-by-case basis under permit violation. They recommp nded
section 402(a)(1). In a Settlement deleting the water-quality qualifier
Agreement dated June 7, 1982. the which appears to limit unnecessarily th
parties agreed that the B! Issue was availability of the upset defense in this
not ripe for adjudication because EPA setting.
had suspended the effectiveness of Its Response: The Region agrees that the
BMP regulations pending further review, statement should not be included and it
and the BMP Issue was dismissed on the baa been deleted in the final issuance a
ripeness ground on August 8,1982. the general permit
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. (8) Comment: One cominenter stated
the industry petitioners reserve the right that it was unnecessary for general
to challenge any new BMP regulations permittees to receive permission from
which may be promulgated. Many of the EPA to deactivate coverage under the
same concerns would be addressed In general permit.
the applicable Site Remedial Action Response: The language La the perim
Plan. has been clarified to state that EPA wii
Response: Section 402(a)(2) of the Act Inactivate coverage by the general
and the Implementing regulations at 40 permit after review of site closure
CFR 12 2.43 (a) authorize EPA to require documentation.
Best Management Practices Plans in (9) Conime.nt One commenter stated
NPDES permits. Decision of the Genera! that the 30 pg/I effluent limit imposed
Counsel. No. 72. Issue VI. The permit for lead would not necessarily in all
requires that the BMP plan be prepared circumstances protect human health.
in conjunction with the Site Remedial The EPA 440/5-80-057 Ambient Water
Action Plan. Criteria document for lead is obsolete.
(5) Comment: An industry commenter since EPA Headquarters has proposed
stated that the separate authorization to new drinking water standard for lead
combine contaminated groundwater which contains an impressive array of
pumped to above-ground storage tanks health Information of 5.0 pg/i (53 FR
with contaminated groundwater from ,... . -g1565, August18. 1988). Past practice f
the sites recovery well should be Florida I. to keep the water quality
deleted. cilteria for lead well below the federai
Response: The Region did not Intend standard; therefore, anticipation can b
to construe this as a separate permit made that the State will lower their
requirement. but could be Included In standards. If the State of Florida
the notification stages when the facility Imposes this 5.0 jig/i for lead, this wot
will be combining discharges. This be measured outside the mixing zone
would give the Region an accurate after dilution has been taken into
account of facilities that would actually account. For example. with a dilution
be using these treatment processes to 5.’1. the effluent could have a
treat the storage tank bottom waters. concentration of 30 jig/i and still not
This can be handled In the Notice of exceed the new water quality standar
Intent (NOl) which is required by EPA The general permit should be more
for the perizuttee to be covered under stringent than Individual permits base
the general permit on reasonable worst case, yet nowhe
(6) Comment Several aimmenters is the general permit discharge llmite
mentioned that as long as the perimttee those with substantial low flow or to
is meeting the effluent limits, the one- conditions where there are ambient
time analysis of the effluent for priority background levels of lead. This wouli
pollutants appears to be unnecessary. result in the instream concentration o
Response: This one-time scan was 5.0 pg/I to be exceeded- The lead Umi
Incorporated Into the general permit to of 30.0 pg/I will not protect freshwaU
check the treatment facilities’ organisms. The current documents
performance near the start of operation include values that would protect
for the reductIon of other prionty organisms themselves. For some
-------
Fedezaj Register / Vol. 54, No. 135 / Monday, July 17, 1989 / NotIces
—--
substances. including lead, the value for
the protection of aquatic organisms
could be maze efringent t p hm,n n
health, particularly In steams with very
low hardness (7.7 g/l at a hardnes. of
200 sJfl. The effluent limit will not be
protective of aquatic organisms in
stream. with low flow. and/or high
background levels. It was recommended
that a one-time priority pollutant scan
be used to ensure the treated water did
not contain any toxic pollutants. Also.
that a more frequent sampling be
Imposed in the permit if a failure does
occur during toxicity testing to
determine if the limit is being
maintained using a larger data base and
this permit violation would trigger
applying for an individual NPDES
permit
Response: This general permit was
not written to consider existing or
proposed drinking water standards by
any regulatory agency. The testing
requirement for lead is currently being
required by the State of Florida for the
groundwater at sites which do not
satisfy the no further actlon’ or
“monitoring only” alternative. With
regard to toxicity testing. the Region has
revised the toxicity testing requirement
based on significant comments received
on the draft general permit. The
Regional toxicity testing requirements
still supports the use of organisms
significant to the Indigenous aquatic
commumity as mentioned In the
response to Comment (9J however.
additional tests will be required to
supporrcontlnuance or revocation of
coverage under the general permit Part
IL Section C. doe. provide exclusion of
coverage under the general permit, if a
permittee proposes a discharge to
receiving waters that are classified as
.9 j Protection. Outstanding Florida
Waters.’ A priority pollutant scan Is
included Into Part I B. of the general
permit
(10) Comment: One comm ntar
recommended a reduction from the three
to two species for t e In toxicity tests.
Also, language should be included In the
permit to clarify that these operations
must also meet th. approval of Florida
prior to receipt of NPD general permit
coverage.
Response: The recounmvnd dan for a
reduction from the proposed three (3J
species for toxicity testing to the two (2)
species was incorporated into the
condition.. of the final permit Language
was included into the notification stages
of the’flnal permit to indicate that these
facilities must also obtain approval from
- the State of Florida prior tb attaining
coverage under the NPDES general
—t
(11) Comment One commenter
recommended that the proposed limits
for a pH range of 6.0-8,5 should be
dropped since the limits are unrealistic
for Florida and natural groundwater
often measures in the 4.0-8.0 range for
pit
Response: On previous individual
permits issued the pH range of 8.0-8.5
was required and actual operating data
indicate that some facilities are
operating within this range: therefore.
deletion of this pH range is not 3u 5t1.fied.
ilL Other Changes to Final Pennit
After review of the proposed permit
Region IV Incorporated other changes
Into the final permit that are part of
today’s final issued permit
(1) In Part I . Section D , the schedule of
cothpllance was changed to reflect
operational level attainment dates for
permittees with revoked individual
permits and new dischargers.
(Z) In Part II. Section A.2. revised
language was incorporated into the
permit fur penalties for violations of
permit conditions, in accordance with
the Water Quality Act of 1987.
(3) In Part LI. Section F. language was
included to allow coverage mmdcv the
general permit far pernuttee. during
imti cleanup operations when Initial
Remedial Actions (IRA) have been
approved by Florida Depar ent of
Environmental Regulation, or ifs Site
Rehabilitation Initiation Order ha. been
approved.
(4) In Part IV of the Beet Management
Practice. (BMP) plan, language was
added to Insure that the plan is
maintained at the facility and made
available upon request from the Permit
issuing Authority.
Appendix B—Geomuj Permit To
Discharge Under the National Pollutant
Discharge flImin , lien Sy.
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as amended (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq4 the Act’l,
Discharges of treated groundwater
and stormwater incidental to
groundwater cleanup operations which
are contaminated with gasoline or
aviation fuel are authorized to discharge
to waters of the United States within the
State of Florida In accordance with
effluent limitations, monitoring
requirements and other condition., set
forth herein. The permit consists of Part
L Part II. Part ill. Part IV, and Part V.
This permit shall became effective at
1.00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Savings Time,
on Monday, July 17, 19a9.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight.
Eastern Daylight Savings Time, on July
16. 1994.
J thn T. Msrlu.
Chief. Faabte, PerfvmmanceBinncA far
Bruce R. Barrett Director. Wager
Management Division Region IV.
Parti
A. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring
Requiremente: ExisLüzg Sources and
New Dischoigers
1. Dunng the period beginning on the
effective date of the permit and lasting
through the term of this permit, the
perinittee is authorized to discharge
treated groundwater and etorniwater
that has been conf min ited by
Automotive Carolina It is anticipated
that these contnminj ted waters will be
trented by air stripping, followed by
activated carbon adsorption. if
necessary, or equivalent treatment to
meet the following effluent limitations.
Such dlArhiirges shall be limited and
monitored by the permittee as specified
beIow
The effluent (100%) shall not be lethal
to more than 50% of appropriate fish and
invertebrate test organisms In 48 hour
static toxicity tests (48-hr. LC. 0 ). Failure
to demonstrate compliance with the
acute toxicity requirement may resuh In
coverage under this permit being
revoked, (see Part V-Z).
EtThjsa th6 L
0LJ .
U 4, w*
n.
V
Iwa .
•.

e
—
S e ps
Flow, M(
Bw ene. i4/1
TO%al Laed. ph
Repcrt..___
t 0
me
nw _
1 l 6!4Il

Fb.,,wta
Gv .
ci
-------
29990
Federal Register / Vol. 54.No. 135 1 Monday. July 17. 1989 I Notices
The pH shall not be less than 6.0
standard units nor greater than 8.5
standard units and shall be monitored
once every month by g eb sample. or
coutlnuou ly with a recorder. at the
discretion of the permittee (See item
LB. 4).
There shall be no discharge of floating
solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
Samples taken In compliance with the
monitoring requirements specified
above shall be taken at the following
locaUon(s) nearest accessible point
after final treatment but prior to actual
discharge or mixing with the receiving
waters
Monitoring for this parameter Is
required only when contamination
resu1 s from leaded fueL
A. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring
Requ rementr &istii g Sources and
New Dischargers
2. During the period beginning on the
effective date of the permit and lasting
through the term of this permit, the
permittee is authorized to discharge
treated groundwater and stormwatar
that has been contismin2ted by Aviation
Gasoline. Jet Fuel or DieseL It is
anticipated that these contaminated
waters will be treated by air stripping.
followed by activated carbon adsorption
ii necessary or equivalent treatment to
meet the foregoing effluent limitations.
Such discharges shall be limited and
monitored by the perinittee as specified
below
The effluent (100%) shall not be lethal
to more than 50% of appropriate fish and
invertebrate test orgamsms in 48 hour
static toxicity tests (48-hr. LC ). Failure
to demonstrate compliance with the
acute toxicity requirement may result in
coverage under this permit being
revoked. (see Part V-2)
The pH shall not be lean than 6.0
standard inits nor greater than 8.5
standard units and shall be monitored
once every month by grab sample. or
continuously with a recorder. at the
discretion of the permittee (See item
l.a 4).
There shall be no discharge of floating
solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
Samples taken in compliance with the
monitoring requirements specified
above shall be taken at the following
location(s): nearest accessible point
after final treatment but prior to actual
discharge or uthdng with the receiving
waters.
‘Monitoring for this parameter Ii
required only when contamination
results from leaded fueL
B. Other Requirements
1. Any more frequent affluent
discharge monitoring required by the
Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation (FDER) for the parameters
limited in this permit. or different
parameters, shall be reported to the
Pezrnit Issuing Authority in accordance
with the requirements of Part Ill-A of
this permit
2. Effluent limitations for combining
contiimtr nted groundwater pumped to
above-ground storage tanks, with
contaminated groundwater from the
sites recovery wells.
a. The permittee shall notify FDER of
any intent to combine contaminated
groundwater pumped to above-ground
storage tanks with contaminated
groundwater from the recovery well.
Approval of this combined effluent
discharge by FDER will constitute
approval for coverage by this general
permit.
3. WIthin 60 days of the effective data
of this permit or startup of discharge the
permittee shall also submit the results of
the following analyses. These analyses
shall be performed on a representative
sample of the groundwater effluent
discharge. taken after final treatment
Required analyses (one time only)
a. EPA Method 625.—Add and base/
neutral extractable orgarucs.
b. EPA Method 824 —Purgeable
Organics.
If the analyses required in the above
Part 8—3 reveal other toxic pollutants or
subsequent biomonitoring test shows
lethality (less t han 50% survival of test
organisms in 100% effluent). this General
Permit may be terminated and an
individual permit issued.
4.1! the pH ii monitored continuously.
the p11 values shall not deviate outside
the required range more than 7 hours
and 26 minutes in any calendar month
and no Individual excursion shall
exceed 60 minutes. An “excursion” Is an
unintentional and temporary Incident In
which th.. pH value of discharge
waetewater exceeds the range set forth
In the permit
C Test Procedures
lii performing the analysis for the
dissolved constituents in the surface
water and groundwater. the permittee
shall use the guidelines recommended
and described in Sections 17-
70.008(9)(a—e) of the petroleum
contziminadon site cleanup criteria rule
for the State of Florida.
a. If the petroleum COntomino Lion is
from a petroleum fuel in which the
source of coniRminntlon has not been
Identified . the groundwater shall be
analyzed (using the recommended
methods) for the following parameters
as described in Section 17.70.008(9)(d] of
the State Underground Petroleum
En imental Response Program
( Lead (EPA Method 239.2 or Standard
Method 304)
(2) Priority Pollutant Volatile Organics
(EPA Method 624)
(3) Priority Pollutant Extractable
Organics (EPA Method 825)
(4) Non-Priority Pollutant Organics (with
GCIMS Peaks greater than 10 ppb)
(EPA Methods 624 & 623)
D. Schedule of the Compliance
1. The permittee shall achieve
compliance with the effluent limitations
specified for discharges In accordance
with the following schedule:
Permittee. with Revoked Individual
Permits Operational Level Attained.
Upon Receipt of Notification of
Coverage
New Dlez 4 uirgers: Operational Level
Attained. Upon Commencement of
Discharge
2. No later than 14 calendar days after
any date Identified In the above
Effluent cfwactooadc
eqe ataaors
M menn
r e q.
m m
Me a j .

Pow. MGD..___..._..—. .._ -—________________
Benzens. g/1 — — — . -— — . _ -. .....
Naol,thalen.. 4l1 - . .._ _.
‘Total Load. gIl — — .. ._.__.________________
R%oIt......._.
._..
.
Repctt —-
1 0 — ——
100 0..-.
30.0
Con 5nucue -
1/mon 5L.......
1/month._. ...
1Imon L.....
F looaT teter
01 50.
Gia0.
Grab.
-------
Federal Reg star / VoL 54, No. 135 I Monday, JuJy 17, 1989 / Nodcee
29991
schedule of compliance the permittee
shall submit either a report of progress
or, in the case of specific actions being
required by Identified dates, a written
notice of compliance or noncompliance.
En the latter case, the notice shall
include the cause of noncompliance, any
remedial actions taken. and the
probability of meeting the next
scheduled requirement.
Part U—Standard Conditions for NPDES
Permits
Section A. General Conditions
1. Duty to Comply
The permittee must comply with all
conditions of this permit. Any permit
noncompliance constitutes a violation of
the Clean Water Act and Is grounds for
enforcement action for permit
termination, revocation and retasuance,
or modification, or for denial of a permit
renewal application.
2. Penalties for Violations of Permit
Conditions
Any person who violates a permit
condition is subject to a civil penalty not
to exceed $25,000 per day of such
violation. Any person who willfully
violates permit conditions is subject to a
fine of not lees than $5000 nor more
than $50,000 per day of violation, or by
imprisonment for not more than 3 years,
or both. Any person who negligently
violates permit conditions is subject to a
fine of not less than $2,500 nor more
than $‘-5 .000 per day of violation, or by
imprisonment for not more than 1 year,
or both.
3. Duty to Mitigate
The perinittee shall take all
reasonable steps to mtniTnrze or prevent
any discharge in violation of this permit
which has a reasonable likelihood of
adversely affecting human health or the
environment.
4. Permit Modification
After notice and opportunity for a
hearing, this permit may be modified,
terminated or revoked for cause
including, but not Limited to, the
following:
a. Violation of any terms or conditions
of this permit:
b. Obtaining this permit by
misrepresentation or failure to disclose
fully all relevant facts:
c, A change in any conditions that
requires either temporary interruption or
elimination of the permitted discharge;
or
d. Information newly acquired by the
Agency indicating the discharge poses a
threat to human health or welfare.
It the permittee believes that any past
or planned activity would be cause for
modification or revocation and
reissuance under 40 CFR i22R2 the
permittee must report such information
to the Permit Issuing Authority. The
submittal of a new application may be
required of the permittee. The filing of a
request by the permittee for a permit
modification, revocation and reissuance,
or termination, or a notification of
planned changes or anticipated
noncompliance, does not stay any
permit condition.
5. Toxic Pollutants
Notwithstanding Paragraph A-4,
above, if a toxic effluent standard or
prohibition (including any schedule of
compliance specified in such effluent
standard or prohibition) is established
under Section 307(a) of the Act for a
toxic pollutant which is present in the
discharge and such sta,ndard or
prohibition is more stringent than any
limitation for such pollutant in this
permit. this permit shall be modified or
revoked and reissued to conform to the
toxic effluent standard or prohibition
and the pernuttee so notified,
The permittee shall comply with
effluent standards or prohibitions
established under Section 307(a) of the
Cleah Water Act for toxic pollutants
within the time provided in the
regulations that establish those
standards or prohibitions, even if the
permit has not yet been modified to
incorporate the requirement.
8. ClvjI and Criminal Liability
Excep as provided in permit
conditions on ‘Bypassing” Section H,
Paragraph B—3, nothing in this permit
shall be construed to relieve the
permittee from civil or criminal
penalties for noncompliance.
7.011 and Hazardous Substance
Liability
Nothing In this permit shall be
construed to preclude the institution of
any legal action or relieve the permittee
from any responsibilities. liabilities, or
penalties to which the perinittee Is or
may be subject under Section 311 of the
Act
8. State Laws
Nothing in this permit shall be
construed to preclude the institution of
any legal action or relieve the permittee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or
penalties established pursuant to any
applicable State law or regulation under
authority preserved by Section 510 of
the Act.
9. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not
convey any property rights of any sort
or any exclusive privileges, nor does It
authorize any Injury to private property
or any invasion of personal rights, nor
any infringement of Federal, State or
local laws or regulations.
10. Severability
The provisions of this permit are
severable, and if any provision of this
permit or the application of any
provision of this permit to any
circumstance, is held invalid, the
application of such provision to other
circumstances, and the remainder of this
permit shall not be affected thereby.
11. Duty to Provide Information
The permittee shall furnish to the
Permit Issuing Authority, within a
reasonable tune, any information which
the Permit Issuing Authority may
request to determine whether cause
exists for modifying, revoking and
reissuing or terminating this permit or
to determine compliance with this
permit. The perinittee shall also furnish
to the Permit Issuing Authority upon
request copies of records required to be
kept by this permit
Sec on B. Operation and Maintenance
of Pollution Controls
1. Proper Operation and Maintenance
The permittee shall at all times
properly operate and maintain all
facilities and systems of treatment and
control (and related appurtenances)
which are installed or used by the
permittee to achieve compliance with
the conditions of this permit. Proper
operation and maintenance also
includes adequate laboratory controls
and appropriate quality assurance
procedures. This provision requires the
operation of back-up or auxiliary
facilities or similar systems which are
installed by a permiftee only when the
operation Is necessary to achieve
compliance with the conditions of the
permit.
2. Need to Halt or Reduce not a Defense
It shall not be a defense for a
permittee in an enforcement action that
it would have been necessary to halt or
reduce the permitted activity in order to
maintain compliance with the condition
of the permit.
3. Bypass of Treatment Facilities
a. Definitions:
(1) “Bypass” means the intentional
diversion of waste streams from any
portion of a treatment facility, which is
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 135 / Monday. July 17. 1989 / Notice ,
not a designed or established operating
mode for the f llty .
(2) ‘Severe property danuigii ” means
substantial physical dsmags to property.
damage to the treatment facilities which
causes them to become inoperaole. or
substantial and permanent loss of
natural resources which can.reasonably
be expected to occur in the’nhaence of a
bypass. Severe property damage does
not mean economic loss caused by
deLays in production.
b. Bypass not exceeding limitation,.
The permittee may allow any bypass
to occur which does not cause effluent
limitations to be exceeded. but only if it
also is for essential maintenance to
assure efficient operation. These
bypasses are not sub)ect to the
provisions of Paragraphs c. and d. of this
section.
c. Notice.
(1) Anticipated bypcs& if the
permittee knows in advance of the need
for a bypass. it shall submit prior notice.
if possible at least ten days before the
date of the bypass: including an
evaluation of the anticipated quality and
effect of the bypass.
(2) Unanticipated bj. ooss . The
permittee shall submit notice of an
unanticipated bypass as required In
Section D. Paragraph D-4 (24-hour
notice).
d. Prohibition of bypass.
(1) Bypass is prohibited and the
Permit Issuing Authority may take
enforcement action against a permittee
for bypass, unless
(a) Bypass was unavoidable to
prevent loss of life, personal Injury, or
severe and extensive property damage
(b) There were no feasible
alternatives to the bypass, such as
maintenance of sufficient reserve
holding capacity, the use of auxiliary
treatment facilities, retention of
untreated wastes. waste hauling, or
maintenance during normal periods of
equipment downtime. This condition is
not satisfied If adequate back-up
equipment should have been installed In
the exercise of reasonable engineering
judgmsnt to prevent a bypass which
occurred during normal periods of
equipment downtime or preventive
maintenance and
(ci The permittee submitted notices as
required under Paragraph b. of this
section.
(2) The Permit Issuing Authority may,
within its authority. approve an
anticipated bypass. after considering its
adverse effects. if the Permit Issuing
Authority determines that It will meet
the three conditions listed above in
Paragraph d.(1) of this section.
4. Up set s
“Upset” means an exceptional
incident In which there La unintentional
and temporary noncompliance with
technology based permit effluent
limitations because of factors beyond
the control of the permittee. An upset
does not Include noncompliance to the
extent caused by operational error.
improperly designed treatment facilities,
Inadequate treatment facilities, lack of
preventive maintenance, or ca.relesa or
improper operation. An upset
constitutes an affirmative defense to an
action brought for non-compliance with
such technology based permit limitation
If the requirements of 40 CFR
122.41(n)(3) are met.
5. Removed Substances
Thu permit does not authorize
discharge of solids, sludge, filter
backwash. or other pollutants removed
in the course of treatment or control of
wastewatera to waters of the hulked
States unless specifically limited in Part
1.
Section C. Monitoring and Records
1. Representative Sampling
Samples and measurements taken as
required herein shall be representative
of the volume and nature of the
monitored discharge. All samples shall
be taken at the monitorthg points
specified in this permit and, unless
otherwise specified, before the effluent
jouis or is diluted by any other
wastestream. body of water, or
substance. Monitoring points shail not
be changed without notification to and
the approval of the Permit Issuing
Authority.
2. Flow Measurements
Appropriate flow measurement
devices and methods consistent with
accepted scientific practices shall be
selected and used to Insure the accuracy
and reliability of measurements of the
volume of monitored discharges. The
devices shall be Installed. calibrated
and maintained to insure that the
accuracy of the measurements are
consistent with the accepted capability
of that type of device, Devices selected
shall be capable of measuring flows
with a maximum deviation of lesa than
±10% from the true discharge rates
throughout the range of expected
discharge volunies. Guidance in
selection. installation, calibration and
operation of acceptable flow
measurement devices can be obtained
from the following references:
a. “A Guide of Methods and
Standards for the Measurement of
Water Flow’. U S. Department of
Commerce. National Bureau of
Standards. NBS Special Publicatl on 421.
May1975, 97p (Available from the
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Washington. DC 402. Order by SD
catalog No. C13. ’IO ’.lZI.)
b. ‘Water Measurement Manual”. U.S.
Deparmient of Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation. Second Edition, Revised
Reprint. 1974. 327 pp. (Available from
the U.S Government Printing Office.
Washington. DC 20402. Order by catalog
No. 127.19/2W2912, Stock No. S/N
24003-0027.)
C. ‘Flow Measurement In Open
Channels and Closed Conduits’. U.S.
Department of Commerce. National
Bureau of Standards. NBS Special
Publication 484. October 1977. 982 pp.
(Available in paper copy or microfiche
from National Technical Information
Service (NTIS). Springfield. VA 22151.
Order by NTIS No. PB-273 53515ST.)
d. “NPDES Compliance Flow
Measurement Manual”. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water Enforcement.
Publication MCD—77, September1951.
135 pp. (Available from the General
Services Admmigtrabon (8BRCJ,
Centralized Mailing Lists Services,
Building 41. Denver Federal Center.
Denver, CO 80225.)
3. Monitortng Procedures
Monitoring must be conducted
according to test procedures approved
under 40 Q R Part 138, unLess other test
procedures have been specified in this
permit
4laltiee for Tampering
The Clean Water Act provides that
any person who falsifies. tampers with.
or knowingly renders inaccurate, any
monitoring device or method required to
be maintained under this permit shall.
upon conviction, be punished by a fine
of not more than $10,000 per violation, or
by imprisonment for not more than 2
years per violation. or by both.
5. Retention of Records
The permittee shall retain records of
all monitoring Information. including all
calibration and maintenance records
and all original strip chart recordings for
continuous momtonng instrumentation.
copies of all reports required by this
permit. and records of all data used to
complete the application for this permit.
for a period of at least 3 years from the
date of the sample. measurement, report
or application. This period may be
extended by the Permit Issuing
Authority at any time.
-------
Federal Register / VoL 54. No. 135 / Monday , July17. 1989 / Notices
2901)3
8. Record Contents
Records onitormg information
shall indudm
a. The date, exact place, and time of
sampling or measurements:
b. The individual(s) who performed
the sampling ‘r me.lsuremects;
c. The date(s) analyses were
performed,
d. The individual(s) who performed
the analyses;
e. The analytical techniqi es or
methods uae and
L The results of such analyses.
7. Inspection and Entry
The permitteo shall allow the Permit
Issuing Authority, or an authorized
representative, upon the presentation of
credentials and other documents as may
be required by law, to:
a. Eater upon the permittees premises
where a regulated facility or activity is
located or conducted, or where records
must be kept under the conditions of this
permit:
b. 1-lave access to and copy, at
reasonable times. any records that must
be kept under the conditions of this
permit
c. Inspect at reasonable time any
facilities, equipment (Including
monitoring and control equipment).
practices, or operations regulated or
required under this permit and
d. Sample or monitor at reasonable
times. for the purposes of assuring
permit compliance or as otherwise
authorized by the Clean Water Act, any
substances or parameters at any
location.
Section D. Reporting Requirements
1. Change in Discharge
The perinittee shall give notice to the
Permit Issuing Authority as soon as
possible of any planned physical
alterations or additions to the permitted
facility. Notice Is required only when:
a. The alteration or addition to a
permitted facility may meet one of the
criteria for determining whether a
facility Is a new source; or
b. The alteration or addition could
significantly change the nature or
increase the quantity of pollutants
discharged. This notification applies to
pollutants which are subject neither to
effluent llmit.ations in the permit, nor to
notification requirements under Section
D. Paragraph D—10(a).
2. Anticipated Noncompliance
The permittee shall give advance
notice to the Permit Issuing Authority of
any planned change in the permitted
facility or activity which may result in
noncompliance with permit
requirements. Any maintenance of
facilities, which might necessitate
unavoidable interruption of operation
and degradation of effluent quality, shall
be scheduled during noncritical water
quality periods and carried out in a
manner approved by the Permit Issuing
Authority.
3. Transfer of Ownership or Control
A permit may be automatically
transferred to another party th
a. The permittee notifies the Permit
Issuing Authority of the proposed
transfer at least 30 days in advance of
the proposed transfer date;
b. The notice includes a written
agreement between the existing and
new permittees containing a specific
date for transfer of permit responsibility,
coverage, and liability between them;
and
c. The Permit Issuing Authority does
not notify the existing permittee of his or
her intent to modify or revoke and
reissue the permit. if this notice is not
received, the transfer is effective on the
date specified in the agreement
mentioned in paragraph b.
4. Monitoring Reports
See Part ifi of this permit.
5. A ditional Monitoring by the
Permittee -
lithe permittee moiutors any pollutant
more frequently than required by this
permit using test procedures approved
under 40 CFR 138 or as specified In this
permit, the results of this monitoring
shall be.inc!uded La the calculation and
reporting of the data submitted in the
Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR).
Such increased frequency shall also be
indicated.
8. Averaging of Measurements
Calculations for limitations which
require averaging of measurements shall
utilize an arithmetic mean unless
otherwise specified by the Permit
Issuing Authority in the permit.
7. ComplIance Schedules
Reports of compliance or
noncompliance with, or any progress
reports on. interim and final
requirements contained in any
compliance schedule of this permit shall
be submitted no later than 14 days
following each schedule date. Any
reports of noncompliance shall include
the cause of noncompliance, any
remedial actions taken, and the
probability of meeting the next
scheduled requirement.
& Twenty-Four Hour Reporting
The permittee shall orally report any
noncompliance which may endanger
health or the environment, within 24
hours from the time the permittee
becomes aware of the circumstances. A
written submission shall also be
provided within 5 days of the time the
pernuttee becomes aware of the
circumstances. The written submission
shall contain a description of the
noncompliance and its cause, the period
of noncompliance. including exact dates
and times; and if the noncompliance has
not been corrected, the anticipated time
it is expected to continue, and steps
taken or planned to reduce, eliminate.
and prevent reoccurrence of the
noncompliance. The Permit Issuing
Authority may verbally waive the
written report. on a case-by-case basis.
when the oral report is made.
The following violations shall be
induded in the 24 hour report when they
might endanger health or the
environment
a. An unanticipated bypass which
exceeds any effluent limitation in the
permit
b. Any upset which exceeds any
effluent limitation in the permit.
9. Other Noncompliance
The permittee shall report in narrative
form all instances of noncompliance not
previously reported under Section D,
Paragraphs D- .2, D .-4. D-7. and D-8 at
the time monitoring reports are
submitted. The reports shall contain the
information liBted In Paragraph D—8.
10, Changes in Discharges of Toxic
Substances
The permittee shall notify the Permit
issuing Authority as soon as it knows or
has reason to believe
a. That any activity has occurred or
will occur which would result in the
discharge, on a routine or frequent basis.
of any toxic substance(s) (listed at 40
CFR 122. AppendIx D. Table II and Ill)
which is not limited In the permit if that
discharge will exceed the highest of the
following “notification levels”:
(1) One hundred micrograms per liter
(100 pg/I): or
(2) Two hundred micrograms per liter
(200 pg/I) for acrolein and acrylonitrile:
five hundred micrograms per liter (500
pg/I) for 2. 4-dlnitrophenol and for 2-
methyl-4, 6-dinitrophenol; and one
milligram per liter (1 mg/I) for antimony.
b. That any activity has occurred or
wiLl occur which would result in any
discharge. on a non-routine or infrequent
basis, of a toxic pollutant (listed at 40
CFR 122. Appendix D. Table II and 111)
which is not limited in the permit if’ that
-------
29994
Federal Register I VoL 54. No. 135 / Monday. July 17. 1989 I Notices
discharge will exceed the highest of the
following ‘notification levels”:
(1) Five hundred micrograms per liter
(500 ig/l); or
(2) One milligram per lIter (1 mg/I) for
antimony.
11. Signatory Requirements
All applications. reports. or
information submitted to the Permit
Issuing Authority shall be signed and
certified.
a. All permit applications shall be
signed as follows:
(1) For a corporation: by a responsible
corporate officer. For the purpose of this
Section. a responsible corporate officer
means: (1) a president. secretary.
treasurer or vice president of the
corporation in charge of a principal
business function, or any other person
who performs similar policy— or
decision-making functions for the
corporation. or (2) the manager of one or
more manufacturing production or
operating facilities employing more than
250 persons or having gross annual sales
or expenditures exceeding $25 million
(in second quarter 1980 dollars), if
authority to sign documents has been
assigned or delegated to the manager in
accordance with corporate procedures.
(2) For a partnership or sole
proprietorship: by a general partner or
the proprietor. respectively; or
(3) For a municipality. State, Federal.
or other public agency by either a
principal executive officer or ranking
elected officiaL
b. All reports required by the permit
and other information requested by the
Permit Issuing Authority shall be signed
by a person described above or by a
duly authorized representative of that
person. A person is a duly authorized
representative only if:
(1) The authorization is made in
writing by a person described above;
(2) The authorization specifies either
an individual or a position having
responsibility for the overall operation
of the regulated facility or activity, such
as the position of plant manager.
operator of a well or a weil field.
superintendent, position of equivalent
responsibility. or an Individual or
position having overall responsibility for
environmental matters for the company.
A duly authorized representative may
thus be either a named individual or any
individual occupying a named position.);
and
(3) The written authorization is
submitted to the Permit Issuing
Authority.
c. Certification. Any person signing a
document under paragraphs (a) or (b) of
this section shall make the following
certification:
I certify under penalty of law that
this document and all attachments were
prepared under the direction or
supervision in accordance with a system
designed to assure that qualified
personnel properly gather and evaluate
the information submitted. Based on my
inquiry of the person or persons who
manage the system. or those persons
directly responsible for gathering the
information, the information submitted
is. to the best of my knowledge and
belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am
aware that there are significant
penalties for submitting false
information. including the possibility of
fine and imprisonment for knowing
violations.”
12. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be
confidential under 40 CFR Part 2. all
reports prepared In accordance with the
terms of this permit shall be available
for public inspection at the offices of the
Permit Issuing Authority. As required by
the Act, permit applications. permits and
effluent data shall not be considered
confidentiaL
13. Penalties for Falsification of Reports
The Clean Water Act provides that
any person who knowingly makes any
false statements, representation. or
certification in any record or othen.
document submitted or required to be
maintained under this permit. including
monitoring reports or reports of
compliance or noncompliance shall.
upon conviction, be puzushed by a fine
of not more than $10,000 per violation, or
by imprisonment for not more than 2
years per violation, or by both.
Section £ Defirudons
1. Permit Issuing Authority
The Regional Administrator of EPA
Region IV or his designee, unless at
some time in the future the State
receives the authority to administer the
NPDES program and assumes
jurisdiction over the permit at which
time, the Director of the State program
receiving authorization becomes the
issuing authority.
2. Act
“Act” means the Clean Water Act
(formerly referred to as the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act) Pub, L 92—
500. as amended by Pub. L 95-217, Pub.
L 95—578 and Pub. L 100-4. 33 u.s.c.
1251 et seq.
3. Concentration Measurements
a. The “average monthly
concentration”, is the sum of the
concentrations of aLl daily discharges
sampled and/or measured during a
calendar month on which daily
discharges are sampled and measured,
divided by the number of daily
discharges sampled and/or measured
during such month (arithmetic mean of
the daily concentration values). The
daily concentration value is equal to the
concentration of a composite sample or
in the case of grab samples is the
arithmetic mean (weighted by flow
value) of all the samples collected
during the calendar day.
b. The “maximum daily
concentration” is the concentration of a
pollutant discharge during a calendar
day. It is identified as “Daily Maximum”
under “Other Limits” in Part I of the
permit and the highest such value
recorded during the reporting period is
reported under the “Maximum” column
under “Quality” on the DMR.
4. Other Mea8urements
a. The effluent flow expressed as
MCD is the 24 hour average flow
averaged monthly. It Is the arithmetic
mean of the total daily flows recorded
during the calendar month. Where
monitoring requirements for flow are
specified in Part lot the permit the flow
rate values are reported in the
“Average” column under “Quantity” on
the DMR.
b. An “instantaneous flow
measurement” is a measure of flow
taken at the time of sampling, when both
the sample and flow will be
representative of the total discharge.
c. Where morutoring requirements for
pH or dissolved oxygen are specified in
Par;! of the permit. the values are
,ge1 irally reported in the “Quality or
Concentration” column on the DMR.
5. Types of Samples
a. Crab Sample: A “grab sample” is a
single influent or effluent portion which
is not a composite sample. The
sample(s) shall be collected at the
period(s) most representative of the total
discharge.
8. Calendar Day
A calendar day is defined as the
period from midnight of one day uritil
midnight of the next day. However, for
purposes of this permit, any consecutive
24-hour period that reasonably
represents the calendar day may be
used for sampling.
7, Hazardous Substance
A hazardous substance means any
substance designated under 40 CFR Part
116 pursuant to Section 311 of the Clean
Water Act,
-------
FederaL Register / VoL .54. No. 135 1 Monday , uly 17. 198g / Notices
3. Toxic Pollutant
A toxic pollutant I. any pollutant
listed as toxic under Section 30? (a)fl) of
the Qean Water Act.
Sectionf. Appiic ’thm Aequireir,ants
a. For e ptred Individual NPDES
permits, dischargers desiring coverage
under NPO General Permit Number
FLGO4000I are required to submit a
notice of intent (NOl) to be covered by
the general permit to the Permit Issuing ’
Authority. The NOl shall include: (1)
The name and address of the operation,
(2) the applicable Individual NPDES
number(s). (3) the idantthcatfon of any
new discharge locaticrn not contained In
the expired permit. (4) evidence that the
operation has been approved for Init ial
Remediatlan Actions (IRA . or has
obtained a Site Rehabilitation Initiation
Order and an approved Remedial Action
Plan (RAP) from the FDER. in
accordance with Florida Administra the
Codes (FAC) 17—70 .003.17—70.008 and
17-70.010.. respectively. (5) a map
showing the facility and discharge
location (in latitude and longitude), and
(6) the name al the receiving water.
Operators having several individual
permits are encouraged to consolidate
requests for wv ruge Into one NOt for
all individual permits. The previous
submission of the proper forms In the
renewal application does not relieve the
pernuttee desiring coverage under the
general permit of the requirement to file
a NOL
b. Dlschargers having valid individual
N PDE permits that desire coverage
under the general permit are required to
file a NOt to the Permit Issuing
Authority within at least 30 days prior to
expiration of their current permit(s). The
notice shall contain the same
information specified In paragraph (a)
above. Permittees desiring to retain their
individual permit are required to submit
the appropriate application forms at
least 180 days before expiration of their
individual permit
c. Diachargers who have not
previously obtained a valid Individual
NPDES permit will be required to submit
the same information specified in
paragraph (a) above, except items (2)
and (3). The application for coverage
under the general permit must be made
at least forty-five (45) days before the
discharge is to commence.
d. Notification of coverage will be
given by the Permit Issuing Authority by
certified mad to the pernuttee.
e. Coverage by this general permit
shall become effective on the date of
notification of coverage by the Permit
Issuing Authority.
1. Coverage by this general permit
shall expire on July 18, 1294.
Section C. Addition ,,) Gen JJWiiiJt
Condition,
L The Permit issuing Authority may
require any person authorized by this
permit to apply fo, and obtain an
individual NPDES permit when:
a. The discharge(s) is a significant
contributor of pollubon
b. The diachargeri, not in compliance
with the conditions of this permit
c.A changehas occurred in the
availability of the di ”nftnetrated
technology a! practices for the omtrol or
abatement of pollutants applicable to
the point sourcen
d. Effluent limitation gwdelines ate
promulgated for point uzces covered
by this permit
e. A Water Quality Management Ptan
containing requirements applicable to
such point coerce is approved or
L The point source(s) covered by this
permit no longen
(1) Involve the same or substantially
similar types of operactonm
(2) Discharge the aaron types of
wastea
(3) Require the same effluent
limitations or operating cwiditions
(4) Require the same or similar
monitoring and
(5) In the opinion of the Regional
Aaministrator. are more appropriately
controlled under an individual permit
than under a general permit
The Regional Administrator may
require any operator authorized by this
permit to apply for an mdlviual NPDES
permit only if the operator has been
notified in writing that a permit
application is required.
2. Any operator authorized by this
permit may request to be excluded from
the coverage of this general permit by
apprying for an individual permit. The
operator shall submit an application
together with the reasons supporting the
request to the Regional Administrator.
3. When an individual NPDES permit
is issued to an operator otherwise
subject to this general permit, the
applicability of this permit to the owner
or operator is automatically terminated
on the effective date of the individual
permit.
4. A source excluded from coverage
under this general permit solely because
it already has an individual permit may
request that its individual permit be
revoked, and that it be covered by this
general permit Upon revocation of the
individual permit, this general permit
shall apply to the source.
5. A petroleum contamination
recovery operation may be excluded
from this general permit If it proposes
discharges to receiving waters that are
classified as ‘Special Protection.
Outstanding Florida Waters as set
forth by FAC 17—3.043.
8. The permittee shall notify the
Permit Issuing Authority within 30 days
after the permanent termination of
discharge from their facility. This letter
shall include the necessary Site
Rehabilitation Completion Order
(SRCO} from Florida Bureau of Waste
Cleanup which constitutes anal action
on the State level for completion of
cleanup activities at the affected site.
After review of the SRCO. EPA will
inactivate coverage of the general
NPDES permit for the facility.
Part UT—Other Requirements
A. Reporting of M wLo.-mg Results
Monitoring results obtained during the
previous calendar quarter shall be
summarized for each month (each
quarter if monitoring frequency is
quarterly) and must be reported on a
Discharge Monitoring Report Form ( °A
No. 3320-1). postmarked no later than
the 28th day of the month folfowmg the
completed calendar quarter. (For
example data for January-March shall
be submitted by April23.) Duplicate
signed copies of these, and all other
reports required by Section 0 of Part U.
Reporting Requirements, shall be
submitted to the Permit Issuing
Authority and the State at the following
addresses:
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IV, Facilities Performance
Branch. Water Management Division.
345 Courtland Street NE.. Atlanta. GA
30385
Florida Dept of Environmental
Regulation. Local District Office
Address
B. Reopener Clause
This permit shall be modified, or
alternatively revoked and reissued, to
comply with any applicable effluent
standard or limitation issued or
approved under Sections 301(b)(2) (C)
and (Dl, 304(b)(2) and 307 (a)(2) of the
Clean Water Act. If the effluent
standard of limitation so issued or
approveth
1. Contains different conditions or is
otherwise more stringent than any
condition in the permit: or
3. Controls any pollutant not limited in
the permit
The permit as modified or reissued
under this paragraph shall also contain
any other requirements of the Act then
applicable.
-------
Federal Register / VoL 54. No. 135 I Monday, July 17, 1989 1 Notices
Part EV—Bee* Management Practices
and Conditicas
Section A. Genera! Conditions
1. BMP Plan
Preparation of a Beet Management
Practices (UMP) Plan shall be prepared
in con junction with development of the
Remedial Action Plan required by
Florida Department of Environmental
Regulauon (See Part ILF.cJ. The
perrnittee shall maintain the BMP plan
at the facility and shall make the plan
available to the permit Issuing authority
upon request The ‘NPDES Gwdance
Document” can be used as a reference
which contains technical information on
BMPs and the elements of the BMP
program. The pernuttee shall develop
and implement a BMP plan which
prevents, or m,n m4 ea the potential for.
the release of pollutants from ancillary
activities, including material storage
areas: plant site runnof in-plant
transfer, process and material handling
areas; loading and unloading operations.
and sludge and waste disposal areas, to
the waters of the United States through
plant site runoth spillage or leaks;
sludge or waste disposal or drainage
from raw material storage. The term
pollutants refers to any substance listed
as toxic under Section 307 (a)(1) of the
Clean Water Act oiL as defined In
Section 311(a)(1) of the Act, and
substance listed as hazardous under
SectIon 311 of the Act Copies of the
“NPDES Guldiim, Document” may be
obtained by submitting written requests
to: Director. Waste Management
Division. Region IV, Atlanta. GA 30365.
Part V—Biomonitoring Program
In accordance with Part I of this
permit, the pernuttee shall Initiate the
series of tests described below within 30
days of coverage or commencement of
discharge from ou aU(s) 001.
1. lIthe effluent is discharged to a
freshwater stream. the permittee shall
conduct 48-hour static toxicity tests on
two appropriate test species (EPAI600I
4—85/013, Table 1). The test organisms
used shall include one flab and one
Invertebrate test species (Recommend:
A Daphnidae species and the fathead
minnow (Pzmephaies promo/as). If the
effluent is discharged to a saltwater
stream, the permittee shall conduct 48-
hour static toxicity tests using the Mysid
shrimp [ Mysidopsis bahia) and the
inland silverside (Menldla berylilna) or
any other species approved by EPA.
Tests shall be conducted once every
month for a period of three months
following the initiation of the tests and
once every year thereafter for the
duration of the permit using sample. of
100% final effluent Such tests will be
conducted on one grab sample of 100%
final effluent Results of all tests
conducted with any species shall be
reported according to FPA/600/4-85/
013 Section 13, Report Preparation and
Data Utilization, and shall be submitted
to EPA with the quarterly discharge
monitoring report
2. If lethality (less than 50% survival of
tests organisms in 100% effluent) Is
demonstrated in either of the above
test(s), another 48-hr static test using the
same specie(s) and the same
methodology shall be conducted within
two weeks. If the additional test(s)
indicates toxicity, coverage under the
general permit may be revoked by the
Permit Issuing Authority upon issuance
of an Individual permit
3. All test organisms. procedures and
quality assurance criteria used shall be
In accordance with Methods for
Measuring the Acute Toxicity of
Effluent to Freshwater and Marine -
Oryanisms. EPA-800/4-85--013. A
standard reference toxicant quality
assurance test shall be conducted
concurrently with each set of toxicity
tests and Its results submitted with the
quarterly discharge monitoring report
(PR Doc. es-issas FUed 7-14-8R &45 am)
-------
—
Friday
June 2, 19C9
- - —
-
= =
= =
- —=
Part VI
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 122, 123 and 133
National Pollutant Discharge E1iminatio i
System; Surface Water Toxics Control
Program; Final Rule
- =
=_____
-------
23868
Federal Register / VoL 54. No. 105 / Friday, June 2. 1.989 1 Rules and Re uiaflons
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
(FRL-3557-6
40 CFR Parts 122, 123 and 130
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Surlace Water
Toxica Control Program
AGENCY Environmental Protection
Agency
ACTION: Final Rule.
SUMMARY: Today’s action amends Parts
122. 123. and 130 of EPA ’s regtilations.
The regulations clarify CPA s surface
water toxics control program and
incorporate section 3081a1 of the Water
Quality Act of 198’ into E ’A’s to’ucs
control program. Section 308(a) of the
Water Quality Act added section 304 ( I )
to the Clean Water Act (hereafter
referred to as section 304(l)). Section
304(l) requires the states to identify
‘hose waters that arc ads ersely affected
by toxic, conventional. and
nonconventional pollutants, and
requires the states to preparo indisidual
control strategies that will control point
source discharges of toxic pollutants.
The states must submit lists of waters
and i’ithvidual control strategies to EPA
for review, and if EPA disapproves a
state’s decision with respect to a i.st or
an individual control sti ategy. then EPA
must implement the requirements of
section 304(1) in cooperation with the
state. EPA and the states must
accomplish the tasks in section 304(1)
according to an ambitious series of
deadlines. Todays reg’.zLatioris will
strengthen State and Federal controls
over discharges to taxic pollutants, and
will aSsist EPA and the states in
satisfying the requu-ements of section
304(1) of the CWA.
EFFECTIVE DATE: These rcgula’ions shall
be effectis e on May 28. 1989 at 100 p.m.
Easterti Da l:ght Sd’. irigs Time. In
accordance vith 40 CFR 23.2. EPA
hereby spec fles that these regulatior.s
shail be considered final agency action
for purposes of ;tidsc ai review at 1:00
p.m. Eastern D4yltght Savings Time on
May 25. 1989.
FOR FURThER INFCFIMA1 ’IOtI CONTACT1
Paul Corinor. Prcgram Development
Branch. Office of Water Enforcement
and Permits. (E —326). U S
Environineniul Protec:ion Agency, i01 M
Street. SW. Washington. DC 20460.
(202) 475—9537, or Judith Leckrone.
Assessment and Watershed Protection
Division. Office of Watf’r Regulations
arid Standards. (WH—553). U S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M
Street SW.. Washington. DC 20460. (2021
382—7C56. The Public record for this
reguiationi is available at the EPA
library, M2904. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 401 M Street SW..
Washington, DC 20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble Outline
Authonty
I I. Background
A. Biennial Submission of Lists Under sec-
tion 303(d) and section 3O5 bJ of the
CWA
B EPA’s Surface Water Toucs Control
Program
C Section 31)411) arid its Relatiorsshio to
F.PA a Suri , a ‘ aLer Toxics Control
Program
0 Purpose and S .unmary of Today’s Reg i-
lations
Ill Section by-Sectiurt Analysis
A. Changes to he National Surface Waler
Toxics Control Program
I Amendments to 41) CFR 12244
a A Deilniflon for Whole Ef!luent
Toxiu ly
b Narrat.ve Water Quality Standards
o De eIocing Water Quality Based El-
f1.ieni Lim:is
d. Tethnology.Based Controls for
Toxic Pollutants
2 State I ’IPDES Program Requu ments
B Identification of Waters
I Description of the Four Lists
2. Expianation of Terms Used in section
304(fl(1.J(B}
a Applicable Standard
b. Due Entirely or Substantt&l1 to Dis.
chart’es from Point Sources
3 Preparation and Review of be usia
a Use of Existing and Readily Avail.
able Data
b Documentation cf Data and Meth-
odologies
c. Review of Lists By EPA
C. Lndi ’ .tdual Control St.ateyiea
I Description of an incii iztual Control
Strategy
a. Types of Coatrols
b EPA’s Point Source-Bari id Approach
c. Approval of Permits that are Not
Yet Effective
c i. CERCLA Sites
, Nort.App r oved States
2. Technical Review C.itcna
0 EP Rev.c’v oi Lists and Lodividual
Control Strategies
I Part: . 1 i Appro al nd Disapproval of
State Submittals
2 Public Paitic.ipit’on
a Con’t nts of Ei’A a Jouce of kp•
pro at or Disapproval
Ii Public Heuringa
o Peiitiona for Additiorul Listings
d Response to Comasrr’ls and Peu-
lions
3. Suoseauer .t steps in the 304(11 Proces”
a EPA Iinpleinentaiiori of 304(1)
b. Judic,al Review of Decisions Undo.
304( I )
11,’. Effecti e Date
V Regulatory Analysis
A. E ecui ive Order 12291
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C Re&atory Flexibiui :y Act
I. Authority
These reoiJatiuns are issued under the
authority of the Clean Water Act, 33
U S C. 1251 et seq
LI. Background
EPA’s surface si:er o’ . :cs contrcl
program uses se erai key terms For the
convenience of the reaier and for the
purposes of this preamble. these terms
are descr.bed as follows.
“Narratise standara” refers to a
narrative water quality criterion
adopted by a stale under section 303(c)
of the Clean Water Act All states h e
adopted a narrati ie criteron that
prorubits the discharge of to’ic
pollutants in toxic amounts.
“Priority pollutant” refers to the 326
pollutants jisted in Appendix A to (40
CFR Part 423.) The 128 pnonty
pollutants are derived from the 65
classes of compounos listed at 40 CFR
401.15.
‘Toxic pollutant” means any pollutant
listed as toxic under section 307 (a)) l) of
the C’WA. CPA has listed 65 classes of
cornpour.ds uriiler section 307(a)(1) of
the CWA. and these 65 classes are listed
at 40 CFR 401 IS.
“Toxics” refers to any pollutant or
combination of pollutants which causes
toxicity to aquatic life or terrestrial life.
or causes ao erse human health
impacts.
‘Whole effluent toxic :ty” means the
aggregate toxic effect of an effluent
measured directly with a toxicity test A
toxicity test measures the degree of
response to en exposed test organism to
a specific chemical or effluent. Like
biochemical ox ,gen demand (BOD),
which is also a biological measurement.
toxicity can be limited in an NPDES
perm.t.
A. Biennicl Submission of Lis:s tjm:der
Section 3O3(d, and Section 30 ,5(b) of the
cw..’
Many comsnenters obtected to the
additional reporting requirements
-------
Federal Register I vol. 54, No. 105 I Friday, Juae 2. 1989 I
Rules and Regulations 23369
ggested b EPA’a proposal to require
iienrual Submla8lofl of lists under
s ctions 303(d) and 305(b) of the CWA.
Most expressed COnfUsiOn about the
ex crit to which the proposed
requ enienth over appcd with and
rela ted to the section 304 (1) listing
çrocess. Due to this confusion, EPA has
decided not to amend the Part 130
rcgulationa in todays rule to include
t ese bienn e1 aubm ,issions, Rather, EPA
will extend the comment period on this
port of the proposal In order to take the
r.ecesaary time to consider all
i- pllcatons that the proposed
a..nendments m ht have for the entire
sect on 30 (d) reporting and ThIDL
ac ’ icpm nt program. In the near future
EPA will extend the comment period in
e separate action in the Federal
Regstcr.
B. EPA’s Si.’rface Wa: - Tc cs or rol
EPA has described :ts surface water
tox.ics control program in several
d cuments. These descriptions are not
rer ated here, but the reader is referred
to these documents for more information
en EPA’s approach for controlling
thscharges of toxic pollutants. On March
9. 1984. EPA published a document
‘led “Deve!opinent of Water Quality-
ied Permit Lmitation , for Toxic
?ollutants: National Policy” 49 FR 9018
( 1281). The policy emphasizes EPA’s
integrated approach in the NPDES
p nut program for asseasing and
I onL-oU ng the discharge of toxic
ollutanta to the nation’s surface waters,
Two preambles to EPA’s rulemakiriga
also describe EPA’s surface water toxics
control strategy. The preamble to EPA’s
.PDS regulations (45 FR 33520(1980))
emphasizes that NPDES permits must
contain limitations reflecting the most
stringent of technology-based or water
quality-based controls for toxic
polhtants, The second preamble
discussion (49 FR 3?908 (1984))
emphasizes the need to establish
effluent lunitationz in NPDES permits to
control toxic pollutants. The preamble to
the 1984 regulations also desa’ibes
several regulations in Part 122 that
require diachargers to identify and
rP.port the presence of toxic pollutants in
discharges.
EPA ’s existing regulations also reflect
the A3ency’s surface water toxins
control strategy, Part 131 of EPA’s
regulations descrbes the process for
developing. reviewuig, revising, and
iinoroving state water quality standards.
122 aescribes the NFDES permit
dations. Theie regulations currently
re uire NPDES permits to establish
limitations, standards, and conditions
necessary to achieve water quality
sta:idards, or to attain and maintain
apec’Jied water quality through effluent
Emits. Part 125 provides cr.tena and
standards for Imposing technology.
based trea ent requirements, including
the control of toxic pollutants, Part 129
contcms effluent standards for certain
toxic pollutants, and Part 130 describes
EPA’S program for identifying waters
affected by toxic pollutant,.
EPA has also developed standard
procedures, policies, and guidance
documents necessary to support the
toxics control program. The “Water
Quality Standards Handbook,” (October
1983), describe, how to deve!op water
quality standards and descr,bes the
procedures that a state should follow in
adopting water quality standards. (The
I Iandbook is available from the Criteria
and Standards Division (WH—585), U S.
EPA. 401 M Street SW., Washington. DC
20400.) Two Important guidance
documents that support EPA’s toxica
control program are the “Technical
Support Document for Water Quality.
Dased Toxics Control,” (TSD). EPA 440/
4—85-032. September, 1985, and the
“Ferstut Writer’s Guide to Water
Quality-Based Permitting,” EPA 440/4—
87-005, July, 1937, (Both documents are
available from the Permitting Diviston
(EN—338), U,S. EPA, 401 M Street SW,,
Washington, DC, 20450,) The Technical
Support Document (TSD) provides a
detailed technical explanation of
biological and chemical techniques to
assess and control toxic pollutants and
toxicity. The TSD explains how to
assess aquatic toxicity and how to
calculate the risk to human health of an
effluent, explains wasteload allocation
modeling, and explains the equations for
deriving water quality-based effluent
limits, The Permit Writer’s Guide gives
state and EPA NPDES permit writers a
step-by-step methodology for deriving
water quality-based effluent limits for
toxic pollutants and toxicity,
C. Section 304(1) and Its Relationship to
FPA ‘s Surface Water Toxics Control
Program
Section 304(1) of the CWA reinforces
CPA’s on-going program to identify and
control discharges of toxics. Under
section 304tl) the state’s deadline for
submitting the four lists to EPA for
review and approval was February 4,
1989 The statutory language of section
304 (l) requires the listing of waters for
which water quality standards will not
be achieved due ‘‘ ‘ to discharges
from point sources of any toxic
poUutants listed pursuant to section
307(a); ‘ ‘.“ The toxic pollutants
identified under section 307(a) of the
CWA are 65 categories and classes of
pollutants that can include thcusar,ds of
compounds. EPA’s water quality criteria
and effluent guidelines focus on a list of
120 “priority pollutants” which are
common, widely present chemicals for
which toxicological data are available.
Therefore, EPA will address the 128
priority pollutants when describing the
regulatory requirements governing the
control of toxic pollutants under section
304(l) of the CWA.
The four lists required by section
334(l) are described as follows, and are
identified by their corresponding
paragraphs in section 304(l)(1).
1. (A)(i)—A list of those waters in the
state which, after application of
technology.based effluent limits, cannot
reasonably be anticipated to at am or
maintain water quality standards for
priority pollutants adopted under
section 303(c)(2)(B) of the CWA.
2. (A)(u)— , list of all waters which,
cfter application of technology-based
effluent limits, cannot reasonably be
anticipated to attain or maintain that
water quality which shall assure
protection of public health, puolic water
supplies, agricultural and industrial
uses, and the protection and
propagation of a balanced population of
shellfish, fish and wildlifa, and allow
recreational acti’,rjtjes in and on the
water
3. (B)—A list of those waters which,
after application of technology-based
effluent Limits, the state doe8 not e’cpect
will achieve applicable water quality
standards, due entirely or substantially
to point source discharges of pr.onty
pollutants;
4. (C)—A list of the point sources of
the priority pollutants which are
believed to be preventing or lmpainng
water quality for waters on the B) list.
and the amount of each priority
pollutant discharged by each point
Source.
In addition to the listing requirements
under section 304(l)(l), the states must
prepare an individual control strategy
(ICS) for each point source on the (C)
list. (The definition of an ICS is
discussed in more detail in section IILC
of this preamble.) An ICS must require
reductions in the discharge of prionty
pollutants from point sources on the (C)
list, which reductions are sufficient, in
combination with existing controls on
point and nonpoint sources of pollution,
to achieve applicable water quality
standards as soon as possible but not
later than three years after
establishment of the ICS. Where EPA
approves a state submittal, the deadline
for compliance is as soon as possible
but not later than June 4, 1992. Where
EPA disapproves a state submittal and
promulgates an ICS in lieu of the state
-------
23870
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 105 / Friday, June 2. 1989
/ Rules and Regulations
the deadline for compliance is as soon
as possible but not later than June 4,
1993.
All lCSs were due to EPA. from states
approved by EPA to administer the
NPDES program, by February 4. 1989.
EPA must approve or disapprove the
lists and ICSs by June 4. 1989. When
EPA disapproves an ICS. EPA must
implement section 304(l)(i) “In
cooperation with such state and after
notice and opportunity for public
comment.” by June 4. 1990.
An approved state’s obligation to
prepare and submit an ICS to EPA is
sunilar to an approved NPDES state’s
obligation to prepare NPDES permits
and submit the permits to EPA for
review. However. section 304(l)
establishes new deadlines and
procedures for issuing and reviewing
some NPDES permits. (Many NPDES
permits are not subject to section 304(1).
Permits that are not subject to section
304(l) should receive the same priority
for reissuance or oversight that the
permits would receive regardless of
section 304(1))
Today’s proposed rulemaking is one
of several EPA actions to implement
section 304(l). in March 1988. EPA
issued guidance entitled
“implementation of Requirements Under
section 304(1) of the Clean Water Act, as
Amended” (March. 1988). (EPA
published a notice of availability for the
guidance on March 18.1988. and the
document is available by writing to the
Permits Division. Office of Water (EN—
338). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street SW.. Washington.
DC 20460.)
EPA has promulgated a anal
interpretive rule that Incorporated into
EPA’s regulations and provisions of the
WQA relating to the NPDES program
and section 304(l), 54 FR 248 (1989). The
rule codified the statutory requirements
of paragraphs (A), (B), and (C) of section
304(l) into 40 CFR * 130.10(d). The rule
also codified section 304(1)(1)(D) and
§*304 (1)(2) and (3) Into 40Q 1 ’R *123.48.
These new paragraphs describe the
reqwremezit that states submit lists of
waters and individual control strategies
to EPA for review. Today’s r.ilemaking
re-promulgates * 123.46(a) of the January
4.1989 InterpretIve rule. EPA is re-
promulgating this paragraph with
changes that reflect more clearly EPA’s
interpretation of section 304(l)(1)(D). See
section 111. C for further discussion of
this paragraph. Today’s flnal regulations
supplement the fanauary 4. 1989
interpretative rule by defining key terms
in section 304(1) and describing Federal
and state responsibilities under section
304(l).
0. Purpose and Suinmaiy of Today’s
Regulations
The purpose of today’s rules is to
reinforce EPA’s suiface water toxics
control program, and to specify in more
detail the requirements of section 304(l).
Section 304(1) does not change the
direction of E PA’s surface water toxics
control program. but rather, establishes
ambitious deadlines by which EPA and
the states must identify and control
priority pollutants. While EPA’s toxics
control policies require control of all
toxic pollutants, including but not
limited to toxicity and the priority
pollutants, the WQA reflects Congress’
intent that priority pollutants be
addressed on a rapid schedule. After the
deadlines of section 304(1) pass. EPA
and the states must continue the toxics
control program by determining the
presence of toxic pollutants in, effluents
and receiving waters, developing the
necessary policies and regulations to
control toxic pollutants and toxicity, and
establishuig effluent limits in permits.
EPA received a r.umber of comments
suggesting that the thirty day comment
peirod allowed for this rule was too
short. Although EPA has considered all
comments received, it remains
convinced that thirty days was a
sufficient comment period for the
following reasons. The principal
components of the rule were publicly
available before the proposal, in
particular the majority of the section
304(1) requirements were a part of the
guidance that was made available for
public comment, In addition. EPA
provided speakers to interested groups
regarding the rule several months before
proposal, and solicited comments on the
development of the proposal.
Furthermore, both the proposal and the
administrative record were short and
not overly technical. The administrative
record supporting the proposal was
made up of documents that have been
not only publicly available, but also in
practical use for some time. In short, the
proposal did not present a great number
of novel, complex or technical issues
requiring a lengthly comment period.
Given that EPA believes that a thirty
day comment period was adequate. EPA
decided not to extend the comment
period because of the short amount of
time in which EPA wished to finalize the
rule.
EPA received a number of comments
that are not addressed in this preamble.
A separate summary of these comments
and the Agency’s response to them is
included in the administrative record for
this rulerr.aking.
Today’s regulations amend three parts
of the CFR. Changes to EPA’s surface
water toxics control program are locat’”’
in Parts 122 and 123 of the CFR.
Incorporates the proposed regulations
for listing waters under section 304(l)(1)
(A)—(C). and the proposed regulations
for individual control strategies
prepared under section 304 (l) and
located In Part 123.
1. Changes to 40 CFR Part 122:
Today’s regulations add a definition
for whole effluent toxicity to * 122,2.
EPA is also adding seven paragraphs to
§ 122.44(d)(1). The new language
describes the procedures the permitting
authority shall use to determine whether
an NPDES permit must include a water
quality-based effluent limit. The
proposed regulations also address the
procedures for deriving effluent limits
from state narrative or numeric water
quality criteria. EPA is also changing the
title to paragraph (e) of § i22. to
clarify that paragraph (e) applies ‘to
technology-based controls.
2. Changes to 40 CFR Part 13th
Today’s regulations emend Part 130 to
incorporate the listing requirements of
section 304(11(1). The regulations also
establish procedures for EPA’S review
and approval or disapproval of the lists
prepared under section 304(1). These
regulations are described in sections
IlLS and III.D of this preamble.
The proposed regulations included a
requirement for a biennial submission of
lists under sections 303(d) and 305(b) of
the CWA. EPA aeleted these
requirements from today’s final
regulations, Many cornmeriters objected
to the additional reporting requirements
suggested by the proposed regulations,
Other commenters were confused about
the extent to which the proposed
requirements overlapped with and
related to the section 304(l) listing
process. Due to these comments EPA
has decided to address these biennial
reporting requirements in a separate
action.
3. Changes to 40 G’P. Part 123:
The additions to Part 123 establish
procedures for EPA’s approval and
disapproval of the ICSs prepared under
section 304(l). Today’s rules provide for
public participation in reviewing the
ICSs, and also establish the criteria EPA
will use to evaluate the adequacy of
ICSs. These regulations are discussed
more fully in sections m.c and 11I.D of
this preamble. Finally, EPA is placing an
additional criterion for XPDES state
program withdrawal in 40 CFR Part 123
These regulations are described in
section EI1.A of this preamble.
EPA believes that today’s rules and
preamble will assist the states and the
public at large in developing ii better
understanding of the national surface
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. 4o. 105 / Friday, June 2. 1969 / Rules and_Regulations
‘.atcr tox.cs control rograrn Todays
iiarnuking wiii also ensure that the
ac zv;Ues carried out under section 304(l)
. 111 be consistcnt with EPA s statutory
obligations and national policy for
controllir. toxic poihitants and whole
c Thier.t tOxicity.
Ill. Section-By-Section Analysis
This secLon diacussas today a
regulations in tour parts. Part A
describes regulations that amend and
clarify El’A’a e’tswig surface water
toxins control projrarn. Part B describes
the raquir?men’3 for identifying and
listing wacerbodies under paragraph 1 of
304(1). Part C discusses the
recuirenicats for preDaring and
reviawici; ICSs. and Part 0 discusses the
procsdurLs for reviewing and approvulg
or d.sapproving tLe lists and ICSs.
.4 Chan ,t’es to the National Surfoce
Water Tc.ucs Control Program
I Amendinents to 40 CFR 122 44
Two of the most mportant
components of EPA’s surface water
toxics control program are the
development and implementation of
water qualit’-based permit limits. The
permitting authority (either EPA or a
state approi ed by EPA to administer the
PCES program) uses water quality-
jased l r. ts when effluent limits more
singer.’ tien technology-based huts
are necer ’iary to attain or maintain
water qL’ h y standards. Although
secti,ns 402(a)(l) and 301(b)(l)(C) of the
CWA pro ide the authority to require
PDES permits to achieve the effluent
limits ne:cssary to attain and ma lntn
water quality standards, the existing
T S egulations do not descrbe the
prcedur”s for developui water quality-
based e ’luerit limits This sect’on
evnlains today’s regulations which
describe procedures for developing
water quality-based effluent linuts.
FPA uses an integrated approach to
water quality-based permitting. The
integrated approach includes both
biological and chemical procedures for
characteriting effluents and developing
effluent limits. EPA’s integrated
epproach to water quality-based
permitt .ng is explained more fully in the
Technical Suoport Documant and in
EPA’S National Policy of March 9. 1984
whfch ore dos nbed .a section II . of
this preamble.
EPA has issued detailed guidar.ce on
the integrated approach to water
quality-based permitting. Although
.P 1 Vs existing NPDES regulations
rovide adequate authority to reqwre
water quality-based effluent linuts in
permits when an excursion above a
water quality criterion is either
..icntified or propected. the existing
regu!aiior.3 do not describe the
procedures for developing such limits.
Today’s regulations estahh h minimum
ccr’sistent procedures for the states,
EPA. and the regulated community, to
use in developing water quality-based
effluent limitations,
a. A Definition for Whole £fflue.’it
Toxic- It y. Tolay’s regulations add a
definition for “whole effluent toxicity”
to the definitions in 40 CFR 122.2. Whole
effluent toxicity is defined as the
aggregate toxic effect of an effluent
measured directly with a toxicity test. A
toxicity test measures the degree of
response of an exposed test orgart .sm to
a chemical or effluent. The proposed
definition is the same deflmtion used in
(tie TSD end in the Permit Writer’s
Guide.
EPA is promulgating a dehrution for
whole effluent toxicity because controls
(or whole effluent toxicity are an
essential component of EPA’s integrated
approach to toxics control. Where
controls on individual pollutants do not
adequately protect water quality.
assessing and controlling whole effiuent
toxicity is necessary to reduce or
eliminate the toxic impact of the
effluent. A definition for the term will
assist the public In better uziderstaiicing
how controls on whole effluent toxic ty
are used in EPA’s surface water toxics
control program.
A limit on whole effluent toxicity
refers to a numeric effluent limitation
expressed in terms such as toxic units.
no observed effect level (NOEL). LCSO.
or percent mortaiity. Effluent limitations
may be expressed as chronic toxicity or
acute toxicity (or both). Regardless of
how the numeric effluent limitations for
whole effluent toxicity are e’orcssed.
any single violation of the effluent hut
is a violation of the NPDES nern’:t and
is subiect to the full range of state and
Federal enforcement act’.ons.
Many commeritera suggcs’ed that the
definition for whole effluent toxicity is
too vague, that the definition should
describe a “toxicity test.” or that EPA
should publish maximum allowable
water quality criterion for tox’c:ty. EPA
is maintaining a broad definition of
whole effluent toxicity for several
reasons. First there are a variety of
testing procedures that may be used ‘o
determine whole effluent to\iciri.
Although EPA has develcped protocols
and guidance documents for performing
toxicity tests, it would be inappropriate
to incorporate these documents mo the
definition because these protocots .4re
recommended procedures not
mandatory procedures. Second. odav’s
definition does not include a water
quality criterion for toxicity because
publishing a criterion for whole eff ucrt
toxicity is a process carried out under
section 304(a) of the CWA. and is
therefore inaperopriate for this
rulemaking. The reader should refer to
the recommended values for wiole
effluent toxicity that are described in
the TSD. If EPA chooses to d velop
formal water quality criteria for toxicity,
EPA will publish the criteria pursuant to
section 304(a) fo the CWA.
Several commenters asked for
clarification of the meaning of “i hole
in the term “whole effluent toxicity.”
Cummer.ters were concerned about
whether dilution of the effluent was
precluded as a part of whole effluent
toxicity testing. The word “whole” in
definition refers to the aggregate toxiciv
of an effh.cnt—not to 100% effluent.
Percentages cf effluents at permit limits
represent that concentration of the
effluent which achieves state water
quality standards.
Commeniters also asked whether ti-
stream dilution would be considered ifl
determining whole effluent toxicit
These cornuenters asked if whole
effluent toxicity referred to the toxic.ty
of an effluent at the “end of the pipe.” or
referred to rn-stream toxicity of an
effluent after mixing These commen tens
are confusing the definition of whole
effluent toxicity with the development
and expression of a permit limit for
whole effluent toxicity. Today’s
definit;on does refer to “end of the pipeS
tox .city becuuse compliance with permit
limits is measured at that point. These
enJ-of-pipe limitations are developed
u i -’g the state’s water quality
standards, including mixing zones
(where allowed) and wasteload
alocations. to determine how muth
effl.ierit toxicity must be limited to
,.t .n and maintain applicable water
c ulity standards.
b Narrative Water Quality Critena.
Today s regulations amend
§ 122 4 (d)I1). Existing paragraph (d)
r ni Aires tIPDES permits to contain
effluer.t huts more stringent than
technology-based limits, where more
strr .gent limits are necessary to
“acr..evc water quality standards
r - -iblished under section 303 of the
C’. A. Ttdays regulations amend
p rsgruph (d)(1) to clarify that effit.ent
Iiuits established under paragraph (d)
rn st achieve any state narrative water
quality criteria as well as numeric water
quality criteria.
EPA received no comments opposing
this regulation. and therefore the agency
Is promulgating this regulation without
chunge from the proposed regulation.
F lowever. many comamenters questioned
CPA’s use of narrative water qua1ii
-------
23872
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 105 / Friday, rune 2. 1989 / Rules and Re ilations
criteria in the ether amendments to
4 122.44(d)(1). For convenience EPA is
responding to these comments in the
discussion of paragraph (1)(iv) of
4122.44(d).
c. Developing Water ( uoIf y .Based
Effluent Limits. Today’s rulemaking
adds seven new aubparagraphs 10
§ 122.44(d)(1). The subparagraphs
describe the procedures for determining
whether a discharge is causing or
contnbuting to an exc’.lrslon above a
water quality criterion, identify those
permits that must have water quality-
based effluent limits, arid describe
several principles for developing water
quaLity-based effluent limits. The
Agency has determined that additional
clarification of 4 122.44(d) will assist in
the unplemer.tation of the national
wcter quality-based toxics control
program and the recommendations of
EPA’s nauonal policy. 49 FR 9016 (19641.
The amendments to 4 122.44(d){1) are
intended to describe procedures for
unpiementirig existing state water
quality standards and are not intended
to suggest that states change exi trig
stancards SecUcn a03(cl(ZKB( of the
CWA. as amended. addresses state
review and ad’ ption of water quality
sta’idards for toxic pollutants listed
pursuant to section 307(a)(1) of the
CWA. EPA has prepared guidance on
section Q3(c)(2j(B) which is available
frc”n’ Criteria and Standards Division
(WH—585). Office of Water, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Sireet SW.. Washington. DC 20460.
The first of the seven subparagraphs
is paragraph (d3(l)(i). EPA originally
proposed this paragraph in
§ 12.2.54(e)(). but in placing this
language in I 122.44(dllhJ in today’s final
regulations because the description of
water quality-based controls is more
appropriate for paragraph (d)(1). The
subsequent si paragraphs are re-
numbered (ii) through (vii).
The new paragraph clarifies that an
NPDES permit must limit any pollutunt
or pollutant parameter (whether
conventionaL noriconventional. or
toxic). including whole effluent toxicity.
that 13 or may be discharged at a level
that causes, has the reasonable potential
to cause, or contributes to an excursion
above any waler quality criterion.
including state narrative water quality
criteria. The new language clarifies that
paragraph (d) applies to any pollutant.
whether conventional, nonconventional.
toxic, or whole effluent toxicity. arid
applies to excursions above narrative
water quality criteria, not JUSt numeric
criteria in state water quality standards.
Some commeriters asked for
clarification of the phrase “excursions
above applicable water quality
standards” and the role of effluent
limitations In preventing such
excursions. Water quality criteria
express water quality objectives for
protecting aquatic life and human health
and for meeting a defined level of water
quality protection. Where a discharge
has a reasonable potential to cause or
contribute to an excursion above a
water quality criterion, effluent
limitations are necessary to ensure that
water quality standards will always be
met. This connection is inherent in
section 301(bj(1)(C) of the Clean Water
Act which requires that water quality
standards be achieved through effluent
limitations.
As used in teday’ regulation.
“excursion above” refers to any
protected or actual concentration of a
pollutant that is greater than the
applicable water quality criterion. For
most water quality standards, an
excursion occurs if the proJected or
actual in-stream concentrations are
numerically higher than the applicable
criterion. In some cases, however,
excursior.s occir if the ambient values
are numerically lower than the criterion
(e g.. dissolved oxygen or pH) The
phrase ‘excursions above” in today’s
resulation applies to buth cases
An ‘excursion” must also be
consistent with the duration and
frequency of the applicable water
quality standard. Duration refers to the
pen oa of time over which the in-stream
concentration is averaged for
cemparision with criteria
concentratxorts. and frequency describes
how often criteria can be exceeded
without impairing the designated use of
the receiving water. An excursion above
a water quality standard shoulu account
for these elements of the standard.
When referring to excursions, today’s
regulations use the term ‘criteria”
instead of “standard” because It is more
accurate to refer to excuraLons above
water quality criteria. Water quality
aiteria are the threshold values against
which ambient concentrations are
compared to determine whether a
waterbody exceecs the water quality
standard.
The new language will clarify that
NPDES permits must establish limits on
any pollutant. where necessary to attain
and maintain applicable water quality
standards. The paragraph also
emphasizes the unportance of narrative
water quality standards. Teday’s
regulations emphasize that narrative
standards have the same force and
effect as other state water quality
standards.
Subparagraph (ii) of § 122.44(dUl)
concerns the procedures for determining
whether a discharge must have a water
quality-based effluent limit. EPA is
promulgating this language without
change except for the new paragraph
number. To determine whether a
discharge causes, has a reasonable
potential to cause, or contributes to art
excursion above a water quality
criterion. and thus requires a water
quality-based effluent limit, the
permitting authority must use reliable
and consistent procedures. Although the
procedures can vary considerably from
one state to another, most such
procedures account for any dilution of
the effluent in the receiving water, after
considering mixing zones if applicable.
any contr:butions of the pollutant from
upstream point and nonpoint sources.
the variability of the pollutant in the
effluent, arid, when evaLuating whole
effluent toxicity, the sensitivity of tlie
test species in a toxicity test, Some
commenters ob;ected to the reference to
mixing zones and requested that EPA
prohibit mixing zones. EPA believes,
however, that iris inappropriate to
prohibit mixing zones in this re2iilatlorl
The use of mixing zones raises issues
that are more appropriately addressed
in the state water quality standards
adoption process. Therefore. EPA is not
deleting the reference to mlxir.g zones
paragraph (d)(1)(ii).
Paragraph (d)(1) [ u) requires the
permitting a’.ithority to consider
variability because limited data on the
concentration of a pollutant in an
effluent result in a large uncertainty
when determining whether a discharge
causes or ha the reasonable potentiaL
to cause an excursion above a water
quality criterion. Unless effluent
variability is adequately cons dered, the
permitting authority may make
erroneous decisions concerning whether
to aevelop permit limitations f r a
pollutant. One commentcr suggested
that the regulation should establish a
national applicable maximum variability
factor, EPA ha procedures for
accounting for variability in the
Technical Support Document which may
be applied to specific sites. However,
EPA is not setting a national standard
for variability because there is an
element of judgment in making such
deternzisiations that Is best made by
state or regional regulatory authorities.
Factors such as the appropriate level of
confidence arid the adequacy of
available data enter into these
decisions, and many stales have their
own procedures for accounting for
variability. EPA therefore believes it is
more appropriate for each regulatory
authority to evaluate variability when
dote’ mining whether an excursion
-------
above a water quality criterion can
occur.
Paragraph (dJ (1)(ii) requires the
permitting authority to account for
species sensitivity when using toxicity
tests. Toxicity testing muit account for
species sensitivity because different test
species exh bit different sensitivities to
the same effluent
Subparngraph (u) addresses
discharges that have “the reasonable
potential to cause” excursions above
water quality criter.a. Because the
concentration of a pollutant in an
effluent and in the receiving water can
vary considerably, it is necessary to
address discharges that have the
reasonable potential to violate water
quality criteria. EPA requires water
quality-based effluent limits for these
discharges in order to ensure
compliance w th section 3O1(b (1)(C)
which requires NPDES permits to
achieve appl:cable water quaiity
standards.
Some commenters said that the
phrase “reasonable potential to cause”
was too vague and could apply to
permittees that are not actually
exceeding a water quality criterion. EPA
does not believe that it is appropriate to
be more specific because a permitting
authority has a significant amount of
flexibiuty in determining whether a
particular discharge has a reasonable
potential to cause an excursion above a
water quality criterion, taking the
factors in subparagraph (ii ) into account.
The composition and concentration of
toxcants in an effluent can ‘.ary widely.
The flow rates of a discharge can also
show significant variability. Some
eifluer.ts may prevent a water quality
standard from being maintained even
though individual measurements do not
show an actual excursion above the
water quality criterion. Without effluent
linutationa on those discharges, there is
a reasonable potential that the water
quality criteria would be exceeded at
some time. Effluent limitations must
attain and maintain water quality
standards in order to be consistent with
the requirements of the Clean Water
Act Some commenters suggested that
all discharges would be required to have
tirntt under this language. EPA does not
expect that this will be the case.
However. EPA expects that with few
exceptions, all major POTWs and major
industrial discharges will need to be
evaluated to determine whether thcy
have a reasonable potential to cause
excursions. Before requiring a water
ality.based effluent limit, the
,iermitting authority must have a basis
for finding that discharges ‘nave the
reasonable potential to cause excursions
above water quality criteria. When EPA
is the permitting authority, the Technical
Support Document w U normally provide
the basis for 8uch a finding.
Some commenters said the language
“causes or has the reasonable potential
to cause” used in the proposed
regulat ons impLes that a single point
source discharge must be responsible for
the entire pollutant loading that exceeds
the water quality criterion. EPA did not
intend this, and is persuaded that this
point needs clarifjc,atzori. EPA intended
fur the proposed regulations to apply to
any point source that is discharging a
pollutant at a level that is exceeding or
may exceed a waste load allocation for
that discharge. This approach is
consistent with EPXa eLstlng
regulation and policies for establi3h .ing
water quality-based effluent lim ts. The
process for ientifyu’.g water quality.
lunited segments requiring total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs) and
wasteload allocations (V/LAs) is 8et
forth in EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR
130,7, This reg’.ilation establishes
procedures for identifying and
controlling multiple discharges to the
same receiving water in order to attain
and maintain applicable water quality
standards. Under this approach,
discharges which contribute to the
TMDL for a segment are apportioned a
WLA which serves as the basis for
effluent limuations for the pollutant or
pollutant of concern. To clarify this
approach in today’s regulations, EPA is
adding the phrase “or contributes to” to
paragraphs (d (i) (i) through (vi). This
clarification makes no substantive
change to today’s regulations, but
merely clarifies that today’s
amendments to paragraph (d)(1) are
consistent with EPA’s existing approach
for establishing water quality-based
effluent limits.
Some comznenters questioned how
paragraph (ii) relates to the other
paragraphs added to * 12Z44(d)(1), The
requirements of paragraphs (iu), (iv), (v)
or (vi) apply after the permitting
authority has determined that water
quality-based effluent limits are
necessary under paragraph (ii).
Paragraph (ii) provides several
principles that the permitting authority
must follow when determining whether
a pollutant or a pollutant parameter is
exceeding a water quality cr.terion, If
the permittir.g authority, after applv ng
the principles in paragraph (ii),
determines that a pollutant or a
pollutant parameter is exceeding or is
expected to exceed a water quality
criterion, then the oermttting authority
USeS one or more of paragraphs (iii), (iv),
(v) or (vi) to deterimre the appropriate
23873
contiola for the pollutant or pollutant
parameter. Subparagraph (ii) should
assist the permitting authority in
determining whether it us necessary,
under Federal regulations, to establish
limits for a pollutant.
The next two paragraphs that EPA is
adding to 122.44(d) are paragraphs
(d)(1)(ilj) and (d)(1)(iv). EPA originally
proposed these two paragraph’s as a
single paragraph In (d)(1)(ji). The single
paragraph addressed both chemical.
specific limits and whole effluent
toxicity hm ts and marty commenters
were confused about the meazung of the
proposed paragraph. Therefore, for the
purposes of clarification. EPA divided
the one paragraph into two paragraphs.
Paragraph (d)(1)(iii) addresses only
chemical.specific limits and paragraph
(d)(i)(iv) addresses only whole effluent
toxicity limits.
Paragraph (d)(1)(i 1 1 ) requires an
NPDES permit to include an effluent
limit on an individual pollutant when
the permitting authority determines that
the discharge of that pollutant is
causing, is expected to cause, or
contributes to, an excursion above a
numeric water quality criterion for that
pollutant This paragraph applies where
the state has adopted a numeric water
quality standard for the pollutant of
concern. Sortie commenters objected to
the language in this paragraph because
they claimed the paragraph could
potentially require effluent lur.its far a
large number of pollutants in an effiLent.
EPA believes however that paragraph
(d)(iii) will not result in any unnecessary
effluent limits in NPDES permits
becauce the permitting authority must
satisfy the procedures in paragraph (ti)
before establishing limits under
paragraph (d)(i) (iii), (iv), (v), or (vi).
Paragraph (ii) requires the permitting
authority to follow several fundamental
principles when deterrni -g the need
for an effluent limit, Furthermore, the
permitting authority must have a basis
for determining that a discharge will
cause or has the reasonable potential to
cause an excursion above the numeric
water quality criterion for that pollutant.
(Where EPA is the permitting authority,
use of the procedures outlined in the
Technical Support Document will
normally provide such a basis.)
Paragrap 1 i (iii) does not require limits for
every pcllutant but only for those
pollutants which the permlttir.g
authority determines must be limited
after applying the procedures described
in paragraph (ii).
Paragraph (d)(l)(iv) requircs an
NPDES permit to include a Lmut an
whole effluent toxicity when he
permitting authority determines that
Federal Register/VoL 54 No. 105 / Friday, June 2, 1989 I Rules and Regulations
-------
23874
Federal Register I VoL. 54. No. 105 f Friday. une 2. 1989 / Rules and Regulations
effluent is causing or Is expected to
cause an excursion above a state
numeric criterion for whole effluent
toxicity, where the state has
promulgated a numeric water quality
criterion for whole effluent toxicity.
(Note. where a state has riot adopted a
numeric water quality criterion for
whole effluent toxicity, paragraph
(d)(l)(vl may require whole effluent
toxicity limits.) The comments on this
language focused on EPA ’s legal
authority to regulate whole effluent
toxicity and on the scientific basis for
toxicity testing. EPA addresses these
comments in the d.isvus ion of
paragraph (d)(1)(v) later in this section.
EPA is not persuaded by the comments
challeng ng the language in paragraphs
(d)(1)(iii) and (d) 1)(iv). and is therefore
making rio substantive changes to the
proposed regulations.
The next amendment to § i22.44(d)(1)
is subparagraph (v) (originally proposed
as subparagraph (in)). This regulation
requires the permitting authority to
establish permit limits on whole effluent
toxicity when the discharger causes or
has the reasonable potential to cause an
excursion above a states narrative
water quality criterion.
Subparagraph (v) allows the
permitting authority to choose not to
develop whole effluent toxicity limits
where the pernutting authority can
demonstrate thai chenucai spectflC
limits will attain and maintain
applicable water quality criteria.
including narrative water quality
criteria. One method for making this
demonstration would be to use toxicity
testing to show that the effluent has no
acute or chronic toxic effects on aquatic
life in the receiving water. Some
commenters said the exemption from
wnole effluent toxicity limits provided in
this paragraph is impractical because
the costs of making the demonstration
are prohibitive. EPA is riot convinced
that the costs of showing that chemical’
specific limits attain and maintain
appropriate water quality standards
would be excessive. Over the life of the
permit. the costS of the Initial
demonstrations could be substantially
less than the casts of compliance
monitoring associated with both types of
limits. The most straightforward method
of making this demonstration will
usually consist of toxicity testing in
conjunction with chemical specific
testing for the chemicals which are
(united in the permit. Costs of toxicity
tests typically range from a few hundred
dollars for simple screerung tests to as
much as one or two thousand dollars per
month for monthly chronic toxicity
analyses. While EPA recognizes that
this approach will not always be the
easiest and least expensive way to
ensure that the narrative criteria are
met. EPA believes the option should
remain available for those cases where
the exemption from whole effluent
toxicity limits is a viable and cost-
effective option.
The exception described in paragraph
(d) [ 1)(v) is not available under
paragraph (d) ( )(iv) because paragraph
fd)(l)(iv) relies on numeric criteria for
limits on whole effluent toxicity.
whereas paragraph (d)(1)(v) relies on
narrative criteria. Paragraph (d)(l)(iv)
describes a situation where the state has
adooted a numeric criterion for whole
effluent toxicity which reflects the
maximum degree of toxicity determined
to be acceptable in the states surface
waters. Narrative criteria for whole
effluent toxicity do not necessarily
reflect an affirmative determination by
the state to establish a numeric criterion
for whole effluent toxicity The
exception in paragraph (dlll)(v), if used
under paragraph (d)(1 )(iv) could
frustrate the state’s efforts to establish
effluent limits on whole effluent toxicity
arid implement its surface water toxics
control program.
Many commentcrs objected to whole
effluent toxicity limits on the ground
that the scientific basis for toxicity
testing is not sufficiently developed.
These commenters also suggested that
EPA should not use toxicity tests until
EPA has published toxicity testing
procedures pursuant to section 304(h) of
the CWA. EPA disagrees. EPA has
shown, through testing protocols. site-
specific studies. and guidance manuals.
that toxicity testing is reliable and has a
sound scientific basis. In 1984 EPA
concluded that ‘ toxicity testing is
sufficiently refined to be used in setting
effluent limitations • ‘.“ 49 FR 38009
(1964). EPA ’s studies since 1984
reinforce this conclusion.
EPA has published a number of
toxicity testing protocols that describe
reliable and reproducible toxicity tests.
See for example: Short Term Methods
for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of
Effluents and R.aceiving Waters to
Freshwater Qiganisms. EPA/600/4 .-ae/
001. Second Edition. February i989 .
Methods for Measuring the Acute
Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and
Marine Organisms. Third Edition. EPA!
600/4—85/013. March 1985. and Short-
Term Methods for Estimating the
Chronic Toxicity of Effluents arid
Receiving Waters to Marine and
Estuarine Organisms. EPA 600/4-87/
02& May 198&
EPA’s Technical Support Document
for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control
(TSD] gives detailed techrucal guidanc”
for each phase of water quality-base
toxics control. The TSD describes the
technical basis for establishing limits on
whole effluent toxicity. and describes
the methods for using toxicity testing in
the permitting process. The TSD also
cites several studies which show that
toxicity testing methods. where properly
followed, exhibit an acceptable range of
variability.
It is not necessary for EPA to publish
toxicity testing guidelines pursuant to
section 304(h) of the CWA before using
biomonitoring end whole effluent
toxicity limits in NPDES permits. EPA
has published toxicity testing protocols
that can be used in NPDES permits. The
absence of guidelines wider section
304(h) does not affect EPA’s authority to
use toxicity testing, nor does it affect the
reliability of EPA’s toxicity testing
protocols. EPA ’s po8 ltion on this issue is
stated in the preamble to EPA’s mat
NPDES regulations. 49 FR 380’tO (1984)
and is reiterated here: permittm.g
authorities must use their judgment in
determining which toxicity testing
methods are appropriate for the NPDES
permit. (Note that there are other
toxicity testing methodologies available.
EPA has determined that EPA’s methods
are protective of aquatic life. If a state
wishes to use other methods. those
methods must be scientifically
defensible and protective of aquatic life.
EPA expects that such methods would
always be comparable to the procedures
in EPA’s methodologies and would use
test species of equivalent sensitivity)
Until EPA publishes guidelines under
section 304(h). the premitting authority
must specify in the permit which
analytical methodology must be used.
Some cominentere also questioned
whether toxicity testing can be used to
predict biological Impact to receiving
waters. To address this issue EPA has
conducted the “Complex Effluent
Toxicity Testing Program.” The program
has produced eight site-specific studies
which show that where exposure is
adequately assessed. effluent toxicity
correlates directly to in-stream impact.
The studies are: Validity of Effluent and
Ambient Toxicity Tests for Predicting
Biological Impacti Scippo Creek.
Cheleville, Ohio. EPA/Coot 3-’85/044:
Ottawa River. Lima. Ohio. EPA/600/3—
84/080: Five Mile Creek. Birmingham.
Alabama, EPA/600/&- ’85/0lS: Skeleton
Creek. Enid. Oklahoma. EPA /600/ 8 -86/
002. Naugatuck River. Waterbury,
Connecticut. EPA/600/8.-88/005. Back
River, Baltimore Harbor. Maryland.
EPA/600/&—88 1 001: Ohio River, Near
Wheeling. West Virginia. EPA/600/3—
85/071. Kartawha River, Charleston.
-------
Fedoral Register / Vol. 54, No. 105 / FlIddy, June 2, 19139 I
Rules and Repjlations 3675
West Virginia. EPA/ó0O/3-8 /Q09, These
,idtes are available from the Center for
vironmental Researca Information. 28
West St. Clair Street. Cincinnati. Ohio
452C8,
Comie ers also suggested that EPA
does not have the iegal authority to
require effluent hrnits on whole effluent
toxicity. The commenters aigue that the
state narrative water quality cnte.’:on
‘na taxies in toxic amounts” cannot be
used as a basis for requu’ing whole
effluent toxicity limiLs. EPA disagrees.
State narrative water quality criteria
muct be atta ned and maintained in the
same way as all water quality criteria.
N rra ve water quality criteria have the
same force cf law as other water quality
cri:ena. and NPDES permits must
contain effluent limits necessary to
attain and maintain all appllcdble water
quality criteria, including narrative
criteria.
Thu Court of Appeals for the District
cf Columbia Circint recently upheld
EPA’s toxicity limits regulation, 40 CFR
125.3(c)(4). in Natural Resources
Defense Council v. E.ivzr’onmen j
Protection Agency, 859 F 2d 156 (D.C.
Cir. 1968). Section 125 3(c)(4) provides
that permit writers may express
technology-based or water quality-
based limits in terms of toxicity as long
the limits reflect the appropriate
inrementg of the CWA, The court
concluded that although toxicity
apoears to be an attribute of potlutants
rather than a pollutant :tseif, the CWA
authorizes the use of tOXiCity as a
measure to regulate effluents. The
court’s affirmation of the use of whole
effluent to’sicity limits further supports
EPA ’s authority to require whole
cfflu nt toxicity izm ts and to promulgate
t.day’s “ugulations.
Fur.afly. secticti 301 b)(i)(C reouires
NPDES permits to contain any effluent
limitations necessary to meet all
appLicable water quality standards. A
permit would be inconsistent with
section 3O1(b)(i) C) if the permit did not
cantata effluent Lmits necessary to
atta:r. and maintain both narrative a nd
numeric water quality criteria. For these
reasons. EPA believes its authority to
regulate discharges ‘ising whole effluent
to tcity limits ia wall eetabhshed.
Some cornmenters said EPA siiould
use whole effluent toxicity testing only
as a trigger for turther investi ution into
the cause of the toxicity, and should not
use whole effluent toxicity as an
enforceable effluent limit, EPA cannot
tncorporate these suggestions. EPA
ro 1wres whole effluent toxicity limits
re necessary to meet water quality
_idords. EPA does not believe that a
svho e effluent toxicity trigger alone is
fully effective because it does not, by
itself, restrict the ouantity. rate, or
concentra• lon of oollutants in an
effluent, Whole effluent toxicity
l’mitationg are enforceable in the same
way as any other effluent limitation in
an NPDES permit. Section 309 of tne
CWA provides that any single violation
cf an effluent limitat.on can be subject
to an enforcement action, and section
309 applies to whole effluent toxicity
limits in the same way as any other
effluent hnutauon.
Several commenters asked if state
narrative water quality criteria, that are
u3ed as the basis for estaohshing
effluent limits under paragraphs (d)(1)(v)
and (vi). apply to all waters regardless
of their designated use. Narrative water
quality criteria apply to all designated
uses at all flows unless specified
otharwise in a state’s water quality
standards, It is EPA’s policy that no
acutely toxic conthtioca may e ’ ist in
any state waters, regardless of
designated use. State narrative water
quality criteria and interpretations of
their narrative water quality criteria
may be more protective than levels
necessary to prevent acutely toxic
conditioca, For more information, please
refer to the Water Quality Standards
Handbook December 1983.
State narrative water quality criteria
provide the legal basis for establishing
effluent limits under paragraphs (d)(lj(v)
and (d)(1)(vi) of today’s regulations.
There is flexibility in the state’s
Interpretaticri of its narrative water
quality criteria. When a stale adopts a
narrative water quality criteria, EPA’s
regulations at 40 CFR 131.11(a)(2)
require the state to “provide information
identifying the method by which the
state intends to regulate point source
discharges of toxic pellutants on water
quality limited segments based ott su’th
narrative criteria.” When interpreting a
state a narrative water quality criteria,
the premitting authonty may use a
proposed numeric criterion for the
pollutant of concern, an explicit state
policy, or a proposed or fnal state
regulation interpreting its narrative
criteria provided the interpretation will
fully protect the dei ignated use. In the
absence of an explicit state policy or
regulation that fully protects the
designated use, the permitting authority
iIl use the proceduros summarized in
paragraphs (dl(1)(.i) and (d)(fl(vui) of
today’s regulations for applying a state’s
narratr,e water quality criteria. (Note
that states may evaluate the designated
use of a waterbody by performing a use
attainability analysis pursuant to 40
CFR Part 131. and depending on the
results of the use dtta!nabillty analysis
may. after providing for pi.’olic notice
and an opportwuty to comment, upgrade
or downgrade the designated use of the
waterbody)
Subparagraph (vi), (originally
proposed as subparagraph (iv)),
addresses the situation in wmch a state
has not adopted a numeric water quality
criterion for a toxic, conventional, or
nor .convenUonal pollutant that is
present in an effluent at a concentration
that causes, has the reasonable pott’ntial
to cause, or contributes to an excursion
above an applicable narrative water
quality criterion, In this situation the
permitting authority does not have a
numeric critericti to use for deriving a
water quality-based effluent limit. EPA
emphasizes that paragraph (d)(1)(vi) is
not used to establish effluent limits on a
pollutant J the state has adopted a
numeric water quality criterion for that
pollutant,
Several commenters said the phrase
for a specific chemical pollutant
that is known to adversely affect or
threaten human health or aquatic life
in proposed paragraph (vi) could
have been read to require an effluent
limit for every priority pollutant, evcn if
the pollutant is not present in the
effluent. Other comnienterg said this
language should apply to discharges that
are “known or suspected” to adversely
affect aquatic life or human health. EPA
agrees that these points needed
clarification. As a result of these
comments, EPA amended the
introductory language of paragraph (‘ . i)
to clarify that water quality-based
effluent limits are required only for
pollutants that are “ • present .n an
effluent at a concentration that causes,
has the reasonable potential to cause, or
contributes to an excursion above a
narrative criterion within an appticab!e
state narrative water quality stanaara.’
This language clarifies that water
quality-based effluent limits are
required only for pollutants present in
an effluent at concentrations of concern
to the permitting authority. EPA aI 3 o
added the words ‘or has reasonable
pctent:al” to the introductory language
in paragraph (vi). This language is
conaistent with the language in
paragraphs (I) through (v). This language
3 necessary to assure that effluent
lu-nits attain and mainta n water quality
standards, and the language is disLuSsed
more filly under the discussion of
paragraph (ii). The new language a!so
clarifies that an applicable state
narrative water quality criterion
provides the legal basis for establishing
effluent limits under this paragraph. This
revised language clanfles the sccpe arid
applicability of paragraph (d)(1)(vi).
Paragraph (d)li )(vi) describes thn’e
options available to the permitting
-------
“7,—
_-_.., 0
Federal Register / VoL 54. i’Xo. 1 t5 / Friday. rurte 2. 1989 / Rules and Re i1atioris
authority for using narrative criteria as
the basis for establishing effluent limits,
Option A allows the permitting authority
to estabLah water quality-based effluent
limitations using a “calculated numeric
water quality criterion” which the
permitting authonty demonstrates will
att iin and maintain applicable water
quality standards. When using this
approach states may derive values
different from the values in the EPA’s
water quality criteria documents tO
reflect site-specific factors including
predicted local human consumption of
aquatic foods, as well as the states
determination of an appropriate risk
le ’el, and any more recent scientific
data that may nct be included in EPA’s
criteria documents. Under this option
the permitting authority should use all
available scientific information on the
effect of a pollutant on human health
and aquatic life. Availa de information
includes but is not limited to, risk
aaaessmtmts. exposure data, arid site-
specific water quality parameters. (The
proposed regulations included only two
opt;ona uitdcr this paragraph. Today’s
fLidI regulation includes a third option—
‘ooti.in C.” vihich is described later in
tIlLs section of the preamble. Todays
final iegulatior.s also reverse the order
of proporad cplior .s A and B. Proposed
option A appeiirs in touay’ final
regulation as option B. and proposed
option B appears as option A in the final
regulation. The remainder of this
discussion rofers to the options as they
appear in today’s final regulation.]
Option A received a mixed reaction
from comrnenters. Some coramenters
obiected to option A because it requires
a water quality-based effluent limit for a
pollutant before a state adopts a
numeric warpr quality criterion for that
pollutant. Other commenters supported
option A because the option gives the
permitting authority flexibility in
developing water quality-based effluent
limits. Many of the cominenters who
oppose option A suggested that option A
circumvented the state’s role in
developing water quality standards.
EPA responds to this concern in the
discussion of option B. It Is worth noting.
however, that this should be a minor
concern for option A because option A
does riot necessarily rely on EPA’s
water quality criteria. Option A allows
the permitting authority to use any-
critena that protect aquatic life and
human health. Thus option A gives the
states maximum flexibility in developing
water quality-based effluent limits for
pollutants for which the state has riot
ado 1 .ted a water quality criterion.
One commenler ob 1 ecti’d to opticn A
‘.‘icause it appeared to be sunilar to
state “translator mechanisms” for
develop ng water quality standards
under section 303(cJ(2)(B ). Sortie states
use a procedure or “translator
mechanism” to derive site-specific
numeric water quality criteria and to
develop water quality-based effluent
limits. EPA’s guidance implementing
section 303(c) (2)(B) of the CWA
provides that the use of a translator
mechanism can he consistent with
section 3O3(c)(2)(B of the CWA. (See
EPA’s Guidance for State
liriplementation of Water Quality
Standards for section 303 (c)(Z) (B).)
Translator mechanisms that are used to
satisfy section 303(c)(2I(B) of the CWA
must be approved by EPA before the
translator mechanism becomes part of
the state’s water quality standards. Such
approved translator mechanisms can be
used to devetop effluent limitations
i. ,rider paragraph (d)(1)(iu) of today’s
regulations. but may not be used to
develop effluent limitations under
paragraph (d)(1)(vi). Paragraph ld)(i)(vi)
is used only .ri the absence of a state
numeric water quality critencn
(including a criterion den; ed from an
approved translator mechanism). The
options in paragraph d)(1)(vi) provide a
reguistory basis for developir.g water
quality-based effluent limitations as an
interim measure until a numeric
criterion for the pollutant of concern is
available. State policies or procedures,
even procedt .res which calculate
derived criteria but are not approved by
EPA. may be used to develop effluent
limits under option A of paragi’evh
(d)(1)(vi). However, ii the stale has
adopted a policy or procedure iii tts
standards that is approved by EP’ and
results in a derived or calculated
numeric criteria. the permitting authority
must develop effluent limits according to
paragraph (dJ(iI(uu) and may not use
paragraph (d)(1)(vi).
The comnmenter also claimed that
transla tar mechanisms do not provide
adequate opportunity for public
participation. When using a translator
mechanism the state must provide an
opportunity for public participation in
the development of derived numeric
criteria. The permit development
process also gives ±e public an
opportunity to comment on the effluent
limitatIons develop d from the criteria
derived using a translatrir mechanism.
Several commenters stated that option
A should describe scientifically sound
procedures that must be followed when
denying numeric .ritena E A believes
it is inappropriate for this regulation to
provide detailed technical procedures
for developing numeric criteria because
option A is intended to provide
flcxibility to the states when developing
water quality-based effluent limitation”
EPA emphasizes however, that
scientifically valid procedures must be
used to develop criteria that protect
aquatic tile and human health. The
regulation suggests the use of EPA’s
Water Quality Standards Handbook, but
other procedures may be used provided
the resulting numeric water quality
criteria attain and maintain all
applicable water quality standards.
Because there is more than one
procedure that can be used to de elop
water quality-based effluent limitations
under option A. EPA is making no
changes to this language in optton A.
EPA beboves that option A offers a
reasonable approach to developing
water qualit.’-based effluent limits in the
absence of state numeric water quality
standards, and EPA is not persuaded by
the objections to option A. Therefore,
EPA is promulgating option A with only
the minor changes discussed above
The second option in paragraph
(dJ(11(vil. ption B), allows the
permitting authority to establish eff uent
limits using EPA’s Water Quality
Criteria guidance documents, if EP.A has
published a criteria document for the
pollutant pursuant to section 304(a) of
the CWA. (EPA criteria documents
provide a cpmprehensive summary of
available data on the effects of a
pollutant and include maxijiiwn
ambient concentrations that protect
aquatic life and human health.) In the
absence of a state numeric criterion fur
a pollutant the permitting authority
would use the appropr.ate EPA Water
Quality Criteria document to calculate
effluent limits for the pollutant in order
to comply with applicable state
narrative water quality criteria (eg “no
toxics in toxic amounts”),
Many comnienters objected to option
B because they claimed that EPA does
not have the legal authority to require
the use of EPA’s water quality criteria in
developing effluent limitations. EPA
reiterates that section 301(blll)(C)
requires that NPDES permits contain
effluent Limits that achieve narrative
water quality criteria. ‘This obligation
applies regardless of whether or not a
state has adopted a numeric water
quality criterion for a pollutant of
concern. EPA’s water quality criteria
should not be used as a aubstitute for
state water quality standards, but
rather, option B may be used as one of
three options to interpret slate narrative
water quality criteria until the state
adopts a numeric water quality criterion
for the pollutant. Further. EPA is not
requiring states to use EPA’s water
qualtty criteria. EPA is offering the
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 54. No. 105 / Friday. June 2. 1989 / Rules and Regulations
water quality criteria as one of three
options avadable to the state (o
interpreting and applying narrative
water quality criteria. EPA ’s water
quality cnteria provide one reasonable
approach for interpreting state narrative
water quality criteria because EPA’s
criteria account for the effects of a
pollutant on aquatic life and human
health.
Many commenters also suggested that
option B circumvents the states
traditional role in establishing water
quality standards. The commenters
argue that section 303(c) of the CWA
reserves for the states the sole authority
to establish water quality standards.
and that option B would somehow
prevent a state from exercising its
authority under section 303(c). EPA
disagrees that the use of option B in
implementing the narrative criterion
would prevent a state from adapting
numeric water quality itena. To the
con trary. 8ectlori 303(c)(2)(B) requires
states to adopt water quality standards
for certain toxic pollutants as soon as
possible States must adopt standards
.iccording to the provisions of section
303(c) and when the water quality
standards are adopted, the NPDES
permits must contain effluent limits
necessary to meet each standard.
Option B applies only in the absence of
state numeric water quality criteria. If a
state has a numeric water quality
c iterion for the pollutant of concern,
then paragraph (vi) does not apply.
Option B is not intended to substitute
EPAs water quality criteria for state
water quality standards. Option B
simply provides a mechanism for
implementing narrative water quality
criteria Although states are required to
adopt all necessary water quality
standards under section 303. some states
have ot yet done so. Thus EPA is
prcrnuigaung paragraph (vi) as an
interim measure to control a pollutant of
concern until the state promulgates a
water quality criterion for the pollutant.
However. i .PA’s legal obligation to
ensure that NPDES permits meet all
applicable water quality standards.
including narrative critena, cannot be
set aside while a state develops water
quality standards. This legal obligation
applies to more than state adopted
waler quality stanuards Section
301(h)(1)(C) requires that NPDES
permits achieve “any more stringent
limitation, including those necessary to
meet water quality standards. treatment
standards, or schedule of compliance.
stablished pursuant to any state law or
regulations (under authority preserved
by section 510) or any other Federal
law’ including international treaties or
agreements that have force as domestic
law
Some commenters suggested that EPA
must incorporate the criteria documents
by reference in order to use them in
option B. The Administrative Procedures
Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(afll) and 552(a)(1),
requires agencies to publish in the
Federal Register or incorporate by
reference, with the approval of the
Director of the Federal Register, all
“substantive rules Although
NPDES permits must be developed in
accordance with today’s regulations.
water quality criteria documents do not
“impose mandatory obligations upon
members of the public and permit
issuance authorities ‘ See
Appalachian Power Co. v Train 566
F 3d 451, 455 (4th Cir. 1977). The
regulations provide other options that a
state may use to determine the
appropriate interpretation of its
narrative water quality criteria.
The preamble to the proposed
regulations solicited comment on a third
option for subparagraph (vi). The third
option proposed to allow the
establishn ent of effluent limits on
pollutants other than toxicants of
concern such as art indicator parameter.
Au indicator parameter could be a
conventional pollutant like total
suspended solids (TSS), the control of
which may be tied to a concomitant
decrease in metals concentratio
Another example of an indicator
parameter is total toxic organics (TTO)
Effluent limitations on 11’O can be used
to control the organic pollutants in an
effluent, and are useful where an
effluent contains many organic
compounds. In such a case, the
permitting authority must demonstrate
that compliance with a limitation on the
indicator parameter or some other
effluent [ unit would ensure the control
of the toxicant of concern to a level that
will attain and maintain applicable state
narrative water quality criteria, and will
protect aquatic life and human health.
EPA received mixed comments on this
option. Some commenters liked the
flexibility provided by the option.
whereas other commenters pointed out
the technical problems of demonstrating
that controls on one pollutant also
control other pollutants.
EPA’s existing regulations allow the
permitting authority to use indicator
parameters for technology-based
controls (see 40 CFR 125.3(c)(4), 125.3(h).
and 122.44(e), arid certain effluent
limitation guidelines.) In the case of
effluent limitations guidelines, EPA has
data and other information showing that
contri • on one pollutant sometimes
control one or more other pollutants.
23377
Similar data are often not available
when developing water quality-based
effluent limitations and therefore, the
regulation describing this option
requires a Justification for using the
indicator parameter in the permit. There
may be cases where effluent limits on
an indicator parameter are sufficient to
attain and maintain applicable water
quality standards for pollutants of
concern and EPA does not wish to
foreclose this option for water quality.
based controls. Therefore EPA is
including a third option in paragraph (vi)
that allows the permitting authority to
use indicator parameters under limited
circumstances.
Like options A and B. option C is used
only where a state has not adopted a
water quality criterion for a pollutant for
which the permitting authority has data
showing that the pollutant is present in
an effluent at a concentration that
causes, has the reasonable potential to
cause, or contributes to an excurs:cn
above an applicable state narrati’,e
water quality criterion In order to use
option C the permitting authority roust
satisfy four conditions. First, the permit
must identify which pollutant is
intended to be controlled by the
indicator parameter- This condition is
similar to the requirement in 40 CFR
125.3(h) describing the use of indicator
parameters for technology.based
controls. Second, the fact sheet of the
NPDES permit must include a fnding
that the effluent limit for the ir.dicator
parameter will attain and m . lntain
applicable water quality standaros This
condition is also similar to the
requirements in 40 CFR 15 3(h). but :s
modified to address water quality-based
effluent limits, Third. the perm t must
require all monitcnrig necessary to show
that the limits cn the indicator
parameter continue to attain and
maintain applicable water quality
standards. This condition of option C .s
necessary to ensure that the controls on
the indicator parameter are sufficient to
attain and maintain applicabla water
quality standards. Fourth, the permit
must contain a reoper.er clause allocving
the permitting authority to modify or
revoke end reissue the permit if the
limits on the indicator parameter no
longer attain and maintain appl.c bje
water quality standards. This
requirement clarifies that a permit may
be reopened if the controls art the
indicator parameter are insuffic,er,t The
type and frequency of monitoring
necessary under condition three abute
would be determined by the perrnit irg
authority and would be based on case-
specifIc factors. In general. EPA e\pects
that this monitoring would include
-------
“in
Federal Regt ter / Vul, 3’l. N j. tQ / Ertd , June . , i 69 / Roles arid Re uIattons
analysis of the effluent for the indicator
parameter and the pollutant of cancern
at a frequency suff 1 c tat to t’er.fy the
correlation for he various operating
conditions of the discharger EPA
recognizes that it may be difficult to
show a correlation between controls on
the indicator parameter and controls on
the pollutants of cancern, E1’,
reccgmzes that in most cases tr.e data
pronably will not be available to show
such a correlat;on Hjw’ivcr. where such
data are available EPA believes this
oprion should be avai abIe to the
permitting author:ty
Todays reg’ilations do not allow the
permitting authority to use ndtcator
parameters under par’ zraphs (d ) i) (in)
arid t ) Indicator parameters may not
he used to develop effluent liiniiai ors
under these paragraphs because, under
these paragraphs. the state has
promulgated a r,umertc cnt?rlon for the
potlutant of concern Such a numeric
crter.ori represents a state’s afPrmative
tecis:on with respect to the mdxnoum
sl t o able ambient cancentratioii for the
pcih , tant. If paragraphs (dill) (iii) and
•.) orovided for the use of ir.iira tar
parameters, such prat.sions could
fr’jstrate the state’s efforts to promulgate
and rnplement water quality standards
EPA is limiting the use of indicator
parameters to paragraph ( .) (vi)
because this paragraph is intended as
an interim measure employed in the
absence of a state numeric crteaon for
t te pollutant of concern, and because
EPA seeks to allow the states flexibility
to interpret their narratn e water quality
criteria.
There are several a !dit’nal
noteworthy points ebout deve!op’rg
effluent !nnitations wider option C. In
some cases. protacting tensitive test
species from observed chror c exposure
can protect against human health
impacts because EPA’s experience with
toxtcants has shown that values
necessary to protect aquatic life are
often more stringent than values
necessary to protect human health.
Thus, in many cases the controls
necessary to avoid chronic aquatic
effects may also protect against human
exposure. However, the regulatory
authorities should be cautious if a limit
on whole effluent toxicity IS used as an
indicator parameter. Whole effluent
toxicity limits nay riot necessarily
.iuco nt for carcinogenic compounds or
highly bioziccumulative compounds.
differences in the bioavailability of a
poil’ tant once diacharged to the
receiving water, and the toxic eFfects
which can occur f om persistent
hcmicats that accumuLte in sedini’ nts
The floal point about paragraph (vi) is
that .n the rna;ority of cases where
paragraph (vi) appues waste toad
allocations and total maximum daily
Loads will not be available for the
po,lutant of concern, Nonetheless, any
effluent limit derived under paragraph
(vi) must satJy the requirements of
paragraph ( tiJ. Paragraph (vii) requires
that all water quality-based effluent
limitations comply with “appropriate
wat.ir quality standards,” and be
corisl Ient with “available” waste load
allocations. Thus for the purposes of
complying with paragraph (vti), i here a
wasta ad allocatton is unavailable,
etfiuent limits derived under paragraph
(t-) must comply with narrative water
quality cr:teria and other applicable
water quality standards.
Several coramenters asked if it was
necessary to show tn-sn-earn impact. or
to show adverse effects on human
health before invoking paragraph (vi) as
a basis for establishing water quality-
based (antis on a pollutant of concern. It
is not necessary to show adverse effects
on aquatic life or human health to
invoke this paragraph. The CWA does
not require such a demonstration arid it
is EPA’s position that it is not necessary
to demonstrate such effects before
establishing limits on a pollutant of
concern.
Several commenters auggested that
option A will create a large resource
burden for the states by requiring them
to develop numeric criteria. EPA
u.nderstands that a sigruficant effort is
involved in deriving a numeric criterion
as the basis for water quality-based
effluent limits under option A. However,
where a stat,e chooses this option. EPA
sees no alterna’ive but to derive a
numeric criterion that potects aqua tic
life and human healtn. Option A gives
the stare lexthtlity in developing
numeric criteria, arid it the state
believes that op ton A involves too
many resources the state ta free to use
the other, less resource intensive options
described in this paragraph.
Several conimenters were car,cerned
that the arid-backsliding provisions of
section 402(o) of the CWA would apply
to the effluent limitations developed
under section 304(1). Section 402 ( 0) does
not necessarily prevent EPA or the
states from reissuing NPDES permits
with less sthr.gent effluent Iimitat:ans
than the limits in the prior permit. fite
amendments establish a process and
condit:ona fur determining when less
stringent limits are approcriata. These
provisions apply to both technology.
based and water quality-based effluent
limitations. For water quality-based
effluent lim:tations. the applicability of
sect an 402 o) depends on whether the
receiving waters are attaining and
maintaining appiicable water quality
standards at the time of permit renewal.
While there may be cases where section
402(o) prohibits less stringent eilluertt
limitations, such a result can only be
determined on a case-by-case basis.
It EPA’s intent that the three
options in subparagrach (vi] will allow
the permitting authority to set effluent
limits to control discharges (in the
absence of state numerical water quality
criteria for all pollutants of cor.cern) that
interfere with attaining and maintaining
designated uses, while at the seine time,
giving the permitting authority su!flcicnt
tiexibility to account for site-specific
impacts on aquatic life or human health.
A number of coromenters indicated
some confusion over the applicability of
subparagrophs (in), (iv). (v), and (vi),
and sonic confusion over the
relationship between these provisions.
Paragraph (iii) is intended to apply when
the permitting authority ha3 data on a
conventional, nonconventianal. or tox’c
pollutant, indicating that a point source
is causing. is expected to cause, or
contributes to an excursion above a
state numeric water quality criterion for
that pollutant. In contrast to paragraph
(iii), paragraph (iv) requires only whole
effluent toxicity limits, and applies
when the permitting authority has either
toxicity data, pollutant-specific data, or
other data, and this data shows that an
effluent causes, is expected to cause, or
contributes to an excursion above a
numeric water quality critenan for
toxicity. Paragraphs (iii) and (iv) do not
operate to require both whole effluent
toxicity knits and chemical-specific
limits in every permit, as some
commenters sugge3ted. Although
paragraph (iii) requires pollutant-
specific effluent limits when the
permitting authority has sufficient data
for that pollutant, paragraphs (in) and
(iv) are consistent with EPA’s toxics
control strategy which recommends the
appropriate combination of whole
effluent toxicity and pothatart-specific
controls necassary to attain and
maintain all applicable water quality
standards. EPA also emphasizes that the
controls described i c r paragraphs (iii),
(iv), (v), and (vi) are necessary only after
the permitting authority has determined.
using the principles in paragraph (ii ),
that water quality-based effluent itmits
are necessary for a discharge.
Paragraph (v) requires on t y whole
effluent toxicity limits, and is used when
the permitting authority relics on a
narrative water quality criterion I
paragraph (iv). paragraph (v) appl:es
e,hen the state has not adapted a
-------
Federal Register I Vol.
54. No. 105 / Friday, June 2. 1989 / Rules and Regulations
‘umeric cater quality criterion for
hole effluent toxicity.
Paragraph (vi) applies when the
permitting authority has data on a
ci.,nventional. ncriconventional, or toxic
pollutant, indicating that a point source
is discharging the pollutant at a
concentration that is causing, is
expected to cause, or contributes to an
excursion above an applicable narrative
criterion for water quality, and the state
has not adopted a numeric water quality
criterion for the pollutant. Paragraph (vi)
recuires only emuent limits for
individual pollutants (except in those
cases wnere limits on whole effluent
toxicity can be used as an indicator
parameter). If the permitting authority
uses paragraph (vi) to reqwre a
pollutant-epeciLc effluent limit, and the
permitting authority also has toxictty
cata indicating a toxicity problem. the
pern’iltung authority would use
paragraph (iv) or paragraph (v),
whichever applies, to require whole
eff’uent toxicity limits. EPA hopes this
discussion of these paragraphs clarifies
the aophcability of these regulations.
Several commenters objected to the
references in option A to EPA’s Water
Quaiity Standards Handbook and to
EPA’s water quality criteria documents,
‘ie ccrnmenters suggested that EPA
‘ust incorporate by reference these
documents into today’s regulation, and
solicit public comment on the documents
in order to refer to them in the
rulemaking It is not necessary however.
to incorporate these documents by
reference es part of this rulemaking
because option A refers to these
documents only as suggested resource
materials that may be used as one
option in the regulations. The documents
do rict contain enforceable requrements.
arid the use of these documents is not
mandatory under the regulations.
Therefore the documents do not need to
be incorporated by reference into these
regulations.
The final change to § 1ZZ.44(d)(1) is
subparagraph (vii). TIns subparagraph
describes two requirements that the
permitting authority must use to derive
water quality-based effluent limits. The
first requirement provides that water
quality.based effluent linuts shall be
derived from water quality standards.
Under section 303(c) of the CWA. and
Part 131 of EPA’s regulations, a state
must adopt water quality standards.
(including an antidegradation policy)
and submit the standards to EPA for
‘view Although Part 131 descrIbes the
ocess for adopting and reviewing
water quality s’andards, EPA’s
permitting regulations in Part 122 do not
specify that water quality-based effluent
limits must be derived from water
quality standards, (although this
requirement is implied in § 122.44) The
language in paragraph (vii) clarifies this
requirement of the NPDES permitting
regulations
The second requiremer.t in
subparagraph (vii) for deriving water
quality-based effluent limits, is that the
water quality-based effluent limits must
be consistent with wateload allocations
(WLAs) developed and approved in
accordance with 40 CFR 130.7. if a WLA
is avatlable for the dlschar2e A
asteload allocation is defined at 40
CFR 130 2 and reflects the portion of a
receiving water’s loading capacity that
is allocated to a point source. The
requirement to ..se approved waBteload
allocaticns for water quality-based
permit limits is implied in current
§ 122,44(d) because paragraph (d)
requires effluent limits to meet water
quality standards. Today’s language
clarifies EPA’s existing regulations by
stating that when V lLAs are available.
they must be used to translate water
qual.ty standards into t PDES permit
lim.ts Although subparagraph (vii)
requires the permitting authority to use a
wasteload allocation if one has been
approved under Part 130. today’s
regulations do not allow the permitting
authority to delay developing and
issuing a permit if a wasteload
allocation has not already been
developed and approved
Deriving water quality-based effluent
limits from water quality standards is
the only reliable method for developing
water quality-based effluent limits that
protei.t aquatic life and human health.
Pursuant to section 303(c)of the CWA.
the states adopt water quality
standards, and then, under section
303(d), develop total maxunum daily
loads (TMDLs). for water quality-lirmted
segments. to attain and maintain the
water quality standards. The TMDLS are
used to derive a wasteload allocation
for individual pollutants discharged
from a point source. Tins process results
in effluent limits that protect aquatic life
and human health because the limits are
derived from water quality standards.
Subparagraph (vii) does not prescribe
detailed procedures for developing
water quality-based effluent limits.
Rather, the regulation prescribes
minimum requirements for developing
water quality-based effluent limits, and
at the same time, gives the permitting
authority the flexibility to determine the
appropriate procedures for developing
water quality-based effluent limits.
Comments on subparagraph (vii) were
generally favorable. The comments
supported the concept of deriving water
23879
quality-based effluent limits from water
quality criteria, and favor the language
requiring water quality-based effluent
limits to be consistent with a wasteload
allocation, if a wasteload allocation is
available for the discharge Therefore.
because subparagraph (vii) describes
two fundamental principles for deriving
water quality-based effluent limits, and
because the comments on this regulatiov
were generally favorable. EPA is
promulgating this regulation without
change from the proposed regulation
d. Technology-Based Controls on
Z’ox!c Poliutonts. The final change to
§ 122.44 is a modification to the title of
paragraph (e). The new title reads
“Technology-Based Controls on Toxic
Pollutants,” This title more accurately
describes the scope of paragraph (e)
Paragraph (e) has been used primarily
as a basis for requiring technology-
based ccntrols Although the proposed
regulations suggested the title ‘l’oxic
Pollutants and Sources of Toxicity,” a
number of comnienters suggested that
the proposed cnanges to paragraph (e)
overlapped with the amendments to
paragraph (d). EPA is persuaded by
these comments. and is therefore
clarifying in todays preamble that
paragraph (e) applies primarily to
technology-based controls. whereas
paragraph (d) applies whenever the
pernutting authority is developing water
quality-based controls.
The proposed regulations incidded a
new paragraph (e)(2). but EPA decided it
is more appropriate to place this
language in paragraph (d)(1). The new
language applies to water quality-based
controls, not technology-based controls.
and the language provides an accurate
statement of the controls necessary in
an NPDES permit to attain and maintain
water quality standards.
The commenters also found the
proposed change in paragraph (e)(3)(iii)
to overlap with the amendments to
paragraph (d). Therefore, EPA decided
not to include the proposal in today’s
final regulations. EPA proposed to add a
reference to whole effluent toxicity in
paragraph (e). but the proposed
language clouded the distinction
between paragraph (d) and paragraph
(e). To maintain a clear distinction
between the applicability of these
paragraphs. EPA decided to not carry
the language proposed for paragraph
(e)(3)(Iii) forward into today’s final
regulations.
Thus, the only change that today’s
rulemaking makes to paragraph (e) is to
change the title of the paragraph to
reflect more accurately the scope of the
paragraph.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 105 / Friday, June 2. 1989 I Rules and Regulations
2. State NPDES Program
Requirements, The proposed regulations
included a new paragraph for § 123 63(a)
to clarify EPAS authority to withdraw a
state’s NPDES çro ram if state fails to
develop an adequate program for
developing water quality-based effluent
limits in NP! ES permits. Today’s
regulations inch de this language
withG it cnange from the proposed
regulation.
The new language focuses on how
weil a state’s NPDES permits protect
water quality. If other elements of a
state’s surface water tc ’Jcs control
program adversely affect the quality of
NPDES permit limits, then EPA ciay
include other progrc elements in its
e ’alu tion cf a state’s NPDES program.
For exaciple. f a state fads to use
con tsterit and defensible procedures for
deveiopir,g water quality-based effluent
limits, EPA would consider this
deficc cy when evaluating a state’s
NPDES program.
Se’ieral commenters asked for a
de’ailed decnion of the exact meaning
of the pnrase “adequate reguiatory
rogrrn” as it is used in ‘oday’s
r l.t:ons EPA believrs, however, that
it s c’appropriate to be too prescriptive
about the requirements for stcte surface
wa:er tc ’ .cs control f3 cia. The
states have flexibility in developing
programs to aJdress toxics. and today’s
regula:icr.a do not affect this fle.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54 , No. 105 I Friday, June 2. 1989 I Rules and Regulations
23881
pollutant discharged by each Buch
ource. Indiiidual control strategies
,ICSs) are to be prepared for each point
source discharger on the paragraph (C)
list
Sone commenters maintained that
individual control strategies are
required for all three lists of waters to
be developed under section 304(1). and
that EPA’s interpretation that ICSs are
only required for the paragraph (2) list
of waters is contrary to Con essional
intent. The statutory language indicates
that individual contiol stratcg:es must
be developed which will produce a
reduction of point source discharges of
section 307(a) toxic pollutants in order
to achieve applicable water quality
5tcndards within three yesra of
estab!:shjnent of the strategy In order
for such point source controls, in
combination with “existing noriooint
source controls.” to effectively achieve
water quality standards, there is an
im lic:t assumption that such waters are
capable of achieving or making
si nificant progress toward achieving
water quality standards primarily by
ccntroUtng point sources of sectton
307(a) toxic pollutants. Such a scenano
corresponds to the paragraph (B) list of
aters. and therefore support EPA’s
interpretation that the ICS requirement
pphes only to the paragraph (B) list
However. like lCSs. permits for any
point scLrce discharges to waters on the
paragraphs (A)(i) and (B) lists must still
tr.clude effE ent limits to attain and
maintain water quality standards for all
parameters of concern including toxic
poH ,tar .ts. through the permits are not
si.biect to the compliance dates of
section 304(1).
Note that every state. as defined by
EPA at 40 CFR 122.2. is required to
submit lists of waters, sources and
amounts whether or not the state is
authorized by EPA to administer the
DES program.
Some commenters asked EPA how to
assess whether to list waters on the
paragraph (B) list which have point
sources which do not yet meet either
existing permit limits denved from
tcchnolo y.based standards under
section 301(b) . 306 and 307(b) of the
CWA. or do not yet have such permit
linuts EPA requires the state to list any
water that was not meeting its
applicable water quality standards by
February 4, 1989 on one or more of the
lists of waters described above, as
appropriate.
The only exception to this
requirement is provided when a state
demonstrates that enforceable permit
limits derived from technology-based
standards will bring the water into
compliance with applicable water
quality standards. However, EPA
expects that where compliance with
technology-based limits cannot be
expected within three years of the
pi-eparatian of the hat, there will be too
much uncertainty in the determination
of whether the limits are adequate to
achieve water quality standards in order
to demonstrate to EPA that the water
should not be listed.
If the existing permit limits are bused
on water quality standards and those
limits are not yet achieved as of
February 4, 1989 due entirely or
substantially to discharges from point
sources, the water should be included
on the paragraph (B) list. These waters
qualify for the paragraph (B) list even if
the permit has a compliance schedule to
achieve water quality standards on or
before June 4. 1992. In these cases it may
not be necessary to modify these
existing limits or schedules in the permit
to meet the compliance deadlines of
section 304(l), and the existing permit
may aualtfy as an ICS. However, the
waters and point sources must be listed
and the permit authority must still
review the existing permit. exercise its
judgment to dectde if the existing water
quality-based limits will meet the
section 304(1) compliance dates, and
revise the limits if necessary.
2. Explanation of Terms Used in section
3 04(l)(1)(B)
Paragraph (B) of section 304(l)(1)
introduces two terms that EPA believes
need further interpretation and
explanation to ensure consistency in
implementing this paragraph. These
terms are “applicable standard,” and
“due entirely or st.bstantially to
discharges from point sources.”
Paragraphs 130.10(d) (4) and (5) of
today s amendments contain these
interpretations.
a Applicable standard. For the
purposes of listing waters under
paragraph (B) of section 304(l)(1), in
paragraph 130.10(d)(4) EPA interprets
the “applicable standard” to mean
numeric criteria promulgated within
state water quality standards for
priority pollutants. Where a state
numenc criterion for a priority pollutant
is not promulgated in state water quality
standards, for the purposes of listing
waters under section 304(1), “applicable
standard” means the state narrative
water quality criteria to control toxic
pollutants fe g “no toxics in toxic
amounts”), These state narrative water
quality criteria can be interpreted, on a
chemical-by-cbenucal basis, by applying
a proposed state numeric criterion, or an
explicit state policy or regulation for
interpreting the narrative criterion, or an
EPA water qual.ty criterion published in
EPA’s water quality criteria guidance
documents, supplemented by other
relevant information. Other relevant
information may include, for example
EPA’s Integrated Risk Information
System (IRiS) database (see EPA
document EPA/600/&-86/032), local
exposure assessments, and other site-
specific information. Among these
alternative interpretations of narrative
criteria. EPA will give substantial
deference to a proposed state numeric
criterion, or an explicit state policy or
regulation where the interpretation will
fully protect the designated uses. In the
absence of any such acceptable state
interpretations which protect the
designated uses, an EPA national water
quality criterion must be used for
interpreting the state’s narrative water
quality criteria, supplemented with other
relevant information as descnbed
above
Many commenters objected to the
proposal to use national water quality
criteria to interpret the state’s narrative
water quality criteria for the purposes of
listing waters under section 304(l)(1)(B)
To make it clear that EPA ’s intent is not
to undermine or usurp state authority to
develop water quality standards, but to
establish a minimum baseline for
screening waters to be listed, EPA has
added language to today’s preair.b!c and
regulation that encourages a state.
whenever possible, to rely on its
formally proposed or adopted
interpretations, policies, criteria and r:s”
levels as the applicable standard for
listing purposes under s ction 304(l)
Only in the absence cf these is EPA
requir:ng the use of EPA water quality
cr.tena and specifying the risk le el o
be used Furthermore, EPA allows the
state to rely on additior,al or more
recent representative scientific data
when available to update the
irJormation in the EPA water quality
criteria documents, such as EPA’s
Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS) documents
In the absence of formally propored or
adopeJ numeric criteria for all of the
priority pollutants or explicit state
policies which interpret the narrative
water quality criteria. EPA needs some
critcria or definition of impairment to
identify waters for listing. If waters that
are exceeding narrative criteria are
excluded from the paragraph (B) list.
those states that have not yet set
numeric water quality criteria for the
priority pollutants would effectively be
exempted from the requirements of
section 304(l)(1)(B), despite the possible
presence of significant water quality
problems. The section 304(1) stututcry
language mandates that states and EPA
-------
FeiaroiRe srer/ Vol. 4. ?$o. 105 / FrIday. June 2. 1q89 / Rules and Regulations
r o ’e !orwar expeth ous1y to achieve
water qualiy goals and it does not
çtrov de rei.ef from deadlines due to Lack
uf mimer,c criteria w,thin state water
qUality standards. One commenter
suggested L at EFA require each state to
establish its own numeric czlterta in
water quality standards for the section
307(aJ to tic oiutartts as part of the
ecttoo 30r) st drvcdopment ccis
The CWA . es r.ot pronde tune Lr
deiay in iementir. secticri actil)
requmcnts penthi;g state action to
est . o jsh their own riunreric criteria in
water quality standards.
After iderir.fvm a water for hstrr’ on
t e section 304(l)(.lJtB) list by u u1g the
EPA criteria, a state may then use other
end more s.te-cpec:fic atn and criteria
to estab! b appropriate permit limits in
the mdivtu.xai control strategtes for the
oint sources art the water. This process
is described in 122.44(dllh) of today’s
rule.
EPA recewed comments arguing that
EPA must iriccrpo;ate its water quality
cntar a dacuments by reference in order
to require states tc list waters Li
‘iccordance with these docu ’ients. The
Administrative Procedures Act. 5 Li S.C.
t 52(al(1) and 522 s (1). requires agencies
to publi ’ih in the Federal Register or
incorporate by referer.ce with approval
of the Director of the Federal Register.
cli “substantive nidos• EPA has
amended 130.1O(d)(4) to allow states
to list water’s on the basis of their own
tnterpreta 1ons of the state narrative
criteria, and the use of EPA water
quality criteria documents ia clearly not
mandatory. Therefore. EPA is cot
•ncorporaurig the cr lt ’r.a documents by
reference in today’s r.ile. (See the
discussion a! th.a issue La sec!.kin fli A.
abct’o)
Several commenters aski d if state
narrative water q ’iality criteria apply to
all waters regard. es3 of their designated
use. Narrabve water quality cnten
apply to all desi tatcd uses at all flows
unless specified otherwise in a st&e’s
water quality standards. It is EPA’s
pohciy that no acutely toxic cor.ditlons
may exist us arty state waters,
regardless of dcsi tated use. A state’s
narraflve water quality artetla and
interpretations of its narrative water
quality criteria may be more protective
than the levels necessary to prevent
acutely toxic conditions. For more
information. pleaae refer to EPA’s Water
Quality Standa:.is Handbook.
December. 1083.
One commrienter requested that the
definition of applicable standard inchide
the water quality standards and
limitations established under the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978.
EP. t his not irirorporated this comment
intO today’s final rule. Section
o4lI)tst(8) refers to the “a plicabJe
standsrd under setitton 303 of this Act.”
Suu.on 303 cetablisbes the process for
t te adoption of water quality
cinn arda and, in those situations where
PA disapproves a state standard, it
esrabl:ahes the procees for EPA
of a weter quality
standsrd f r cuch st te. Provisicos of
he Gre t Lakes Water Quality
\ rcement are not standards ‘under
sec’. cn 303” at the Clean Water Act
L’ Due £.ctzro!y orSubstc.’itsc/.’y to
Disc. c’rges &ooi Point w ’cas
Paragraçh t30.10(d)( ) describes two
cocthttons that require a water to be
l 1 sted undar paragraph (B) of sect:on
3 4(l)(I) because the applicable water
qualttr standard is not expected t be
met “due entirely or substarnuaJy to
thschargee from point sources.” These
two cond ’ions are listed bek,.v,
in making the determination of
whether a water meets either of these
condWons. a state should perform a
water qudhty analysis usu’.g a des:gii
flow spec,fied in state regulation or
poLity, or ‘he critical design Llo’v as
establishad by EPA guidance or
reguiai.an (fur example. EPA’s
Technir.al Cuidanca Manual for
Performin; W.istelond Aliocauor,s—
Book VI. Design Conditnons .—Chapter!
Stream Design F!ow for Steady State
Modeling. September 1988 (EPA 440/4—
87- 004).)
Ifa water meets either of the
conuintior.s below, after the aeplicatton
of the technology-based requirements of
sections 51(b), JOB, and 307(b), then it
must acpcar on a states section
3C4(l)(1(B) list. (See disc’.ission itt
section 111 B.i of this preamble art
application of iechnology.based
reqwremnents for maxing list ing
decisions
(a) E.’n’iting or additional water
quaiity .based limits on one or more
point sources would result in the
achievement of an applicable water
quality standard for a priority pollutant
Oi l
fb I The discharge of a pnority
pollutant from one or more point
sources, regardless of any ronpoint
source contribution of the same
pollutant, is sufficient to cause, or is
expected to cause, art excursion above
the applicable water quality standard
for the priority pollutant.
‘The proposed rulemaking contained
three conditions. Many r.ommenters
obtected to one or more of them: some
supported one or more of therm, The
Agency decided to revise conditions (a)
and (b slightly and c elete rondi:ori (c)
in response to comments
Many ccmmenters objected to the
three conditions in the proposal beca
the conditions do not consnder the
proportion of point sourca contributions
to r.onpoint source contributions ntd
thereby could require controls on pont
sources which may be conuibuting
re!atit ely small amounts of the poilut trt
cf concern. Some corr.menters sugges:o l
FPA destgriate a SPCCLfiC percentage tn t
the point source would have to
contribute r i order to be listed EP.’i.
decided not to revise the conditior.s
responce to these comments becasuse it
3 important whenever pcasi 5 ie to brtn
waters into compliance with water
quality standards, and if addtt onat
controls on point sources will do so.
then they should net be delayed or
omitted due to contribut:ong from
nonpamnt sources. Furthermore.
proportions arc difficult to calcuiate
because they vary widely. ‘cr examute.
rainfall events can change dramatica
the propert:on of point and nonpoint
source coniributionis by contributing
very large but occasional and ai c ;
unaredictable loads Erorn conpoint
sources. Hoi ever, to the extent that
relative point and rionpomnt source
car.tnbumiorLs can be detercnmed. a slate
may make approoriate and cost.
efecuve adjustments to respectl e
control requirements for nonpoir.t an l
point sources through the total
maximum daily Load and wasteioad
allocation processes established zcer
40 CFR 130.7.
Many commenters objected to the
pr posed conditions on the basis thai
controls on point sources may not
necessarily bring the water into
compliance with the water qua Lty
standard since the ncrtponnt source
contribution alone can cause excurs’ons.
tnt these cases, the comznenters ar tmed
an NPDES permit would not be aolc to
be issued that meets EPA’s definition of
art individual control strategy. The
conditions were not revised or deletad
in response to these comments. in
essence, these comments suggest that
EPA should list waters on the bests of
whether or not the water quality
standard can be achieved within the
statutory framework of section 304(1!,
rather than on the basis of the polluta’it
load to the stream from point sources
EPA believes that the Congressional
purpose of controlling potrit sources
which are substantial contributors to ii
failure to meet water quality standards,
would be best accomplished by focusing
on the point source discharges to
particular waters. If EPA were to define
“due • substantially to discharçes
train point sources” to exclude waters
where the water quality stand. ircts
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 54, No. 105 I Friday, rune 2. 1989 / Rules and Regulations
23383
annot be met by point Source controls
ine. then the discharges to some of the
. ost polluted waters may not be
controlled. Congress enacted a
comprehensive scheme to address
waters impaired by both point and
nonpoint sources of toxic pollutant.,. At
the same time that it enacted section
304(l). Congress passed section 319 to
address nonpoint sources. When section
304(l)(l)(B) is read together with section
319. EPA believes that all waters not
achieving water quality standards for
priority pollutants should be listed
pursuant to at least one or sometimes
both sections of the Act. To exclude a
water from the section 304(l)(1)(B) list
because of noripoint sources would
leave open the possibility of a state
excluding the same water from its
section 319 list because of point source
contnbution , The result of such an
approach could be that waters needing
both point and nonpoint source controls
to meet water quality standards might
be excluded from both programs.
EPA believes that states should make
continuous progress toward the
attainment of water quality standards as
required by the Act, and that controls on
the point source contribution of a
priority pollutant should not be delayed
‘rmtted while awaiting effective
trols on nonpoint sources of the
pollutant, in cases where there are
significant loadings of a toxic pollutant
from nonpoint sources, and effluent
l:mits on the point sources by
themselves ma not bring the water into
cornpuance with the applicable water
quality standard, art ICS will satisfy the
language of section 304(l)(1)(D) if the
effluent limits in the ICS are consistent
with a wasteload allocation for the
discharger. (See section IU.D.i for
discussion on why EPA belie es that
this approach is reasonable and
appropriate.)
To address commenterg concerns that
an ICS does not address nonpoint
sources. EPA requires that the
supporting documentation for an ICS
show evidence that the impact of
nonpoint sources on the identified
segment has been considered during the
preparation of total maximum daily
loads (TMDLs) and wasteload
allocations (WLAs). EPA also
encourages permitting authorities to
utilize all available authorities to control
nonpoint sources, including section 319
of the CWA.
Many cominenters felt that the
‘lage in cor.ditlon (c) in the proposed
as too subjective, vague and was
j authorized by the statute. EPA
agees and has deleted condition (c) in
response to these comments.
In addition, EPA has deleted Exlubit
A from the final rule. Exhibit A, which
appeared in the proposed rule, was an
illustration for deternurung if the
concentration of a priority pollutant is
entirely or substantially due to
discharges from point sources. This
chart has been deleted 8ince it caused
considerable confusion and because it
illustrated only seven of myriad possible
discharge scenarios, all of which could
not be illustrated,
Finally, the proposed word “initial”
has been replaced by the word
“existing” in final condition (a). EPA
believes the word “uutial” is vague, and
the word “existing” more clearly
describes the situation where existing
Limits on one or more point sources, if
made effective, would bring the water
into compliance with an applicable
water quality standard, and therefore it
should be listed on the paragraph (B)
list. This change does not signify an
expansion of the listing requirements,
but is a correction in the language which
makes it consistent with other parts of
today’s rule. For example, this change is
consistent with section ffl.B.i of today’s
preamble which clarifies that if the
water was not meeting or was not
expected to meet that water quality
standard on or before February 4. 1989
due entirely or substantially to
discharges from point sources, it must
be listed on the paragraph (B) list even if
the point sources on a water already
have existing water quality-based
effluent limitations designed to meet a
water quality standard. No commenters
requested this change in the language,
but EPA believed it was necessary to
make the correction for the reasons
stated above,
For the purposes of interpreting the
term “due entirely or substantially to
discharges from point sources.” any
discharge which meets the definition of
a point source under 40 CFR 122.2 must
be considered as such for the purposes
of listing waters and point sources under
section 301(l)(1)(B), including discharges
from combined sewer overflows (CSOs)
and discharges from storinwater
outfalls, In addition, water quality
lznpaurnents due to in-place sediments
which have been substantially or
entirely contaminated or deposited by
priority pollutant loadings currently
being discharged from an active and
operat ing point source subject to section
402(a) of the CWA. must be listed under
paragraph (B) of section 304(l) and the
discharger must be lIsted under
paragraph (C). If the sediments have
been contamina led or deposited entirely
or almost entirely by nonpoint sources
or by a facility Cr site which is no longer
in operation or is abandoned, and
therefore cannot be issued an NPDES
permit, EPA would not consider the
contamination to be due to a pomt
source when evaluating whether a water
should be listed on the paragraph (B)
list. EPA emphasizes that the sediments
themselves are not considered point
sources, but the contamination or
deposition of them by active and
operating industrial or municipal
facilities is considered as contamination
that is due to a point source.
Some commenters asked for
clarification on whether to list waters
based on exceedances of criteria in the
water column or based on biological
impairment caused by contarnina ted
sediments. Waters may be listed on
either basis, The evaluation fur listing
on the section 304(l)(1)(B) list is based
on whether there is an excursion or
expected excursion above an applicable
narrative or numeric criterion for a
priority pollutant which is designed to
protect the designated uses. If the
contaminated sediment is causing
biological damage it may be impairing
the designated uses of a water, and
therefore a state’s narrative criteria for
toxics may be exceeded. Or if the
sediment is releasing a priority pollutant
back into the water colun n in amounts
that exceed the allowable
concentrations, the state’s numeric
criteria is being exceeded, In either of
these situations, the waters, as well as
the appropriate dischargers, should be
listed. if the contamination is due
entirely or substantially to point
sources
Some commenters thought that EPA
intended states to list waters where the
sediment is contaminated due entirely
or almost entirely to nonpoint sources or
inactive point source dischargers. EPA
does not intend this, Also, EPA did not
intend to suggest in the proposed rule.
as Borne comnmenters beheved, that if
there is a water quality problem due to
in-place sediments which have been
contaminated entirely or almost ent reIy
by an abandoned or inactive point
source or by nonpoint sources, that the
water must be listed if there is any
active point source of the same priority
pollutant. The water would only be
listed if the active point source is
entirely or substantially contributing to
or causing the sediment contamination,
which is in turn impairing the uses of the
water. Thus, for listing purposes, EPA is
treating di8chargers which are
contaminating sediments in the same
manner as other dischargers,
When a state evaluates whether a
water is impaired “due entirely or
substantially to discharges from point
-------
23804
Federal Re istar / Vol. 54. No. 105 / Friday, rune 2. 1 9 I Rules and Regulations
sources.” the evaluation must be based
only on the contribution of one priority
pollutant at a time from the point
sources, and only for prionry pollutants.
Therefore, a water quality problem due
to a pollutant which is not a priority
pollutant may net be taken into account
when deter?ntnir, whether a water
should or should not be listed on the
aragreph (B) list for pr.ority pollutants.
For ev4rnple if a water does not meet
the wa r quality cntenoo for chromium
(a priority pofluzant) from point source
ccntribut øcs, nor does it meet the water
quality crite on for pH (a conventional
pollutant) trcai either point or nonooint
sources. &e state must still list trus
water on list, because cf the
chromium point sot.rce coritribunon.
Even though a water may still riot meet
its designated uses due to another
rollutant. EPA does not want the states
to d:lay coni.ro!hn.g a pnonty pollutant
of concern from a point source. (t 1 S a
matter of policy. EPA urges states to
a&tack the sarns priority to the
id riuficaflon ar.i conn’ol of all non.
riority poll tan’s of concern)
One carnmenter e’ pressed conr rn
bou1 being able to develop ECSs for
combined sewer overflows and
torinwater outfaiis. EPA acknowledges
t at wri tine permits for these sources
nay be difficult. However. ease in
wriung the individual control strategy or
i bdity to meet apprepr.ate permit limits
is not the besic or listing waters and
‘oint sources under section 304 ).
Another con-,menter contended that
rider section 402 of the C’WA urban
itcr’znwater discharges do not have to
riect permit lunits until 1994 at the
ea”lieat EPA disagrees. Section
402 p)(2)(E) of the CWA states that ‘ta)
cischarge for which the Administrator
the State determines that the
storinwater discharge contributes to a
‘ io ation of a water quality standard or
is a si .jficant contributor of pollutants
to waters of the United States’ is
exempted from the general rule that EPA
cr the state cannot require a permit for
storeiwater discharges prior to October
1, 1992. Stormwater discharges listed
pursuant to section 304(l) qualify for this
exemption. Furthermore, Congress did
rot specifically exempt any categories
of point sources from the requirements
of section 304(1).
3. PreparatIon and Review of the Lists
The CWA requires the states to have
submitted the four section 304 (lj(l) lists
to EPA for review and approval on or
before February 4, 1989. Paragraphs
130.10(d)(1)—(3]. promulgated as part of
EP.Vs interpretive rule for the Water
Quality Act on January 4, 1389 (Federal
Register Vol. 54 No. 2 at 2t8) already
require this submission, along with the
rcqwrelnent that these lists be reviewed
and approved or disapproved by EPA.
In addition to paragraphs (4) and (5)
discussed above, todays rules also add
paragraphs (6) through 11J to subsection
130 .!G(d). Paragraphs (d and (7)
describe the data that each state must
lire in developing the lists, and the
documentation that each must provide
t EPA when sutimilttng lists to EPA.
Paragraph describes the basis upon
which EPA will approve or disapprove a
state’s lists. Paragraphs (6) through 8)
are discusspd in this section of the
preamble. aw paragraphs (31. (13) and
(Ii) discuss public notice and Lcmsaerit
procadures and are discussed in sectiin
1II.D 2 of this preamble.
a. Use of Existing and Readily
, ‘lva:/cbie Data. Because EPA believes
that states shriuld build on the work that
has already been done in the continuous
process of assessing water quality,
today’s amendments allow statos to use
existing ar.d readily available data
when they develop their lists. Also. the
anilittious dead mnes of the CWA ra uu e
EPA to forgo a requirement for lengthy
monitoring designs and extensive
collection of new data and to rely on
existing and readily available data. The
regulation which allows states to rely on
exiating and readily available data
appears in proposed paragraph
130 10(d)(6 1.
To assist states in deciding what
existing end readily available data they
should rely on, XPA is desi sauag
sixteen categories of waters about
which, as a minimum, each state must
assemble and evaluate all existing and
readily available data. These categories
of waters are described in paragraph
130.10(d)(6). EPA considers the exist.ng
and readily available information aiid
data about the categories of waters
described in paragraph 130.tO(d)(6) to be
the minmiusn data and information that
a state must assemble and evaluate
when prc paring lists in order for EPA to
have an adequate basis to approve or
disapprove the lists. States should
obtain any other additional data and
information needed to identify and
determine as accurately as possible
which waters and point sources to list,
These categories reflect what EPA
considers to be the ininunurn existing
and readily available water quality data
and information that a state and EPA
can reasonably obtain. This existing
data u ’.chides data that states should
tave developed in the course of
reviewing arid revising water quality
standards, evaluating needs for
technology-based cr water quality-
based controls. developing total
maximum daily loads (ThIDLs),
wasteload allocations and load
allocations (WLAs/LAs). issuing
permits. and monitoring to determine the
effectiveness oi pollution controls.
Furthermore, CPA is requiring that the
states assemble end evaluate this
rnimmwn e.isting and readily availab!e
data because it encourages cooperat ion
and communication amor.g the many
Federal. state and local government
agencies and private orgaruzatlons that
collect, analyse or report water quality
data and information.
EPA is requiring that these waters be
evaluated for the purposes of daveloping
the three Lists cf waters required by
section 304(l because they are either
waters which have been reported by the
state or other government or private
sector agencies as fading to meet water
quality standards or as having a hign
potential [ or not meeting water quabry
standards, or they are waters which
rece ve point source discharges. EP.
believes that if a state evaluates ail
cvat rs itt these categor.es it will iden .
vir alLv all waters that may neec i . be
Listed.
L’iforrnatrnn and data about the
categories of waters described in
paragraph 130.10(d) are of two general
types. The first is existing and readily
available data and reports from Federal.
state, local and private sectors. The
second Is dilution calculation results
generated by EPA and the states for use
as a screening tooL These two types of
information are discussed below.
There are many existing lists, reports
and assessments that provide valuable
information to states when identifying
and preparing lists of waters. New
paragraph 130.10(d)(6) designates the
minimum information and reports which
each state must assemble and evaluate
in order to identify waters that meet the
section 304 (l) statutory requirements icr
listing. These tzidude state section
305(b) reports. Clean Lakes
Msesainents. the section 319 Nonpoint
Source Assessments, the National
Priority List prepared under CERCLA.
reports of adverse water quality
conditions by the I nternational Joint
Commission and the Great Lakes Water
Quality Board, and the Toxic Checucal
Release Inventory developed pursuant
to Title UI of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act
of 1988. among others. Beyond waters
identified by these specific reports, the
final rule requires the state to obtain
any existing and readily available data
about other specific waters which
should be considered for listing on one
or more of the lists required by section
30 1(l ). far example. waters i here fishin
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 54. No. 105 I Friday, June 2. 1989 I Rules and Regulations
bans and recreational restrictions are in
effect, waters which have had repeated
shjulls. and waters where there are
waterfowl or wildlife Consumption
advisories or bans. Appendi.x B of the
Final Guidance for Implementation of
Requirements under section 304(1) of the
Clean Water Act a Amended (March
1980) lists other available data sources
that should be consulted.
A few commeriters requested that
other reports or sources of data be cited
in the regulations, to ensure that the
states review them. EPA has not named
these specific reports in the regulatory
language because there are many
reports or data sources that a state
could use and they can not all be named
spe;ifically in the regulations. However.
subparagraph 130 10 [ d)(6)(xiu) is broad
eriou h that it includes any 8Uch reports
or information sources that report on
water quality. Also. EPA has mentioned
many of tnesa reports suggested by the
com enters as examples of possible
data and information sources
The second general type of
ir.formation that EPA is requiring that
the states consider, as a mnizumum. is
screening information developed using
dilution calculations, Dilution
calculations should be conducted to
indicate possible excursions above
irnenc water quality criteria within
cite water quality standards (or EPA
water quality criteria where state
nume:ic critena are not available)
D.lLuon calculations should be
performed fo-. bot not limited to. all
po.rit source d scharges of prionty
pollutants. ammon1a and chlorine to
eip identify waters and di chargers for
tisting on any of the Lsts. At a inirumuin.
waters w:tn primary industrial major
and minor point source dischargers.
major publicly-owned treatment works
(POTWi), and waters with other major
point source dischar8ers must be
screened for expccted excursions above
the water quality criteria by performing
clilu i on ca!culatioris using site-specific
cata, or. if necessary, data based on
national estimates. EPA emphasizes that
to list a water on the Paragraph (B) list.
the state does not necessarily need to
ha’, a enough data to indicate exactly
v}’ich point source or sources may be
causing any observed or projected
critcria excursions or use impairments.
it is si.Jficient that the data indicate that
toe .ipplicable water quality standards
are not being achieved or are not
expected to be achieved due entirely or
su5stantially to discharges from point
‘urces. After identifying the water for
‘ig on the paragraph (B) list, the state
. . .iould then obtain as much discharger-
spectfic data as necessary to identify the
di’icliargerg which may be causing or
expected to cause the cricena
excursior.s, and thcr. place these
dischargers on the paragraph (C) list.
Where ambient data on criteria
excursions are being used to identify
watere, the state may use the criteria for
designated use support outlined in
Figure 1 of EPA’s Guidelines for the
Preparation of the 1988 State Water
Quality Assessment section 305(b)
Report. Figure 1 provides guidelines to
states in determining the degree to
which waters are supporting their
designated uses based on the frequency
of criteria excursions and comparison of
mean values to criteria.
Some commenters said that reliance
on existing and readily available data
could lead to inaccurate or unreliable
results and that EPA should clanfy that
states should make their listing
decisions on existing and readily
available accurate data. Also. EPA
should allow states to use professional
judgment in resolution of conflicting
data, EPA expects the state to uetermine
as much as possible the accuracy and
validity of their existing and readily
available data and information about
the sixteen categories of waters, or
about any other waters, when
developing the lists. EPA does not
expect the states to rely on old or
inaccurate data or information, If the
state finds that much of its existing and
readJy available data is unreliable. EPA
strongly encourages the states to obtain
more current add;tional data whene er
possible Also, EPA expects states to
exercise best professional judgment
when faced with confl:cting data.
Some comrnenters felt that requiring
the states to use all existing and readily
available data about the sixteen
categories of waters wcis too
prescnpnve or burdansome EPA is
requiring the states to examine the
categories in order to ensure that all
possible sources of existing and readily
available datd are considered It may be
that a state has found that a particulcir
category of data is unsuitable for use. To
accomiiiodate this situation, the
regulations provide that the siate submit
its reasons for a decision not to evaluate
any particular category of waters If a
state demonstrates to EPA that it has
reviewed all existir.g and reacJy
available data about the sixteen
categories as appropriate, it can reduce
the “second-guessing” by EPA. which
some commenters were concerned
about. when EPA reviews the lists.
EPA’s intent in requiring that states
re’,iew and evaluate at a minimum all
existing and readily available data on
the sixteen categories of water in
23885
paragraph 130.10(d), is to be sure that
EPA and the states cast a broad net in
the list development and review
process. The states are expected to
review and evaluate these data for
accuracy and reliability, determine
which waters are candidates for listing,
and then review and evaluate and
gather, if necessary, more site-specific
data on these candidates in order to
make their final listing decisions. In
short, these categories of waters are the
minimum beginning universe of waters
which states should evaluate for waters
qualified for the section 304(l) lists.
These latter would be the waters that
the data and information show, after
assurance of its reliability and the use of
professional judgment. cannot
reasonably be anticipated by the state
to attain or maintain applicable water
quality standards as described in
section 304(t)(1) of the CWA.
b. Documentation of Data and
tt’lethodolog,es Paragraph 130 iO(dfl7)
requires that each state subrt:t to EPA.
together with its lists of waters and
sources, documentation of all data and
methodologies used by the state to
develop the lists
Subpara ’aph (1) of (d)(7) requires
each state to submit a description of the
methodology used by the state to
develop each of the lists of waters and
point sources required by section 304(1).
This description of mnethodo!oay should
include assumptions and criteris used
by the state when reviewiii and
analyzing data and information
Suboaragraph (ii) requires the state to
provide a description of the data and
information used by the state, and to
specifically address which rif the
categories of waters described ii
paragraph (d)(6) were used If a state
does not assemble and eva!uate adta
about one of these catesories.
subparagraph (iu) requires the state to
provide the rational for ceciding not to
do so as part of its documentation
Subparagrapn (:v) requires the state to
provide any other information that the
Regional Adnwuatrator requests in
order to review the state’s submission of
lists Specifically, subparagraph (iv)
requires a state, if EPA requests, to
dttmonstrate good cause for not
including a water or discharger on one
or more of the required section 304(l)(1)
lists.
“Good cause” may include, but is not
limited to. the following:
• More recent or more accurate data.
• More accurate water quality
modeling.
-------
23838
Federal egister/voL 54. t’ o. 105 / Frday, j .ne 2. 1989 /Rulas and RegWaLons
• Flaws in the original analysis that
led to the water being identified in one
of the categories, or
• Changes in conditions. e g.. new
control eqIi.pmen or elimination of
discharges.
These above documentation
requirements are necessary because a
Regional Administrator’s cfflce may not
maintain all the available water quaLty
and diacharger data for all of its states.
There fore, part of the review by EP. . of
a state’s subnussion mi t r.ecessarily
include a review of the data.
assumptions and criteria used by the
state for listing waters and point sources
to er.sure that they are consistent with
the statutory arid regulatcz-y
requirements for listu g. For example. a
states documentation should reflect that
the state considered stormwater outfalls
as a point source when determining
whether a water is imparied due entirely
or substantially to discharges from poixt
sources.
Some commer.ters said that EPA’s
request for documentation in
§ 130.1C(d)(7) s burdensome and
without statutcry authority. Section
3 04 (I) requires EPA to review and
approve or th approve each s’ate’s lists.
(S e section m.D. c i this preamble
wluc,h dl3cusseg in detail EPA’s
authority to approve and disapprove
lists.) EPA remains convinced that in
order to review a state’s lists
adequately, the Agency must know on
what basis the state made its decisions
to list or not list waters and point
sources, and must be able to review all
existing and readiiy a%allable data and
information used for those decisions.
Because this information is crucial to
EPA’s review of a state’s lists, the
Agency does not view these
requirements to supply doizumentaticri
on methodologies, criteria and
assumptions as overly burden3ome and
d;d not revise the . -egulatcr; language as
cornznentcrs requ s:ed. La addaon.
because the state or EPA must provide
adequate public parucipation for these
lists, the state should be documenting its
decisions and mothodologies for this
purpose. Therefore these requirements
to develop and submit documentation
should not represent a significant
additional burden to the states.
Two ccinmer.ters requested that the
language in § 130.i0(d)(7)(iv) which
allows the Regional A’dmirustrmitor to
request any other additioital information
be revised to restrict the Regional
Administrator to requesting information
that is reasonable, necessary or
pertinent to determine the adequacy of
the stateq lists. EPA agrees with this
comment and has incorporated it into
the regufatery language .t ubparagrapPi
130.1Q(d)(7)(jv), Some commenters felt
that the “good cause” language in this
section is essentially ‘3ecor4-guessin ’
the state and is burdensome to the state.
EPA relies on its ra onale for requesting
documentation, discus8ed above, for its
decis:on not to revise thts language
pursuant to these comments. In addition.
EPA views the procedure for a state to
submit additional tnfo t mation as a way
to ensure that EPA does not ctisapprove
a state’s decisions that are foundcd on
an adequate basis. F.PA emphasizes that
a state does not have to automatically
submit “good cause” when submitting
its ists to EPA for review, but ouly
when the Regional Administrator
requests such i.nforrnat:on on specifIc
waterbadies or thschargers.
C. Review of List.s by EP 4. Section
304(1) requires that all states submit all
four lists described above to EPA no
later than February 4, 1989. Upon
receiving the lists from each state, the
Regional Adrnnustrator is required to
review and then approve or disapprove
each state’s lists. 1! a state fails to
submit a list Cr if a s’ate sutirnits an
inadequate Lit, then EPA must either
entirely or partially disaoprove the list
Section 304(11(2) gives EPA ‘120 da s to
aDprove or disapprove a states list and
where EPA entirely or partially
disapproves a state’s li t. EPA will. in
cooperation with the state, develop the
final list.
In order for EPA to complete its
revtew of a state’s lists, the state must
have met th data and documentation
requirements in proposed porographs (6)
and (7). The Regional Administrator will
approve each list if the state has met the
regulatory requirements for listing under
40 CFR 13010, and dIsapprove each list
that does not.
If. after reviewing the state he’s.
available data and any required
docunienta::on, the Regional
Administrator is satisied that the state
has :dentified and appropnately listed
all waters, then EPA will approve the
lists. (See Section IU.D of this preamble
for a detailed discussion of review and
approval and disapproval of lists and
tndividual control strategies,)
Some commenterg asked whether EPA
13 antenoing to apcly these requirements
to lists submittea before the fInal rule
becomes effective, and ac ued that to do
so would be to apply the regulation
retroactively, which is prohibited. The
regulations promulgated today will
apply to all Regional derisions issued
after the effective date of today’s rule.
EPA does not view this as appl,-tng the
regulations retroactively. Ra’her. EPA is
appi,ing the criteria for review ef lists
to decms:cn it ma es in the future
Some coninienters asked EPA to
include in today’s rule a procedure 1-
removing waters or po!nt sources fr
the section 3 0 4(l) lists. Listing of watt.
and point sources under section 304(1) 13
a one-time activity. Therefore, it is
unnecessary to develop reg’.ilations for
removing waters and point sources from
a list. The public cornmer.t and review
period providea by EPA or the state
provides orportunlty for waters or point
sources to be deleted frcrn. or added to.
a Jut.
C. Individual Control SLrvteg!eg
In addition to the four Ii ts required
by section 304(l)(1), the states must
prepare and submit to EPA an
ir.cjvidual control strategy (ICS) for
each point source on the (C) list. ThIS
section describes what EPA will
approve as an ICS.
On January 4. 1989, EPA codified
sections 304(l)(1 1(D). 304(l) (2). and
304(l)(3) of the CWA into a new section
in Part 123.—i 123 48. Sectori 123 46(a)
requries the states to submit ICSs to
EPA on or before February 4. 1989. a-in
123 4E4b) req tires EPA to appro’.Ta or
disapprove the ICSs by June 4. 189.
Today s rul s add new paragraphs
(cj-4f) to § 123.46. Paragraph (c) defines
an ICS. Paragraph (d) describes the
pe tzons submitted under sect;on
304 l)(3) Paragraph (eJ describes the
procedures EPA wtll use to approve or
disapprove ICSs. arid paragraph (f)
establishes the criteria that EPA will use
to evaluate an ICS.
Today’s regulations also re-
promulgate § 123 48(a). EPA onginal!y
promulgated this regulation on Janua”y
4. 1989. but it is necessary to amend th:s
language so the regulation more
accurately reflects EPA’s approach far
implementing section 304(l). The new
language clarifies that an ICS is required
for each point eourr.e tinder sectton
304(I)(1j(C) rather than each water
segment identified under section
3C 14(l )(1)fB).
1. Descrfption of an Indiv;dual Control
Strategy
Sectton 304(l)(1)(D) provides that an
individual control strategy must
produce a reduction in the discharge of
toxic pollutants from point sources
identified under secticn
3’)4(l)(I)(C) which is ‘ • • • sufficient, ifl
combination with existing controls on
point and nonpoint sources of pollution,
to achieve the applicable water qualify
standard as soon as possible, but not
later than three years after the date of
the establishment of such strategy.’
These elements of an individual ce.1tr
strategy are ccd.z.ed at 40 CFR ‘123
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 54. No. 105 / Friday, June 2. 1989 I Rules and Regulations
23837
Today’s regulations define an ICS as a
nal NPDES permit, a draft NPDES
ermit with a schedule for issuing a final
permit, or. for an on-site response action
under CERCLA, the decision document
for the response action. EPA received
many comments on the defInition of an
ICS The following preamble discussion
responds to these con nients and
clarifies some aspects of the definition
EPA has determined that, for point
source discharges to meet the
requirements of section 304(1), an ICS
must consist of a draft or final N’PDES
permit for each point source on the (C)
l,sL plus supporting documentation that
the permit has adequately considered
the impact from other discharges on the
identified segment. ICSs are required for
both currently permitted di3charges and
for point sources ident.fied on the (C)
ltst that do not have NPDES permits. A
sufficient ICS. therefore. consists of the
controls for each such point source
(NPDES permit linutations and a
schedule for achieving such lim itations
if they cannot be achieved upon permit
issuance) and docuinentat on wn ch
shows that the controls selected are
appropriate and adequate (i.e.. fact
sheets with information on total
maximum daily loads and wasteload
allocations). Enforcement orders and
orisent decrees, by themselves, are not
ddequate substitutes for ICSs. However.
an enforcement order or judicial decree
based on a final and sufficient NPDES
permit may be a part of the supporting
documentation for the ICS. provided the
ICS satisfies all applicable provisions of
section 304(l) of the CWA.
EPA believes this is the correct
interpretation of the term “individual
control strategy” because paragraph (D)
of section 304(l)(1) states that an ICS
must reduce discharges of toxic
pollutants through “effluent limitations
under section 402” of the CWA. Section
402 of the CWA establishes the NPDES
program. and the effluent limitations in
NPDES permits are the primary control
mechanism that EPA and the states use
to reduce point source discharges of
pollutants. By inserting a reference to
the NPDES program in paragraph (D)
EPA believes that Congress intended for
an NPDES permit to be the essential
element of an ICS.
The comments on EPA’s definition of
an ICS focused on two issues: First, an
ICS should include more than just
NPDES permits for point sources and
second an ICS should be developed for a
water segment. not for each individual
oint source. EPA considered these
..omments but decided to promulgate the
definition unchanged. for the reasons
discussed below.
a. Types of controls In arguing that an
ICS should be broader than an NPDES
permit, some cornmenters requested that
EPA approve state water quality
management plans as ICSs. EPA
remains convinced that such plans
would not satisfy the requirements of
section 304(1) because these plans are
not directly enforceable (although they
are binding on the states) and therefore
they cannot ensure, by themselves, that
limitations will be achieved within the
deadlines of section 304(1). This problem
of enforceability could be solved by
defining ICSs to include not oniy the
plans but also the permits necessary to
implement them. EPA is rejecting such
an approach because the two years
allowed by section 304(l) for developing
ICSs does not allow for a sequential
listing of waters, development of state
plans and development of permita based
on the plans To meet the section 304(1)
deadlines states would, for the most
part. be compelled to develop permits
before completing the planning process.
EPA believes that this suggestion would
not make good use of the planning
process, and would consume resources
without improving ICSs.
Several cornznenters argued that
EPA’s definition of an ICS makes point
sources responsible for nonpoint source
discharges and urged EPA to require
nonpoint source controls as a part of
ICSs. EPA agrees with the cornmenters
that nonpoint sources can be an
important toxics problem on some of the
waters identified for control under
section 304(1) EPA is not incorporating
nonpoint source controls into ICSs
because EPA does not believe that
Congress gave EPA the authority to
impose nonpoint source controls as a
part of an ICS. The statute clearly
contemplates the implementation of
ICSs through NPDES permits (through
the reference to “effluent limitations
under section 402”), which only provide
point source controls. The legislative
history supports this Interpretation. See
Rep. No. 99—1004, 99th Cong., 2d Sess.
pages 129-130. Furthermore, Congress
added section 319. which addresses
nonpoint source programs. at the same
time as section 304(l ). Section 319
requires identification of waters that
need nonpoint source controls to meet
water quality standards, and requires
submission of management programs
which identify, among other things,
methods for controlling nonpoint
sources of pollution. Because Congress
wrote a separate section for nonpoint
source programs, EPA does not believe
that Congress intended for EPA to
establish a nenpoint source control
program under section 304(l). As stated
in the proposal, EPA urges states to
implement nonpoint source controls
wherever necessary to meet water
quality standards To further encourage
nonpoint source controls EPA interprets
the statutes mandate to consider
“existing controls on point and nonpoint
sources of pollution.” section
304(l)(1)(D), as including nonpoint
source controls that will be in place by
June of 1992. (EPA explains the meaning
of this interpretation more thoroughly iii
the March. 1988 guidance)
Some commenters argued that EPA’s
definition of an ICS does not account for
multiple discharges to a receiving water
EPA disagrees. An ICS must be
consistent with any total maximum
daily loads (TMDLs) for the water
segment and wasteload allocations
developed for the discharge (where the
wasteload allocation is approved by
EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 130 7) An ICS
must also include documentation
indicating that a water will meet all
applicable hater quality standards EPA
believes this definition implements the
congressional desire for coordination in
the evaluation and control of point
sources discharging the same pollutants
to the same water segments.
b. EPA’s point source-based approach
EPA’s definition of an ICS and the
amendments to 123.40(a) require an
ICS for each point source on the (C) list.
Some cornmenters noted that section
304(l)(1)(D) requires ICSs for “each such
segment” identified in paragraph (B)
EPA acknowledges that section
304(l)(1)(D) refers to watcrbody
segments. EPA considered defining an
ICS as the aggregation of all perlmts and
supporting documentation for a water
segment. EPA is not adopting this
expanded definition of an ICS because
congressional intent in enacting section
304(l) is better accomplished by
retaining the proposed definition If
permits were aggregated to form an ICS
for a water segment then the ICS could
not be approved, and in many cases
would not be implemented, until all
permits for the water segment were
developed and incorporated into the
ICS. Furthermore, the aggregation of
permits would result in the same level of
control as single-permit lCSs Given the
deadlines that Congress imposed in
section 304) 1) it is clear that Congress
established a premium on expeditious
attainment of water quality standards.
EPA sees no reason to delay an ICS
until all permits for a water segment are
developed. In addition to finalizing the
proposed definition. EPA is amending
§ 123 46(a) to make clear that ICSs
should be submitted for each point
source on the (C) list.
-------
23888
Federal Re ster JVo . 54. No. 05 I Friday, urie 2. 1999 / Rulea and Regulattons
EPA rejected the idea of creating a
new mechanism for controlling point
sources under secticm 304(1) because a
new mechanism is not necessary to
implement section 204 (I ), and the
deadlines in section 30411) do not allow
enough time to design. promulgate and
implement a new mechanism for
controlling discharges of pollutants to
surface waterq.
In urging EPA to take a se nent-bised
ap;roach some commenters argued that
such an approach is nccessary to
account for multiple discharges to .1
watr i.egment. However, an ICS mu t
be concistent with wasteluad
allocations and must include
docuxnenatlon mthcat 1 ng that the
effluent limitations are sufficient to meet
the wasteload allocation. EPA believes
that these requirements rnplement th.t
congrersional desire for coordination
when e%aluatu’.g and controlling point
sources d.scharges of the same pollutant
to the same waer se gment.
c. ttpprov 1 of perrr:ts t. rt are not ; et
e, Sc:4v . . Where a state demonstrates
that a final permit cannot be issued by
February 4. igeo. a drafi permit and
supoorting documentation may quaiify
as an ICS However, such a drsft permit
must accompanied by a sthedule
indicating that the final permit will be
is ueU on or before February 4, 1990.
One comnienter _sk€d EPA to require a
more burdensome shcwmg from states
before allowing until February 4. 1990 to
issue the final permit. EPA believes that
the section 304 (1) requirement for
achieving controls as sona as possible
along with a deadline for issuing a
permit is sufficient to g’:ide the stat-is
and regions in meeting the requirements
of section 304(l).
EPA ’s definition of an !CS includes
draft permits because the ciescriphon of
an ICS in section 304(11(11(D) allows for
such an interpretation, and because it Is
unrealistic to expect final NPDES
permits to be prepared for every point
source on the (C] lists within the
ambitious deadlines of section 304(1).
Water quality-based effluent limits can
be technically difficult to prepare and
are often sub3ect to extensive public
comment during the permit development
process. Today’s proposal to include
draft permits in the definition of an ICS
requires the permitting authority to
prepare th ’ effluent limitations required
by 304(l)(1) (D). but at the same time.
gives the states the necessary flexibility
to meet the ambitious deadlines of
sei_tion 304(1).
A draft permit prepared as an ICS
wider section 304(1) must be issued ii a
lznal permit within oiie year of
.stab(tshment of the ICS. Therefore, if a
state submits a draft permit to EPA on
or before February 4. lt)89 the ICS must
be issued as a mel ‘(PDES permit on or
before February 4. 1990. In the case of
state-issued ICSs. the one year time
period allows EPA to exercise its
authority under section 304 (l)f 2) if a
state fails to issue a final NPDES permit
within the one year time period. In the
case of EPA-issued ICSs. the ICS may be
a draft permit, and like the states. EPA
would also have an to one year in which
to issue a final NPDES permit.
Scrne coimneriters argued that EPA’s
choice of a one year deadline for a state
to finalize draft permits was arbitrary
and the connection to EPA’s
implementation of section 30411] was too
tenuous to support it. EPA believes that
to ensure success of the section 304(1)
program no ICS should be
unconditionally approved until tt
represents the states final decision to
implement controls. If an approval
contingent upon a final decision by a
state must be subsequently disapproved,
EPA must have sufficient time to
prepare an ICS by its deadline of Julie 4,
1990. EPA believes that allowing states
more than one year to issue final
penr ts would ieopardtze EPA’s ability
to inset the section 304( 1) deadlines, In
addition. EPA believes that one year is
s i.Jfic:ent rime for the states to dovelop
ftnal permits from approved drafts.
Where EPA app 1 ovos a draft permit
as an ICS. EP:Va approval is
automatically conditfovied on the state’s
meeting the schedule for issuing the
final permit. if a state fails to meet the
schedule for issuing the final permit.
then EPA may exercise its authority to
disapprove the ICS and impleniant
section 304(l).
An NPDES permit usually becomes
effecnva 30 days after a final decision to
issue or modify the permit unless an
evidentiary hear ng is requested under
40 CFR 124.7- I. Evidcntiary hearings can
delay the effective date of the conditions
challenged in the permit Because these
potential delays could jeopardize the
ability of EPA and the states to meet the
deadlines in section 304(1), and because
a final permit reflects the final decision
of the permitting authority with respect
to the permit. EPA will accept a flnal
(but not necessarily fully effective)
NPDES permit as an ICS.
d. CERCLA sites. As EPA noted in the
proposal, it s possible that some
CEJICLA sites will be sub ect to section
304(1) because these sites can be point
source dischar;es of a priority pollutant.
If a CERCLA site qualifie, for the (C) list
under section 304(11, then the site must
also satisfy section 304 ( 1 1( 11 (D) relating
to ICSs. including the deadlines in
seation 304 (I) For “off-site’ rospooie
actions, the CzRCLi site discharger
must obtain an N1’DES permit, and will
therefore satisfy section 304 (I) in tin-
came way as other point sources su
to section 304{fl(1)(C). For “on-site’
actions however, the discharger must
meet all “applicable or re!evant and
appropriate requirements” of the CWA.
but is exempt under section 121 of
CERCLA from the procedural
requirements of the N’PDES pernuttirig
process. Therefore, on-site actions that
are su’o 1 ect to section 304(1) w ll satisfy
pa:agreph (D) of section 304(1) through
compliance with applicable or retevant
and appropriate requirements under the
CWA. as described in the decision
document for that on-site response
action. Although EPA exoects that there
will be relatively few CERCLA sites
subject to section 3 4(1), EPA
emphasizes that the ICS for any such
CERCLA site is subject to the deadlines
in section 304(l). The proposed definition
of an ICS at 4 123.46(c) includes
CEflCLA dec’3ion documents for on-site
response actions.
e. Non -appro red states. A state that is
not aoprrived by EPA to administer the
NPDES program will fuifiil its
obligations undir section 304(11(11(D) by
prepart-ig and submitting wasteload
allocations to the Regional Offices (or
EPA review and approval. Under the
NPDES program, non-approved states
assist EPA in issuing permits by
providing EPA with background
information, wasteload ailocationa, and
certifications under section 401 of the
CWA. EPA uses the wasteload
allocations to prepare the NPDES
permits for the state. The role of non.
approved states with respect to ICSs
will be the same as their role with
respect to NPDES permits. Non-
approved states are responsible (or
preparing waeteload allocations for
each point source on the (C] list. The
Regional Offices wiLl prepare and issue.
in cooperation with cion-approved
states, fInal NPDES permits in the state.
EPA received comments both supporting
and criticizing this interpretation of the
role of non-approved states. One
commenter argued that the innunial role
of non-approved states undermines
EPA ’s definition of an ICS as an iPDES
permit. EPA disagrees with the
commeater because section 304(l(1) D)
provides that inthvld a1 control
strategies are to achieve reductions in
discharges from point scurces “through
the establishment of effluent limitations
under section 402.” Non-approved states
do not have the authority to establisn
effluent limitations in NPDES permits.
Therefore, the role of non-approved
states is necessarily thff rsrit from that
of approved states in iinpiemer.tirig
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 105 I Friday. June 2. 1989 1 Rulea and Regulations
23889
section 304 (l). Furthermore, a non-
approved state’s role will not be
minimal. Preparing WLA’s and
providing section 401 certifications
requires the state to be fully involved in
the preparation of an ICS. Although
state certifications under section 401 of
the CWA are required for LCSs, EPA’s
regüitioris at 40 CFR 124.53 provide that
a state will be deemed to waive its right
to certify under sectIon 401 of the CWA
tithe state fails to exercise this nght
within 60 days from the date that EPA
mails the draft permit to the state.
Section 304 (l) establishes a three-year
deadline for achieving water quality
standards, whereas section 301(b)(1)(C)
requires water quality standards to be
met by uly 1. 1977. The different
de3dlines in the two sections raise the
question of how the two sections
interact. EPA believes that Congress did
not intend for section 304(1) to repeal the
Ju.y 1977 deadline in section
30 1(blll)(C). Rather, Congress
reco uzed that permittees will need a
reasonable amount of time, not to
exceed three years. to comply with new
effluent limits that are necessary to
achieve new water quality standards. or
re-interpretationS of existing water
quality standards. On the other hand.
utere is no indication that Congress
tended for section 304 (1) to be art
extension for permittees who have
already failed to comply with effluent
limitations. An ICS may not extend a
compliance schedule for achieving
effluent hm 1 ts if the permittee has
already fatted to abide by the
compliance schedule. Also, where new
effluent hmita will require construction
or other activities (e.g. wastewater
treatment system optimization.
pretreatment program implementation.
etc) an ICS may include a compliance
schedule for such activities. The reason
for this distinction is that section 304(1)
requires that water quality standards be
met “as soon as possible.” If a permit
already includes a compliance schedule.
then the permitting authority has
already given the permittee a
reasonable time to comply wtth effluent
limits and therefore achieve water
quality standards. Therefore, where a
compliance schedule has not been met.
thc (CS cannot extend the schedule.
Rather, an enforcement order may be
required as part of the supporting
documentation for the ICS.
EPA received comments requesting
EPA to extend the deadline for
-mpliance with the effluent limits
osed pursuant to section 304(1). EPA
. es not have the authority to extend
these statutory deadlines. EPA does,
however, have the authority to exercise
its enforcement discretion. The
following discussion explains the range
of actions EPA may take in appropriate
cases.
It is possible that some perruittees
may not meet the effluent limits cii or
before the deadline in aection 304(1) for
ach evrng applicable water quality
standards. For example. the treatment
technology may not be immediately
available to reduce the discharge of a
priority pollutant to the levels necessary
to protect aquatic life and human health.
in such cases, the NPDES permit may
contain a schedule of compliance that
leads to compliance with section 304(l)
and other requirements of the CWA.
(Note, however, that a schedule of
compliance must require compliance rio
later than applicable stanitory
deadlines.)
It the permittee does not achieve
effluent limits within the time specified
in the pernut (which roust be no later
than the applicable deadline in section
304(l )), the CWA provides for a range of
enforcement actions. These actions are
provided for in section 309 of the CWA
and include administrative orders.
administrative penalty orders, and civil
or criminal judicial actions. The
appropriate enforcement response is
determined an a case .by .case basis. In
limited cases in the past, EPA has issued
administrative orders concurrently with
an NPDES permit where the effluent
limits are effective immediately upon
permit issuance. Factors which are
considered when determining the
appropriate enforcement response
include but are not limited to: the
potential impact of the discharge on
human health or the environmenti the
compliance history of the perrn.ittee and
any good faith efforts by the permittee
to achieve compliance.
EPA recognizes that there may be
situations where compliance with
applicable water quality standards will
require ICSs for a number of point
sources on a stream segment. or may
require nonpoint source controls. More
than one point source may contribute
the same prionty pollutant to a
waterbody identified on the “B” list, and
therefore, controls on only one point
source may not achieve water quality
standards. In other cases where there
are significant loadings of a toxic
pollutant from nonpoint sources, effluent
limits for the point sources, by
themselves. rosy not attain and maintain
applicable water quality standards. (See
the discussion of the phrase ‘entirely or
substantially” in section UI.B.2 of this
preamble.) hi these cases, it is EPA ’s
position that an ICS may satisfy the
language in paragraph (Dl of section
304 (l). and in 123.46(c), (which require
the ICS to achieve water quality
standards). it the effluent limits for the
point sources are consistent with a
wasteload allocation for the point
source. This approach allows the
permitting authority to develop an ICS
for each point source that, together with
other point or nonpoint source controls.
is designed to attain and maintain
applicable water quality standards. This
approach is also consistent with EPA’s
eusting surface waler toxics control
program, in which each point source is
obLigated to reduce its contribution of a
pollutant according to its wasteload
allocation. The result of this approach
should be substantial reductions in point
source contributions of priority
pollutants, which is consistent with
Congress’ intent in enacting section
304 (I)
Where a waterbody on the [ B) list ha3
a significant nonpoint source of a
pnonty pollutant that could impede
progress toward achieving water quality
standards. EPA and the states should
address the nonpount source using all
available authorities including state and
local authorities and section 319 of the
CWPt. (Note that where point and
nonpoint sources on the same
waterbody contribute different pncrity
pollutants, the degree of rionpoint sourcr
contributions will not affect the decision
whether to list the watei under
paragraph B of section 304(11(1), Far
more information see the discussion of
the (B) list in section 111.5 of this
preamble.)
Nonpoint source loadings are included
in the process of developing water
quality-based effluent limits for point
sources because nonpoint sources are
considered when developing TMDLs
and WLAs under section 303(d) of the
CWA. EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 1302
require that TMDLB account for
nanpoint source loadings. The
regulations also specify that TMDLs
provide for “tradeoff3” between point
sources and nonpoint sources, and that
TMDLs submitted under 40 CFR 130.7
must be approved by EPA. EPA
emphasizes that noripoint source
controls can make significant
improvements iii water quality. For
many waters, the most significant
sources of pollutants are noripoint
sources. Nonpoint source controls are. in
some cases, more cost-effective than
point source controls, and the
regulations at 40 CFR 130.2 provide that
the relative cost of point source and
nonpoint source controls may be
considered (among other factors such as
rcliabzlaty and technical achievability)
when preparing ThfDLS for the pollutant
-------
Federal [ Zegister I Vol. 54, No. 135 / Friday, T ine 11989 / Rules and R gi ations
of concern. Where possible. 1PA
encourages the states to use tionpoint
ci rce controis to meet the objectives of
ection Z04fl) of th CWA to the extent
that ‘ionpoint source controb are
adcp ed and implemented through
appropriate state and Federal
au i ont ies.
Section 111 .8.2 of this preamble
cxç ’Iinns that a waterbody may quaL ’
for the BI list if the source of the
2ricrty po.iutant is scd .tnent deposit*d
or ccntaa’ -zated due to the discharge of
an acnve p tnt soiune subiei.t to ec ion
4Q2 of the CWA. For exinipie. the
effluent from an active point source
d. ctdrce ni y contain priority
o:its that are deposited as
si dinients ci the recciving ivater. or the
efftuc t m.y contaminate existing
scd:rier.t in the racewing water. in such
coaes the sethrnent can interfere w:th
the des’rhlted use of the watar. and the
releases c ri cause e’c.curstons above
other applicable wiiter quality
standards. Where contaminated
sedimem ta caused by an active point
source, it a EPA’s position that the
contamination should be characteri’ed
as due to the discharge from a p’itnt
scu e Several commenters said that
an rDES permit could not require
dv ’dgtng of sediments. and that EPA
rhould not attempt to write ICSs for
these sources based on contamination of
sediments. Todays regulations do not
require this. Rather. EPA is requiring
ICSs to contain the necessary effluent
limits to prevent further contamination
of the sediment and water column. It is
EPA’s goal that the ICSa for these active
point sources achieve applicable water
quality standi’ds within the time frames
of section 304(1). 1 lowever. because
cuntiols br tn-pl ace sediments raise
unique problems for the NPDES
progiam. an ICS for such a paint source
should, at a mLaunum. prevent
additional accumulation or
contonurtatlon of the sediments that are
the source of the toxic pollutant
Under EPA ’s interpretation of section
304(l ). all permits for paint sources
sub;ect to section 304(lJ(1)(C). including
8nal or effective permits, meat be
includcd in the review required by
secif on 304(l). it is EPA’, position that
section 304(1 ) gives EPA the authority to
reopen a permit before the term of the
permit expires regardless of whether the
permit has a reopener clause.
EPA ’s authority under section 304 (1) to
reopen final and effective permits is
supported by the requirement that EPA
implement ICSs where EPA
disapproves, or the state fails to submit
an adequate [ CS, Given that LCSs must
be implemented through limitniinn
under sect.ori 402 the alternatives to
reopening permits ivould not necessarily
meet the requirements of section
)4WI tHD). The alternatives are: (1)
Allow [ GS a to be unenforceable plans
that might incorporate limitations under
section 402 at some later tune: (2) omit
cerlarn point sources from the section
304 (1) process because the permits for
these point sources are not due or
review under 40 CFR 123.44 ; or (3) wait
until a permit expires joossibly a!:er the
deadl .xies in section i04(l)) to change the
terms of the permit. None of these
alternatives would satisfy the
requirement that !CSs attain water
qLahty standards by the deadlines in
sc .ca 304(1). Therefore, EPA will
review, and prissibly disapprove undir
sect;on 3 fl}, final oreffisctive perculs
rc rdless of whether the pez’nut has a
reopener claure.
Some commenters thought it
inequitable to reopen a permit before it
expires. EPA has attempted to ease the
planning problems creatcd by an
unanticipated change in permit terms by
rer wxtng that the permit be in draft form
three years before the peniruttee s
re u red to comply with the linuts. and
in final form tw or riure years before
such compliance is required..
Fizthcrmore. the ddfL’iition of an [ CS as
a draft or fInal NPDES permit. and the
use of compliance schedules, give the
perinittecs added flexibility in meeting
the requirements of section 304(1).
One commenter requested that EPA
apply the requirements of 40 CFR 123.44
(which describe the procedures for EPA
disapproval of siate.tasued NPDES
permits). to disapproval of ICSs in order
to implement the ccmgressional
reçurement that EPA issue this ICSs “in
c000eraton ‘vith the stuta and after
opportunity for public comment.’ The
commenter seemed to indicate that EPA
should apply these processes before the
line 4. 1Y89 disapproval of a state’s ICS.
Although EPA has solicited extensive
informal cooperation with the states in
the approval/dzsapprcval process, EPA
believes that the formal reqinlement for
cooperation with the states applies
during EPA’s development of an ICS
after disapprovaL As the following
discussion indicates, EPA does not
believe that apply’.rig the requirements
of * 123.44 would be the best way to
iclanporate the requirement for
coupcratiou with the state in tho
development of the [ CS.
As EPA stated in the proposaL to
implement section 304 (l ), EPA will use
existing procedures where possible.
However. EPA will use the section 304(I)
process where pre-existing regulatory
procedures are mncon’uustent with the
section 204 (1 ) review process. ZPA -ict
requiring compliance with § 123.4
procedures for EPA ’s objections ti
perm ts) because it would be
inconsistent with the section G1U
review process. Section 402 of the CVA
establishes conditions that are
prerequisites to EPA ’s authority to isai:e
permits in approved states. Far exiuriple.
secticn 402 requires an approved stare
to submit a permit to EPA for review
and requires EPA to object in writing
within ninety days. as prerequisites to
EPA’s authority to issue the permit.
Although the procedures under section
304(1) provide an equivalent o portuni:y
for state-EPA cooperation in the
development of perrmta sectzcn 30411)
also gives EPA the authority to issue
perrri.ts where the state fails to issue
permits that satisfy section 304 (l). (Jailer
the existing regulations the state
submits a proposed permit to EPA. arid
EPA then has 90 days to object to the
terms of the permit After EPA’s
objection, the state has 90 days to
request a public hearing or to re-submit
the permit to EPA. If EPA grants a pubtic
hearing. the state may re-submit the
permit within 30 days after the
AcL-numsts ’ator issues the post-heanc3
decision. If the state dces not re-submit
the permit within the time limits in
§ 123.44. the exclusive authority to isa
the permit passes to EPA..
These procedures are not appropriate
for the section 304(1) review Process.
First, EPA must review final or effective
permits in the ICS review process. nct
lust draft or proposed permits. Second.
section 304(1) gives EPA a deadline by
which to review an ICS, not the 90 days
provided for in § 123.44. Third, secnon
304(l) makes no provision for the state to
re-submit a’disapproved ICS. Rather.
seition 304(t) dIrects EPA to work in
cooner tton with the state iii preparing
and mplementfng EPA ’s ICSs. Finall:’
section 304 (l) requires EPA to provide
for public notice and an opportunity us
comment on the ICSs, not just an
opportunity to request a hearing as
provided under § 123.4t Taken as a
whole the [ CS review process is
inconsistent with the perrmt review
process under * 12344. Even though EPA
is not requiring the use of the procedures
in § 123.48. EPA is sensitive to the
comnmc’ntey ’s concern that states be as
involved as possible in the issuance of
any disapproi.ed [ CS EPA regions are
required to consult with the state in the
development of any (cSa by the
language that was codified at
§ 1 33.48(a ). Although EPA has a limited
time in which to develop the [ CS. EPA
ieill seek a partnership with the states in
the procesa. If EPA issues the permit the
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 54, No. 105 / Friday, June 2. 1989 I Rules and Regulations
23891
state would review and certify the
permit under section 401 of the CWA. In
addition. if EPA issues the permit. EPA
will provide for public comment on the
ICS through the permit development
process, which will provide another
opportunity for the slate to comment on
EPA ’s proposed ICS.
For disapproved ICSs. EPA will use
the existing permit issuance procedures
in Part 124 to issue these ICSs. After
EPA disapproves an ICS that Is a draft
or final NPDES permit the Agency will
use the procedures described In 40 CFR
Part 124 to issue a final ICS. If EPA
disapproves a decision document for an
on-site response action under CERCLA.
the Agency will use the procedures
under CERCLA for issuing these ICSa.
Some commenters asked EPA to
explain the status of permits issued by
EPA in approved states. EPA Intends to
treat permits issued by EPA in
authorized states in the same manner as
EPA-issued permits following EPA
objection to a state-issued permit. The
Regional Administrator will issue the
permit in accordance with 40 CFR Parts
121. 122. and 124 and any other
guidelines and requirements of the
CWA.
EPA expects that many of the ICSs
that are subject to section 304(1) will be
rial state-issued permits that EPA ha,
reviously reviewed under 40 CFR Part
123. When a state submits an ICS to
EPA for review under section 304(1), any
previous EPA decision to not object to
the permit under Part 123 does not
waive EPA’s authority to review and
approve or disapprove the ICS under
section 304(l ). Ii EPA reviewed a permit
under Part 123, EPA reserves the right to
review the same permit under the
provisions of section 304(1).
2. Technical Review Criteria. Section
304 (1) requires an ICS to achieve
applicable water quality standards as
soon as possible but not later than three
years alter the ICS is established.
Although this language establishes a
general standard for evaluating an ICS,
the language says little about the permit
conditions necessary to ensure that
applicable water quality standards will
be achieved. EPA will use the review
criteria in 40 CFR 123.48(1) to evaluate
whether an (CS meets the requirements
of section 304(1). The criteria that EPA
will use to review ICSs are the same as
the criteria EPA uses to review the
water quality-based effluent limits for
any permit Section lILA of this
preamble discusses amendments to
22.44(d). These amendments describe
‘ to establish water quallty.based
ejiluent limits in NPDES permits.
Effluent limits derived from water
quality standards must satisfy
* 122.44(d). The regulations at
123.46(f), provide that ICSs shall be
reviewed according to the criteria in
122.44(d). EPA is also amending
{ 123.44(c) to Incorporate the review
criteria for ICSs into EPA’s criteria for
reviewing other permits not subject to
section 304(1). Section 123.44(c)
enumerates the criteria that EPA may
use to review state-issued permits. By
using the same criteria for reviewing
ICSs and for reviewing permits that are
not sublect to section 304(1), EPA is
ensuring consistency in reviewing the
technical adequacy of these two
categories of permits.
Some comnienters asked whether EPA
was intending to apply these
requirements to lists and !CSs submitted
before this final rule becomes effective,
and argued that to do so would be to
apply the regulation retroactively, which
is prohibited. The regulations
promulgated today will apply to EPA ’s
decisions issued after the effective date
of today’s regulations EPA does nut
view this as applying the reg’ilations
retroactively. Rather. EPA is applying
the criteria for review of lists and ICSs
to decisions it makes after the effective
date of these regulations. Therefore,
although these regulations will not apply
retroactively. EPA anticipates that the
concepts embodied in the rule would
apply in most cases of EPA’s review of
lists and ICSa unless the discharger or
the state can show why they should not
apply.
Where EPA disapproves an ICS.
section 304(l)(3) requ.Ireil EI’A to
implement section 304(1) in a manner
which will achieve applicable water
quality standards on or before June 4,
1993. A final permit issued after EPA
disapproves the permit under section
304(1) must include language in the fact
sheet or statement of basis that
identifies the permit as an ICS that
satisfies the requirements of section
304(l) of the CWA. This requirement is
similar to the language in draft permits
subject to section 304(1) which identifies
the permit as an ICS. The language in
the final permit will identify for the
public and the regulated community
those ICSs which satisfy the
requirements of section 304(1)
D. EPA Review of Lists and Individual
Control Strzitegies
Section 304(l) requires EPA to review
and approve or disapprove the lists and
ICSs submitted by a state. if a state fails
to submit the lists or ICSs, or if a state
submits inadequate lists or ICSs. then
EPA must disapprove the lists or ICSs.
Section 304(11(2) gives EPA 120 days to
approve or disapprove a states ICS ,.
and where EPA disapproves an ICS,
section 304(l)(3) requires EPA to
implement section 304(1)11) on or before
june 4. 1990. Todays rules establish the
same review procedures for the lists as
for ICSs. Although the deadline
established for 1CSs does not explicitly
apply to EPA s review of lists. EPA
determined that it would not be
appropriate for EPA to establish
different deadlines for the approval of
lists. Some commentera argued that EPA
does not have the authority to approve
or disapprove lists because section
304(1)(z ) speaks emily of the disapproval
of ICSs. EPA believes however that the
Agency is authorized to review both the
lists and ICSs. First, the introduction in
section 304(l)(1) requires all the lists arid
ICSs to be submitted ‘lo the
Administrator for review, approval, and
implementation ‘ .‘ EPA ’s final
rulemaking of January 4, 1989 codifies
this language at 40 CFR 123.46(a] and
130.10(d). Review and approval would
be meaningless if the statute did not
allow disapproval where the review
reveals inadequacies in the lists
submitted. Second. section 304(l)
requires the Administrator to prepare
ICSs where the state fails to submit
them. EPA believes that this provision
would not make sense if EPA did not
also have the authority to disapprove a
states decision to not submit an ICS to
EPA for review Such a disapproval
depends on a review and possible
disapproval of at least the paragraph (31
lists submitted under section 204(l)(1)
The first step l.a the review process
occurred when the states submitted
their lists and ICSs to the Regional
Offices for review, (The state’s deadline
for submitting the lists and lCSs was
February 4,1989.) The Regional Offices
must approve or disapprove the lists and
ICSs by june 4. 1989.
Several commenters asked how the
process subsequent to the initial
decision would work. The next steps in
the process depend on the Regional
Administrator’s decision of approval or
disapproval. if the Regional
Administrator approves a state’s
decisions with respect to the lists of
waters and ICSs, and decides that
additional public participation is
unnecessary (see paragraph 2 below)
the decision will be final and the
permits will be implemented according
to the normal permitting procedures
(including permit appeal, judicial
review, enforcement. etc.). If the
Regional Adnunistra tar takes public
comment on the lists and ZCSs then the
region will consider the comments and
issue another decision regarding the Lists
and ICSa in approximately January of
-------
Z3892
Federal Re ster I Vol. 54. No. 105 1 Friday, June 2. 1989 / Rules and Regulations
1990. but may take until June 4.1990 to
issue ICEs (where aecessaryJ.
t. Partial Approval and Disapprovai of
State Subinittala
Section 304fl) gives EPA the discretion
to approve or disapprove an entire List
of waters or point sources or to approve
or disapprove individual waters on the
list, or individual ooiiat sources on the
(C) LiaL EPA has the same discretion to
approve or dinapprove one or more
(GSa. The basis for this conclusion is the
requirement in section 30411) that EPA
implement the listing and ICS
raqwremer.ts of the statute where the
rtate fails to sUbmit lL ICE in
iccoid nce w;th pura aph section
3(J4 i). 3ubnuss.on alan C5 in
accordance with this paragraph include9
liscag the water where appropriate, and
preparing an adequate ICS. Far
simplicity EPA has decided to reiar to
prcvaL or d sapprovaIs of a Liatad
waterbody rather t. ian an entire list of
waterbodies.
As described in section 111.8.1 of this
preamble. section 304(1) requires each
state to it. .nit three lists of waiers to
EPA EI. wdl review each waterLody
on each of the three lists. If the
waterbody meets the cr.terl.a described
in the regiiiatiotis at 130.10(d) of
today e rulemaking. then EPA will
approve the states decision to list that
waterbady. If EPA identifies a
waterbody that qtiali5es for one or more
of the three lists of waters, and the stata
had not included the waterbcdy on the
appropnate list(s), then EPA will
ciaapprove the state’s decision to not
Est the waterbady under the applicable
paraQraph(S) in its notice of approval
and disapprovaL For example. if a state
included a waterbody on the (A)(i) list.
but not on the (B) list, and if EPA
determined that the waterbody qualified
for both lists, then EPA would approve
the decision to list the waterbody on the
(A )i) List. but would disapprove the
state’s decision to not place the
waterbody on the (B) haL Another
example is where a state does not
include a wateebody on any of the three
) but EPA detesmm’- that the
waterbody quaiifies for one or more of
the lists. EPA would disapprove the
state’s decisica to not list the waterbody
under each paragraph for which the
waterbody qualifies.
EPA also has the authority to
disapprove the listing of a waterbody by
a state if the waterbody does not qualify
fnr the list. For example, if the state
iicludes a waterbody on the (B) list, and
EPA determines that the waterbody
does not qualify for the (B) list. EPA
would dicaçprove the state’s listing of
r 1 ie waterbodv on the (13) list, and
indicate this decision in EPA’s notice of
aporoval or disapproval.
EPA will also review each point
source on the (C) list. EPA will approve
the listing of each point source that
meets the criteria us section 304(I)(I)(C).
EPA will disapprove the listing of any
point source that does not satisfy
section 304{l)(1)(C ), and will disapprove
a state’s decision to not List any point
source that meets the critena in section
304(i )(1 )(C1.
Like EPA’s review of individual
waters. EPA will review each ICS, and
will approve each ICE submitted by a
state that meets the requirements of an
(CS. EPA will also disappro”e a stata’s
decision to not submit an ICS EPA
detarmines that the state should have
included the ICS in its submittal to EPA.
The notice of approval and disapproval.
e’cplained in the following section. will
inctudo EPA ’s decisions with respect to
each water, point source. and ICS.
2. Public Participation
The only explicit requirement for
public participation in section 304(l) a
under section 304(t (3) of the CWA.
Under thu section, if a state fails to
submit one or more [ CS. ,. or if EPA
disapproves one or more ICEs, then EPA
must implement the requirements of
section 3G4W(1 ) within one year aftcr
notice and opportunity for public
comment. This section describes the
additional public participation
proceducs that EPA will conduct during
the section 3 4(l) process. In st.mmary,
whether EPA will be requirod to conduct
public parilcipliticn will depend on two
factors: the existence of either factor
will be enough to trigger the r.otica and
comment requirements. The first factor
13 whether the state conducted adequate
public participation in its deve opment
of the lists ar.d lCSs: if it did not then
EPA will do so. The second factor is
whether EPA is disapproving any of a
states decisions: any disapprovals will
be aublect to public comment In
addition, the regulations allow the
Regional Administrator to request public
comment when he believes that it would
be useful. Today’s regulations ott public
participation amend 130.10(d) (relating
to lists of waters), and * 123.46(c)
(relating to ICSs).
EPA received a number of comments
ob ecting to what the commenters
perceived as a new requirement for
ptibhc participation in the development
of the lists arid ICSs under section 304(11.
They argued that the states could not
comply with such a requirement when it
was only proposed a short t:me before
the lists and ICSa were due.
Commenters also argued that secticn
04(l) does not require public
participation, and some claimed that
EPA does not have the authonty unde
the CWA to take public comment o the
lists and ICSs . EPA npbasizes that
these regulations do not require any
state public participation procedures
under section 304 1). Instead the
proposed regulations. and the
regulations promulgated today, require
the Regional Administrators to give the
public an opportuxuty to comment on the
lists and ICEs if the state has not
provided such an opportunity. Where
the state has provided ouch an
opportunity then EPA belieies it will he
api,ropnate in many cases to rely on the
state’s public participation procedures
rather than duplicating them. The
principal situation in which the Regions
will take public comment on the states
section 304(1) submissions is where EPA
is disapproving part of a state’s
submission (in which case EPA will
always provide an opportunity for
comment on the disapprovals). There
may be some cases where the state has
provided adeaucte opportunity for
comment and where the Re ion
approves a stale’s entire submission but
the Regional Adnunistiator belie’tes that
additional public comment will be
usefuL This could occur if. for example,
a Region receives a request from the
public with reasons why an additional
comment period is warranted Iii such a
case the regulations leave the decision -
of whether to provide for comment to
the discretion of the Regional
Adxnrnis trator.
EPA received comments questicmmg
i :s authonty to conduct public
participation where the statute does not
specifically reqmre it. EPA believe! that
section 501 provides authority and
section 101(e) encourages EPA to
provide an cpportunity for public
participation.
One comnienter arg’.ied that EPA
should provide for public comment on
EPA’s decisions for all states. The
conimenter argued that groups
interested in the section 304 l) process
did not know that they would be
required to rely on only the state
participation procedures. EPA is not
persuaded by this argument. First the
guidance published in March 19C8
alerted interested persons that EPA
might rely on state public participation
procedures lit its review process (see
EPA Guidance pp. .5—39 ). Second. EPA
believes that interested persona should
present all arguments to the states.
where an opportunity is provided. In
general EPA has a strong commitment to
providing adequate public participation
in all programs. Ai the same time F.PA
wants to avoid redundant procedures
-------
Federal Re istar / Vol. 54. No. 105 / Friday, June 2, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
23893
1 iat may 6unpIy waste resources of the
sates, the public and EPA and delay the
inplemention of seCtion 304(1).
EPA intends to 1y. to the extent
possible, on state public participation
procedures. EPA has encouraged the
states to provide for full public
participation when developing their lists
and ICSs under section 304(1). Adequate
state public participation procedures
must, at a minimum, provide for public
notice and an opportunity to comment
on the state’s lists and ICSs. Parts 25
and 124 of EPA’s regulations describe
procedures for public notice and
comment that states may use under
section 304(1). Where a state does
provide adequate public participation on
the lists and ICSs. and where the
F.egiona.1 Administrator approves all of a
state’s decisions with respect to the lists
and ICSs. today’s regulations give the
Regional Administrator the discretion to
forego an additional round of notice and
comment on the lists and ICSs.
Where the Regional Administrator
d terrnines that a state did not provide
for adequate notice and opportunity to
comment on the lists and ICSs, EPA’s
notice of approval or disapproval must
include all approvals and disapprovala.
Such notice would include all of EPA’s
orovals and disapproval, for all
atera and ICSs subject to section
304(1).
If a state provides for adequate public
participation, but the Regional
Administrator disapproves any of a
state a decisions with respect to the
waters, pcint sources, or lCSs, then
EPA’s notice must include each of the
Agency’s disapprovals. In this case it Is
not necessary for the notice to include
EPA’s approvals of a state’s decisions
u.nder section 304(1). However, the
Regional Administrator has the
discretion to include EPA’s approvals In
the notice provided under section 304(l).
(See 40 CFR § § 123.46(e) and
130.10(d)(7).)
The final rules require the Regional
Offices to mad a copy of the notice to
the appropriate state Director. The final
rule requires the Regional Administrator
to publish a notice of availability, either:
(d) in a daily or weekly newspaper with
state-wide circulation, or (b) in the
Federal Register. (See 40 CFR 123.46(e)
and 130.10(d)(10).) The notice of
availability telL, the public where to
obtain copies of EPA’s notice of
approval or disapproval, but In most
c.iaes will not list all the approvals and
‘ipprovals. Under today’s rules,
,lic participation for the lists and
ICSs occurs at the same time, and the
Regional Offices will probably use the
same notice for the lists and lCSs.
EPA is adding the option to substitute
Federal Register notice for notice in a
state newspaper because in some
situations the Federal Register may be a
more effective way to reach an
interested audience than a state
newspaper. Furthermore, some states do
not have a newspaper that has
ata ewide circulation, The notice in the
Federal Register will not substitute for
the notice that is required to be mailed
directly to Interested persons.
EPA considered providing notice and
an opportunity for comment on a state’s
subnuttal before issuing a notice of
approval or disapprovaL EPA re ected
this approach because such notice is not
required under section 304(1) and
because the ambitious deadlines in
section 304(1) preclude public notice and
comment before EPA approves or
disapproves a Biate’s lists arid ICSs.
Some commenters urged EPA to adopt
this approach, but EPA remains
convinced that providing an opportunity
to comment on decisions during the
period for petitions (120 days after June
4, 1989) will be sufficient,
a. Contents of EPA’s Notice of
Approval or DisapprovaL Today’s
amendments to § 123.48 and to
§ 130.10(d) describe the contents of the
public notice provided under section
304 (l). If the Regional Office combines
the notice for the lists and ICSs. then
each notice would indude the followingi
1. The name and adcL-ess of the EPA
office that reviews the states
8u mitta1s,
2. A brief description of the sec:ion
304(1) process. For example, the notice
should describe the requi -ement to
identify point sources of toxic
pollutants, and should discuss EPA ’s
review of the state’s submittaL
3. A list of the waters disaoproved
under paragraph (A)(i), (A)(4, and (B).
and a short finding that the waters do
not meet the applicable review cr.tena.
4. A list of point sources disapproved
under paragraph (C) of section 304(l)(1),
and a short finding that the point
sources do not satisfy the critoria of
paragraph (C).
5. A list of IC3s disapproved under
paragraph (D) of section 304(I)(1) and a
short flnd ng that the lCSs do not meet
the applicable review criteria.
6. If the Regional Administrator
dotermines that a state did not provide
adequate public notice and an
opportunity to comment on the waters,
point sources, or ICSs prepared under
section 304(1), or if the Regional
Administrator chooses to exercise his or
her discretion, a list of approvals and a
short finding that the approved waters.
point sources, or ICSo meet the
applicable review criteria.
7. The name, address, and telephone
number of the person at the Regional
Office from whom interested parties
may obtain more information.
8. The location where interested
persons may examine EPA’s records of
approval or disapproval,
9. Notice that written petitions or
comments are due within 120 days.
The contents of these notices are
similar to the notices given under 40
CFR 124.10, EPA believes that by using
existing procedure, wherever possible
the agency will minimize the
administrative burden of implementing
section 304(l).
EPA’s notice of approval or
disapproval allows 120 days for public
comment. The 120-day comment period
coincides with the 120 days described in
section 304(l)(3), which allows interested
persons to petition EPA to list additional
water ,. Under section 304(l)(3), EPA will
consider for listing any navigable water
for which any person submits a petition
to EPA. Under the statute, interested
persons must submit petitions on or
before October 4. 1989. Today’s rule
uses the same 120-day period for
receiving petitions and for taking
comments on EPA’s notice of approval
and disapproval, EPA chose to provide a
1W-day comment period because it
would be impractical to close the public
comment period on the notice of
approval or diapproval before the
statutory deadline for pctutions U EP.
closed the comment period beicre
October 4, 1989. it is possiole that the
Agency would receive petitions for
additional listings after the close of
public comments.
b. Pub/jo Hearings. EPA is not
proposing new regulations for public
hearings under § 304(1). The 120-day
comment period allows sufficient public
involvement i
decisions with respect to the lists and
lCSs. Furthermore, new regulations for
public hearings are not necessary
because the Regional Administrator iay
hold a public hearing if he or she flnd,s a
significant degree of public interest in
the states submittaL
c. Petitions for Additional L ssmgs
Under section 304(l)(3), EPA must
consider petitions from the public for
additional listings of navigable waters.
Petitions are due within 120 days after
disapproval under section 304(l)(3), and
should be submitted to the appropriate
Regional Administrator, A petition must
identify a watarbody with sufficient
detail so that EPA is able to determine
the location and boundaries of the
waterbody. For example, the petition
-------
Federal Ro ister / Vol. 54, No. 105 / Friday, June 2. 1989 / Rules and ReguJatit ns
23894
could identify the waterbody using the
name and number assigned to the
waterbody by EPA’s REACH file. The
REACH file is a data base that includes
a geographic description of the nation’s
surface waters, and the information is
available from EPA’s Regional Offices.
Another method for identifying a
waterbody is to use the common name
for the waterbocy. and give the
geographic boundaries for the water.
The petition must identify the list or lists
for which the waterbody qualifies. The
petition must Include sufficient
supporting information or data to show
that the waterbody satisfies the criteria
in section 304(l) of the CWA ai d 40 CFR
§ 130.10(dl(6). EPA needs this
information to evaluate the petition. If
EPA determines that the petition
demonstrates that the water should be
listed, and the state has not listed the
water, then EPA will disapprove the
state’s failure to list the water.
EPA received comments that it should
require the petitioner to provide
extensive information before EPA would
consider the petition. EPA is rejecting
this suggrst:on because it does not want
the petition requirements to be so
burdensome as to discourage interested
persons from pet :tioning EPA with
regard to waters that should be listed.
At the same time, to grant the petition.
EPA needs sufficient information
:ndicating that the water meets the
criteria for listin g in CWA section 304(1)
and 40 CFR 130.10(d)(8). This approach
will discourage frivolous peution.s while
at the same time avoiding a cumbersome
process for preparing and submitting
petitions.
Petitiuns submitted to EPA pursuant
to section 04(l)(3) are limited to adding
waters to one or more of the three lists
of waters prepared under section
304(l)(1). Under section 304(l)(3), an
interested party may not petition EPA to
delete a water, point source, or ICS from
the lists prepared under section 304(l).
The relevant language describing
petitions under section 304(1)(3) limits
the petalons to navigable waters “
for listing under [ section 304(1)1,” and
does not discuss deleting waters, point
sources, or ICSs from the lists prepared
under section 304(1). As a result of the
statutory language. the public may
submit petitions only for adding waters
to one or more lists of waters prepared
under section 304(1).
d. Response to Comments and
Petitions. After the close of the public
cor.iment period on October 4. 1989 the
Regional Offices will provide, as soon as
practicable but not later than June 4.
1990, a response to the comments and
petitions received. in most cases the
response to comments will represent the
Agency’s fuiial decisions with respect to
the content of the lists prepared under
section 304(l)(1). The response to
comments will be given in the same
manner as the first notice. The contents
of the response to comments are the
same as the first notice of approval or
disapproval except for the following
changes:
I. The lists of disapproved waters,
point sources, and ICSs must reflect any
changes made pursuant to comments or
petitions received.
2. A brief summary of major
comments and petitions received, and
EPA’s response to the comment or
petition.
3. A brief description of the
subsequent steps in the section 304(l)
process.
interested persons will have an
aeditional opportunity to comment on
disapproved lCSs. Where EPA
disapproves an ICS because it does not
meet the requirements of section 304(1),
or because the state failed to submit the
ICS to EPA for review, section 304(1)
requires EPA to prepare sri ICS in
cooperation with the state after notice
and an opportunity to comment. The
public notice requirements of section
304(l)(3) will be fulfilled by the public
notice procedures followed by EPA or
the state when issuing the permit that
will constitute the ICS. if EPA
disapproves one or more iCSs, then EPA
or the state may modify, revoke and
reissue, or terminate that ICS using the
procedures in 40 CFR Part 124. The
procedures in Part 124 require the
perm :tting authority to provide for
public notice and an opportunity to
comment before issuing a final permit.
Therefore, if the permitting authority
modifies, revokes and reissues, or
terminates a disapproved ICS. the
permitting authorty must provide for
public notice and an opportunity to
comment. At any time after the Regional
Administrator disapproves an ICS (or
conditionally approves a draft permit as
an ICS), the Regional Office may submit
a written notification to the state that
the Regional Office intends to issue the
ICS. Upon mailing the notification to the
state, exdusii e authority to issue the
permit passes to EPA. This issue is
addressed in today’s regulations at 40
§ 123.46(f) EPA is promulgating this
regulation to clarify the time at which
exclusive authority to issue ICSs passes
to EPA under section 304(l).
3. Subsequent Steps in the section 304(1)
Process
a. EPA Implementation of section
304(I) Where EPA disapproves a state’s
decision with respect to a waterbody or
an ICS it is under an obligation to
implement section 304(1) in cooperation
with the state. Some commenters
questioned whether EPA’s process
allowed for full cooperation with the
states. EPA proposed. and is finalizing a
procedure that will allow EPA to
assume the authority to issue a permit
that is disapproved as an ICS (or one
that the state did not submit). The rule
allows EPA’s Regional Office to notify
the state that it will issue the permit
where the ICS is disapproved. EPA
rejected requiring the exclusive
permitting authority to revert
automatically to EPA in order to allow
ample opportunity for the region to
negotiate with the state regarding each
permit. At the same time EPA is mindful
of the necessity of expediting the permit-
issuance process where agreement
cannot be reached with the state,
especially considering that Congress has
imposed deadlines for the issuance of
the ICSs and the implementation of the
effluent limits. Therefore EPA is
retaining the approach in the proposal
which allowed EPA to assume
permitting jurisdiction upon notice to the
state. In issuing the permit EPA will
follow its normal permit-issuance
procedures including requesting
certification under section 401 of the
CWA.
For listing. EPA will solicit public
comment on the waters and point
sources that were disapproved by EPA.
(Iii most cases, these will be waters and
point sources that EPA believes that the
state should have included on one or
more of its lists, but did not.) If the state
has not provided adaquate public notice
on the lists. EPA will solicit public
notice on all waters and point sources.
both approvea and disapproved. Until
EPA takes final Agency action with
regard to the lists, EPA will continue to
cooperate with the state to decide which
waters and point sources should appear
on the lists. EPA may add or delete
waters in response to public comments
or additional data and information
received during the time before its final
decision on the lists. EPA will make
these decisions public as final Agency
action as expeditiously as possible after
the public comment period closes, but
no later than June 4. 1990. in the same
manner as it provides public notice in
June. 1989. This final Agency action
constitutes promuigation by EPA of the
lists. EPA believes it is critical that the
Agency establishes these lists as final as
soon as possible in order to begin
development of individual control
strategies in time to be finished by June
4. 1990. as required by the CWA.
-------
Federal Resister I Viil. 54. No. 105 / Friday. June 2. 1989/Rules and Regulations
b Judicial Review of Decision Under
section 304(1). As EPA stated in the
‘ropo al, judicial review of a
iisapproved ICS under section 509(b) of
the CWA is not available until EPA
makes a final decision with respect to
the lOS, i e.. a final decision on the f ’A-
issued NPDES permit under Pan 124 of
EPA’s regulations. One commenter
argued that EPA’s pocitlon on this issue
further undermined its definition of an
CS by making 508(b)(1)(C) redundant.
Within the limits of the Act, the Agency
has the discretion to define ICSs as
discussed above in Section C.i. The
Agency continues to belicve that its
defln tion is the best reading of the
statute, and Congress gave EPA
discretion in determining what exact
definition to use Congress’ addition of
section 509(b)(1)(G) to the Act shows
Congress’ intent that EPA’s
promulgation of an ICS. however
def.ned, be reviewed in the courts of
appeals more than any intent to
preclude or restrict EPA’s interpretation
that an NPDES permit be an ICS.
Therefore. EPA believes that the permits
that EPA issues as ICSs are reviewable
in the court of appeals. Review of any
other actions by EPA under section
304(l) must be obtained in a district
court,
‘I. Effective Date
This rule became effective on May 28.
1989. Title 5 U.S.C. 553(d) provides that
regulations should take effect 30 days
after their publication in the Federal
Register. unless EPA finds and publishes
od cause for a shorter time. In
determining that good cause exists in
this caae. EPA weighed the necessity for
an immediate effective date against
problems it would cause for those
subject to the rules. The need for an
immediate effective date arises from the
statute’s deadline for EPA decisions on
state submissions. It is c tical that
today’s rule be effective when EPA’s
Regional Offices make their decisions
under section 304(1). Today’s regulations
are impcrtant to ensure consistency and
certaint n regional decisions.
V. Regulatory Analysis
A & ecutIve Order 12291
Under section 3(b) of Executive Order
12291 the agency must judge whether a
regulation is major and thus subject to
the requirements of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. The regulation published
today is not major because the rule will
not result in an effect on the economy of
5100 million or more. will not result in
icreased costs or prices, will not have
sigiuficant adverse effects on
competition. employment, investment.
productivity, and innovation, and will
not significantly disrupt domestic or
export markets.
EPA received comments arguing that
the reguJ .tions were in lect major. EPA
disagrees. The regulations spf.cify what
factors states must use to determine
whether permits will achieve water
quality standards. wh:le the
determination of what the standards are
and whai permit hm ts are necessary to
comply with the standarus remains
principally with the states. Compliance
with the water quality standards has
been required by the Clean Water Act
since July 1, 1977. Many of the limits that
are imposed as a result of the
procedures in todays rule are to
implement standards that were in place
long ago. The reporting requirements
discussed in today’s ru.ie require no
additional monitoring, and preparing the
rPports will not result in an effect on the
economy of $100 million or more.
Therefore, the Agency has not
prepared a Regulatory Impact Analysis
under the Executive Order. EPA
submitted this regulation to the Cfflce of
Management and Budget (0MB) for
review as required by Executive Order
12291.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
There is no information collection
requirement after the effective date of
this rulemaking, and, therefore. no
information collection request and
clearance are needed. An information
coUection request for the pronosed
rulemaking, submitted by EPA to the
Office of Management and Budget
(0MB) was disapproved by 0MB
because the ‘.nformation had already
been submitted to EPA pursuant to the
statutory deadline of February 4. 1989.
and EPA did not formally submit the
ICR in a timely manner after the
proposed rule was published (see PRA
regulations 5 CFR 132013 (b) and (d)).
The comments from 0MB regarding
the ICR for the proposed rule are
available from the Chief, Information
Policy Branch. PM-223. U.S EPA. 401 M
Street SW.. Washington. DC 2048th and
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs. Office cf Management and
Budget. Washington. DC 20503
C. Reguictory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
of 1980 (5 U S.C. 601 et seq ). Federal
agencies must, when developing
regulations, analyze their impact on
small entities (small businesses, small
government jurisdictions, and small
organizations). This analysis is
unnecessary, however, where the
agency’s administrator certifies that the
rule will not have a significant er.orioriuc
effect on a substantial number of smell
entities. The agency has coicluded that
this rule will not have a significant
economic effect on a substantial numb r
of small entities because today’s
rulemaking imposes no new
requirements for the regulated
community. Today’s regulations merely
establish the procedures for
implementing section 304(1) of the
CWA, and clarify certain elements of
EPA’s surface water toxics control
program.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 122
EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System.
40 CFR Part 123
State program requirements.
40 CFR Part 130
Water quality planning and
management.
Date’ May 26. 1989
F. Henry Habichi IL
Acting Admzn,strotor.
PART 122.-EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: ThE NATIONAL
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
EUMINAT1ON SYSTEM
1. The authority citation for Part 122
continues to read as follows
Authority, The Clean Water Act. 33 U SC
1251 et seq
2. Section 122.2 is amended by adding
in alphabetical order a new definition da
follows:
§ 122.2 DefinItions.
• • • . •
Whole effluent toxicity means the
aggregate toxic effect of an effluent
measured directly by a toxicity test
3. Paragraph (d)(1) of 122.44 is
revised to read as follows:
122.44 EstablishIng limitations,
st*ndards, and othar permit conoitlons
(applicabi. to State NPOES programs, see
* 123.25).
• a • . •
(d) *
(1) Achieve water quality standards
established under section 303 of the
CWA. including State narrative criteria
for water quality.
(i) Limitations must control oil
pollutants or pollutant parameters
(either conventional, noncon ’entjonal.
or toxic pollutants) which the Director
determines are or may be discharged at
a level which will cause, have the
-------
23896
Federal Register / VoL 54. No. 105 / Friday. Tine 2. 1989 I ‘Rules and Regulations
reasonable potential to cause. or
contribute to an excursion above any
State water quality standard, including
State narrative criteria for water quality.
(ii) When determining whether a
discha”ge causes, has the reasonable
potenuril to cause, or contributes to an
in-stream excursion above a narrative or
numeric criteria within a State water
quality standard, the permitting
authority shall use procedures which
account for existing controls on point
and nonpoint sources of pollution, the
variabihty of the pollutant or pollutant
parameter in the effluent. the sensitivity
of thu species to toxicity testing (when
evaluat ng whole effluent toxicity), and
where appropriate, the dilution of the
effluent in the receiving water.
(iii) When the permitting authority
determines, using the procedures in
paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, that a
disciarge causes, has the reasonable
potential to cause, or contributes to an
in-stream excursion above the allowable
ambient concentration of a State
numeric criteria within a State water
quality standard for an individual
pcllutani. the permit must contain
effhieric liiuits for that pollutant.
(iv) Viihen the perrnittin.g authority
dete nines. using the procedures in
paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section. that a
discharge causes, has the reasonable
potential to cause, or contributes to an
in-stream excursion above the numeric
criterion for whole effluent toxicity, the
permit must contain effluent limits for
whole effluent toxicity.
(v) Except as provided in this
subparagraph, when the permitting
authority determines, using the
procedures in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this
section. toxicity testing data, or other
information, that a discharge causes, has
the reasonable potential to cause, or
contributes to an in-stream excursion
above a narrative criterion within an
applicable State water quality standard.
the permit must contain effluent limits
for whole effluent toxicity. Limits on
whole effluent toxicity are not necessary
where the permitting authority
demonstrates in the fact sheet or
statement of basis of the NPDES permit,
using the procedures In paragraph
(d) (1)(li) of this section, that chemical-
specific limits for the effluent are
sufficient to attain and maintain
applicable numeric and narrative State
water quality standards,
(vi) Where a State has not established
a water quality criterion for a specific
chemical pollutant that is present in an
effluent at a concentration that causes,
has the reasonable potential to cause, or
contributes to an excursion above a
narrative criterion within an applicable
State water quality standard, the
permitting authority must establish
effluent limits using one or more of the
following options:
(A) Establish effluent limits using a
calculated numeric water quality
criterion for the pollutant which the
permitting authority demonstrates will
attain and maintain applicable narrative
water quality criteria and will fully
protect the designated use. Such a
criterion may be derived using a
proposed State criterion, or an explicit
State pohcy or regulation interpreting its
narrative water quality criterion.
supplemented with other relevant
information which may include: EPA ’s
Water Quality Standards Handbook.
October 1983, risk assessment data,
exposure data, information about the
pollutant from the Food and Drug
Administration, and current EPA criteria
documents: or
(B) Establish effluent limits on a case-
by-case basis, using EPA’s water quality
criteria, published under section 30’(a)
of the CWA, supplemented where
necessary by other relevant information
or
(C) Establish effluent limitations on an
indicator parameter for the pollutant of
concern, provided:
(1) The permit identifies which
pollutants are intended to be controlled
by the use of the effluent limitation:
(2) The fact sheet required by § 124 58
sets forth the basis for the limit,
including a finding that compliance with
the effluent Linut on the indicatof
parameter will result in controls on the
pollutant of concern which are sufficient
to attain and maintain applicable water
quality standards:
(3) The permit requires all effluent and
ambient monitoring necessary to show
that during the term of the permit the
limit on the indicator parameter
continues to attain and maintain
applicable water quality standardsi and
(4) The permit contains a reopener
clause allowing the permitting authority
to modify or revoke and reissue the
permit if the limits on the indicator
parameter no longer attain and maintain
applicable water quality standards.
(vii) When developing water quality-
based effluent limits under this
paragraph the permitting authority shall
ensure thati
(A) The level of water quality to be
achieved by huts on point sources
established under this paragraph is
derived from, and complies with all
applicable water quality standards: and
(B) Effluent limits developed to
protact a narrative water quality
criterion, a numeric water quality
criterion, or both, are consistent with the
assumptions and requirements of any
available wasteload allocation for the
discharge prepared by the State and
approved by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR
130.7.
• • . • •
4. The title of paragraph (e) of § 122.44
is revised to read as follows:
• , . • •
(e) Technology-based controls for
toxic polJutanLs .
PART 123—STATE PROGRAM
REQUIREMENTS
1. The authority citation for Part 123
continues to read as follows:
Authonty Clean Water Act. 33 U.S C. 1251
et seq
2. Section 123.44 ’ s amended by
adding paragraph (c)(8) to read as
follows:
§ 123.44 EPA review of and objecijons to
State permit,.
. . • , •
(c)
(8) The effluent limits of a permit fail
to satisfy the requirements of 44) CFR
122 44(d)
3 In § 123.46 paragraph (a) is revised
and paragraphs (c), (d). (e) and (f) are
added, as follows:
§123.46 IndivIdual control strategies,
(a) Niot later than February 4. 1989.
each State shall submit to the Regional
Adniiiustrator for review, approval, and
implementation an individual control
strategy for each point source identified
by the State pursuant to section
304( )(1)(C) of the Act which will
produce a reduction in the discharge of
tox;c pollutants from the point sources
identified under section 304(l)(1)(C)
through the establishment of effluent
limitations under section 402 of the
CWA and watar quality standards
under section 303(c)(2)(B) of the CWA.
which reduction is sufficient, in
combination with existing controls on
point and nonpoint sources of pollution,
to achieve the applicable water quality
standard as soon as possible, but not
later than three years after the date of
the establishment of such strategy.
(c) For the purposes of this section the
term individual control strategy, as set
forth in section 304(l) of the CWA.
means a final NPDES permit with
supporting documentation showing that
effluent limits are consistent with an
approved wasteload allocation. or other
documentation which shows that
applicable water quality standards will
be met not later than three years after
the individual control strategy is
established, Where a State is unable to
-------
Rules and Regulatlon8 23 97
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 105 I Friday , June 2, 1989 I
issue a final permit on or before
February 4. 1989. an individual control
strategy may be a draft permit with an
attached schedule (provided the State
meets the schedule for issuing the final
permit) indicating that the perrrut will be
issued on or before February 4, 1990. If a
pi.int source is sub ect to section
304(l)(1)(C) of the CWA and is also
subject to an on-site response action
under sections 104 or 106 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA), (42 U.S.C. 9601 et
seq.), an individual control strategy may
be the decision document (which
incorporates the applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements under the
CWA) prepared under sections 104 or
106 of CERCLA to address the release or
threatened release of hazardous
substances to the environment
[ d) A petition submitted pursuant to
section 304(l)(3) of the CWA must be
submitted to the appropriate Regional
Administrator. Petitions must identify a
waterbody in sufficient detail so that
EPA IS able to determine the location
and boundaries of the waterbody. The
petition must also identify the list or
lists for which the waterbody qualifies.
and the petition must explain why the
waterbody satisfies the criteria for
listing under CWA section 304(l) and 40
CFR 130.10(d)(6).
(e) If the Regional Adnunistrator
disapproves one or more individual
control strategies, or if a State fails to
provide adequate public notice and an
opportunity to comment on the ICSs,
then, not later than June 4. 1989. the
Regional Administrator shall give a
notice of approval or disapproval of the
individual control strategies submitted
by each State pursuant to this section as
follows:
(1) The notice of approval or
disapproval given under this paragraph
shall include the following:
(i) The name and address of the EPA
office that reviews the State’s
subnuttals.
(ii) A brief description of the section
304(l) process.
(iii) A list of ICSs disapproved under
this section and a finding that the lCSs
will not meet all applicable review
criteria under this section and section
304(l) of the CWA.
(iv) If the Re8ional Administrator
determines that a State did not provide
adequate public notice and an
opportunity to comment on the waters,
point sources, or ICSs prepared pursuant
to section 304(1), or If the Regional
Administrator chooses to exercise his or
her discretion, a list of the ICSs
approved under this section. and a
finding that the ICSs satisfy all
applicable review criteria.
(v) The location where interested
persons may examine EPA ’s records of
approval and disapproval.
(vi) The name, address, and telephone
number of the person at the Regional
Office from whom interested persons
may obtain more information.
(vii) Notice that written petitions or
comments are due wIthin 120 days.
(2) The Regional Administrator shall
provide the notice of approval or
disapproval given under this paragraph
to the appropriate State Director. The
Regional Administrator shall publish a
notice of availability, in a daily or
weekly newspaper with State-wide
crcula ’ :on or in the Federal Register, for
the notice of approval or disapproval.
The Regional Administrator shall also
provide written notice to each
discharger identified under section
304(l)(1)(C), that EPA has listed the
discharger under section 304(l)(1)(C)
(3) As soon as pract cable but not
later than June 4. 1990, the Regional
Offices Shdll issue a response to
petitions or comments received under
section 304(1). The response to
comments shall be given in the same
manner as the notice described in
paragraph (e) of this section except for
the following changes.
(i) The lists of ICSs reflecting any
changes made pursuant to comments or
petitions received.
(ii) A brief description of the
subsequent steps in the section 304(l)
process.
(I) EPA shall review, and approve or
disapprove, the individual control
strategies prepared under section 304(1)
of the CWA. using the applicable
criteria set forth in section 304(l) of the
CWA. and in 40 CFR Part 122, including
§ 122.44(d). At any tune after the
Regional Adznuustrator disapproves an
ICS (or conditionally aproves a draft
permit as an ICS), the Regional Office
may submit a written notification to the
State that the Regional Office intends to
issue the ICS. Upon mailing the
notification, and notwithstanding any
other regulation, exclusive authority to
issue the permit passes to EPA.
4. Section 123.63 is amended by
adding paragraph (a)(5) to read as
follows:
§ 123.63 CrItic s. for withdrawal of stat.
pro ams .
(a)
(5) Where the State fails to develop an
adequate regulatory program for
developing water qualIty-based effluent
limits in NPDES permits.
PART 130—WATER QUAUTY
PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
1. The authority citation for Part 130
continues to read as follows:
AuthorIty: 33 U.S.C. 1.251 et seq.
. * . .
2. Section 130.10 is amended by
adding paragraphs (d)(4). (d)(5), (d)(6).
(d)(7), (d)(8), (d)(9), (d)(10), and (d)(11) to
read as follows:
130.10 State sabrnittals to EPA.
• • • S *
(d)
(4) For the purposes of listing waters
under § 130.10(d)(2), “applicable
standard” means a numeric criterion for
a priority pollutant promulg:ited as part
of a state water quality standard. Where
a state numeric criterion for a priority
pollutant is not promulgated as part of a
state water quality standard, for the
purposes of listing waters “applicable
standard” means the state narrative
water quality criterion to control a
priority pollutant (e g.. no toxins in toxic
amounts) interpreted on a chemical-by.
chemical basis by applying a proposed
state cirterion, an explicit state policy or
regulation, or an EPA national water
quality criterion, supplemented with
other relevant information.
(5) If a water meets either of the two
conditions listed belriw the water must
be listed under § 130 10(d)(2) on the
grounds that the applicable standard is
not achieved or expected to be achieved
due entirely or substantially ‘o
discharges from point sources.
(i) Existing or additional water
quality-based limits on one or more
point sources would result in the
achievement of an applicable water
quality standard for a toxic pollutant, or
(ii) The discharge of a toxic pollutant
from one or more point sources,
regardless of any nonpoint source
contribution of the same pollutant, is
sufficient to cause or is expected to
cause an excursion above the applicable
water quality standard for the toxic
pollutant.
(8) Each state shall assemble and
evaluate all existing and readily
avadable water quality-related data and
information and each state shall develop
the lists reqwred by paragraphs (d)(1),
(2), and (3) of this section based upon
this data and information. At a
minimum, all existing and readily
available water quality-related data and
information includes, but is not limited
to, all of the existing and readily
available data about the following
categories of waters In the state:
-------
23898
Federal Register! Vol. 54. No. 105 / Friday, rune 2, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
(I) Waters where fishing or shellfish
bans and/or advisories are currently in
effect or are anticipated.
Cu) Waters where there have been
repeated flshkills or where
abnormalities (cancers, lesions. tumors.
etc.) have been observed in fish or other
aquatic life during the last ten years.
(iii) Waters where there are
resUictlOUs on water sports or
recreational contact.
(iv) Waters identified by the state in
its most recent state section 305(b)
report as either ‘paitally achieving’ or
“not acluevtng’ designated uses.
(sr) Waters identified by the states
wider section 303(d) of the CWA as
waters needing water quality-based
controls.
(vi) Waters identified by the state as
priority waterbodies. (State Water
Quality Management plan.s often include
priority waterbody lists which are those
waters that most need water pollution
centrol decisions to achieve water
quality standards or goals.)
(iii) Waters where ambient data
indicate potential or actual exceedances
of water quality criteria due to toxic
poUutants from an industry classified as
a primary industry in Appendix A of 40
CFR Part 122.
(vui) Waters for which effluent
toxicity test results indicate possible or
actual exceedances of state water
quality standards. including narrative
“free from” water quality criteria or EPA
water quality criteria where state
criteria are not available.
(lx) Waters with primary industrial
major dischargere where dilution
analyses indicate exceedances of state
narrative or numeric water quality
criteria (or EPA water quality criteria
where state standards are not available)
for toxic pollntants. ammonia, or
chlorine. These dilution analyses must
be based on estimates of discharge
levels derived from effluent guidelines
development documents. f ’PI)ES
permits or permit application data (e.g..
Form ZC), Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMR4 , or other available inioresation.
(x) Waters with POTW diechargers
requiring local pretreatment programs
where dilution analyses Indicate
exceedances of state water quality
criteria (or EPA water quality criteria
where state water quality criteria are
not available) for tome pollutants,
ammonia, or chlorine. These dilution
analyses must be based upon data from
NPDES permits or permit applications
(e.g.. Form ZC). Discharge Monitoring
Reports (IJMR4 or other available
information.
(xi) Waters with facilities oat
induded In the previous two categories
such as ina or POTWe. arid industrial
minor diachargere where dilution
analyses indicate exceedances of
numeric or narrative state water quality
criteria (or EPA water quality criteria
where state water quality criteria are
not available) for toxic pollutants.
ammonia, or chlorine. These dilution
analyses must be based upon estimates
of discharge levels derived from effluent
guideline development documents.
NPDES permits or permit application
data. Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DM s). or other available information.
(xii) Waters classified for uses that
will not support the ‘flshablef
swimmable’ goals of the Clean Water
Act.
(xiii) Waters where ambient toxicity
or adveme water quality conditions
have been reported by local, state. EPA
or other Federal Agencies, the private
sector, public interest groups. or
universities. These organizations and
groups should be actively solicited for
research they may be conducting or
reporting. For example. university
researchers, the United States
Department of Agriculture, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the United States
Geological Survey, and the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service are
good sources of field data and research.
(xiv) Waters Identified by the state as
impaired in its most recent Clean Lake
Assessments conducted under section
314 of the Clean Water Act.
(xv) Waters identified as unpaired by
nonpoint sources in the America’s Clean
Wot err The Sta res ’ Nonpomi Source
Assessments 1985 (Association of State
and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Admirustrators (ASLWPCA)) or waters
identified as impaired or threatened In a
nonpoint source assessment submitted
by the state to EPA under section 319 of
the Clean Water Act.
(xvi) Surface waters unpaired by
pollutants from bazardou waste sites
on the National Priority Last prepared
under section 105(8)(A) of ( CIA
(7) Each state shall provide
documentation to the Regional
Adninuatrator to support the state’s
determination to list or not to list waters
as required by paragraphs (dXl), (d)(2)
and (d)(3) of this section. This
documentation shall be submitted to the
Regional Administrator together with
the lists required by paragraphs (d)(1) ,
(d)(2). and (d)(3) of this section and shall
include as a mixwnun’i:
(i) A description of the methodology
used to develop each list:
(ii ) A description of the data and
information used to identify waters and
sources including a description of the
data and information used by the state
as required by paragraph (d) [ 8) of th
sectlon
(iii) A rationale for any decision nor ic,
use any one of the categories of existing
and readily available data required by
paragraph (d)(6) of this section. and
(iv) Any other information requested
by the Regional Administrator that is
reasonable or necessary to determine
the adequacy of a states lists. Upon
request by the Regional Administrator,
each state must demonstrate good cause
for not including a water or waters on
one or more lists. Good cause includes,
but is not limited to, more recent or
accurate data: more accurate water
quality inodelingi flaws in the original
analysis that led to the water being
identified in a category in 130 10(dJ(6 ).
or changes in conditions, e.g.. new
control equipment, or elimination of
discharges.
(8) The Regional Administrator shall
approve or disapprove each list required
by paragraphs (d)(1). (d)(2). and (d((3) of
this section no later than June 4. 1989
The Regional Administrator shall
approve each List required under
paragraphs (d)(l). (dllZJ, and (d)(3) of
this section only if it meets the
regulatory requirements for listing under
paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2J, and (d)(3) of
this section and if the state has met all
the requirements of paragraphs (d)(6)
and (d) (7) of this section.
(9)11 a state fails to submit lists in
accordance with paragraph (d) of this
section or the Regional Administrator
does not approve the lists submitted by
such state in accordance with this
paragraph, then not later than June 4.
1990, the Regional Administrator, in
cooperation with such state, shall
implement the requirements of CWA
sectIon 304(l) (1) and (2) in such state.
(10) If the Regional Administrator
disapproves a state’s decision with
respect to one or more of the waters
required under paragraph (d) (1). (2). or
(3) of this section. or one or more of the
individual control strategies required
pursuant to section 304(l )(1)(D), then not
later than June 4. 1989, the Regional
Administrator shall distribute the notice
of approval or disapproval given under
this paragraph to th. appropriate state
DIrector. The Regional Adnuiustra tar
shall also publish a notice of
availability, in a daily or weekly
newspaper with state-wide circulation
or in the Federal Register, for the notice
of approval or disapprovaL The
Regional Administrator shall also
provide wntteis notice to each
discharger identified under section
304(l)(1)(C). that EPA has hated the
discharger under section 304 ( 1 1(1 1 (C ).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 105 / Friday. June 2. 1989 1 Rules 8nd Regulations
23899
The notice of approval end disapproval
shall include the followingi
(i) The name and address of the EPA
office that reviews the sjate’s
subrnittals.
lii) A brief description of the section
30411) prosess.
(iii) A list of waters, point sources and
pollutants disapprnved under this
paragraph.
(w) If the Regional Administrator
determines that a state did not provide
adequate public notice arid an
opportuni y to comment on the lists
prepared under this sectton. or if the
Regional Administrator chooses to
exercise his or her discretion, a list of
waters, point sources, or pollutants
approved under this paragraph.
(v The name, address, and telephone
number of the person at the Regional
Office from whom interested persons
may obtain more information.
(vi) Notice that written petitions or
comments are due within 120 days.
(11) As soon as practicable. but not
later than June 4, 1990. the Regional
Office shall issue a response to petitions
or comments received under paragraph
(d)(iO) of this section. Notice shall be
given in the same manner as notice
described in paragraph (dl(10l of this
section, except for the following char ges
to the notice of approvals arid
disapprovals:
Ii) The lists of waters, point sources
and pollutants must reflect any char.ges
made pursuant to comments or petitions
rece ivecL
(ii) A brief description of the
subsequent steps in the section 304(l)
process shall be included.
IFR Doe. 89—13180 Filed b-1—89 845 am
u m cooe
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 54, No. 100 / Thursday , May 25, 1989 / Notices
22619
days of receipt. This notice announces
receipt of 7 such PMN(s) and provide, a
summary of each.
DATES: Close to Review Periods:
Y 89—118. 89—119. 89—120, 89—121. 89—122.
89—123. May 22.1989.
V 89—124. May 25. 1989.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACr
Michael M. Stahl. Director. TSCA
Assistance Office (TS—799), Office of
Toxic Substances. Environmental
Protection Agency, Rm. EB—44, 401 M
Street SW. Washington. DC 20460 (202)
554-1404. TDD (202) 554-0551.
SUPPLEMENTARY INPORMATIOIC The
following notice contains information
extracted from the nonconfidential
version of the submission provided by
the manufacturer on the PMNs received
by EPA. The complete nonconfidential
document is available in the Public
Reading Room NE—C004 at the above
address between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m..
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays.
Y 89—118
Manufacturer ConfidentiaL
Chemical. (G) Polyurethane.
Use/Production. (C) Polyurethane for
plastic & textile industry. Prod, range:
Confidential.
Y 89-119
Manufacturer Confidential.
Chemical. (C) Aliphatic polyether
urethane.
Use/Production. (G) Used in coatings
applied”by industrial manufacturers
Prod. range. Confidential.
Y 89—120
Manufacturer Confidential.
Chemical. (C) Aliphatic polyether
urethane.
Use/Production. (C) Used in coatings
applied by industrial manufacturers.
Prod. range: Confidential.
Y 89-121
Importer. ConfidentiaL
Chemical. (S) Polyester-grafted.
styrene-acrylic copolymer.
Use/Production. (C) Binder resin of
pigment. Import range: ConfidentiaL
Y 89-123
Manufacturer. Confidential.
Chemical. {S) 2-propenic acid. 2.
methyl. 2-hydroxyethylester methyl 2-
methyl propenoate; butyl 2-propenoate;
phenylethene: phenylethene: ethyl.3.3.
di(t.butyl peroxyl peroxyl)butrate.
Use/Production. (S) Manufacture
protective & decorative coatings. Prod.
range: 544.310 88—793.786 70 kg/yr.
Y 89-123
Importer NOF America Corporation
Chemical. (C) Alkyl acrylate: styrene.
Use/Import (C) Open. nondispersive
use (solid). Import range: Confidential.
Y 89—124
Manufacturer. Confidential.
Chemical. (C) Rosin, phenolic
modified acid.
UseXprvduction. (C) Resin for
coatings (protective). Prod. range:
ConfidentiaL
Date: May 22, 1989.
Steven Newbuig-Rlnn.
Acting Director, Information Management
Division. Office of Toxic Substances.
(FR Doc. 89-12583 Filed 5-24-89: 845 sin)
SIWNO CODS 65lO4O-
[ FRL—3575-2 1
Washington’s Application for National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) General Permits
Authority
AGENCY Evironmental Protection
Agency.
ACTIOPC Notice of application, public
comment period.
SUMMARY On November 30, 1988, the
State of Washington submitted to EPA a
final application for authority to
adsñimster General Permits under the
NPDES program. Approval of tins
application would authorize state
issuance of general permits in lieu of
individual NPDES permits. The
application received from Washington is
complete and is now available for
inspection and copying. EPA requests
public.r,omments and will hold a public
hearing if sufficient public interest
exists.
DAT EPA must receive comments and
requests for a public hearing on or
before June 28, 1989.
ADDRESS: Address comments and
requests for further information to: Ms.
Andi Manzo, Water Permits Section,
WD—134, Evironinental Protection
Agency. 1200 Sixth Avenue. Seattle
Washington 98101.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMA11ON EPA
regulations at 40 CFR 122.28 provide for
the issuance of general permits to
regulate discharges of wastewater
which result from substantially similar
operations, are of the same type wastes.
require the same effluent limitations.
require similar monitoring, and are more
appropriately controlled under a general
permit rather than by individual permits.
State authority to issue general permits
would significantly reduce the backlog
of urussued NPDES permits and reduce
the administrative burden and cost of
issuing individual permits.
On November 14. 1973. Washington
received authority to administer the
NPDES program under section 402 of tha.
Clean Water Act. Their program. as it
currently exists, does not include
provisions for the issuance of general
permits. The states final application for
authority to issue general permits was
received November 30. 1988. The
submittal contains a letter from the state
asking for approval, a copy of the
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). a
supplementary NPDES program
description, and copies of relevant state
statutes and regulations. The submittal
also includes a statement by the
Attorney General certifying, with
appropriate citations to the statutes arid
regulations, that the state has adequate
legal authority to administer the general
permits program.
After the close of the comment period.
the Regional Administrator of EPA. with
the concurrence of EPA Headquarters.
will approve or disapprove this
proposed modification to Washington’s
NPDES program. This decision will be
based upon the contents of the
submittal, all written comments received
during the comment period and
presented at the public hearing, if one is
held, and upon meeting the requirements
of 40 CFR Part 123. If Washington’s
request is approved, the Regional
Administrator will notify the state and
notice will be published in the Federal
Register. Washington’s program will
implement Federal law’, however, each
general permit will be subject to EPA
review and approval as provided by 40
CFR 123.44(a)(2). Public notice and
opportunity to request a hearing will
also be provided for each general
permit. If the Regional Administrator
disapproves the state’s request for
general permits authority, he will notify
the state of the reasons for disapproval
and of any revisions or modifications
which are necessary to obtain approval.
The public may review Washington’s
application from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m..
Monday through Friday. excluding
holidays, at the Evironinental Protection
Agency. Region 10. 1200 Sixth Avenue.
lath Floor Library. Seattle, Washington
98101, or at the Washington Operations
Office. St. Martins Campus on College
and Sixth Street. Olympia, Washington
98504. Copies of the submission may
also be obtained by contacting Ms. Andi
Maftzo at the Seattle address listed or at
(206) 442-8399.
Approval of the State General Permits
Program would establish no new
substantive requirements. nor would it
later the regulatory control over any
industrial category. Program approval
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 100 / Thursday. May 25. 1989 I Notices
would merely provide a simplified
administrative process.
Os led: May 16, 1989.
Robie G. Russell.
RegionalAdmznisimior. EPA Region itt
[ FR Doc. 59—1Z424 Filed $-24 —89 3.45 am
BiLWIO C 1 151 5. 50.0
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
Agreement(s) Flied
The Federal Maritime Commission
hereby gives notice of the filing of the
following agreement(s) pursuant to
section 5 of the Shipping Act of 1984.
Interested parties may inspect and
obtain a copy of each agreement at the
Washington. DC Office of the Federal
Maritime Commission. 11001 Street
NW. Room 10325. Interested parties
may submit comments on each
agreement to the Secretary. Federal
Maritime Commission. Washington. DC
20573. within 10 days after the date of
the Federal Register in which this notice
appears. The requirements for
comments are found in 572.003 of Title
48 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Interested persona should consult this
section before cnmmunicaticg with the
Cnmmi uunn regarding a pending
agreement.
Agreement No.. 212-010382-015
Title: ArgentinafU.S. Gulf Ports
Agreement
Partlee: A Bottacclil S_A. de
Navegacion C.F.LL Empiesa Llneas
Maritimas Argentinas S_A. American
Transport Lines. In c . Companhia
Maritime Nacional Companhia de
Navegacao Uoyd Brasileiro
Transportadon Maritime Mexicana S.A.
Reefer Express Lines Pt7.. Ltd.
Synopsis: The proposed modification
would extend the Alternate Coast
Service accounting provisions. and
certain provisions related to space
chartering end pool accounting until
December 31. 1989. and would delete
certain provisi one which have expired
by their own terms.
Agreement No.. 212-01t 88-014
Title: Argentina/U.S. Atlantic Coast
Agreement
Parties: A. Bottaccbk S.A. de
Navegacion C.P.LL Empress Lineas
Maratamas Argentina. S.A. Americen
Transport Lines. Inc. Companhia de
Navegacao Uoyd Brasalenro Reefer
Express Lanes Pty.. Ltd. Van Nievelt.
Goudriaan & Co.. (Holland Pan AM)
Synopsis: The proposed modification
would extend the Alternate Coast
Service accounting provisions, and
certain provisions related to space
chartering and pool accounting until
December 31. 1989. and would delete
certain provisions which have expired
by their own terms.
Agreement No.: 212-010388-011
Title: U.S. Atlantic Coast/Argentina
Agreement
Parties: A. Bottaccha S.A. de
Navegaciori C.FIJ. Empress Uneas
Maritimas Argentinas S.A. American
Transport Lanes. Inc.
Synopsis. The proposed modification
would extend the Alternate Coast
Service accounting provisions, and
certain provisions related to space
chartering and pool accounting until
December 31. 1989. and would delete
certain provisions which have expired
by their own terms.
Agreement No.: 212-010089-011
Tide: U.S. Gulf Ports/Argentina
Agreement
Parties: A. Bottacchi S_A. de
Navegacion C.F.I.L Empresa Lineas
Maritiinaa Argentina. S.A. American
Transport Lanes. Inc.
Synopsis: The proposed modification
would extend the Alternate Coast
Service accounting provisions, and
certain provisions related to space
chartering and pooi accounting until
December 31, 1989, and would delete
certain provisions which have expired
by their own terms.
By Order of tha Federal Maritime
Commission.
Dated: May 22. 1989.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretaiy.
(FR Doe. 89-12553 Filed 5-Z4-8 t45 ami
• “ a coos .rss .i-o
Agreement(s) Filed
The Federal Maritime Commission
hereby gives notice of the filing of the
following agreement(s) pursuant to
section 5 of the Shipping Act of 1984.
Interested parties may inspect and
obtain a copy of each agreement at the
Washington, DC Office of the Federal
Maritime Commission. 1100 L Street.
NW.. Room 10325. Interested parties
may submit comments on each
agreement to the Secretary. Federal
Maritime Commission. Wstahington. DC
20573. within 10 days after the data of
the Federal Register In which this notice
appears. The requirements for
comments are found In 572.603 of Title
48 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Interested persons should consult this
section before communicating with the
CommJs8 ion regarding a pending
agreement.
Agreement No.: 224-.002401-010 .
Title: City of Long Beach Terminal
Agreement
Parties: City of Long Beach. Sea-Land
Service. Inc. (Sea-Land).
Synopsis. The Agreement revises
paragraph 7.iL3. of the Amended and
Restated Preferential Assignment
Agreement No. 224-002401-007 to
reduce the minimum supplemental
rent for (1) Parcel 2 for the period
May 18. 1989 to May 31. 1990. and. [ 2)
Parcels 2 and 3 for the period
commencing June 1. 1990. The
Agreement also provides that Sea-
Land may sell-insure against losses
rather than providing an insurance
policy evidencing the required
coverages.
Agreement No.: 224-200333-003.
Tide: Philadelphia Port Corporation
Terminal Agreement
Parties: Philadelphia Port Corporation.
Halt Cargo Systems. Inc.
Synopsis: The Agreement amends
Exhibit C. schedule of terminal rates.
of the basic terminal lease and
operating agreement. as amended, for
the Packer Avenue Marine Terminal.
The Agreement (1) revises the all
inclusive rate requirement in Item
One. Table A—I. to read: “an annual
volume of at least 10.000 containers
and (2) clarifies that ocean common
earner” includes both individual
ocean common carriers as well as
those ocean common carriers who
operate vessels under cross space
charter agreements.
By Order of the Federal Maritime
Commission.
Joseph C. Poildag.
Dated: May 22.1989.
[ FR Doe. 89-12514 Filed 5-24-89 8.45 ash
wwiiu ccos,ano-oi-o
Ocean Freight Forwarder Ucense
Notice is given that the following
applicants have filed with the Federal
Maritime Commission applications for
licenses as ocean freight forwarders
pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping
Act of 1984 (48 U. C. app. 1718 and 46
CFR Part 510).
Persona knowing of any reason why
any of the following applicants should
not receive a license are requested to
contact the Office of Freight Forwarder
and Passenger Vessel Operations.
Federal Maritime Commission.
Washington. DC 20573.
ARI Shipping Corporation. 156 Fifth
Avenue. New York, NY 10010.
Officers: flan Fidler. President. Carol
Polishuk. Vice President. Paul
Polishuk. Treasurer
MTD (USA) Corporation. 2920 S.W. 121
Ave.. Miami. FL 33175, Offlcers
-------
21470
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 95 / Thursday. May 18. 1989 I Notices
Any person desiring to be heard or to
protest said filing should file a motion to
intervene or a protest with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission. 825
North Capitol Street NE.. Washington.
DC Z0420. in accordance with Rules 214
and 211 of the Commissions Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214.
385.211 (1988)). AU such motions or
protests should be flied on or before
May 18, 1989. Protests will be
considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be
taken. but will not serve to make
protestants parties to the proceeding.
Any person wishing to become a party
must file a motion to intervene. Copies
of this filing are on file with the
Commission and are available for pubhc
Inspect ion.
Lois 0. CashalL
Secretor,’
[ FR Doc. 89—11896 Filed 5—l7--8 845 anil
BZUJNO COO! I1l7-O1—M
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
(FRL-3572-8 1
Extension of Time: InItial 404(c)
Consultation for Proposed Two Forks
Dam and Reservoir
AGENC’V Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTiOP Notice of an extension of time.
SUMUARYi On March 5 of 1988, an
application for a Clean Water Act
section 404. 33 U.S.C. section 1334,
permit was submitted to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. Omaha District
(Corps) for construction of the Two
Forks Dam and Reservoir near Denver.
Colorado. On March 24. 1989. EPA ’s
Denver Regional Administrator Initiated
an action under regulations for Clean
Water Act section 404(c), (40 CFR
231.3(a)(1)) which may lead to the
prohibition or restriction of the
discharge site for the proposed dam.
EPA has notified the Corps, the permit
applicant and affected landowners of
this action and has provided the
opportunity for them to consult with
EPA regarding possible adverse
environmental effects of the project As
provided in the regulations for section
404(c), the close of EPA’s consultation
process was originally established as
April 28. 1989. After meeting with the
permit applicant and other affected
parties the Regional Decision Officer.
acting as the Regional Administrator in
this action determined that good cause
exists for extending the timeframa for
consultation to July 14. 1989. This action
is taken with the knowledge of and at
the request of the permit applicant
FOR FURTHER INFORMATiON CONTACTI
Gene Reetz. Two Forks Technical Team
Leader, or Pat Courtney, Records Clerk.
State Programs Management Branch.
Water Management Division. 999 18th
Street. Suite 500. Denver, Colorado
80202—2405, (303) 293—1570. (FTS) 564—
1570.
Lee A. Delfihas,
Regional Decision Officer. EPA Region VIIL
[ FR Doc. 89-11884 Filed 5-17-89’. 8’45 atnl
WNU coot 55SO4O ’
[ FRL.—3572—21
Draft General NPDES Permit for
Seafood Processors In the State of
Alaska; Proposed Relssuance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of the draft NPDES
permit for Alaskan Seafood Processors
(No. AK—G—52-0000); Proposed
reissuanCe.
SUMMARYi The Regional Adinimatrator
of Region 10 is today providing notice of
the draft general National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit for seafood processors in Alaska
(proposed reissuance). The draft general
permit proposes effluent limitations.
monitoring requirements. and reporting
requirements for discharges from
Alaskan seafood processors. This permit
will cover mobile and sbore.based
seafood processing facilities in all
waters under U.S. jurisdiction off the
coast of Alaska, other than those water3
listed as excluded areas.
DATES: Interested persons may submit
comments on the draft general permit
and adnumstrative record to the
Regional Adxmrustrator. Region 10. at
the Seattle address below no later than
June 19. 1989.
ADDRESS: The draft general permit Is
based on the administrative record.
which is available for public review in
three locations:
Environmental Protection Agency.
Water Permits and Compliance
Branch. WD—134. 1200 Sixth Avenue.
Seattle, Washington 98101
Environmental Protection Agency.
Alaska Operations Office. Federal
Building. Room E551. Box 19. 701 C
Street. Anchorage, Alaska 99513
Environmental Protection Agency.
Alaska Operations Office. 3200
Hospital Drive. Suite 101. Juneau.
Alaska. 99801.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT!
For further information and copies of the
draft permit and fact sheet contact Ben
Cope. Region 10. at the Seattle address
above or by telephone at (206) 442—1442
or El’S 399-1442.
SUPPI.EUENTARY INFORMAT1ON
A. Background -
Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act
(the Act) provides that the discharge of
pollutants is unlawful except in
accordance with an NPDES permit.
EPA’s regulations authorize the issuance
of general permits to categories of
discharges when a number of point
sources are:
1. Located within the same geographic
area and warrant similar pollution
control measures;
2. Involve the same or substantially
similar types of operations:
3. Discharge the same types of wastes.
4. Require the same effluent
limitations or operating conditions:
5. Require the same or similar
monitoring requirements; and
6. La the opinion of the Director, are
more appropriately controlled under a
general permit than under individual
permits.
Like individual permits. a violation of
a condition contained in a general
permit constitutes a violation of the
Clean Water Act and subjects the ovirner
or operator of the permitted facility to
the penalties specified in section 309 of
the Act
Owners or operators authorized by a
general permit may request to be
excluded from coverage by this general
permit by applying to the Director for an
individual permit This request must be
,. . efie by submitting an NPDES permit
application, together with supporting
documentation for the request no later
than 90 days after publication by EPA of
the final general permit in the Federal
Register. or 180 days prior to the
commencement of operation of a new
source or new discharger.
B. Seafood Processors in Alaska
As of January 1989. the existing
seafood general permit has covered 243
seafood processors (165 are mobile and
78 are shore-based). The draft permit
proposed for reissuance is to expand
coverage to include many more
processors throughout Alaska. EPA now
proposes to cover an estimated
additional 150 of those currently not
covered under any NPDES permit. These
150 facilities are small, mobile
processing vessels that discharge more
than ½ mile from shore in open water.
at a depth of at least 42 feet These
facilities were excluded from coverage
under the the existing general permit.
They were consequently required to
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 54, No. 95 / Thursday, May 18, 1989 I Notices
21471
apply for an individual NPDES permit
In order to reduce the regulatory burden
on these facilities. EPA proposes to
cover them under the reissued permit
This will ina’eaae total coverage
statewide under the general permit to
about 400 facilities.
The following areas are excluded from
coverage under the proposed reissued
general permit:
1. Akutan Akutan Harbor, if the
amount of waste exceeds 310.000
pounds per month.
2. Kodiak: Gibson Cove. Near Island
Channel. St. Paul Harbor, and Women’s
Bay.
3. Unalaska/Dutch Harbor.
Ihuliujc Bay. Iliuliuk Harbor, Dutch
Harbor, and Captain’s Bay.
Unalaska Bay, south of the riorthermost
point of Hog Island.
4. Discharges in the following areas:
a. Areas where water depth is less
than 42 feet which are likely to have
poor flushing (bays, harbors, inlets.
coves. and lagoons that are protected).
b. Areas of special concern (spawning
areas, State Critical Habitats and
Refuges. National Wildlife Refuges. and
the seaward boundaries of Wilderness
Refuges. National Parks and
Monuments. and wilderness classified
lands).
5. Discharges to fresh waters in the
vicinity of drinking water sources.
C. Effluent Limitations
1. Size of Waste Partides
In compliance with BCT for remote
Alaska processors. seafood wastes may
be discharged only if they do not exceed
0.5 inch in any dimension.
2. Discharge Depth
The permit specifies that process
wastes shall be discharged through an
outfall located beneath the mean lower
low water (MLLW) level of the receiving
water surface at a point which provides
maximum dispersion of the wastes. The
discharged depth for shore-based
processing facilities must be at least 10
feet. into a total depth to the bottom
substrate of 20 feet at !vfl .LW. On a case
by case basis, EPA may grant waiver of
the depth requirement. provided
adequate justification for the waiver is
submitted by the pernuttee in the Notice
of Intent to be Covered.
3. Treatment of Sanitary Wastes
The permit requires that all sanitary
wastes generated at a facility be:
a. Discharged to a septic system or a
municipal treatment works, or
b. Treated prior to discharge by an
approved marine sanitation device that
complies with pollution control
standards and regulations wider section
312 of the Act. or
c. Treated to meet the secondary
treatment effluent limitations.
4. Prohibition of the Discharge of
Garbage
This permit prohibits the discharge of
garbage (especially plastics) from
seafood prbcessing facilities.
5. °rohibhzon of Discharges frwn
Docked Vessels
This general permit prohibits the
discharge of pollutants from vessels
docked at or otherwise tied up to the
permittee’s facility.
6. State of Alaska Water Quality
Standards
Based on the State of Alaska Water
Quality Standards, there shall be no
discharge of floating solids, grease, oily
water or wastes that produce a sheen on
the surface of the receiving water, or
foam that persists at or near the
shoreline and/or impacts nearby
shoreline activities. In addition, no
wastes shall be allowed to accumulate
on the shore.
D. Monitoring Requirements
1. Dive Surveys
Most.facilities covered by this permit
will be required to conduct two diva
surveys in the first year of coverage.
Dive surveys are required in order to
document any negative impacts
resulting from the discharge of seafood
wastes.
If dive surveys indicate the presence
of a year-rd’und waste pile
accumulation, a request for a state-
designated zone of deposit shall be
submitted within 30 days of the second
dive survey.
Facilities discharging to the following
receiving waters will be required to
conduct two dive surveys per year,
based on the higher concentration of
large facilities in these areas: Unalaska
Bay. Akutan Harbor, Wrangell Narrows,
and Orca Inlet
2 Other Monitoring Requirement.,
Facilities that are exempt from the
dive survey requirement (due to a
prohibitive depth of the outfall or
hazardous diving conditions) are
required to conduct bottom samples to
document any waste pile accumulations.
Facilities are required to conduct bottom
samples twice in the first year of
coverage. Facilities on the Kenat River,
Kasilof River, and fresh waters are
required to conduct annual bottom
samples.
Annual dye testing of the
wastehandling system is required for
facilities that do not have annual dive
requirements to insure proper operation
of the outfall as well as the collection
system over the life of the permit
The permit requires effluent sampling
for total residual chlorine to assess
potential impacts to the receiving water.
Most facilities chlorinate intake water
prior to processing for disinfection
purposes.
E. Reporting Requirements
The perrmttees will be required to
submit to EPA and ADEC the following:
1. Notice of Intent to be Covered
Existing facilities covered under this
general permit must notify the Director
of their intent to be covered no later
than 30 days after permit reissuance. For
new dischargers. the intent must be
submitted 30 days prior to
commencement of operations.
The Notice of Intent to be Covered
must include the following information:
a. NPDES permit number previously
assigned State seafood processors
permit number.
b. Owner name, address, phone
number.
c. Operator name. address. pi one
number.
d. Facilityi name, address, location,
vessel registration number, previous
facility andf or vessel name, date of
purchase/transfer, number of
employees.
e. Treatment method of treating
seafood and sanitary wastes, method of
garbage/plastics disposaL depth of
discharge below the.water surface, total
water column depth at the discharge
location, water use diagram (estimates
of flows used in seafood processing,
sanitary systems. freezing, etc.)
L Receiving Water(s): name of
receiving water(s), bathymetric map of
receiving water showing the outfall
location (shore-based and near-shore
facilities only).
g. Production Data (for each type of
raw product processed). Name of raw
product Type of finished product.
Maximum quantity processed per day,
Projected dates of each operating
season, Projected number of processing
days per season.
Subrdittal (to EPA) of the State of
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation Annual Uniform Permit
Application for Seafood Processors, if it
includes all of the information above.
will also satisfy this requirement.
-------
21472
Federal Register I Vol. 54, No. 95 I Thursday. May 18. 1989 I Notices
Z Annual Report
The Annual Report shall be submitted
by tha end of the processing season or
by January 31 of each year. whichever is
sooner, and shall include the following:
a. Dive or Bottom Sampling Reports.
b. esidual Chlorine Monitoring
Results.
c. Dye Test Results.
d. Production Data for the previous
year (a copy of the daily records will
suffice) including, for each location:
Dates of operations at each location,
production data (raw and finished
product for each type of product), and a
map showing the bathymetry at each
location (when locations are within ½
mile of shore or in less than 90 feet of
total water depth).
e. Updated Notice of Intent to be
Covered. Any changes to the
information submitted in the original
Notice of intent to be Covered.
f. Special Reporting Requirements in
Areas of Concern: Facilities discharging
to lJnalaska Bay. Akutan Harbor.
Wrangell Narrows, and Orca inlet shall
submit monthly Discharge Monitoring
Reports (DMRs).
F. Other Legal Requirements
1. Notional Environmental Policy Act
(NEJ’A)
Pursuant to section 301 of the Clean
Water Act, new source performance
standards were pomulgated by EPA in
1975 for categories of discharges
covered under this permit In
accordance with section 511(c)(1) of the
Act. NPDES permits for new sources are
subiect to the provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). An
assessment of potentially significant
impacts on the quality of the human
environment resulting from operation of
the new source is required under NEPA.
Prior to the issuance of the existing
general permit. EPA conducted an
environmental assessment to determine
if the environmental impacts associated
with the discharges from new sources
operating under the permit would be
significant On December 1. 1983, EPA
determined that the environmental
impacts would not be significant and
Issued a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI). Because the proposed
general permit will also allow coverage
to new source seafood processors. EPA
has reexamined the environmental
assessment in relation to the conditions
of the proposed general permit.
Because there have been no
significant changes in. the fundamental
factors affecting the facilities covered by
the general permit and the waters it is
designed to protect. EPA has determined
that the permit will not cause any
significant environmental impacts.
Although the proposed permit covers
more Alaskan waters than the existing
permit, additional monitoring
requirements in areas of concern have
been incorporated into the proposed
permit (such as more frequent dive
surveys in Orca Inlet). These
requirements are derived from current
individual permitting policies in these
areas.
The reissued permit continues to
allow EPA to issue individual permits to
facilities if water quality is not
adequately protected under the general
permit. individual environmental
assessments will be prepared for new
sources not covered under this proposed
general permit
Based on the above factors, EPA has
determined that the environmental
assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact prepared for the
existing permit are still valid for the
purposes of this permit reissuance.
2. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has reviewed the requirements
imposed on regulated facilities by this
proposed general permit under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information
collection requirements of this permit
have already been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget in
submissions made for the NPDES permit
program under the Clean Water Act.
3. Executive Order 12291
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this action from the
review requirements of Executive Order
12291 pursuant to section 8(b) of that
order.
4. Regulatory Flexibilty Act
After review of the facts presented in
the notice printed above. I hereby certify
pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this general NPDES permit
will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, the permit reduces a
significant adaunistrative burden on
regulated sources.
Dateth May 10. 1989.
Robie G. Russell.
Regional Administrator. Region ia
(FR Doc. 89—11821 Filed 5—17—89’. 845 aml
en.uNQ cOO! 6510-60-M
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD
Thrice-Monthly Survey of LiabIlities of
FSLIC-insured Thrifts
DaIe May ii. 1989
AGENCY Federal Home Loan Bank
Board.
ac ’noP Notice.
SUMMARVI The public is advised that the
Federal Home Loan Bank Board
(“Board”) has submitted a request for a
new information collection survey
entitled “Thrice-Monthly Survey of -
Liabilities of FSLIC-Insured Thrifts”, to
the Office of Management and Budget
for approval in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35).
The information collected from the
survey will enable the Bank Board to
better meet the cash needs of thrifts
from funds raised in financial markets
by the twelve Federal Home Loan
Banks. We estimate it will take
approximately 25 hours per response to
complete the information collection.
DATES Comments on the information
collection request are welcome and
should be received on or before June 2.
1989.
AOORESS Comments regarding the
paperwork.burden aspects of the
request should be directed to’ Office of
Management and Budget. Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Washington. DC 20503. Attention. Desk
Officer for the Federal Home Loan Bank
Board.
The Board would appreciate
commenters sending copies of their
comments to the Board.
Request for copies of the proposed
information collection requests and
supporting documentation are
obtainable at the Board address given
below: Director. Information Services
j,i eAion. Office of Secretariat. Federal
‘Home Loan Bank Board, 1700 G Street
NW., Washington. DC 20552. Phone’
202—416-2751.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Richard C. Pickenng, Deputy Director.
Office of Policy & Economic Research.
(202) 906-0770, Federal Home Loan Bank
Board. 1700 G Street. NW., Washington.
DC 20552.
By the Federal Home Loan Bank Board.
John F. Ghlzzont ,
Ass s1cn1 Secz toiy.
[ FR Doc. 89-11878 Filed 5—17—89 8.45 amI
WNG CCCI 1720-Oi-M
FEDERAL MARITiME COMMISSION
Agreement(s) Filed
The Federal Maritime Commission
hereby gives notice that the following
agreement(s) has been filed with the
Commission pursuant to section 15 of
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 18 / Monday, January
30. 1989 / Notices 4335
ACTION: Notice of availability .
SUMMARY A request for applications’
(RFA #NPIR_003_8gJ is available; The
purpose of the RFA is to solicit grant
proposals which will result in the
development of innovative, cost-
effective methods for biodegradation of
hazardous organic wastes at Superfund
sites. The Agency has $t5oo.ooo
available and expects to support 10 to 15
proposals.
(Section 289. Superfund Amendmentg and
Reauthonzation Act, 1988).
DATE: Applications must be received no
later than May 1, 1989, to be considered
for funding.
ADDRESS: Copies of the RFA may be
obtained from: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, ORD Publications, 28
West Martin Luther King Drive.
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268. Phone: 513—569—
7562.
FOR FURTHER INFORNAflON CONTACT:
Questions relating to the RFA may be
directed to Mr. Donald Carey at: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Grants Staff. RD—875, 401 M
Street SW.. Washington. DC 20460.
Phone: 202—382—7445.
Clance Gaylord,
Director. RG&
Roger Co te i,
Director. OE .R.
(FR Doc. 89-2027 Filed 1-27-89. 845 am)
BIWNO COOS esao-eo -M
(FRL-35119l
Science Advisory Board, Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee, Clinical
Lab Review Subcommittee; Open
Meeting
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92—463,
notice is hereby given of a public
meeting of the Clinical Lab Review
Subcommittee of the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee (CASAC) of the
Environmental Protection Agency’s
Science Advisory Board. The meeting
will be held from 10a.m. to 5 p.m. on
February 9, 1989, in the Old Well Room.
Carolina Inn, Cameron Avenue and
Columbia Street, Chapel Hill. North
Carolina 27514. A writing session of the
subcommittee will be held on February
10. 1989, in the South Parlor Room of the
Carolina Inn. The starting time will be
announced at the close of the meeting
on February 9, 1989.
Purpose: The purpose of the meeting Is
to allow the Subcommittee to review
and provide its advice to the Agency on
the EPA’s clinical research program. The
Subcommittee will review the Clinical
Lab Research Program Document and
respond to oral presentations of Agency
staff.
A vailobility of the Document. ”The
Clinical Lab Research Program
Document may be obtained from Mr.
David Kleffman, Acting Director.
Environmental Health Research Staff,
Office of Health Research (RD—683), U.S.
EPA. 401 M Street SW.. Washington. DC
-30460, (202) 382—5893, (F ’rS) 382—5893.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The meeting is open to the public. Any
member of the public wishing further
information concerning the meeting
should contact Mr. Robert Flask.
Environmental Scientist and Executive
Secretary. Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee. Science Advisory Board (A—
lOW). U.S. EPA. Washington. DC 20480.
(202) 382—2552, (VI ’S) 382—2552. Seating
at the meeting is limited and will be on a
first come basis.
Donald G. Barnes,
Director, Science Advisor,’ Board
Date. January 19. 1989
[ FR Doc. 89-2025 Filed 1-27-89 ’. &45 arni
moe -_ .---. ‘•
(FRL 3511—3J
Zenltt’i Chemical Co. Site; Notice of
Proposed Settlement
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTiON: Notice of proposed settlement.
SUMMARY: Under section 122(h) of the
.Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has agreed to
settle claims for response costs at the
Zenith Chemical Company Site. Dalton.
Georgia. with KEM Manufacturing. EPA
will consider public comments on the
proposed settlements for thirty (30)
days. EPA may withdraw from or
modify the proposed settlements should
such comments disclose facts or
considerations which indicated the
proposed settlements are inappropriate.
improper or inadequate. Copies of the
proposed settlements are available from:
Ms. Carolyn McCall. Investigations
Support Clerk, Investigation and Cost
Recovery Unit. Site Investigation and
Support Branch. Waste Management
Division. U.S. EPA. Region IV. 345
Courtland St., NE.. Atlanta, Ga 30365,
404—347—5059.
Written comments may be submitted
to the person above by thirty (30) days
from date of publication.
Date: January 13. 1989.
Joe R. FrnnzmStheL
Acting Regional Administrator
IFR Doc 89-2028 Filed 1-27-89 845 aml
8IWNO cooe isae-eo-
(FRL-3509-4 )
Approval of Connecticut’s NPDES
Program To Regulate Federal Facilities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of approval of the State
of Connecticut’s request for authority to
administer the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
and Pretreatment programs with respect
to Federal Facilities.
SUMMARY: On January 9. 1989. the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
approved the State of Connecticuts
request to include regulation of Federal
Facilities under its State water pollution
permit program responsibility.
Previously the State had been approved
to administer the NPDES and
Pretreatment programs for facilities
other than Federal Facilities.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Fedak. Water Management
Division. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, J.F.K. Federal Building. Boston.
MA 02203, (617) 565—3493.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMAflON: In 1977
Congress amended section 313 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S C. 1251 et seq)
to authorize States to regulate.Federally
owned or operated facilities under their
water pollution control programs. Prior
to the amendment. States, including
those authorized pursuant to section
402(b) of the Clean Water Act to
participate in the NPOES program. were
preduded from regulating Federal
Facilities.
With the passage of the 1977
amendments, EPA has been authorizing
States to administer the NPDES program
over Federal Facilities in approved
States. Today’s Federal Register notice
is to announce the approval of the State
of Connecticut’s request to assume
NPDES authority over Federal Facilities.
In support of its application to assume
NPDES authority over Federal Facilities.
the State of Connecticut has submitted
to EPA copies of the relevant statutes
and regulations. The State has also
submiMec i a statement by the Attorney
General certifying that the State has
adequate legal authority to regulate
Federal Facilities. EPA has concluded.
upon reviewing all of these submitted
matenals, that the State has adequate
authority to apply its approved State
-------
Federal Register / VoL 54. No. 18 I Monday . January 30. 19 I Notices
NPDES and Pretreatment programs to
Federal Facilities. The Regional
Administrator has determined that thi a
is not a substantial revision to
Connecticut’s program and therefore
does not recu re publication of a
proposal with pubiic notice and
opportunity for comment.
Federal Register Notice of Approval of
State NPDES Programs or Modifications
EPA will provide Federal Register
notice of any action by the Agency
approving or modifying a State NPDES
program. The following table will
provide the public with an np-to-date
list of the status of NPDES permitting
authority throughout the country.
10/19179
11/01/88
05114173
03/27175
09/28173
04/01/74
06(29/74
11 129174
10/29/77
01/01/75
08110/75
08/29174
09/30/82
09105/74
I Of 17/73
06130/74
05/01/74
10/30/74
06(10/74
06/12/74
09/19/75
04/13/82
10/29175
10/19/75
06/13/75
03/11/74
09/29/73
06130/78
09/17/84
06/10/15
12/28/77
07/07/87
03/11/74
06/30/74
03/31/75
11/14/73
05/10/92
02/04/14
01/30fl
to
IacthDe s
10119179
11/01/88
05/05178
01/03/89
12/09/78
06 /01 /79
09/20/79
12/09/79
08/10178
08/28/85
09/ 3 0/83
11/10/87
12/09/78
12/09/75
01/29183
06/29179
06/29/81
11/02179
06 /31/18
04/13/82
06/13/80
09/28/84
mem
10/19/79
11/01/86
06/00/81
03/12/81
08/12/03
06/03/81
09/30 /83
09/30/ 85
08/07/03
01116/75
05/*3/82
06/00/81
09/07/84
04/13 /82
06/14(82
01/28/83 01/27/83
03/02/79 03/12/81
06/30/75 ___
09/17/84 09/11/84
09/26/80 04/09/82
09/10/03
07/01/87 01/07l87
02/16/82
02/09/82
05/10/82
11/28(79
0 5/18 / Il
09/30/88
05/10/82
12/24/80
‘Slate a Ioved w gi.... ,J pem .
Review Under the Regulatory flexibility
Act and Executive Order i i
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 5
U S.C. 601 c/seq. EPA is required to
prepare a Regulatory Analysis for all
rules which may have a significant
Impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The approval of the Connecticut
NPDES permit program to administer
Federal Facilities merely transfers
responsibility for ad ninistratlon of these
facilities from the Federal to the State
government. No new substantive
requirements are established by this
action. Therefore, this notice does not
have a significant ‘mpact on a
substantial number of small entities. It
therefore does not trigger the
requirement of a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
Michael R. Delazid,
RegionolAdm,rnsimtor. Region I.
(FR Doc. 69-2028 Filed 1-V-89 8:45 aml
U 80 6001 UIO4 M
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
(Docket No. 89-011
Jugollrnja; Possible VIoIatIons Order
of Investigation
Jugolinija is a vessel operating
common carrier which operates non-
conference container service from
United States Ports and Points to
Mediterranean and Middle East Ports
and Points.
It appears that Jugolinija engaged in
violations of sections i0(b) 1), 10(b)(3)
and 10(b)(11) of the Shipping Act of 1984
(“Act” or “1984 Act”), 48 US.C. app.
1709(b)(1). 1709(b)(3) and 1709(b)(11),
involving Jugolinija’s foodstuffs and
grocery rates to the Middle East from
the United States during the period
March 1985 through August 1987. It
appears that on 539 shipments during
that period, Jugolinija knowingly and
willfully undercharged a single shipper
by $570,404. It also appears that during
that period. Jugolinija may have
provided this shipper free transportation
of empty containers from the Middle
East to Italy as a concession for
shipments from the United States to the
Middle East in violation of sections
10(b )(3J and 10(b)(11) of the AcL
Now therefore it is ordered, that
pursuant to sections 10.11. and 13 of the
1984 Act. 48 U.S.C. app. 1709,1710 and
1712. an investigation us hereby
instituted to determine:
(1) Whether Jugolizuia violated section
10(b)(1) of the Act. by charging,
demanding. collecting or receiving
greater. less or different compensation
for the transportation of foodstuffs and
grocery items from the United States to
Middle East destinations than the rates
and charges specified in its applicable
tariff on file witiflhe Commission during
the period from March 1985 through
August 1987; and whether 8uch
violations were knowing and willful;
(2) Whether Jugolinija violated section
10(b)(3) of the Act by extending or
denying to any person any privilege.
concession. equipment. or facility in
connection with: (i) The transportation
of foodstuffs and grocery items from the
United States to Middle East
destinations during the penod from
March 1985 through August 1987: and (ii)
the transportation of empty shipper
leased containers; and whether such
violations were knowing and willful;
(3) Whether Jugolinija violated section
i0(b)(11) of the Act by giving any undue
or unreasonable preference or
advantage to any particular person.
locality, or description of traffic, in
connection with: (i) The transportation
of foodstuffs and grocery items from the
United States to Middle East
destinations during the period from
March 1985 through August 1987; or (ii)
the transportation of empty shipper
leased containers: and whether such
violations were knowing and wullfuk
(4) Whether, in the event Jugolinija is
found to have violated section 10(b)(1),
10(b)(3) or 10(b)(11) of the Act, civil
penalties should be assessed and, if so.
the amount of such penalties;
(5) Whether, in the event Jugolinija is
found to have violated section 10(b)(l)
or 10(b)(3) of the Act, its tariffs should
be suspended pursuant to section 13 of
the Act;
(6) Whether, In the event Jugolinija is
found to have violated section 1C(bJ(1J,
10(b)(3), or 1O(b )(11) of the Act, an
appropriate cease and desist order
should be ied
It is fuf(her ordered. that a public
hearing be held in this proceeding and
that this matter be assigned for hearing
before an Administrative Law Judge of
the Commission’s Office of
Administrative Law Judges at a date
and place to be hereafter determined by
the Administrative Law Judge in
compliance with Rule 61 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure. 48 CFR 502.81;
It is further ordered, that Jugolinija is
designated Respondent in this
proceeding;
It is further ordered. that the
Commission’s Bureau of Hearing
Counsel is designated a party to this
proceeding;
It is further ordered, that notice of this
Order be published in the Federal
Register, and a copy be served on
parties of record
It is further ordered, that other
persons having an interest in
participating in this proceeding may tile
petitions for leave to intervene in
4330
A d
NPDCS
pemw
ptogram
A ab m
Arliansas’ —
ca Iom --
Co*otado —
Connec licut
Delaware
Geo ’qia
in ana .
Kansee._____
KenS.acky ‘.__
—
Momana’ —
Nevada,. —
New J S
New Yot.._
Nonh CatMrs
Noun Oaiwla_
Ohio. -_____
-
Penn *an ,a -
Rhode liland I
Sou C&otha
Tennessee —
UIai*’ ______
Vennont
V ’e9n Ielan&_
Virqints.
Wasflmg ion —
Wegi Vu ma ‘_
W c on
Wyon
-------
Thursday
January 12, 1989
Part III
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 122, 123 and 130
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System; Surface Water Toxics Control
Program; Proposed Rule
-------
1300
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No, 8 / Thursday. January 12.
jggg / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 122, 123 and 130
(FRL-3431-l I
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System; Surface Water
Toxics Control Program
AGENCY: Enviconmental Protectioi,
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: Today’s action proposes to
ame’id Parts 122. 123. and 130 of EPA’s
regulations. The proposed regulations
clarify EPA’s surface water toxics
control program. and incorporate section
308(a) of the Water Quality Act of 1987
into EPA’s toxics control program.
Section 308(a) of the Water Quality Act
added section 304(I) to the Clean Water
Act (hereafter referred to as section
304(I)) Section 304(I) requires the States
to identify those waters that are
ad’. ersely affected by toxic.
conventional, and nonconventional
pollutants, and requires the States to
prepare individual control strategies
that ‘ . ill control point source discharges
of toxic pollutants. The States must
submit lists of waters and individual
control strategies to EPA for review, and
if EPA disapproves a State’s decision
with respect to a list or an individual
control strategy. then EPA must
implement the requirements of section
304(l) in cooperation with the State. EPA
and the States must accomplish the
tdsks in section 304(1) according to an
ambitious series of deadlines. Today’s
proposed rules will strengthen State and
Federal controls over discharges of toxic
pollutants, and will assist EPA and the
States in satisfying the requu’ements of
section 304(l) of the CWA.
DATE: EPA will accept comments from
the public until February 13. 1989.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments to Paul
Connor. Program Development Branch.
Office of Water Enforcement and
Permits. (EN—336), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 401 M Street. SW..
Washington. DC 20460. The public
record for this proposed regulation is
a’. ailable at the EPA library, M2904, US.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M
Street. SW. Washington. DC 20460.
FOR F1JRT14ER INFORMATiON CONTACT:
P,iul Connor. Program Development
Branch. Office of Water Enforcpment
and Permits, (EN—336). U S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW. Washington. DC 20460,
(.!02) 475—9537, or Judith Leckrone,
M anitoring md Data Support Di’.isiun
Offuct’ uf \,V,it r Regiij,jiiu,ns an(1
Standards, (WH—.553), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street. SW., Washington, DC 20460.
(202 382—7056,
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORU4Tio
Preamble Outline
I Auihority
II Background
A EPA’s Surface Water Toxic, Control
Program
8. Section 304(i) and its Relationship to
EPA’s Surface Water Toxic, Control Program
C Purpose and Summary of Today’s
Proposed Regulations
Ill. Section-by-Section Analysis
A. Changes to EPA’s Surface Water Toxics
Control Program
I Amendments io 40 CFR 12244
a A Definition for Whole Effluent Toxicity
b. Narrative Water Quality Standards
c. Developing Water Quality’Based
Effluent Limits
d. Limitations on Toxic Pollutants and
Sources of Toxicity
2. State NPDES Program Requirements
B ldentificat o of Waters
I Description of the Four Lists
2 Explanation of Terms Used in Section
3 04(I)( I )(BJ
a Applicable Standard
b “Due Entirely or Substantially to
Discharges from Point Sources’
3 Preparation and Review of the Lists
a. Use of Existing and Readily Available
Data
b. Documentation of data and
Methodologies
c. Review of Lists By EPA
4. Biennial Submission of Lists Under
sections 303(d) and 305(bl of the CWA
a. Authority to Require Biennial
Submission of Lasts
b Proposed Amendments to 40 CFR Part
130
C. A proposal for a ‘Two List” Format for
Biennial Submissions
C. Individual Control Strategies
1. Desr.riptiori of an Individual Control
Strategy
2. Technical Review Cnieria
0. EPA Review of Lists and Individual
Control Strategies
1. Partial Approval and Disapproval of
State Submittals
2. Public Notice of Approval or Disapproval
a. Contents of EPA’s Notice of Approval or
Disapproval
b. Public Hearings
c. Petitions for Additional Listings
d. Response to Comments and Petitions
IV Regulatory Anal)sis
A Executive Order 12291
B Psperwork Reduction Act
C R ’gulatory Fle’ ubuiuty Act
I. Authority
These reguldtions .ire issued under the
authority of the Clean Water Act. 33
U S.C. 1251 et seq
11. Background
EPA’s surface water toxics control
program uses ‘ .e ’ .er,ii key terms For the
convenience of the reader and for the
purposes of this preamble, these terms
are described as follows:
“Narrative standard” refers to a
narrative water quality standard
adopted by a State under section 303(c)
of the Clean Water Act. All States have
adopted a narrative standard that
prohibits the discharge of toxic
pollutants in toxic amounts,
“Priority pollutant” refers to the 126
pollutants described at 44 FR 34393
(1979), as amended by 48 FR 2266 (1981).
and 46 FR 10723 (1981) The 128 priority
pollutants are derived from the 65
dasses of compounds listed at 40 CFR
401.15.
“Toxic pollutant” means any pollutant
listed as toxic under section 307(a)(1) of
the CWA. EPA has lIsted 65 classes of
compounds under section 307(a)( ’l) of
the CWA. and these 85 classes are listed
at 40 CFR 401 35.
“Toxics” refers to any pollutant or
combination of pollutants which causes
toxicity to aquatic life or terrestrial life
or causes ad’. erse human health
impacts.
“Whole effluent toxicity” means the
aggregate toxic effect of an effluent
measured directly with a toxicity test. A
toxicity test measures the degree of
response of an exposed test organism to
a specific chemical or effluent. Lake
biochemical oxygen demand (BODI.
which is also a biological measurement,
toxicity can be limited in an NPDES
permit
A. EPA’s Surface Water Tovics Control
P vgran7
EPA has described its surface water
toxacs control program in several
documents. These descriptions are not
repeated here, but the reader is referred
to these documents for more information
on EPA’s approach for controlling
discharges of toxic pollutants. On March
9, 1984, EPA published a document
called-”Development of Water Quality.
Based Permit Limitations for Toxic
Pollutants: National Policy” 49 FR 9016
(1984). The policy emphasizes EPA’s
integrated approach in the NPDES
permit program for assessing and
controlling the discharge of toxic
pollutants to the nation’s surface waters,
Two preambles to EPA’s rulemakings
also describe EPA’s surface water toxics
control strategy. The preamble to EPA’s
NPDES regulations (45 FR 33520 (1980))
emphasizes that NPDES permits must
contain limitations reflecting the most
stringent of tec’nnology.based or water
quality-based controls for toxic
pollutants, The second preamble
discussion (49 FR 37998 (1984))
emphasizes the need to establish
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. B / Thursday. January 12. 1989 / Proposed Rules
1301
filuent limitations in NPDES permits to
control toxic pollutants. This preamble
also describes several regulations in
Part 122 that require dischargers to
identify and report the presence of toxic
pollutants in discharges.
EPA’s regulations also reflect the
Agency’s surface water toxics control
strategy. Part 131 of EPA’s regulations
describes the process for developing.
reviewing, revising, and approving State
water quality standards. Part 122
describes the general NPDES permit
regulations. and these regulations
require NPDES permits to include
conditions necessary to achieve water
quality standards. Part 125 describes the
technology-based methods for
controlling toxic pollutants. Part 129
contains effluent standards for certain
toxic pollutants, and Part 130 describes
EPA s program for identifying waters
affected by toxic pollutants.
EPA has also developed standard
procedures. policies, and guidance
documents necessary to support the
toxics control program. The ‘Water
Quahty Standards Handbook” (October
1983), describes how to develop water
quality standards and describes the
procedures that a State should follow ui
idopting water quality standards. (The
Aandbook is available from the Criteria
and Standards Division (WI-l—585). U S.
EPA, 401 M Street SW.. Washington. DC
20460 ) Two important guidance
documents that support EPA’s toxics
control program are the “Technical
Support Document for Water Quality-
Based Toxics Control,” (TSD), EPA 440/
4—85—032. September, 1985. and the
“Permit Writer’s Guide to Water
Quality.Based Permttting.” (EPA 440/4—
87—005, July 1987 (Both documents are
available from the Permits Division (EN—
336). U S EPA, 401 M Street SW.,
Washington. DC. 20480.) The Technical
Support Document (TSD) provides a
detailed technical explanation of
biological and chemical techniques to
assess and control toxic pollutants and
toxicity The TSD explains how to
assess aquatic toxicity and how to
calculate the risk to human health of an
effluent, explains wasteload allocation
modeling, and explains the equations for
deriving water quality-based effluent
limits. The Permit Writers Guide gives
Siaie and Federal NPDES permit writers
a step-by-step methodology for deriving
water quality-based effluent limits for
toxic pollutants and toxicity.
B Section 304(1) and its Relationship to
EPA ‘s Surface Water Toxics Control
Program
Section 304(l) of the CWA reinforces
EPA’s an-going program to identify and
control discharges of toxics Section
304(l) requires the States to submit four
lists to EPA for review and approval on
or before February 4. 1989. The statutory
language of section 304(l) requires the
listing of waters for which water quality
standards will not be achieved due
to discharges from point sources
of any toxic pollutants listed pursuant to
section 307(a): ‘ .“ The toxic
pollutants identified under section
307(a) of the CWA refer to categories
and classes of pollutants that can
include thousands of compounds. EPA’s
water quality criteria and effluent
guidelines focus on a list of 128 “priority
pollutants” which are common, widely
used chemicals for which toxicological
data are available. Therefore. EPA will
address the 126 priority pollutants for
the purposes of implementing section
304(l), and will use this term when
describing the regulatory requirements
governing the control of toxic pollutants
under section 304(l) of the CWA.
The four lists required by section
304(l) are described as follows, and are
identified by their corresponding
paragraphs in section 304(l)(1):
1, (A)(i)—A list of those waters In the
State which, after application of
technology-based effluent limits, cannot
reasonably be anticipated to attain or
maintain water quality standards for
priority pollutants adopted under
section 303(c)(2)(B) of the CWA
2. (A)(ii)—.A list of all waters which.
after application of technology-based
effluent limits, cannot reasonably be
-anticipated to attain or maintain that
water quality which shall assure
protection of public health, public water
supplies, agricultural and industrial
uses, and the protection and
propagation of a balanced population of
shellfish, fish and wildlife, and allow
recreational activities in and on the
waten
3. (B}—A list of those waters which,
after application of technology-based
effluent limits, the State does not expect
will achieve applicable water quality
standards, due entirely or substantially
to point source discharges of priority
pollutants;
4, (C)—A list of the point sources of
priority pollutants which are believed to
be preventing or impairing water quality
for waters on the (B) list, and the
amount of each priority pollutant
discharged by each point source.
The listing requirements of section
304(l)(l) are similar to the requirements
of section 303(d) of the CWA and to
EPAs regulations at 40 CFR 1307 and
130,10 which require the Slates to
submit to EPA a ranked list of “water
quality limited segments.” As part of the
existing reporting requirements in Part
130. the States must submit to EPA a list
of waterbodies for which technology-
based effluent limits are not stringent
enough to attain or maintain water
quality standards. Because the
requirements of section 304(1W’) are
similar to the requirements of section
303(d), EPA is incorporating the listing
requirements of section 304(1111) into
Part 130. These regulations are
discussed in more detail in section Ill B
of this preamble.
In addition to the listing requirements
under section 304(l)(1 ), the States must
prepare an individual control str3teg
(ICS) for all water segments on the (B)
list. (The definition of an ICS is
discussed in more detail in section Ill C
of this preamble.) An ICS must require
reductions in the discharge of priority
pollutants from point sources on the IC)
list, which reductions are sufficient, in
combination with existing controls on
point and nonpoint sources of pollution.
to achieve applicable water quality
standards as soon as possible but not
later than three years after
establishment of the ICS. Where EPA
approves a State submittal, the deadline
for compliance is as soon as possible
but not later than June 4. 1992. Where
EPA disapproves a State submittal and
promulgates an ICS in lieu of a State the
deadline for compliance is as soon as
possible but not later than June 4. 1993.
All lCSs are due to EPA. from States
approved by EPA to administer the
NPDES program, by February 4. 1989
EPA must approve or disapprove the
lists and ICSs by Iune 4, 1989 When
EPA disapproves an ICS, EPA must
implement section 304(l)(1) “in
cooperation with such State and after
notice and opportunity for public
comment.” by June 4. 1990.
A State’s obligation to prepare and
submit an ICS to EPA is similar to an
approved NPDES State’s obligation to
prepare NPDES permits and submit the
permits to EPA for review. However.
section 304(l) establishes new deadlines
and procedures for issuing and
reviewing some NPDES permits (Many
NPDES permits are not sub ect to
section 304(l). Permits that are not
subject to section 304(l) should recei e
the same priority for reissuance or
oversight that the permits would receive
regardless of section 304(l).)
Today’s proposed rulemaking is one
of several EPA actions to implement
section 304(l). In March 1988. EPA
issued guidance entitled
“Implementation of Requirements Under
§ 304(l) of the Clear Water Act. as
Amended” (March, 1088) (EPA
published a notice of availability for the
guidance on March 18. 1988. and the
-------
1302
Federal Register I Vol. 54. No. 8 / Thursday, January 12. 1989 I Proposed Rules
document is available by writing to the
Permits Division. Office of Water (EN—
338). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 M Street SW., Washington.
DC 20460.) Until EPA promulgates final
regulations under section 304(l). this
proposed rulemaking will serve as
guidance that supplements EPA’s
guidance of March 1968 on section
304 (I ).
EPA has promulgated a final
codification rule that incorporated into
EPA’s regulations the provisions of the
WQA relating to the NPDES program
and section 304(l). The codification rule
is available from the Permits Division
(EN—338), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 M Street SW. Washington.
DC 20460. (202) 475—9545, The
codification rule placed the statutory
language of paragraphs (A), (B). and (C)
of section 304(I) into 40 CFR 130.10(d).
The codification rule also placed section
304(l)(1)(D) and sections 304(l) (2) and
(3) into 40 CFR 123 46. These new
paragraphs require States to submit lists
of waters and individual control
strategies to EPA for review. Today’s
proposed rules supplement the
codification rule by defining key terms
in section 304(l) and describing Federal
and State responsibilities under section
304(l)
C Purpose and Summary of Today’s
Proposed Regulations
The purpose of today’s proposed rules
is to reinforce EPA’S surface water
toxics control program, and to specify in
more detail the requirements of section
304(1) Section 304(1) does not change the
direction of EPA’s surface water toxics
control program. but rather, establishes
ambitious deadlines by which EPA and
the States must identify and control
priority pollutants. While EPA’s toxics
control policies require control of all
toxic pollutants. includthg but not
limited to toxicity and the prionty
pollutants, the WQA reflects Congress’
intent that prionty pollutants be
addressed on a rapid schedule. After the
deadlines of section 304(l) pass. EPA
and the States must continue the toxics
control program by determining the
presence of toxic pollutants in effluents
and receiving waters, developing the
necessary policies and regulations to
control toxic pollutants and toxicity, and
establishing effluent limits in permits.
Today s proposed reguldtions amend
three parts of the CFR Changes to EPA’S
surface water toxics control progrdm are
tocdted in Parts 122 and 123 of the CFR
Part 130 Incorporates the proposed
regulations for listing waters under
section 304( 1 1(1) (AHC). nd the
propoqed reguldtions for Individudl
control strategies prepared wider
section 304(I) are located in Part 123.
1. Changes to EPA’S Surface Water
Toxics Control Program
EPA is proposing several amendments
to 122 44(d). The proposed changes to
§ 122.4.4(d) describe the procedures the
permitting authority shall use to
determine whether an NPDES permit
must include a water quality.based
effluent limit. The proposed regulations
also address the procedures for deriving
effluent limits from State narrative or
numeric water quality standards. EPA is
also proposing to amend paragraph (e)
of § 122.44 to clarify that limits to
control toxics can include water quality.
based limits on conventional and
000conventlonal pollutants, as well as
limits on toxic pollutants. Finally, EPA is
proposing to amend the criteria for State
program withdrawal in 40 CFR Part 123
These proposed regulations are
described in section I II A of this
preamble.
2. Changes to 40 CFR Part 130
Today’s regulations amend Pert 130 to
incorporate the listing requirements of
section 304(l)(1). Today’s amendments to
Part 130 incorporate the listing format
introduced by section 304(l) into the
listing requirements of section 303(d),
and make the lists of water and
pollutants part of the section 305(b)
reports submitted biennially by the
State to EPA. (The proposed regulations
also establish procedures for EPA’s
review and approval or disapproval of
the lists prepared under section 304(l)).
These regulations are described in
sections IILB and II1.D of this preamble.
3. Changes to 40 CFR Part 123
The proposed changes to Part 123
establish procedures for EPA’s approval
and disapproval of the ICSs prepared
under section 304(l). Today’s proposed
rules provide for public participation in
reviewing the ICSs. and also establish
the criteria EPA will use to evaluate the
adequacy of ICSs. These proposed
regulations are discussed more fully in
sections llI.C and 1II.D of this preamble.
EPA believes that today’s proposed
rules and preamble will assist the States
and the public at large in developing a
better understanding of EPA’s surface
water toxics control program Today’s
rulemaking will also ensure that the
activities carried out under section 304(l)
will be consistent with EPA’s statutory
obligations and national policy for
controlling toxic pollutants .ind whole
effluent toxicity
III. Section-by-Section Analysis
This section discusses today’s
proposed rules in four parts. Part A
describes proposed regulations that
amend and clarify EPA’s existing
surface water toxics control program
Part B describes the requirements for
identifying and hsting waterbodies
under paragraph I of section 304(l) Part
C discusses the requirements for
preparing and reviewing ICSs. and Part
D discusses the procedures for
reviewing and dpproving or
disapproving the lists and ICSs.
A. Changes to EPA ‘s Surface Water
7’oxics Control Prvgmm
1. Amendments to 40 CFR 122.44
Two of the most important
components of EPA’s surface water
toxics control program are the
development and implementation of
water quality-based permit limits The
permitting authority (either EPA or a
State approved by EPA to administer
the NPDES program) uses water quality.
based limits when effluent limits more
stringent than technology-based limits
are necessary to attain or maintain
water quality standards. Although
section 301(b)(1)(C) of the CWA requires
NPDES permits to achieve the effluent
limits necessary to attain and maintain
water quality standards, the existing
NPDES regulations do not describe the
procedures for developing water quality-
based effluent limits. This section
explains today’s proposed regulations
for developing water quality-based
effluent limits.
EPA uses an integrated approach to
water quality-based permitting. The
integrated approach includes both
biological and chemical testing
procedures for characterizing effluents
and developing effluent limits. EPA’s
integrated approach to water quality.
based permitting is explained more fully
in the Technical Support Document and
in EPA’s National Policy of March 9,
1984 which are described in section ILA
of this preamble.
Although EPA has issued detailed
guidance on the integrated approach to
water quality-based permitting. EPA’s
NPDES regulations discuss waler
quality-based effluent limits only in
general terms related to achieving water
quality standards. Today’s proposed
regulations will establish minimum
consistent procedures for the States,
EPA. and the regulated community, to
identify those permits that must hdve
water quality-based effluent limits, and
to develop water quality-based limits.
a. .4 Definition for Whole Effluent
Tu icity Today s proposed regulations
-------
Federal Regiater / Vol. 54, No. 8 I Thursday, January 12.1989 / Proposed Rules
1303
add a definition for “whole effluent
toxicity” to the definitions in 40 FR
122.2. Whole effluent toxicity is defined
as the aggregate toxic effect of an
effluent measured directly with a
toxicity test. A toxicity test measures
the degree of response of an exposed
test organism to a specific chemical or
effluent. The proposed definition is the
same definition used in the TSD.
EPA is proposing a definition for
whole effluent toxicity because controls
for whole effluent toxicity are an
essential component of EPA’s integrated
approach to toxics control. Where
controls on individual pollutants do not
adequately protect water quality
assessing and controlling whole effluent
toxicity is necessary to reduce or
eliminate the toxic impact of the
effluent. The regulations proposed for
§ 122.44(d) and (e) in today’s rulemaking
use the term whole effluent toxicity. and
a definition for the term will assist the
public in better understanding how
controls on whole effluent toxicity are
used in EPA’s surface water toxics
control program.
b. Norrotive Water Quality
Standards. Today’s proposed
amendments to 12144(d) add language
to paragraph (d)(1). Paragraph (d)
requires NPDES permits to contain
effluent limits more stringent than
technology-based limits, where more
stringent limits are necessary to
‘dchieve water quality standards
established under section 303 of the
CWA” Today’s proposed language
amends paragraph (d)(1) to clarify that
effluent limits established under
paragraph (d) must achieve any State
narrative water quality standard as well
as numeric water qualtity standards.
c Developing Water Quality-Based
Effluent Ljm,t.s. Today’s rulemaking
proposes five new subparagraphs for
§ 122.44(d)(1). The subparagraphs
describe the procedures for determining
whether a discharge is causing or
contributing to a violation of a water
qu iity standard, identify those permits
thdt must haye water quality-based
effluent limits, and describe several
principles for developing water quality-
based effluent limits. The Agency has
detf’rmined that additional clarification
of § 122 44(d) is necessary to implement
the national water quality-based toxics
control program and to implement the
recommendations of EPA’s national
policy. 49 FR 9018 (1984).
The proposed subparagraphs that
amend § 122 44(d)(1) are intended to
describe procedures for implementing
existing State water quality standards
dnd are not intended to suggest that
States change existing standards
St’ctiin’ 303 1cl( 211 B) of the CWA. us
amended. addresses State review and
adoption of water quality standards for
toxic pollutants listed pursuant to
section 307 (a)(1) of the CWA EPA has
prepared guidance on section 303(c)(2)
which is available from Criteria and
Standards Division (WH—585), Office of
Water. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 M Street SW., Washington.
DC 20460.
Proposed subparagraph (i) of
§ 122.44(d)(1) concerns the procedures
for determining excursions, or the
reasonable potential for excursions.
above applicable water quality
standards. To determine whether a
discharge has a reasonable potential for
causing an excursion above a water
quality standard, and thus requires a
water quality-based effluent limit, the
permitting authority must use reliable
and consistent procedures. Although the
procedures can vary considerably from
one State to another, most such
procedures account for any dilution of
the effluent in the receiving water, after
considering mixing zones if applicable,
any contributions of the pollutant from
upstream point and nonpoint sources.
the vanabdity of the pollutant in the
effluent, and. when evaluating whole
effluent toxicity, the sensitivity of the
test species to toxicity testing.
Generally, if there is a great deal of
dilution of the effluent in the receiving
water, then it is less likely that the
discharge will cause a violation of a
water quality standard.
Similarly, the uncertainty caused by
limited data on the concentration of a
pollutant in an effluent results in a
larger margin of error when determining
whether a discharge causes or has the
reasonable potential to cause an
excursion above a water quality
standard. Unless effluent variability is
adequately considered, the permitting
authority may make erroneous decisions
concerning whether to develop permit
limitations for a pollutant. Toxicity
testing must account for species
sensitivity because different test species
exhibit different sensitivities to the
same effluent.
Subparagraph (i) addresses
discharges that cause or have the
reasonable potential to cause violations
of water quality standards Because the
concentration of a pollutant in an
effluent and in the receiving water can
vary considerably. his necessary to
address discharges that have the
reasonable potential to violate water
quality standards. EPA requires water
quality-based effluent limits for these
discharges in order to ensure
compliance with section 301( b)( 11(C)
which requires NPDES permits to
achieve applicable water quality
standards.
Subparagraph (i) should assist the
permitting authonty in determtning
whether it is necessary. under Federal
regulations. to establish limits for a
pollutant. Note, however, that this
determination is different from
calculating water quality-based effluent
limits. Effluent data are not necessary to
calculate water quality-based effluent
limits: Water quality-based effluent
limits may be derived from the water
quality standard and available dilution
Effluent data are required only for
determining whether a pollutant exists
in an effluent at a concentration which
is high enough that EPA would require a
limit in the NPDES permit.
Proposed subparagraph (ii) of
§ 122.44(d)(1) provides that a permit
must contain water quality-based
effluent limits when the permitting
authority determines that a discharge
causes or has the reasonable potential
to cause an excursion above a water
quality standard. The proposed rule
requires effluent limits for the individual
pollutant (where the pollutant is
regulated by a State numeric water
quality standard) and for whole effluent
toxicity (where toxicity is regulated by .1
numeric State water quality standard).
(See proposed subparagraph (iii) for the
circumstances under which a permitting
authority may forego limits on whole
effluent toxicity.) Although the existing
NPDES regulations require the effluent
limits in a permit to achieve applicable
water quality standards, today’s
proposed regulations specify for the first
time that the permitting authonty must
establish effluent limits for a pollutant if
the discharge of the pollutant exceeds a
water quality standard.
Proposed subparagraph (iii) requires
the permitting authority to establish
permit limits on whole effluent toxicity
when the discharger causes or has the
reasonable potential to cause an
excursion above a State’s narrative
water quality standard. The
combination of subparagraphs (ii) and
(iii) allow the permitting authority to
control toxic discharges by using the
appropriate combination of chemical-
specific effluent limits and whole
effluent toxicity limits.
Proposed subparagraph (iii) allows the
permitting authority to choose not to
develop whole effluent toxicity limits
where the permitting authority can
demonstrate that chemical.specific
limits will attain and maintain
applicable water quality standards
including narrative water quality
standards One method for making this
demonstration would be to use toxicity
-------
1304
Federal Register I Vol .54. No. 8 1 Thursday , January 12. 1989 f Proposed Rules
testing to shaw that the effluent has no
acute or chronic toxic effects on aquatic
life.
Proposed subparagraph (iv ) addresses
the situation in which a Slate has not
adopted a numeric water quality
criterion for a to,uc. conventional, or
noriconventional pollutant that is known
to adversely affect or threaten human
health ur aquatic life. In this situation
the permitting authority does oat have a
numeric criterion to use for deriving a
water quality-based effluent limit. The
proposed regulation requires the
permitting authority to address the
discharge of the pollutant using two
options. The first option allows the
permitting authority to establish permit
limits using EPA ’s Water Quality
Criteria gwdance documents. if EPA has
published a criteria document for the
pollutant pursuant to section 304(a) of
the CWA. (EPA criteria documents
provide a comprehensive summary of
available data on the effects of a
pollutant, and include maximum
ambient concentrations that protect
aquatic life and human health.) In the
absence of a State numeric criterion for
a pollutant, the permitting authority
would use the appropriate EPA Water
Quality Criteria document to calculate
effluent limits for the pollutant in order
to comply with applicable State
narrative water quality standards (e.g,.
“no toxics in toxic amounts”).
The second option in today’s
proposed regulations. for controlling a
pollutant when a State has not adopted
a water quality criterion for the
pollutant. allows the permitting
authority to establish permit limits using
a numeric criterion which the permitting
authority demonstrates is protective of
aquatic life and human health, When
using this approach. States may derive
values different from the values in the
EPA’s water quality criteria documents
to reflect site-specific factors. including
predicted local human consumption of
aquatic foods, as well as the State’s
determination of an appropriate risli
level, and any more recent scientific
data that may not be included in EPA’s
criteria documents. tinder this option
the permitting authority should use all
at’aiiable scientific information on the
effect of a pollutant on human health
and aquatic tire. Available information
includes but is not limited to. risk
issecsments, exposure data, and site-
specific water quakty parameters.
,L\ithough today’s proposed regulations
include only two options. EPA is
soliciting comment on another option
hir,h would allow the establishment of
effluent limits on pollutants other than
the toxicani of concern such dS an
Indicator parameter. An indicator
parameter could be a conventional
pollutant like total suspended ollds
(TSS), the control of which may be tied
to a concomitant decrease in metals
concentration. In such a case, the
permitting authority would have to
demonstrate that compliance with a
limitation on the indicator parameter or
other effluent limit would ensure the
control of the toxicant of concern to a
level that would attain and maintain
applicable State narrative water quality
standards, and will protect aquatic life
and human health. This demonstration
would be made by the State by
calculating a criterion pursuant to option
I or 2 above for the toxicant of concern
and a subsequent 8how lng that the
effluent limit on the indicator parameter
will control the toxicant of concern to
the level of the criterion calculated.
EPA is proposing the two options in
subparagraph (iv) in order to set permit
limits to control discharges (in the
absence of State numerical water
quality standards (or all pollutants of
concern) that adversely affect water
quality, while at the same time, giving
the permitting authority sufficient
flexibility to accowit for site-specific
Impacts on aquatic life or human health.
EPA requests comment on the two
options in proposed subparagraph (Iv) of
122.44(d) (1). and the third approach
described in this preamble.
The final changes to 122,44fdJ(1) are
in proposed subparagraph (v). This
proposed subparagraph describes two
requirements that the permitting
authority must use to derive water
quality-based effluent limits.
The first requirement provides that
water quality-based effluent limits shall
be derived from water quality
standards, Under section 303(c) of the
CWA. and Part 131 of EPA’s regulations.
a State must adopt water quality
standards (including an antidegradatlon
policy), and submit the standards to
EPA for review. Although Part 131
describes the process for adopting and
reviewing water quality standards.
EPA’s permitting regulations in Part 122
do not specify that water quality-based
effluent limits must be derived from
water quality standards. The proposed
language in paragraph (v) clarifies this
requirement of the NPDES permitting
regulations.
The second requirement in proposed
subparagraph (vJ for deriving water
quality-based effluent limits. is that the
water quality-based effluent limits must
be consistent with wasteload
allocations (WLAsJ developed and
approved in accordance with 40 CFR
1307 if a WLA is av;iilahle for the
discharge. A wastaload allocation Is
defined at 40 CPR 130,2 and reflects the
portion of a receiving water’s loadIng
capacity that Is allocated to a point
source. The requirement to use approved
wasteload allocations for water quality-
based permit limits is implied in current
* 122.44(d) because paragraph (d)
requires effluent limits to meet water
quality standards. Today’s proposed
language clarifies EPA’s existing
regulations by stating that when WL s
are available, they must be used to
translate water quality standards into
NPDES permit limits. Although proposed
subparagraph (v) requires the permitting
authority to use a wasteload allocation
it one has been approved, today’s
proposed rule does not allow the
permitting authority to delay developing
and issuing a permit if a wasteload
allocation has not already been
developed and approved.
Deriving water quality-based effluent
limits from water quality standards is
the only reliable method for developing
water quality-based effluent limits that
protect aquatic life and human health.
Pursuant to section 303(c) of the CWA.
the States adopt water quality
standards, and then, under section
303(d), develop total maximum daily
loads (TMDLs) to attain and maintain
the water quality standards. The TMDLa
are used to derive a wasteload
allocation for individual pollutants
discharged from a point source. This
process results in effluent limits that
protect aquatic life and human health
because the limits are derived from
water quality standards.
Proposed subparagraph (v) does not
prescribe detailed procedures for
developing water quality-based effluent
limits. Rather, the proposed regulations
prescribe mitumuin requirements for
developing water quality-based effluent
limits, and at the same time, give the
permitting authority the flexibility to
determine the appropriate procedures
for developing water quality-based
effluent limits. Today’s proposed rule
clanfies that all water quality-based
effluent limits must be derived using
procedures that are consistent with
today’s proposed requirements in
* 122,44(d)(lJ(vJ.
d. L,mttoUong on Toxic Pu/Iu onts and
Sources of Toxicity The final change to
§ 122.44 proposes to amend paragraph
(e). EPA is adding the term “sources of
toxicity” to the title of paragraph (e)
This change reflects EPA’s current
approach for controlling toxic pollutants
and other pollutants (whether
conventional or nonconventionni) that
cause toxicity
-------
Federal Register / Vol.54. No. 8 / Thursday. January 12.1989 I Proposed Rules
‘1305
EPA is redesignating existing
paragraph te)(2( as paragraph (e )(33 and
is adding a new paragraph (e](2) which
pro ides that an NPDES permit must
‘imit any pollutant (whether
conventional, nonconventional. or
toxic(, including whole effluent toxicity.
that is or may be discharged at a level
that causes or has the reasonable
potential to cause an excursion above
any water quality standard. including
State narrative water quality standards.
Todays proposal clarifies that
paragraph (e) applies to any pollutant.
not just toxic pollutants, and applies to
excursions above narrative water
quality standards, not just numeric
limits in State water quality standards.
Proposed paragraph (eI(2) is
necessary because any pollutant
regulated under the CWA can adversely
affect water quality. The proposed
paragraph specifies that NPDES permits
must establish limits on any pollutant.
where necessary to attain and maintain
applicable water quality standards. The
proposed paragraph also emphasizes the
Importance of narrative water quality
standards. Narrative standards have the
same force and effect as other State
valet quality standards. Today’s
,iroposed regulations emphasize that
narrative standards must be
implemented. where necessary to satisfy
the requirements of section 301 (bWl)(C).
arid to achieve the goals of the CWA.
EPA is amending redesigriated
paragraph (e)(3) to clarify that
limitations established under 122.44
(b) or (d). may be satisfied by a
combination of limits on whole effluent
toxicity and limits on one or more other
pollutants.
Todays proposed regulations provide
fur limits on whole effluent toxicity
because such limits are often necessary
to attain and maintain water quality
standards. Effluent itmits on toxic.
conventional, and nonconventional
pollutants may be insufficient to attain
and maintain all applicable water
quality standards. In these cases limits
on whole effluent toxicity should be
used to ensure that all applicable water
qualit standards are achieved.
The proposed paragraph is consistent
with EPA’s integrated approach to water
quatity-ba’wd permitting, and reflects
the language in proposed paragraph
(e)lZJ which requires emuent limits on
any pollutant. and which may require
“ets on whole effluent toxicity.
‘ssary to achieve water quality
.dards.
2 St.ite NPDF.S Program Requiremnnts
The Staii ’q play a mapor role in
nnriiltmu ilic; .hargrs of pollutant’, in
‘ ic Tb. Si i’i ’ nil .’
Especially important in those Slates
authorized under section 402(b) of the
CWA to carry out the NPDES program.
An authorized State carries the primary
responsibility for implementing a
surface water toxics control program.
This section describes proposed
.imeridrnents to 40 CFR 123.63. The
amendments clarify EPA’S authority to
withdraw a State’s NPDES program if
the State fails to develop an adequate
program for developing water quality-
based effluent limits in NPDES permits.
The proposed changes focus on how
well a State’s NPDES permits protect
water quality. If other elements of a
State’s surface water toxics control
program adversely affect the quality of
NPDES permit limits, then EPA may
include other program elements in ita
evaluation of a State’s NPDES program.
For example. if a State fails to use
consistent and defensible procedures for
developing water quality-based effluent
limits. EPA would consider this
deficiency when evaluating a State s
NPDES program.
EPA is adding this criteria to
* 123 63(a) because tt is essential for all
authorized States to operate effective
toxics control programs. An adequate
State regulatory program for developing
water quality-based effluent limits in
NPDES permits should be an integral
part of each approved State’s NPDES
program. EPA requests comments on the
proposed criterion in § 12363 relating to
a States program for controlling toxic
pollutants.
B. Identification of Wr4ers
Section liLA of this preamble
discussed the proposed rules for
strengthening EPA’s ongoing surface
water toxics control program. The
remainder of this preamble discusses
the requirements of section 304(l) of the
CWA and how EPA is incorporating
these requirements into EPA’s toxics
control program. This section (JIl.B)
discusses how EPA and the States will
administer the listing requirements of
section 304(1). and incorporate them into
the ongoing water quality assessment
program.
The rules proposed today address two
distinct but related actions with regard
to the four lists The first action is the
submittal of the lists by the States to
EPA on or before February 4. 1989. as
required by section 304(13(1) of the
CWA: and the second is the biennial
submission of lists to EPA under the
authority of sections 303(d) and 305(b) of
the CWA. Alter a description of the
ljstq. the requirements for the initi.il
iul,mtttl will lie di’u’u’ , ’.i’d i’i the ne i
..‘‘ tiiin .it hi rp,in’Irli’ it l .
discussion of the biennial submissinn iii
lists
I Description of the Four Lists
The four lists required by section
304(l)(l), paragraphs (A)(i). (A)(ii). (B).
and (C) are described below: first, by
their statutory language and then
followed with a brief clarification of
what EPA expects States to include ott
the lists.
Note, as explained in Section U.S of
this preamble. that EPA is implementing
section 304(1) listing and control
requirements by relying on the priority
pollutants rather than the thousands of
pollutants potentially encompassed by
the term toxic pollutants.
For more information about the !isti..
see EPA’s guidance entitled
Implementation of Requirements Under
section 304(1) of the Clean Water Act, as
Amended (March. 1968)
Paragraph (A)(i) of section 304(/)(l)
requires a list of those waters in each
State which, after application of
technology-based effluent limits.
“cannot reasonably be anticipated to
attain or maintain water quality
standards for such waters reviewed,
revised, or adopted in accordance with
section 303(c)(2)(S) of the CWA,’ due to
priority pollutants Section 303(c)f 2)( Bl
refers to the adoption by the States of
numeric criteria into their water qudlity
standards for section 307(a) toxic
pollutants. Therefore, the (A)fi) list
includes only those waters where
numeric water quality standards for
priority pollutants are not achieved, or
are not expected to be achie ed due to
either point or nonpoint sources of
pollution. These are water quality
standards which have been reviewed.
revised and adopted by the State.
Waters impaired by chlorine and
ammonia are not included on this list
because they are not pnority pollutants
governed by the section 304(l)
requirements which regulate section
307(a) toxic pollutants.
Paragraph (A)l’u) of section 304(1)1!)
requires a list of those waters within
each State which, after the application
of technology-based effluent limitatiaric
“cannot reasonably be anticipated to
attain or maintain that waler quality
which shall assure the protection of
public health. public water supplies.
agricultural and industrial uses. and thn
protection and propagation of shellfish.
fish and wildlife, and allow recreational
activities in and on the water” EPA
interprets this to mean that the Stait’
must create a comprehensi e list nf
waters th.it .ire impaired tir rn
i’xp . ’t t.’d to ii’ —rr.ii (’(t flu’.
1 .1’’,’ 1’ Ii
-------
1306
Federal Register / VoL 54. No. 8 / Thursday. [ anuary 12. 1989 / Proposed Rules
conventional, or nonconventional
pollutants. This fist should Include all
waters not meeting the goals of the
CWA after the application of
technology-based effluent limitations.
rejardless of whether or not a State has
adopted numeric waler quality
standards. This includes waters which
are classifIed for uses that do not meet
the “fishable and swimmable” goals of
the Pact.
Parogroph (8) of section 304(1)(Z)
requires a list of those water’s within
each State for “which the State does not
e’pect the applicable standard under
sectIon 303 of the CWA will be achieved
after the requirements of sections 3cfl(b),
306. and 307(b) are met. due entirely or
substantially to discharges from point
sources of any toxic pollutants listed
pursuant to section 307(a )” of the CWA.
This list must include all waters which
can not achieve either the numeric or
narrative water quality standard for a
priority pollutant due entirely or
substantially to discharges from point
sources after application of BAT.
pretreatment and new source
performance standards, Waters
impaired by discharges of chlorine and
ammonia are not included on this list
since they are not one of the priority
pollutants. (Such waters would qualify
for the (A)(ii) list.) Waters where
impairment is due to discharges of
whole effluent toxicity are induded on
the paragraph (B) list only when the
toxicity is due in whole or in part to one
or mare of the priority pollutants.
(Waters where whole effluent toxicity is
observed, but is not attributable to a
priority pollutant. are to be included on
the paragraph (A)(ii) list.)
For all the waters listed on the
paragraph (B) list, the State must
identify the point sources discharging
the priority pollutant(s) as described
below and provide individual control
strategies for each point source. (See
section IILC. of this preamble for more
information on lndMdunl Control
Strategies.)
Proposed interpretations of the terms
“applIcable standard.” and “due entirely
or substantially to discharges from point
source,” which appear in the statutory
language of section 304(l)(1)(8), are
discussed in the next section (section
111.8,2) of this preamble.
Pcregroph (C) of seci/on 304(l)
describes the fourth list required tO be
submitted by the States to EPA. It
requtres. for each of the segments
included on the paragraph (B) list, “a
determination of the specific point
sources discharging any such toxic
pollutant which is believed to be
preventing or Impairing such water
quality and the amount of each such
toxic pollutant discharged by each such
source.’ EPA interprets this paragraph
to mean that for each water on the
paragraph (B) list, the State must list
each point source within its jurisdiction
that is discharging the priority
pollutant(s) to the water which is listed.
and the amount of each priority
pollutant discharged by each such
source. Individual control strategies are
to be prepared for each point source
discharger on the paragraph (C) list.
Note that every State, as defined by
EPA at 40 CFR 122.2, is required to
submit lists of waters, sources and
amounts whether or not the State is
authorized by EPA to administer the
NPDES program. However, States that
are not approved by EPA to administer
the NPDES program are not required to
submit ICSa to EPA because an ICS will
be, in nearly all cases, a draft of final
NPDES permit.
2. Explanation of Terms Used in Section
304(l)(1)(S)
Paragraph (B) of section 304(l)(1)
introduces two terms that EPA believes
need Further interpretation and
explanation to ensure consistency
among States when preparing the list
required by this paragraph. These terms
are “applicable standard.” and “due
entirely or substantially to disharges
From point sources.” Proposed
130.10(d) (4) and (5) of today’s
amendments contain these proposed
interpretations.
(a) Applicable Standard. For the
purposes of listing waters under
paragraph (B) of section 304(l)(1),
proposed 130 ,10(d)(4) interprets the
“applicable standard’ to mean numeric
criteria within State water’ quality
standards for priority pollutants.
Further, where State numeric criteria for
priority pollutants are not established.
EPA proposes to interpret the applicable
standard to mean the narrative standard
for toxicity (e g.. “rio toxics in toxic
amounts”) where the narrative standard
maybe violated due to a priority
pollutant. Therefore, in the absence of
adopted numeric criteria for a priority
pollutant. the narrative standard would
be used as the basis for listing under
section 304(l)(1)(BJ by applying EPA
national water quality criteria on a
chemical-by-chemical basis.
EPA is proposing this requirement in
today’s amendments because of the
absence of State numeric water quality
criteria for a priority pollutant. EPA
national water quality criteria provide a
national uniform baseline by which each
of the States may judge if a water is
impaired and therefore should be listed.
Without this requirement. many waters
unpaired by priority pollutants could not
be listed because some States would
lack any benchmark against which to
evaluate its waters.
(b) Due Enurely or Substant:ally to
Discharges from Point Source& EPA is
proposing in today’s amendments, at
paragraph 130 ,10(d)(5), three conditions
that would reqwre a water to be listed
unr “aragraph (B) of section 304(!)(l)
be’ he applicable water quality
sta is not expected to be met “due
en r substantially to discharges
fror. ,int sources.” These three
conditions are listed below,
(Natsi Each condition is followed by
numbers which refer to the “discharge
scenanos” illustrated in Exhibit A. Scenarios
numbered one through six meet one or more
of the three condItions below and therefore
should be included on the paragrep (B) list.
Scenario number seven would not be
Included on the paragraph (B) hat. These
scenarios illustrate only a few examples of
possible discharge situations. They are
Included her, as wdeI mae for the States for
developing their paragraph (B) list.)
.*i a co N
-------
Federal Resister / VoL 54, No. 8 / Thursday. January 12, 1989 / Proposed Rules 1337
EXHIBIT ,\: HIuct! aliun for dctcrrnrning if thc conccntration
of a §307(a) toxiC pollutant is cnt rcIv or
cubciantially duc to thscharges from point sources
3 X — — — — — — — — — — — — —
WQS
2X
WOS
WQS
-
SCENARiOS # 1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7
ON PARAGRAPI-1 YES YES YES YES YES YES NO
(B) LIST?
POINT SOURCE NONPOINT SOURCE
CONTRIBUTION ] CONTRiBUTION
-------
130
Federal Register I Vol. 54. No. 8 / Thursday, anuary 12. 1989 / Proposed Rules
In making the deternunatten of
whether a water meets one or more of
these conditions. a State should use the
critical design flow as established by
approved EPA guidance or regulation
(for example. EPA ’s Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-based
Toxics Control).
Also. when a State evaluates whether
a water is impaired ‘due intirely or
substantially to discharges from point
sources” the evaluation must be based
only on the contribution of one priority
pollutant at a time from the point
sources. and only for priority pollutants.
Therefore. a water quality problem due
to a pollutant which is not a priority
pollutant may not be taken into account
when determining whether a water
should or should not be listed on the
paragraph (B) list for priority pollutants.
For example. if a water does not meet
the water quality standard due to
chromium from point source
contributions, and the water does not
meet the water quality standard due to
phosphorous from either point or
nonpoint sources. the State must list this
water on the (B) list. EPA does not want
the States to delay controlling a priority
pollutant from a point source even if a
water still needs controls on other
pollutants or other sources.
If a water meets one or more of the
conditions below then it must appear on
a States section 304(l)(IHB) list;
(a) Initial or additional water quality-
based limits on one or more point
sources would result in the achievement
of an applicable water quality standard
for a priority pollutant (Scenarios 1. 2. 3)
on
(b) The discharge of a priority
pollutant from one or more point
sources, regardless of any nonpoint
source contribution of the same
pollutant, would be sufficient to cause a
violation of the applicable water quality
standard for the priority pollutant
(Scenarios 1. 2. 5. 6) art
(c) The contributIon of a priority
pollutant from one or more point sources
is large enough that the applicable water
quality standard for that priority
pollutant is threatened and additional
point source controls are needed to limit
the discharge of the pollutant (Scenario
4).
The third condition (c) is included to
dllOW States and EPA to list a water
v hcre the point source contribution of a
priority pollutant is very large but not
large enough to violate the water quality
stand .ird alone. As a matter of equity.
F.PA believes that these waters should
be listed and ICSs writtan for the point
source(s) contributing the priority
pottut.int(s ) Fur examplo. without this
onijiflon. scen.irio 4 would 11)1 be
required to be listed even though there
is a much larger conthbution than
scenario *3 which is required to be
listed under condition (a). EPA is
soliciting comments on whether
condition (c) should be included as a
condition for listing.
EPA is proposing these three
conditions to ensure consistency among
Regions and States in how they decide
which waters to list. Further, since the
Clean Water Act requires listing based
on compliance or noncompliance with
water quality standards. EPA chose
these three conditions so that a State
lists a water based on its relationship to
a water quality standard.
For the purposes of interpreting the
term “due entirely or substantially to
discharges from point sources.” any
discharge which meets the definition of
a point source under 40 CFR 122.2 must
be considered as such, including
discharges from combined sewer
overflows and discharges from
stormwater drains. In addition, water
quality impairments due to in-place
sediments contaminated by a priority
pollutant discharged by an active and
operating point source subject to section
402(a) of the CWA must be listed under
paragraph (B) of section 304(1) and the
discharge must be listed under
paragraph (C). If the sediments have
been contaminated with a priority
pollutant from a facility or site which is
rio longer in operation or is abandoned.
and therefore cannot be issued art
NPDES permit. the water does not have
to be listed on the paragraph (B) list if
that is the only point source of a priority
pollutant, since the impairment is no
longer due to a paint source subject to
section 402(a) of the CWA. However, if
there are other point sources discharging
the pnority pollutant, the water must be
listed.
3. Preparation and Review of the Lists
The CWA requires the States to
submit the four section 304(l )(1j lists to
EPA for review and approval on or
before February 4, 1989. Section
130.10(d). promulgated as part of EPA’s
codification rule for the Water Quality
Act, already requires this submission,
along with the requirement that these
lIsts be reviewed and approved or
disapproved by EPA.
l ii addition to proposed paragraphs (4)
and (5) discussed above, today’s
proposed rules also add paragraphs (6)
through (11) to 130 10(d). Paragraphs
(8) and (7) describe the data that each
St.ite must use in developing the lists.
and the documentation that each must
provide to EPA when submitting lists to
EPA Prnpcsed paragraph (B) describes
the hdsis upon whreh EPA will .ipprovP
or disapprove a State’s lists. Paragraphs
(6) through (8) are dIscussed in this
section of the preamble. New
paragraphs (9), (10) and (11) discuss
public notice and comment procedures
and are discussed i tt section III D 2 of
this preamble.
(a) Use of Existing and Readily
Available Data. Because EPA believes
that States should build on the work
that has already been done in the
continuous process of assessing water
quality. EPA is proposing in today’s
amendments that States use existing
and readily available data when they
develop their lists. Also, the ambitious
deadlines of the CWA require EPA to
forgo a requirement for lengthy
monitoring designs and extensive
collection of new data arid to rely on
existing and readily available data The
proposal that States rely on existing and
readily available data appears in
proposed § 130. 10(d)(6)
To assist States in deciding what
existing and readily available data they
should rely on. EPA is proposing sixteen
categories of waters about which, as a
minimum. each State must assemble and
evaluate all existing and readily
available data. These categories of
waters are described in proposed
§ 130.10 (d)(8). EPA considers the
existing and readily available
information and data about the
categories of waters described in
130 io(d)(6J to be the minimum data
and information that a State should
assemble and evaluate when preparing
lists. States should obtain any other
additional data and information needed
to identify and determine as accurately
as possible which waters and point
sources to list. (Existing and readily
available data about these categories of
waters would also be required by
today’s proposed amendments to be
used. as a minimum, for the
development of lists for the biennial
submissions under sections 303(d) and
305(b) of the CWA. Biennial
submissions of lists are discussed later
i tt this preamble.)
These categories were developed after
consultation with EPA Regional Office
staff and reflect what EPA considers the
minimum existing and readily available
water quality data arid information that
a State and EPA can reasonably obtain
This existing data includes data that
States should have developed in the
course of reviewing and revising water
quality standards. evaluating needs for
technology-based or water quality-
based controls. developing total
maximum daily loads (1’MDLs ).
wasteload allocations and load
•illocationc (WLAsILA5). issuing
-------
1989 / Proposed Rules 1309
Federal RegIster / Vol. 54, No. 8 / Thursda , iariuary 12.
permits, and monitoring to determine the
effectiveness of pollution controls.
Furthermore, EPA is requiring that the
States assemble and evaluate this
mrnimuin existing and readily available
data because it encourages cooperation
and communication among the many
Federal. State and local government
agencies and private organizations that
collect, analyze or report water quality
data and information.
EPA is proposing that these specific
waters be evaluated for the purposes of
section 304(l) because either they are
waters which have been reported by the
State or other government or private
sector agencies as failing to meet water
quality standards or as having a high
potential for not meeting water quality
standards, or they are waters hich
receive point source discharges. EPA
believes that if a State evaluates all
waters in these categories it will identify
virtually all waters that should be listed.
Information and data about the
categories of waters described in
§ 130. 10(d) are of two general types. The
first is existing and readily available
data and reports from Federal. State,
local and private sectors. The second is
ilution calculation results generated by
. PA and the States for use as a
screening tool. These two types of
information are discussed below.
There are many existing lists, reports
and assessments that provide valuable
information to States when identifying
and preparing lists of waters. New
subparagraph § 130 1O(d)(6) designates
the minimum specific information and
reports which each State must assemble
and evaluate in order to identify waters
that meet the section 304 (l) statutory
requirements for listing. These include
State section 305(b) reports, Clean Lakes
Assessments, the section 319 Nonpoint
Source Assessments and the National
Priority List prepared under CERCLA.
among others. Beyond waters identified
by these specific reports, the proposed
amendments would require the State to
obtd lri any existing and readily
available data about other specific
waters which should be considered for
!ist:ng on one or more of the lists
required by section 304(l): for example.
waters where fishing bans and
recreational restrictions are in effect
and waters which have had repeated
f’ishkills. Appendix B of the Final
Guidance for Implementation of
Requirements under section 304(l) of the
‘lean Water Act as Amended (March
J88) lists other available data sources
tf.at should be consulted.
The second general type of
information that EPA is proposing ihat
th States consider, as a minimum is
c’ ,‘nin information dr’veloprd ucii;
dilution calculations. Dilution
calculations should be conducted to
indicate possible exceedanceg of
numeric criteria within State water
quality standards (or EPA criteria where
State numeric criteria are not available).
Dilution calculations should be
performed for, but not limited to. all
point source discharges of priority
pollutants, ammonia and chlorine to
help identify waters and dischargers for
listing on any of the lists. At a minimum,
waters with primary industrial major
and minor point source dischargers.
major municipal point source
dischargers. and waters with federal
major point source dischargers must be
screened for expected criteria
exceedances by performing dilution
calculations using site-specific data or. if
necessary. data based on national
estimates
EPA emphasizes that to list a water
on the paragraph (B) list, that the State
does not necessarily have to have
enough data to indicate exactly which
point source or sources may be causing
any observed criteria exceedances or
use impairments. It is enough that the
data indicate that the applicable water
quality standards are not being achieved
due entirely or substantially to
discharges from point sources. After
identifying the water for listing on the
paragraph (B) list, the State should then
obtain as much discharger.specific data
as necessary to identify the dischargers
which may be ca using the criteria
exceedances,
Where ambient data on criteria
exceedances are being used to identify
waters, the State should use the criteria
for designated use support outlined in
Figure 1 of EPA’s Guidelines for the
Preparation of the 1988 State Water
Quality Assessment (305(b)) Report.
Figure 1 provides guidelines to States in
determining the degree to which waters
are supporting their designated uses on
the basis of frequency of criteria
exceedances and comparison of mean
value to criteria.
EPA is soliciting comments on the
above proposed data requirements being
added to § 130 10(d)
(b) Documentation of Data and
Methodologies Proposed paragraph
§ 130.10(dft7) requires that each State
submit to EPA. together with its lists of
waters and sources, documentation of
all data and methodologies used by the
State to develop the lists
Proposed subparagraph (i) of(d)(7)
requires each State to submit a
description of the methodology used by
the State to develop each of the lists of
waters and point sources required by
section 304(l), This description of
rneihiidclogv qhoi’ld n t fude
assumptions and criteria used by the
State when reviewing and analyzing
data and information.
Proposed subparagraph (ii) requires
the State to provide a description of the
data and information used by the State,
specifically including which of the
categories of waters described in
paragraph (d)(6) were used. If a Stale
does not assemble and evaluate data
about one of these categories.
subparagraph (iii) requires the State to
provide as part of its documentation the
rationale for deciding not to do so.
Proposed subparagraph (iv) requires
the State to provide any other
information that the Regional
Administrator requests in order to
review the State’s submission of lists
Specifically, proposed subparagraph liv)
requires a State. if EPA requests. to
demonstrate good cause for not
including a water or discharger on one
or more of the required section 304(l)(1)
lists.
“Good cause” may include, but is not
limited to, the following:
• More recent or more accurate data.
• More sophisticated water quality
modeling,
• Flaws in the original analysis that
led to the water being identified in one
of the categories, or
• Changes in conditions. e g.. new
control equipment, or elimination of
discharges.
EPA is proposing these documentation
rc’quirements because a Regional
Administrator’s office may not maintain
all the available water quality and
discharger data for all of its States
Therefore, part of the review by EPA of
a State’s submission must necessanly
indude a review of the data,
assumptions and criteria used by the
State for listing waters and point
sources to ensure that they are
consistent with the regulatory
requirements for listing. For example a
State’s documentation should reflect
that the State considered stormwater
drains as a point source when
determining whether a water is impaired
due entirely or substantially to
discharges from point sources
EPA requests comments on the
proposed requirements for
documentation by a State.
(c) Review of Lrsts by EPA. Section
304(l) requIres that all States submit all
four lists described above to EPA no
later than February 4. 1989. Upon
receiving the lists from each State. the
Regional Administrator is required to
review and then approve or disapprove
each State’s lists.
In order for EPA to complete its
rc it’ .v iii ,i St,itp s list’ the Si,i’p m:i’ t
-------
1310
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 8 / Thursday , January 12,
. !89 / Proposed Rules
have met the data and documentation
requirements in proposed paragraphs (6)
and (7), The Regional AdminLitra tot will
approve each list if the State has met the
regulatory requirements (or listing under
40 CFR 130.10, and disapprove each list
that does not.
If. after reviewing the State lists.
available data and any required
documentation, the Regional
Administrator is satisfied that the State
has identified and appropriately listed
all waters, then EPA will approve the
lists, (See Section UI.D of the preamble
for a discussion of approval and
disapproval procedures.)
4 Biennial Submission of Lists under
Section 303(d) and Section 305(b) of the
CWA
(a) Authority to Require Biennial
Submission of Lists. Even before the
Water Quality Act of 1987. sections
303(d) and 305(b) of the CWA and
implementing regulations required
States to identify and list certain waters
and pollutants and to report these lists
to EPA for review and approval
Therefore, under these two sections of
the Act, EPA is proposing today to
require States to continue the work
begun under the section 304(l) inItiative
for identifying, listing and reporting
waters. The lists required under section
304 (l)(1) are similar to the lists required
under section 303(d).
Section 303(d) gives EPA the authority
to require each State to identify and list
the waters within its jurisdiction that do
not achieve or are not expected to
achieve water quality standards, and to
require the State to develop Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLsJ for
these waters under section 303(d). The
States must also identify the pollutants
preventing the attainment of water
quality standards. Section 303(d) also
gives EPA the authority to review and
approve or disapprove the lists of
waters and TMDLS prepared by a State.
Section 305(b) of the CWA requires
each State to 8Ubmlt to EPA. biennially,
“a description of the water quality of all
navigable waters in such State,” and a
determination of whether a State’s
waters meet EPA water quality criteria
prepared under section 304(a) of the
CWA. EPA believes that the lists of
water quality limited segments and
pollutants required under section 303(d)
are important descriptive elements of
ti”e water quality of a State. Therefore.
EPA is proposing today that, beginning
with the 1990 section 305(b) reports,
States should report these lists of waters
and pollutants required to be identified
under section 303(d) and reported to
EPA in the format similar to section
3fl4(lJ in these bienni,il rPporta EPA
requests comments on its proposal to
require biennial submission of lists
similar to those introduced by section
304(l)(1) of the CWA.
in addition. EPA is proposing today
that the State assessments of the quality
of all publicly-owned lakes required
under section 314(a)(2) of the CWA also
be submitted biennially in the section
305(b) reports.
Not only does EPA have the legal
authority to require a biennial
submission of lists, but there are
practical reasons for incorporating the
lists introduced by section 304(l) and
section 314(a) into the biennial section
305(b) reports. After the States, in
cooperation with EPA, have prepared
the initial list of waters and facilities it
is important for States to continue the
newly focused monitoring and
assessment efforts begwi under section
304(I) and section 314(a).
As EPA and the States develop new
data and information after February 4.
1989, waterbociies that have toxicity
problems may be identified for the first
time Therefore, EPA is committed to
working with the States to identify all
waters affected by toxic and other
pollutants, In order to identify all such
waters and to protect threatened waters,
it is necessary to continue the process
begun by sections 304(l) and 314(a).
(b) Proposed Amendments to 40 CFR
Part 130. In order to ensure that waters,
pollutants and sources continue to be
properly and uniformly identified and
reported, EPA is proposing today to
amend CFR Part 130 to Incorporate some
of the identification, listing and
reporting requirements introduced by
section 304(1) of the CWA. Part 130
currently includes the regulations for
section 303(d) and section 305(b) of the
CWA.
The following discussion will briefly
describe the major requirements of
sectwns 303(d), 305(b) and 304(l), and
how the proposed amendments to Part
130 would incorporate and continue
some of the elements of section 304(l).
Identification of waters not meeting
water quality standards. Both sections
304(l) and 303(d) require the
identification of waters not meeting
applicable water quail ty standards.
40 CFR 130.7 now requires the States
to identify those water quality limited
segments still requiring wasteload
allocations and load allocations (WLAg/
LAs) and total maximum daily loads
(ThIDLa) Water quality limited
segments are waters which do not or are
not expected to meet water quality
based standards after the application of
Best Available Technology (BAT).
pretreatment and new source
performance standar(is, or alt•r dfl
other local. State or Federal pollution
control requirement including best
management practices.
This requirement to identify water
quality limited segments is very similar
to the requirements at section
304(l)(fl(A)( ) and (B). These paragraphs
require the identification of waters
which meet the above definition of
water quality limited segments, But
section 304(l) specifically requires each
State to identify waters that do not meet
applicable numeric or narrative water
quality standards for priority pollutants,
after the application of BAT,
pretreatment and new source
performance standards. (See section B I
of this preamble for a detailed
description of which waters are required
to be identified by section 304(I)(1).)
The proposed amendments to 40 CFR
Part 130 would require that each State
continue to identify those waters not
achieving or not expected to achieve
numeric or narrative water quality
standards for priority pollutants
required by section ]04(l)—along with
those waters not achieving or not
expected to achieve applicable water
quality standards for any other pollutant
as currently required by 8ectlon 303(d).
Under today’s proposed amendments
to section 130.7(b)(z), all of these waters
would be reported in a three-list format
for listing waters similar to the one
introduced by section 304(l). These lists
would fulfill the section 303(d)
requirements for identifying and
reporting certam waters.
Today’s proposed amendments to Part
130 include the same interpretation of
“applicable standard” and the phrase
“due entirely or substantially to
discharges from point sources” that is
proposed today for the identification
and listing of waters under section
304(l)(1)(B). These terms and definitions
apply only to the list required under
proposed * 130.7(b)(2)(ij), (See earlier
discussion in Section UI B.i.)
Identification of waters not meeting
the fishable and swimmable goals of the
Act, In addition to identifying and listing
waters which do not achieve applicable
water quality standards, section 304(l)
also requires that each State identify
and list waters that do not meet the
“fishable and swimmable” goals of the
Clean Water Act after the application of
BAT. pretreatment, and new source
performance standards. (These goals are
“protection of public health, public
water supplies. agncultural ani
industrial uses, and the protection and
propagation of a balanced population of
shellfish, fish and wildlife, and’
recreational activities in and on th
W,itpr “)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. B / Thursday, January 12. 1989 / Proposed Rules
1311
Section 303(d) does not include this
requirement for each State to identify,
list and report waters not meeting the
f.shable and swimmable goals of the
Act, and therefore this element of
section 304(l) is not being incorporated
into Part 130 by today’s proposed
amendments. However, under its section
305(b) authority. EPA can and does
require that these waters be identified
and reported by each State to EPA in its
biennial report Therefore, these waters
must continue to be identified and
reported every two years in section
305(b) reports even though they are not
required under section 303(d) authority
or by today’s proposed amendments to
§ 1307.
Data requirements for zdentif;sng
ivcters Currently section 303(d) and
Pdrt 130 include no specific
requirements on what data a State must
assemble and evaluate for identifying
waters. However, today’s proposed
amendments would establish such
requirements. They incorporate into Part
130 the same data requirements for
biennial submission of lists as those
proposed today for the 1989 submission
of 304(l) lists,
These proposed amendments to Part
130 would require that at a minimum the
States assemble and evaluate all the
existing and readily available water
quality data about the categories of
waters described in the proposed
§ 130 10(d)(6) when identifying waters
required to be listed pursuant to section
303(d). (See earlier discussion in section
III 2 of this preamble on using these
same categories to prepare lists of
waters under section 304(1).)
In addition, today’s proposed
amendments would require that each
State submit with its lists of water
documentation of the decision
methodologies the State emplo)ed and
the data it reviewed when developing its
lists The proposed amendments also
include that if a State creates lists which
are not based upon the assembly and
evaluation of data and information
about waters in all of the categories in
§ 130.10(d)(6), the State must provide to
the Regional Administrator a rationale
for the decision not to do so. A specific
rationale must be provided for each
category not used.
In addition, proposed subparagraph
(iv) requires the State to provide any
other information that the Regional
Administrator requests in order to
review the State’s submission of lists.
Specifically, proposed subparagraph (ivi
requires a State. if EPA requests. to
demonstrate good cause for not
including on one or more of the required
section 303(d) lists a specific waterbody
or segment
These requirements for using
minimum existing and readily a ailable
data about the categories of waters.
providing documentation and specific
rationales, and demonstrating good
cause are the same requirements being
proposed today for developing and
reporting of the lists required by section
304(l) in February 1989. (See section 111.2
of this preamble for a detailed
discussion of these requirements.) These
proposed amendments to Part 130
appear in § 13o.7(b)(2)
EPA is proposing that these
requirements be the same for two
reasons First, since the section 303(d)
lists under today’s proposed regulations
would be very similar to the section
304(l) lists submitted in February 1989.
EPA believes it is important that they be
de’ .eloped and reviewed on the same
basis Second. EPA believes that these
requirements will encourage each State
to continually improve its monitoring
and assessment programs so that every
biennial submission of lists reflects
continually updated data.
Identification of sources and
pollutants. Section 304(1)(l) requires for
every water listed pursuant to
paragraph (B). that each State identify
the point sources discharging the
priority pollutant into the water, and the
amount of such pollutant being
discharged. Existing Part 130 does not
require any such identification of
sources and amounts, only the
identification of pollutants.
Howe er. in order for EPA and the
States to set priorities and to establish
control requirements in the NPDES
program EPA believes that States
should continue the work started by
section 304(l) of identifying point
sources of priority pollutants which
cause or contribute to water quality
standards violations or impairments.
Therefore. EPA proposes today to
amend § 130.7(b)(3) to require the
identification by States of point sources
of priority pollutants for waters listed
pursuant to § 130.7(b)(2)(ii). This
paragraph requires the same list of
waters required by section 304(1)(1)(B).
The State would not be required to
submit this list of sources to EPA as part
of its section 305(b) repoi ts. but must
still submit it to EPA under separate
cover no less frequently than every Ri o
years.
EPA will maintain the existing
requirement in § 130.7 that for all the
waters identified that the State must
identify the pollutants which are
preventing or are expected to prevent
the achievement of applicable water
quality standards. This list should be
submitted b lennidlly as part of the
State’s section 305(h) report
Reporting lists of waters and lake
assi ssrnents. Section 303(d) and existing
§ 1307 currently require each State to
submit its lists of water quality limited
segments “from time to time” EPA is
proposing today to change this schedule
for submission to a schedule that would
require each State to report to EPA it
lists of waters, pollutants and sources
no less frequently than every two years.
The lists of waters and pollutants would
be submitted biennially as part of the
State’s section 305(b) reports, and the
list of sources would be submitted to
EPA biennially in the section 305(b)
report or under separate cover
Since the section 305(b) reports must
include a description of the State’s
water quality, EPA believes it would be
appropriate and beneficial for each
State report to include the section 303(d)
lists of waters and pollutants Regular
submission of these lists would allow
for more orderly and accurate
assessment of each State’s progress in
meeting water quality program goals
These proposed amendments appear at
H 130.7(d)(l) and 130.8(b)(5 ).
In addition, today’s proposed
amendments add paragraph (6) to
§ 130.8 to require that lake water quality
assessments be submitted biennially as
part of’ each State’s section 305(b)
report. Section 314(a)(2) of the CWA
requires that each State submit
biennially to EPA an assessment of the
water quality of all publicly-owned
lakes. The specific elements of the
required assessment are outlined in
section 314(a)(1) and include a list and
description of those publicly-owned
lakes for which uses are known to be
impaired, a description of the status and
trends of the water quality of each
publicly-owned lake, the nature and
extent of pollution loadings from point
and nonpoint sources and the extent to
which the use of each lake is impaired
as a result of such pollution. The
assessment must also include a
description of the methods and
procedures needed to control sources of
pollution, restore the lake water quality.
mitigate the harmful effects of high
acidity. and remove toxic metals and
other toxic substances mobilized by high
acidity
Priority ranking of waters Existing
§ 130.7 requires each State to rank
waters identified in order of priority for
control actions. When setting priorities.
a State must consider the uses of the
waters identifled and the severity of the
pollution The State should also take
into account such factors as the need to
improve National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit
limit’; the ne”d for nonpount oiirre
-------
1312
Federal Register I Vol. 54. t ’Xo. 8/Thursday . January 12.
1!89 / Proposed Rules
controls, priority Clean Lake projects
and pending State Revolving Loan Fund
decisions.
Today’s proposed amendments would
not change this requirement that each
State establish a priority ranking for the
waters identified and listed pursuant to
section 303(d) and reported biennially in
section 305(b) reports.
Developing WLAs/LAs and 7 ’MDLs.
EPA is not changing the requirement in
§ 130.7(c) that the States prepare
wasteload allocations (WLAs), load
allocations (LAs) and total maximum
daily loads (TMDLs) for each waterbody
identified and listed pursuant to section
303(d).
Review and approval of lists
submitted biennially. Section 130.7 and
section 303(d) currently require that the
Regional Administrator either approve
or disapprove lists of waters. WLAs/
LAs and TMDLS no later than 30 days
after submission by the State. EPA will
continue to review and approve or
disapprove lists submitted pursuant to
section 303(d) and reported in section
305(b) reports. However, the existing
regulations do not include specific
conditions or requirements that a State
must meet in order for each list to be
approved.
Therefore, today’s proposed
amendments to 130.7(d) would add
specific conditions for approval of lists
by EPA. These conditions are identical
to the ones proposed today as review
conditions for the section 304(l) lists.
Since today’s proposed amendments to
4130.7 would continue the work
initiated by section 304(l), it is important
that the proposed biennial submissions
of lists of waters be reviewed on a basis
consistent with review of the section
304(l) lists. These proposed amendments
appear at 4 130.7(d)(2).
Under today’s proposed amendments.
in order for EPA to complete its review
of a States lists, the State must have
met the data and documentation
requirements in proposed paragraphs (8)
and (7). The Regional Administrator will
.Ipprove each list if it meets the
regulatory requirements for listing under
40 CFR 130.7. and disapprove each list
that does not.
If. after reviewing the State lists.
available data and any required
documentation, the Regional
Administrator is satisfied that the State
has identified and appropriately listed
.ill waters, then EPA will approve the
lists.
Todays proposed amendments
maintain the 30 day review and
.‘pproval period of section 303(d).
EPA emphasizes that to gain approval
for the list required under
130 7(b)(2J(iJ, the State must h.ive
revised it to reflect the State’s most
recent triennial review of water quality
standards. The list required under
§ 130.7(b)(2)(1) is a list of waters which
do not or are not expected to achieve
numeric water quality standards for
priority pollutants. Therefore, it is
Important that as a State revises its
water quality standards every three
years. as required by section
303(ci(2)(B). that it subsequently
identifies waters which do not achieve
or are not expected to achieve the new
or revised water quality standards.
(C). A Proposal for a 7wo-List ”
Format for B,enn:aJ Submissions.
Instead of continuing to use the section
304(l) format of three lists for the
biennial submissions, EPA is
considering simplifying the reporting of
water quality-limited segments under
section 303(d) to only two lists of
waters One list would indude all
waters not achieving or expected to
achieve applicable water quality
standards (including standards for
whole effluent toxicity) due to any
discharges of a priority pollutant,
ammonia or chlorine from either point or
nonpoint sources. The other list would
be of waters not achieving or not
expected to achieve water quality
standards due to all pollutants from
either point or rionpoint sources. (The
f t list described, the “toxic list,”
would be a subset of the second list.)
The applicable water quality standard
would continue to be defined, as it is
now for section 304(l), as any State
numeric or narrative standard of EPA
criteria in the absence of State
standards,
The rationale for using two lists
instead of three is that the distinctions
among the three lists required by section
304(l)(1) are subtle and can be
confusing. Furthermore, the section
304(t) format focuses on identifying
priority pollutants discharged from point
sources. Though these specific
pollutants cause many of the nation’s
water quality problems, whole effluent
toxicity, point source discharges of
ammonia and chlorine, and discharges
from nonpoint sources continue to cause
rnapor water quality problems. By using
this two-lIst format, EPA would hope to
encourage States to identify and
prioritize for control all of their water
quality problems, along with continuing
the section 304(l) initiative to identify
and control priority pollutants.
EPA is soliciting comments on
requiring only two lists of waters under
section 303(d) authority Informally, this
proposal has received favorable
responses, If normal comments are also
as favorable, it is likely that EPA will
require a two-list, rather than a three.lisi
format in the final rule without further
opportunity to comment.
C. Individual Control Strotegies
In addition to the four lists required
by section 304(l)(1J, the States must
prepare and submit to EPA an
individual control strategy (ICS) for
each point source on the 1 C) list. This
section describes the minimum
requirements of an ICS.
EPA has codified sections 304(l)(1)(D),
304(1)(2), and 304(l)(3) of the CWA into
a new section in Part 123—4 123.48.
Section 123.46(a) requires the States to
submit ICSs to EPA on or before
February 4, 1989, and 41 2 3.46(b)
requires EPA to approve or disapprove
the ICSs by June 4, 1989. (The
codification rule uses the term
“Administrator’ because the rule
adheres closely to the language of
section 304(i) However, EPA has now
delegated the Administrator’s
obligations under section 304(l) to the
Regional Administrators. Therefore.
today’s proposed regulations use the
term ‘Regional Administrator.”)
Where EPA disapproves an JCS. EPA
must prepare the ICS in cooperation
‘with the State. Today’s proposed rules
add four new paragraphs to 4 123.46.
Proposed paragraph (c defines an ICS.
Proposed paragraph (d) describes the
petitions submitted under section
304(I)(3). Proposed paragraph (e)
describes the procedures EPA will use
to approve or disapprove ICSs. and
proposed paragraph (I ’) establishes the
criteria that EPA will use to evaluate an
‘Cs.
1. Description of an Individual Control
Strategy
Section 304(l)(1)(D) provides that an
individual control strategy must
produce a reduction in the discharge of
toxic pollutants from point
sources ‘ “ identified under section
304(l)(1)(C). which is “ sufficient, in
combination with existing controls on
point and nonpoint sources of pollution,
to achieve the applicable water quality
standard as soon as possible, but not
later than three years after the date of
the establishment of such strategy.”
These elements of an individual control
strategy are codifed at 40 CFR 123.46(a).
Today’s proposed definition of an ICS
includes a final NPDES permit, a draft
NPDES permit with a schedule for
issuing a final permit, or. for an on-site
response action under CERCLA, the
decision document for the response
action. The following preamble
discussion describes each of these
elements of the proposed definition in
mori’ detuil
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 54, No 8 / Thursday. January 12. 1989 / Proposed Rules
1313
EPA has determined that, for most
point source discharges to meet the
requirements of section 304(l). an (CS
should consist of a final NPDES permit
for each point source on the (C) list, plus
supporting documentation that such
permits have adequately considered the
impact from the other discharges on the
identified segment. A sufficient ICS.
therefore. consists of the controls which
are developed (NPDES permit
limitations and a schedule for achieving
such limitations if they cannot be
achieved upon permit issuance) sad
documentation which shows that the
controls selected are appropriate and
adequate (i.e., fact sheets with
information on total maximum daily
loads and waterload allocations).
EPA believes this is the correct
interpretation of the term “individual
control strategy because paragraph (D)
of section 304(l) states that an (CS must
reduce discharges of toxic pollutants
through “effluent limitations under
section 402’ of the CWA. Section 402 of
the CWA establishes the NPDES
program. and the effluent limitations ui
NPDES permits are the primary control
mechanism that EPA and the States use
io reduce point source discharges of
pollutants. By inserting a reference to
the NPDES program in paragraph (D)
EPA believes that Congress intended for
an NPDES permit to be the primary
element of an (CS
Where a State demonstrates that a
f.nal permit cannot be issued by
February 4, 1989. a draft permit and
supporting documentation may be
accepted as an (CS. However, such a
draft permit must be accompanied by a
schedule indicating that the final permit
will be issued on or before February 4.
1990
EPAs definition of an ICS includes
diaft permits because the description of
an (CS in section 304(l)(l)(D) allows for
such an interpretation, and because it is
unrealistic to expect final NPDES
permits to be prepared for every point
source on the (C) lists within the
ambitious deadlines of section 304(l).
Water quality.based effluent limits can
be technically difficult to prepare and
are often subject to extensive public
comment during the permit development
process. Today s proposal to include
draft permits in the definition of an (CS
requires the permitting authority to
prepare the effluent limitations required
by section 304(l)(1)(D). but at the same
time, gives the States the necessary
flexibility to meet the ambitious
deadlines of section 304(1).
A draft permit prepared as an ICS
under section 304(l) must be issued as a
final permit within one year of
pcial)lIshrnpflt of the (CS (This une- e,ar
period is consistent with the language in
section 304(l)(3) which establishes a one
year period for implementing the
provisions of section 304(l) with respect
to disapproved ICSs ) Therefore, if a
State submits a draft permit to EPA on
or before February 4. 1989. the ICS must
be issued as a final NPDES permit on or
before February 4. 1990. Although the
one-year time penod reduces the time
available to the permittee to meet the
deadlines in section 304(l), the one-year
time period for issuing final NPDES
permits wilL nonetheless. allow the
permittee sufficient time to achieve
applicable water quality standards
before the June 4. 1992 deadline in
section 304(1). In the case of State-issued
ICSs. the one year time period allows
EPA to exercise its authority under
section 304(l)(2) if a State fails to issue a
final NPDES permit within the one year
time period In the case of EPA-issued
lCSs. the ICS may be a draft permit. and
like the States, EPA would also have up
to one year in which to issue a final
NPDES permit.
Where EPA approves a draft permit
as an ICS. EPA’s approval is
conditioned on the State’s meeting the
schedule for issuing the final permit. If a
State fails to meet the schedule for
issuing the final permit then EPA may
exercise its authority to disapprove the
ICS and implement section 304(l).
It is possible that some CERCL.A sites
will be subject to section 304(l) because
these sites can be point source
discharges of a priority pollutant. If a
CERCLA site qualifies for the (C) List
under section 304(1), then the site must
also satisfy section 304( 1 ) 11 1(D) relating
to ICSs. For “off-site” response actions.
the CERCLA site discharger must obtain
an NPDES permit. and will therefore
satisfy section 304(l) in the same way as
other point sources subject to section
304(l)(i)(C). For “on-site” actions
however, the discharger must meet all
“applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements” of the CWA. but is
exempt under section 121 of CERCLA
from the procedural requirements of the
NPDES permitting process. Therefore.
on-site actions that are subject to
section 304(1) will satisfy paragraph (D)
of section 304(1) through compliance
with applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements under the
CWA. as described in the decision
document for that on-site response
action. Although EPA expecis that there
will be Few CERCLA sites subject to
section 304(1). EPA emphasizes that the
(CS for any such CERCLA site is subject
to the deadlines in section 304(l). The
proposed definition of an (CS at
§ 123 46(c) includes CERCL.A decision
documents for nfl-site response actions
EPA solicits comment on this approach
for CERCL.A sites that are subject to
section 304(l)(1)(D).
EPA considered. but rejected. other
interpretations of the term “individual
control strategy” A water quality
management plan prepared under 40
CFR l3Qâ cannot be an ICS because
these p t ’are not directly enforceable
(although they are binding on the States)
and cannot ensure, by themselves, that
limitations will be achieved within the
deadlines under section 304(l).
Enforcement orders and consent
decrees, by themselves, are not
adequate substitutes for ICSs, However.
an enforcement order or judicial decree
based on a final and sufficient NPDES
permit may accompany an (CS, provided
the (CS satisfies all applicable
provisions of section 304 (1) of the CWA
The requu ement in section 304(l)(1IID)
that an (CS establish effluent limits
under section 402 of the CWA. and
therefore consist of an NPDES permit.
raises several issues when implementing
section 304 (l). The remainder of section
lU.C.i of this preamble discusses the
issues that arise from EPA’s definition of
an (CS.
An NPDES permit usually becomes
effective 30 days after a final decision to
issue or modify the permit unless an
evidentiary hearing is requested under
40 CFR 124 74 Evidentiary hearings can
delay the effective date of the permit.
Because these potential delays could
jeopardize the ability of EPA and the
States to meet the deadlines in section
304(1), and because a final permit
reflects the final decision of the
permitting authority with respect to the
permit. EPA will accept a final (but not
necessanly effective) NPDES permit as
an (CS.
Another issue arising from the
definition of an (CS is the role of States
that are not approved by EPA to
administer the NPDES program. This
issue arises directly from an
inconsistency in the language of section
304 (l). The statute requires States to
prepare ‘effluent limitations under
section 402” of the CWA. but some
States are not approved by EPA to
prepare such limitations. EPA believes
the preferred approach for resolving this
internal inconsistency in section 304(1) is
to require non-approved States to fulfill
the same obligations under section 304(l)
that they fulfill under the NPDES
program. A State that is not approved by
EPA to administer the NPDES program
will fulfill its obligations under section
304(l)(1)(D) by preparing and submitting
wasteload allocations to the Regional
Offices for EPA review and approval
‘nder the NPDES program non.
-------
1314
approved States assist EPA in issuing
permits by providing EPA with
background information, wasteload
allocations, and certifications under
section 401 of the CWA. EPA uses the
wasteload allocations to prepare the
NPDES permits for the State. The role of
non-approved States with respect to
lCSs will be the same as their role with
respect to NPDES permits. Non-
approved States are responsible for
preparing wasteload allocations for
each point source on the (C) list. it
should be emphasized that non-
approved States must prepare and
submit the required information to EPA
within the deadlines of section 304(l).
The Regional Offices will prepare and
issue, in cooperation with non-approved
States, final NPDES permits in the State.
EPA’s notice of approval and
disapproval will use the same format in
approved and non-approved States.
Although EPA is responsible for issuing
the lCSs in non-approved States. EPA is
not responsible for preparing the four
lists required by section 304(l)(1) in non-
approved States. All States, whether
approved or non-approved, must submit
the four lists to EPA.
Section 304(1) establishes a three year
deadline for achieving water quality
standards, whereas section 301(b)(1)(C)
requires water quality standards to be
met by July 1. 1977. The different
deadlines in the two sections raise the
question of how the two sections
interact. EPA believes that Congress did
not intend for section 304(I) to repeal the
July 1977 deadline in section
301(b)(1)(C). Rather. Congress
recognized that permittees will need a
reasonable amount of time, not to
exceed three years. to comply with new
effluent limits that are necessary to
achieve new water quality standards, or
reinterpreta tions of existing water
quality standards. On the other hand.
there is no indication that Congress
intended for section 304(1) to be an
extension for pernsittees who have
already failed to comply with effluent
limitations, Therefore, where effluent
limits are based on waler quality
standards adopted after July 1977. or
based on new interpretations of existing
standards, the permit may include a
compliance schedule. Also, where new
effluent limits will require construction
or other activities (eg.. wastewater
treatment system optimization,
pretreatment program implementation.
etc an ICS may include a compliance
schedule for such activities However.
an ICS may not extend a compliance
schedule for achieving effluent limits if
the permittee has already failed to abide
by the rompli,,ncp schedule The reacon
for this distinction is that section 304(l)
requires that water quality standards be
met ‘as soon as possible,” If a permit
already includes a compliance schedule.
then the Permitting authority has
already given the permittee a
reasonable time to comply with effluent
limits and therefore achieve water
quality standards. Where a permit
includes a compliance schedule for
attaining effluent limits necessary to
achieve water quality standards, the
compliance schedule usually represents
the most expeditious time frame for
achieving water quality standards.
Therefore, where a compliance schedule
has not been met, the ICS cannot extend
the schedule. Rather, an enforcement
order may be required as part of the ICS.
in addition, it may be necessary to
revise technology.based controls to
reflect new effluent guidelines or other
new information on available controls.
if these requirements cannot be met
immediately, they may also be
addressed by a compliance schedule iii
an ICS provided the compliance
schedule is consistent with current
regulations regarding the indusion of
compliance schedules in permits.
It is possible that some perniittees
may not meet the effluent limits in their
NPDES permits on or before the
deadline in section 304(l) for achieving
applicable water quality standards. For
example, the treatment technology may
not be immediately available to reduce
the discharge of a priority pollutant to
the levels necessary to protect aquatic
life and human health. In such cases, the
NPDES permit may contain a schedule
of compliance that leads to compliance
with section 304(l) and other
requirements of the CWA. (Note.
however, that a schedule of compliance
must require compliance no later than
applicable statutory deadlines.)
If the permittee does not achieve
effluent limits within the time specified
in the permit (but no later than the
applicable deadline in section 304(l)),
the CWA provides for a range of
enforcement actions, These actions are
provided for in section 309 of the CWA
and indude. administrative orders,
administrative penalty orders, and civil
or criminal judicial actions. The
appropriate enforcement response is
determined on a case-by-case basis. In
limited cases in the past. EPA has issued
administrative orders concurrently with
an NPDES permit where the effluent
limits are effective immediately upon
permit issuance. Factors which are
considered when determining the
appropriate enforcement response
include but are not limited to: The
potential urnp;ict of the dicth .ir e on
1989 / Proposed Rules
human health or the environment; the
compliance history of the permittee: and
any good faith efforts by the permittee
to achieve compliance. EPA solicits
comment on the best approach for
issuing and enforcing permits hat
cannot meet the deadlines in section
304(l) for achieving applicable water
quality standards.
EPA recognizes that there may be
situations where compliance with
applicable water quality standards will
require ICSs for a number of point
sources on a stream segment. or may
require nonpoint source controls. More
than one point source may contribute
the same pnonty pollutant to a
waterbody identified on the “B” list, and
therefore, controls on only one point
source may not achieve water quality
standards. In other cases where there
are significant loadings of a toxic
pollutant from nonpoint sources, effluent
limits for the point sources, by
themselves. may not attain and maintain
applicable water quality standards (See
the discussion of the phrase “entirely or
substantially” in section 111.8.] of this
preamble.) In these cases, it is EPA’s
position that an ICS may satisfy the
language in paragraph (D) of section
304(l), and in proposed § 123.46(c)
(which require the (CS to achieve water
quality standards), If the effluent limits
for the point source are consistent with
a wasteload allocation for the point
source. This approach allows the
permitting authority to develop an ICS
for each point source that, together with
other point or nonpoint source controls.
is designed to attain and maintain
applicable water quality standards. This
approach is also consistent with EPA’s
existing surface water toxics control
program, in which each point source is
obligated to reduce its contribution of a
pollutant according to its wasteload
allocation. The result of this approach
should be substantial reductions in point
source contributions of priority
pollutants, which is consistent with
Congress’ intent in enacting section
304(l).
Where a waterbody on the (B) list has
a significant nonpornt source of a
priority pollutant that could impede
progress toward achieving water quality
standards, EPA and the States should
address the nonpoint source using all
available authorities including Stae and
local authorities and section 319 of the
CWA. (Note that where point and
nonpoint sources on the same
waterbody contribute different priority
pollutants, the degree of nonpoint source
contributions will riot affect the decision
whether to list the water under
pdragrapll B of saction 304(;ll) For
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 8 / Thursday , January 12,
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. a I Thursday. January 12. 1989 I Proposed Rules
1315
more information see the discussion of
the (B) list in section Ill.B of this
preamble.)
Nonpoint sources are part of the
process of developing water quality-
based effluent limits for point sources
because nonpoint sources are
considered when developing TMDLa
and WLAs under section 303(d) of the
CWA. EPA emphasizes that nonpoint
source controls can make significant
improvements in water quality. For
many waters, the most significant
sources of pollutants are nonpoint
sources. Furthermore. nonpoint source
controls are. in some cases. more cost-
effective than point source controls. The
wasteload allocation process gives
States the flexibility to allocate
wasteloads among various points and
noripoint sources on an affected
aterbody. in order to maximize
en ironmental benefits while keeping
control costs to a minimum. Thus where
possible. WPA encourages the States to
use nonpoint source controls to meet the
objectives of section 304(l) of the CWA.
Section iIl.B.1 of this preamble
explains that a waterbody may qualify
for the (B) list if the source of the
priority pollutant is sediment deposited
or contaminated by an active point
source subject to section 402 of the
CWA For example, the effluent from an
acti’ e point source discharge may
contain priority pollutants that are
dcpo ited as sediments in the receiving
water, or the effluent may contaminate
e\isting sediment in the receiving water.
In such cases the sediment can interfere
ith the designated use of the water,
and the releases can cause excursions
above applicable water quality
standards. Where contaminated
sediment is caused by an active point
source, it is EPA’s position that the point
source is responsible for the priority
pollutants. it is EPA’s goal that the IcSs
for these active point sources achieve
applicable water quality standards
within the timeframes of section 304(1).
I lowever. because controls for in-place
sediments raise unique problems for the
NPDES program, an ICS for such a point
source should, wherever possible.
prevent additional accumulation or
contamination of the sediments that are
the source of the toxic pollutant.
Under EPA’s interpretation of section
304(l) all permits, including final or
effective permits for point sources
subject to section 304(lfll)(C) must be
included in the review required by
section 304(1). It is EPA’s position that
section 304(1) gives EPA the authority to
reopen a permit before the term of the
permit expires regardless of whether the
permit has a reopener clause. Thu
authority to reopen final and effective
permits is indicated by the language in
section 304(1) that requires an ICS to
‘establish ( I ‘ effluent
limitations under section 402.” EPA ’s
authority under section 304(l) to reopen
final and effective permits is also
supported by the fact that the
alternatives to reopening permits do not
necessarily meet the requirements of
section 304(l)(1)(D). The alternatives are ’.
(1) Allow ICSs to be unenforceable
plans that might incorporate limitations
under section 402 at some later time: (2)
omit certain point sources from the
section 304(1) process because the
permits for these point sources are not
due for review under 40 CFR 123.44; or
(3) wait until a permit expires (possibly
after the deadlines in section 304(1)) to
change the terms of the permit. None of
these alternatives would satisfy the
requirement that ICSs attain water
quality standards by the deadlines in
section 304(l). Therefore. EPA will
review, and possibly disapprove under
section 304 (l). final or effective permits,
regardless of whether the permit has a
reopener clause.
In enacting section 304(l) Congress
mandated that EPA and the States act
expeditiously to control point sources of
priority pollutants. Congress
established, in section 304(l), a new
process for reviewing permits. To
implement section 304(l). EPA will use
existing procedures where possible.
However. EPA will use the section 304(l)
process where pre-existing regulatory
procedures are inconsistent with the
section 304(l) review process. For
example. EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR
123.44 describe the procedures for EPA’s
objections to permits prepared by the
States. (Section 402 of the CWA
establishes conditions that are
prerequisites to EPA’s authority to issue
permits in approved States. For
example. section 402 requires an
approved State to submit a permit to
EPA for review and requires EPA to
object in writing within ninety days. as
prerequisites to EPA’s authority to issue
the permit.) Although the procedures
under section 304(l) provide an
equivalent opportunity for State-EPA
cooperation in the development of
permits. section 304(l) also gives EPA
the authority to issue permits where the
State fails to issue permits that satisfy
section 304(l). Under the existing
regulations the State submits a proposed
permit to EPA. and EPA then has 90
days to object to the terms of the permit.
After EPA’s objection. the State has 90
days to request a public hearing or to re-
submit the permit to EPA. If EPA grants
a public hearing, the State may re-
submit the permit within 30 days after
the Administrator issues the post-
hearing decision. If the State does not.
re-submit the permit within the time
limits in 123.44, the exclusive authority
to issue the permit passes to EPA. These
procedures are not appropriate for the
section 304(l) review process. First. EPA
must review final or effective permits in
the ICS review process, not just draft or
proposed permits. Second. section 304(I)
gives EPA a specific deadline by which
to review an I S, not the 90 days
provided for in § 123.44. Third. section
304(1) makes no provision for the State
to resubmit a disapproved ICS. Rather.
section 304(1) directs EPA to work in
cooperation with the State in preparing
and implementing EPA’s ICSs. Finally.
section 304(l) requires EPA to provide
for public notice and an opportunity to
comment on the ICSs. not just an
opportunity to request a hearing as
provided under 123.44. Taken as a
whole the ICS review process is
inconsistent with the permit review
process under 123.44. Therefore EPA
will not use the permit review and
objection procedures set forth in Part
123 when reviewing ICSs. Instead. EPA
will review and approve or disapprove
an ICS using the criteria and procedures
set forth in today’s proposed
amendments to 40 CFR 123.48.
For disapproved ICSa, EPA will use
existing procedures to issue these ICSs.
After EPA disapproves an ICS that is a
draft or final NPDES permit. the Agency
will use the procedures described in 40
CFR Part 124 to issue a final ICS. If EPA
disapproves a decision document for an
on-site response action under CERCLA.
the Agency will use the procedures
under CERCLA for issuing these ICSs.
EPA expects that many of the lCSs
that are subject to section 304(1) will be
final State-issued permits that EPA has
previously reviewed under 40 CFR Part
123. When a State submits an ICS to
EPA for review under section 304(l). any
previous EPA decision to not object to
the permit under Part 123 does not
waive EPA’s authority to review and
approve or disapprove the ICS under
section 304(l). 11 EPA reviewed a permit
under Part 123. EPA reserves the right to
review the same permit under the
provisions of section 304(l).
2. Technical Review Criteria
Section 304(l) requires an LCS to
achieve applicable water quality
standards as soon as possible but not
later than three years after the ICS is
established. Although this language
establishes a general standard for
evaluating an ICS. the language says
little about the permit conditions
-------
1316
Federal Register I Vol. 54. No. 8 / Thursday , January 12.
1989 / Proposed Rules
necessary to ensure that applicable
water quality standard, will be
achieved. EPA is proposing review
criteria in 40 CFR 123.40 (f) that will
assist the Regions. States. and regulated
community in evaluating whether an ICS
meets the requirements of section 304(l),
The criteria that EPA will use to
review ICSs are the same as the criteria
EPA uses to review the water quality.
based effluent limits for any permit.
Section lILA of this preamble discusses
proposed amendments to 122.44 (d)
and (e). These proposed amendments
describe how to establish water quality.
based effluent limits in NPDES permits.
Effluent limits derived from water
quality standards must satisfy the
proposed language for § 122.44 (d) and
(e). The proposed regulations at
§ 123.48(f), provide that ICSs shall be
reviewed according to the criteria in
* 122.44 (d) and (e). EPA is also
amending § 123.44(c) to incorporate the
review criteria for ICSs into EPA’s
criteria for reviewing other permits not
subject to section 304(l). Section
123.44(c) enumerates the criteria that
EPA may use to review State-issued
permits. By using the same criteria for
reviewing ICSs and for reviewing
permits that are not subject to section
304(l). EPA Is Insuring consistency in
reviewing the technical adequacy of
these two categories of permits.
Where EPA disapproves an ICS.
section 304(11(3) requires EPA to
implement section 304(l) in a manner
which will achieve applicable water
quality standards on or before June 4,
1993. A final permit issued after EPA
disapproves the permit under section
304(l) must include language in the fact
sheet or statement of basis that
identifies the permit as an ICS that
satisfies the requirements of section
304(l) of the CWA. This requirement is
similar to the language in draft permits
subject to section 304(l) whIch identifies
the permit as an ICS. The language in
the final permit will identify for the
public and the regulated community
those ICSs which satisfy the
requirements of section 304(l).
0. EPA Review of f.,sgs and Jndjv,doaJ
Control Sirotegies
Section 304(1) requires EPA to review
and approve or disapprove the lists and
ICSs submitted by a State. Ifs Slate
fails to submit the lists or ICSs, or if a
State submits inadequate lists or ICSs.
then EPA must disapprove the lists or
lCSs. Section 304(11(2) gives EPA 120
days to approve or disapprove a Slate’s
submittal, and where EPA disapproves a
list or ICS, section 30411)13) requires EPA
to implement section 304(l)(1) on or
before June 4, 1990. Taday a proposed
rules establish the same review
procedure, for the lists and for the ICSs.
(Note, however, that the regulations
describing the notice and comment
procedures for the lists are separate
from the regulations for the ICSs
because Part 130 addresses Stale lists of
waters, and Part 123 addresses EPA
review of permits.)
The procedures described in this
section are necessary because the time
frame in EPA’s existing procedures for
reviewing similar Slate submittals are
different from the deadlines established
by section 304(l). For example, section
303(d) of the CWA and EPA’,
implementing regulations at § 130.7
include procedure, for reviewing State
submittala of “Water quality limited
segments” under section 303(d) of the
CWA. it is unrealistic for the Regional
Administrator to review the lists
submitted under section 304(l) within the
30 days allowed by section 303(d).
The first step in the review process
occurs when a State submits its lists and
ICSs to the appropriate Regional Office
for review. The States’ deadline for
submitting the lists and ICSs is February
4. 1989, and the Regional Offices must
approve or disapprove the lists and ICSs
by June 4, 1989. EPA ’s deadline (or
approving or disapproving the lists and
ICSs is June 4. 1989 and does not change
if a Slate submits its lists or ICSs before
February 4, 1989. If a State submits its
lista and ICSs after the February 4. 1989
deadline, then it will be difficult for EPA
to meet the June 4, 1989 deadline for
approving or disapproving a State’s
submittal.
1. Partial Approval and Disapproval of
State Submittal,
Section 304(l) gives EPA the discretion
to approve or disapprove an entire list
of waters or facilities, or to approve or
disapprove individual waters of the list,
or individual point sources on the (C)
list. EPA has the same discretion to
approve or disapprove one or more
ICSs. The basis for this conclusion Is the
requirement in section 304(l) that EPA
Implement the listing and ICS
requirements of the statute where the
State fails to submit an ICS in
accordance with paragraph (I).
Submission of an ICS in accordance
with paragraph (I) includes listing the
water where appropriate, and preparing
an adequate ICS. For simplicity EPA has
decided to refer to approvals or
disapprovals of a listed waterbody
rather than an entire list of waterbqcjies,
Pis described in section IIIB.i of this
preamble, section 304(l) requires each
State to submit three lists of waters to
EPA. EPA will review each waterbody
on each of the three lists If the
waterbody meets the criteria described
in the proposed regulations at
§ 130.10(d) of today’s rulemaking. then
EPA will approve the State’s decision to
list that waterbody. If EPA.identifies a
walerbody that qualifies for one or more
of the three lists of waters, and the State
had not included the waterbody on the
appropriate list(s), then EPA will
disapprove the State’s decision to not
list the waterbody under the applicable
paragraph(s) in it8 notice of approval
and disapproval. For example. if a Slate
included a walerbody on the (A)(i) list
but not on the (B) list, and if EPA
determined that the waterbody qualified
for both lists, then EPA would approve
the decision to list the waterbody on the
(Aj(i) list, but would disapprove the
State’s decision to not list the
waterbody under the (B) list, Another
example is where a State does not
include a waterbody on any of the three
lists, but EPA determines that the
waterbody qualifies for one or more of
the lists EPA would disapprove the
State’s decision to not list the
waterbody under each paragraph for
which the waterbody qualifies.
EPA also has the authority to
disapprove the listing of a waterbody by
a State if the waterbody does not qualify
for the list. For example. if the State
includes a waterbody on the (B) list, and
EPA determines that the waterbody
does not qualify for the (B) list. EPA
would disapprove the State’s listing of
the waterbody on the B list, and indicate
this decision in EPA’s notice of approval
or disapproval.
EPA will also review each point
source on the (C) list. EPA will approve
the listing’of each point source that
meets the criteria in secflon 304(l)(1,(c1
EPA will disapprove the listing of any
point source that does not satisfy
section 304(l)(1)(C), and will disapprove
a State’s decision to not list any point
source that meets the criteria in
paragraph C of section 304(l)(1).
Like EPA’s review of individual
waters, EPA will review each ICS, and
will approve each ICS submitted by a
State that meets the requirements of an
ICS. EPA will also disapprove a State’s
decision to not submit an ICS if EPA
determines that the State should have
included the ICS in its submittal to EPA
The notice of approval and disapproval.
explained in the following section. will
include EPA’s decisions with respect to
each water, point source, and ICS.
2. Public Notice of Approval or
Disapproval
Under section 304( 11(3) of the CWA. if
a Slate fails to submit one or more
waers or ICSs, or if EPA disapprovpc
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 8 / Thursday. January 12. 1989 I Proposed Rules
one or more waters or ICSs, then EPA
will implement the requirements of
section 304(l)(1) after notice and
opportunity for public comment. This
section descnbeg the public
participation procedures necessary
when EPA implements section 304(I).
Today’s proposed regulations on public
participation amend § 130.10(d) (relating
to lists of waters), and § 123.46(c)
(relating to ICSs).
EPA intends to rely. to the extent
possible. on State public participation
procedures. EPA encourages the States
to provide for lull public participation
when developing their lists and lCSs
under section 304(1). State public
participation procedures must, at a
minimum, provide for public notice and
an opportunity to comment on the
States lists and ICSs. Parts 25 and 124
of EPA’s regulations describe
procedures for public notice and
comment that States may use under
section 304(I) The 120-day comment
period in section 304(l )(3J does not apply
to States because section 304(l)(3)
applies only when EPA disapproves one
or more ICSs. Where a State does
provide adequate public participation on
the lists and ICSs. and where the
Regional Administrator approves all of a
State’s decisions with respect to the lists
and lCSs, today’s proposed regulations
give the Regional Administrator the
discretion to forego an additional round
of notice and comment on the lists and
lCSs
Where the Regional Administrator
determines that a State did not provide
for adequate notice and opportunity to
comment on the lists and ICSs. EPA’s
notice of approval or disapproval must
include all approvals and disapprovals.
Such notice would include all of EPA’s
approvals and disapprovals for all
saters and ICSs subject to 8ection
3 04 (l)
If a State provides for adequate public
participation, but the Regional
Administrator disapproves any of a
State’s decisions with respect to the
waters, point sources, or ICSs. then
EPA’s notice must include each of the
Agency’s disapprovals. In this case it is
not necessary for the notice to include
EPA’s approvals of a State’s decisions
under section 304(l), However, the
Regional Administrator has the
discretion to include EPA’s approvals in
the notice provided under section 304(l).
(See proposed 40 CFR 123.48(e) and
130 ,10(d)(7).)
The proposed rules require the
Regional Offices to mail a copy of the
notice to the State Director, to eiich
permittee identified as a point source
under section 304(l)(1)(C). and to every
interested person on the mailing lisi
maintained by the Regional Office.
(Interested persons may contact the
appropriate Regional Office for more
information about the mailing lists
maintained in each Region.) The
proposed rule also requires the Regional
Administrator to publish a notice of
availability in a daily or weekly
newspaper with State-wide circulation
(See proposed 40 CFR 123.48(e) and
130.10(d)(7).) The notice of availability
tells the public where to obtain copies of
EPA’s notice of approval or disapproval.
Under today’s proposed rules. public
participation for the lists and ICSs
occurs at the same time, and the
Re onal Offices will probably use the
same notice for the lists and ICSs.
EPA considered notice in the Federal
Register as an alternative to today’s
proposal. However, a Federal Register
notice does not necessarily provide
actual notice to the parties involved.
whereas a direct mailing to the
interested parties provides actual notice.
A Federal Register notice takes more
time to prepare and publish than
notification by mail. Finally, a notice in
the Federal Register is not necessarily
appropriate because the lists are
primarily of State-wide concern.
EPA considered providing notice and
an opportunity for comment on a State’s
submittal before issuing a notice of
approval or disapproval. EPA rejected
this approach because such notice is not
required under section 304(I) and
because the ambitious deadlines in
section 304 (1) preclude public notice and
comment before EPA approves or
disapproves a State’s lists and ICSs,
EPA solicits comment on the methods
that should be used for providing notice
of the approvals and disapprovals.
a. Contents of EPA’s Notice of
Approval or Disapproval. Today’s
proposed amendments to § 123.48 and to
§ 130 10(d) describe the contents of the
public notice provided under section
304(l). U the Regional Office combines
the notice for the lists and lCSs. then
each notice would include the following’
1. The name and address of the EPA
office that reviews the State’s
submittals.
2. A brief description of the 304 (l)
process. For example. the notice should
describe the reqwrement to identify
point sources of toxic pollutants, and
should discuss EPA’s review of the
State’s submittal.
3. A lIst of the waters disapproved
under paragraph (A)(i). (A)(ii), and (B).
and a short finding thai the waters do
not meet the applicable review criteria
4. A list of point sources disapproved
under paragraph (C) of section 304(1111).
and a short finding th:ii the point
1317
sources do not satisfy the criteria of
paragraph (C).
5 A list of ICSs disapproved under
paragraph (D) of section 304(1111) and a
short finding that the ICSs do not meet
the applicable review criteria.
6. If the Regional Administrator
determines that a State did not provide
adequate public notice and an
opportunity to comment on the waters.
point sources, or ICSs prepared under
section 304(1). or if the Regional
Administrator chooses to exercise his or
her discretion, a list of approvals and a
short finding that the approved waters,
point sources. or ICSs meet the
applicable review criteria.
7. The name, address, and telephone
number of the person at the Regional
Office from whom interested parties
may obtain more information.
8. The location where interested
persons may examine EPA’s records of
approval or disapprovaL
9. Notice that written petitions or
comments are due within 120 days.
The contents of these notices are
similar to the notices given under 40
CFR 124.10. EPA believes that by using
existing procedures wherever possible
the agency will minimize the
administrative burden of implementing
section 304(l).
EPA’s notice of approval or
disapproval allows 120 days for public
comment. The 120-day comment period
coincides with the 120 days described in
section 304(l)(3). which allows interested
persons to petition EPA to list additional
waters. Under section 304(l)(3). EPA will
consider for listing any navigable water
for which any person submits a petition
to EPA. Under the statute, interested
persons must submit petitions on or
before October 4. 1989. Today’s
proposed rule uses the same 120-day
period for receiving petitions and for
taking comments on EPA’s notic.e of
approval and disapproval. EPA chose to
provide a 120-day comment period
because it would be impractical to close
the public comment penod on the notice
of approval or disapproval before the
statutory deadline for petitions. If EPA
closed the comment period before
October 4. 1989. it is possible that the
Agency would receive petitions for
additional listings after the close of
public comments. EPA solicits
comments on the appropriate notice and
comment procedures under section
304 (l).
b. Public Hearings. EPA is not
proposing new regulations for public
hearings under section 304(l) The 120-
day comment period allows sufficient
public involvement in reviewing EPA’s
decisions with respect to the lists ,ind
-------
1318
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 8 / Thursday. January 12.
1989 I Proposed Rules
ICSs. Furthermore, new regulations for
public hearings are not necessary
because the Regional Administrator may
hold a public hearing if he or she finds a
significant degree of public interest in
the State’s submittal. EPA is soliciting
comment on the need for public
hearings.
c. Petitions for Additional Listings.
Under section 304(l)(3), EPA must
consider petitions from the public for
additional listings of navigable waters.
Petitions are due within 120 days after
disapproval under section 304(l)(3J. and
should be submitted to the appropriate
Regional Administrator. A petition must
identify a weterbody with sufficient
detail so that EPA is able to determine
the location and boundaries of the
waterbody. For example. the petition
could identify the waterbody using the
name and number assigned to the
waterbocly by EPA’s REACH file. The
REACH file is a data base on the
nations surface waters, and the
information is available from EPA ’s
Regional Offices. Another method for
identifying a waterbody is to use the
common name for the waterbody. and
give the geographic boundaries for the
water. The petition must also identify
the list or lists for which the waterbody
qualifies, and the petition must explain
why the waterbody satisfies the criteria
for the list or lists. EPA needs this
information to evaluate the petition. If
EPA has data that show the water
should be listed, and the State has not
listed the water, then EPA will
disapprove the State’s failure to list the
water.
Petitions submitted to EPA pursuant
to section 304(1)13) are limited to adding
waters to one or more of the three lists
of waters prepared under section
304(l)(1). Under section 304(lJ(3), an
interested party may not petition EPA to
delete a water, point source, or ICS from
the lists prepared under section 304(l).
The relevant language describing
petitions under section 304(I)(3) limits
the petitions to navigable waters
for listing under (section 304(l) ),” and
does not discuss deleting waters, point
sources, or [ CSe from the hate prepared
under section 304 (I). As a result of the
statutory language, t e public may
submit petitions only for adding waters
to one or more lists of waters prepared
under section 304(l).
d Response to Comments and
Petitions. After the close of the public
comment period on October 4. 1989. the
Regional Offices will provide, not later
than january 4. 1990. a response to the
comments and petitions received. The
response to comments will be given in
the same m.mnrtcr as the first notice. The
contents of the response to cominenta
are the seine as the first notice of
approval or disapproval except for the
following changes:
1. The lista of disapproved waters.
point soureeg, and lCSs must reflect any
changes made pursuant to comments or
petitions received.
2. A brief summary of major
comments and petitions received. .ind
EPA’s response to the comment or
petition.
3. A brief description of the
subsequent steps in the 304(l) process.
For example, the point sources on the
(C) list will require !CSs such that water
quality standards will be met by the
applicable deadline in section 304(l).
Interested persona will have an
additional opportunity to comment on
disapproved lCSs. Where EPA
disapproves an ICS because it does not
meet the requirements of section 304(I),
or because the State failed to submit the
[ CS to EPA for review, section 304(l)
requires EPA to prepare an ICS in
cooperation with the State after notice
and an opportunity to comment. The
public notice requirements of section
304(l)(3) will be fulfilled by the public
notice procedures followed by EPA or
the State when issuing the permit that
will constitute the [ CS. If EPA
disapproves one or more lCSs. then EPA
or the State may modify, revoke and
reissue, or terminate that [ CS using the
procedures in 40 R Part 124. The
procedures in Part 124 require the
permitting authority to provide for
public notice and an opportunity to
comment before issuing a final permit.
Therefore, if the permitting authority
modifies, revokes and reissues, or
terminates a disapproved [ CS, the
permitting authority must provide for
public notice and an opportunity to
comment. Judicial review of a
disapproved ICS under section 509(b) of
the CWA is not available until EPA
makes a final decision with respect to
the NPDES permit under Part 124 of
EPA’s regulations. At any time after the
Regional Administrator disapproves an
[ CS (or conditionally approves a draft
permit as an ICS). the Regional Office
may submit a written notification to the
State that the Regional Office intends to
issue the [ CS. Upon mailing the
notification to the Slate, exclusive
authority to issue the permit passes to
EPA. This issue is addressed in today’s
proposed regulations at 40 CFR 123.46(0.
EPA is proposing this regulation to
clarify the time at which exclusive
authority to issue ICSs pdsses to EPA
under i.’Cti n 304(l),
IV, Regulatory Analysis
A. £‘ecutive Order 12291
Under section 3(b) of Executive Order
12291 the agency must judge whether a
regulation is major and thus subject to
the requirements of a Regulatory [ moan
Analysis The proposed regulation
published today is not major because
the rule will not result in an effect on
economy of $100 million or more, will
not result in increased costs or prices.
will not have significant adverse effects
on competition employment,
investment, productivity, and
innovation, and will not significantly
disrupt domestic or export markets.
Therefore, the Agency has not prepared
a Regulatory Impact Analysis under the
Executive Order. EPA submitted this
regulation to the Office of Managenieni
and Budget (0MB) for review as
required by Executive Order 12291
8. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
reqwrements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the
Office of Management and Budget
(0MB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request
document has been prepared by EPA
(ICR No. 1490) and a copy may be
obtained from Rick Westlund.
Information Policy Branch. U S. EPA. 401
M Street. SW. (PM—2231. Washington.
DC 20460 or by calling (202) 382-2706.
The public reporting burden for this
collection of information is
approximately 730 hours per response
for the listing requirements of these
proposed regulations, and
approximately one hour per response for
the preparation of permit issuance
schedules. These estimates include the
time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources.
gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing
the collection of information,
Send comments regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden. to
Chief. Information Policy Branch. PM—
223, US. EPA, 401 M Street SW,
Washington. DC 20460. and to the Office’
of Information and Regulatory Aff.iirc
Office of Management and Budget.
Washington. DC 20503, marked
‘Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.’ The
final rule will respond to any 0MB or
public comments on the information
collection requirements contained in hi’,
propnc ,il
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 8 / Thursday, January 12. 1989 I Proposed Rules
1319
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
of 1980(5 USC. 801 ef seq J. Federal
agencies must, when developing
regulations, analyze their Impact on
small entities (small businesses, small
government jurisdictions, and small
orgamzations). This analysis is
unnecessary, however, where the
agency’s administrator certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic
effect on a substantial number of small
entities, The agency has concluded that
this rule will not have a significant
economic effect on a substantial number
of small entities because today’s
rulemaking proposes no new
requirements for the regulated
cornrnumty. Today’s proposed
regulations merely establish the
procedures for implementing section
304 (l) of the CWA. and clarify certain
etements of EPAS surface water toxics
control program
L.st of Subjects
.10 CFR Port 122
EPA administered permit programs.
The National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
U CER Port 123
State program requirements,
‘ JO CFR Port 130
Water quality planning and
management
Dale Ianiary4 198
L e M. Thomas,
PART 122—EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: ThE NATIONAL
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
EL IMtNATION SYSTEM
1. The authority citation for Part 122
continues to read as follows:
Authonty: The Clean Water Act. 33 U SC.
1.5i et seq
Z. Section 122,2 is amended by adding
, new definition as follows
$22.2 Definitions,
. .
Whole efflueiit to. icity means the
aggregate toxic effect clan effluent
measured directly by a toxicity test,
3 Paragraph (dill) of 122.44 is
revised to read as follows:
§ 122.44 EstablIshing ttmltatlons,
slsndard 5, and other permit conditions
(applicable to State NPDES programs, see
123.25).
(1) Achieve water quality standards
established under section 303 of the
CWA. including State narrative
standards for water quality.
fi) When determining whether a
discharge causes or has the reasonable
potential to cause an tn-stream
excursion above a narrative or numeric
State water quality standard. the
permitting authority shall use
procedures which account for existing
controls on point and nonpouit sources
of pollution, the variability of the
pollutant or pollutant parameter in the
effluent, the sensitivity of the species to
toxicity testing (when evaluating whole
effluent toxicity), and where
appropriate, the dilution of the effluent
in the receiving water
(ii) When the perrmtting authority
determines, using the procedures in
paragraph (d)(1)(i ) of this section, that a
discharge causes or has the reasonable
potential to cause an in-stream
excursion above the allowable ambient
concentration for a State numeric water
quality standard, the permit must
contain effluent limits for the individual
pollutant (where the pollutant is
regulated by a State numeric water
quality standard) and for whole effluent
toxicity (where whole effluent toxicity is
rrgulated by a numeric State water
quality standard).
(iii) Except as provided in this
subparagraph, when-the perlnlttulg
authority determines, using the
procedures in paragraph (d)f1J(iJ of this
section. and using toxicity testing data
or other information, that a discharge
causes or has the reasonable potential
to cause, an in-stream excursion above
the allowable ambient concentration for
a State narrative water quality standard.
the permit must contain effluent limits
for whole effluent toxicity. Limits on
whole effluent toxicity are not necessary
where the permitting authonty
demonstrates in the fact sheet or
statement of basis of the NPDES permit,
usir.g the procedures in paragraph
(d)(1J(i) of this section. that chemical-
specific limits for the effluent are
sufficient to at’aini and maintain
applicable numeric and narrative State
water quality standards.
(is) Where a State has not established
a water quality standard for a specific
chemical pollutant that is known to
ad ersety affect or threaten human
health or aquatic life, the permitting
authority must establish effluent limits
using one or more of the following
optionr
(A) Establish permit limits, on a case-
by-case basis, using EPA s Water
Quality Criteria: or
(B) establish permit limits using a
numeric criterion for the pollutant which
the permitting authority demonstrates is
protective of aquatic life and human
health. Such criteria may be derived
using the procedures described in EPA’s
Water Quality Standards Handbook.
October 1983, or from an acceptable
State criteria development procedure
which employs all information available
to the State including risk assessment
data, exposure data. tnformaflon about
the pollutant from the Food arid Drug
Administration, and current EPA criteria
documents.
(v) When developing water quality-
based effluent limits under this
paragraph the permitting authority shall
ensure that:
(A) The level of water quality to be
achieved by limits on point sources
established under this paragraph is
derived from, and complies with all
applicable water quality standards; and
(B) effluent limits developed to protect
a narrative water quality standard, a
numeric water quality standard, or both
standards, are consistent with the
assumptions and requirements of any
available wasteload allocation for the
discharge prepared by the State and
approved by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR
130.7.
. . . S
4. The introductory text of paragraph
(e} of 122.44 is revised to read as
follows:
(e] To ,c pollutants and sources of
Loxicity. Limitations established under
paragraphs (a). (b), or (d) of this section.
to control pollutants meeting the criteria
listed in paragraphs (eJ(1) and (e(2) of
this section. Limitations will be
established in accordance with
paragraph (efl2) and (e)(3) of this
section. An explanation of the
development of these limitations shall
be included the fact sheet under
§ 124.58(b)(1)(i)
5. Paragraph (e)(1) of 122.44 is
revised, paragraph (e)(2) of § 122.44 is
redesignated as paragraph (e)(3). a new
paragraph (e)(2 ) is added, and
redesignated paragraph (e)(3) is
amended by adding (iii) as follows:
(e)
(1) Limitations must control all toxic
pollutants which the Director
determines (based on information
reported in a permit application under
§ 122.21(g) (7) or (10) or in a notification
under § 122.42(a )(1) or on other
information) are or may be discharged
at a level greater than the level which
can be achieved by the technology.
based treatment requirements
-------
1320
appropriate to the permittee under
* 125.3(c).
(2) Limitations must control all
pollutants (either conventional.
nonconventionaL or toxic pollutants)
which the Director determines are or
may be discharged at a level which will
cause or have the reasonable potential
to cause an excursion above any State
water quality standard, including State
narrative standards for water quality.
(3) • •
(ii i) Limitations on whole effluent
toxicity which control the combined
toxic effects of two or more pollutants.
(If the discharge has the potential to
adversely affect human health, and if
limitations on whole effluent toxicity do
not adequately protect against all
human health impacts, then limitations
on the appropriate specific chemicals
must be used to address the potential
human health impacts)
PART 123—STATE PROGRAM
REQUIREMEJIITS
1. The authority citation for Part 123
continues to read as follows:
Autbority Clean Water Act. 33 U S C. 1251
el seq.
2. Section 123.4.4 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(8) to read as
follows:
123.44 EPA review of and objections to
State pennhts.
(c)
(8) The effluent limits of a permit fail
to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR
122.44(d).
3. Paragraphs (c). (d), (e). and (f) are
added to § 123.46 as follows:
§ 123.4 IndjviduaJ Control strateglee.
(C) For the purposes of this section the
term individual control strategy, as set
forth in section 304(l) of the CWA.
means a final NPDES permit with
Supporting documentation showing that
applicable water quality standards will
be met not later than three years after
the individual control strategy is
established. Where a State is unable to
issue a final permit on or before
February 4. 1989, an individual control
strategy may be a draft permit with an
attached schedule (provided the Slate
meets the schedule for issuing the final
permit) indicating that the permit will be
issued on or before February 4. 1990. If a
point source that is subject to section
304(l)(1j(C) of the CWA is also subject
to an on-site response action under
section 104 or 106 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response.
Compensatjon, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.), an
individual control strategy may be the
decision document (which incorporates
the applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements under the
CWA) prepared under section 104 or 106
of CERCLA to address the release or
threatened release of hazardous
substances to the environment.
(d) A petition submitted pursuant to
section 304(l)(3) of the CWA must be
submitted to the appropriate Regional
Administrator Petitions must identify a
aterbody in sufficient detail so that EPA
is able to determine the location and
boundaries of the waterbody Petitions
must also identify the list or lists for
which the waterbody qualifies, and
petitions must explain why the
waterbody satisfies the criteria for the
list or lists.
(e) If the Regional Administrator
disapproves one or more individual
control strategies, or if a State fails to
provide adequate public notice and an
opportunity to comment on the ICSs,
then, not later than June 4. 1989, the
Regional Administrator shall give a
notice of approval or disapproval of the
individual control strategies submitted
by each State pursuant to this section as
follows:
(1) The Regional Administrator shall
distribute the notice of approval or
disapproval given under this paragraph
to the appropriate State Director, to
each permittee identified in the notice,
and to every interested person on the
mailing list maintained by the Regional
Administrator, The Regional
Administrator shall also publish a notice
of availability, in a daily or weekly
newSpaper with State-wide circulation,
for the notice of approval or
disapproval.
(2) The notice of approval or
disapproval given under this paragraph
shall include the followingi
(I) The name and address of the EPA
office that reviewg the State s
submittala,
(ii) A brief description of the section
304(l) process.
(iii) A list of ICSs disapproved under
this section and a finding that the ICSs
will not meet all applicable review
criteria under this section and section
304(l) of the CWA.
(iv) If the Regional Administrator
determines that a State did not provide
adequate public notice and an
opportunity to comment on the waters,
point sources, or lCSs prepared pursuant
to section 304(l). or if the Regional
Administrator chooses to exercise his or
her discretion, a list of the lCSs
approved under this section, and a
1989 / Proposed Rules
finding that the lESs satisfy all
applicable review criteria,
(v) The location where interested
persons may examine EPA’s records of
approval and disapproval.
(vi) The name, address, and telephone
number of the person at the Regional
Office from whom interested persons
may obtain more information.
(Vii) Notice that written petitions or
comments are due within 120 days.
(3) Not later than January 4. 1990. the
Regional Offices shall issue a response
to petitions or comments received under
section 304(l). The response to
comments shall be given in the same
manner as the notice described in
paragraph (e)(ii) of this section except
for the following changes:
(i) The lists of ICSs must reflect any
changes made pursuant to comments or
petitions received.
(ii) A brief description of the
subsequent steps in the 304(1) process
(f) EPA shall review, and approve or
disapprove, the individual control
strategies prepared under section 304(l)
of the CWA, using the applicable
criteria set forth in section 304(l) of the
CWA, and in 40 CFR Part 122. including
§ 122.44 (d) and (e). At any time after the
Regional Administrator disapproves an
ICS (or conditionally approves a draft
permit as an ICS), the Regional Office
may submit a written notification to the
State that the Regional Office intends to
issue the ICS. Upon mailing the
notification, exclusive authority to issue
the permit passes to EPA.
(4) Section 123.83 is amended by
adding paragraph (a)(5) to read as
follows:
§ 123.63 Crttena for withdrawal of State
programs,
a . .
(a)
(5) Where the State fails to develop an
adequate regulatory program for
developing water quality-based effluent
limits in NPDES permits,
• • . a
PART 130—WATER QUALITY
PLANNING ANO MANAGEMENT
1. The authority citation for Part 130
continues to read as follows:
Autbonty- 33 U S C. 1251 et seq
2. Section 130 7 is amended by
redesignating paragraph (b)(2) as
paragraph (bj(ioJ, adding new
paragraphs (bj(2), (b)(3), (b)(4). (b)(5).
jb)(6). (b)(7), (b)(8), and (b)(9), by
revising the first sentence of paragraph
(d)(i): and by adding new paragraphs
(d)(2) and (d)(J) to read as follows
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 8 / Thursday, January 12.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 54. No. 8 I Thursday, January 12 . 1989 I Proposed Rulas
1321
§ 130.7 ldentJflc tjo nd Hating of watars
and development of total maximum daily
loads (TMDt4.
(b)
(2) Each State shall divide the waters
required to be identified by paragraph
(b)(1) of this section into three lists as
described below:
(i) Waters within the State which
cannot reasonably be anticipated to
attain or maintain water quality
standards for such waters reviewed.
re%ised, or adopted in accordance with
section 303(C112)(B) of the CWA. due to
toxic pollutants:
(ii) Waters in the State for which the
State does not expect the applicable
standard under section 303 of the CWA
will be achieved due entirely or
substantially to discharges from point
sources of any toxic pollutants listed
pursuant to section 307(a) of the Clean
Water Act,
(u.) All other waters identified under
paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(3) For the purposes of listing waters
under § 130.7(b)(2)(ii), “applicable
standard” means a numeric criterion for
a toxic pollutant within State water
quality standards. Where a State
numeric criterion for a toxic pollutant is
not established in State water quality
standards for the purposes of listing
waters applicable standard’ means the
State narrative water quality standard
(e g. ‘no toxics in toxic amounts”)
interpreted by applying the EPA
national water quality criteria on a
chemical.by.chemical basis.
(4) II a water meets one or more of the
three conditions listed below it meets
the requirements for being listed under
§ 130 7(b)(2)(ii) on the grounds that the
applicable standard is not achieved or
expected to be achieved due entirely or
substantially to discharges from point
sources.
(i) Initial or additional water quality.
bdsed limits on one or more point
sources would result in the achievement
of an applicable water quality standard
for a toxic pollutant or:
(ii) The discharge of a toxic pollutant
f’vtrn one or more point sources.
n’gardless of any nonpornt source
contribution of the same pollutant.
v ould be sufficient to cause a violation
of the applicable water quality standard
(or the toxic pollutant or
(iii) The contribution of a toxio
pollutant from one or more point sources
is large enough that the applicable water
quality standard for that toxic pollutant
is threatened and additional point
source oritrols are needed to limit the
discharge of the toxic pollutant.
(5) Each State shall assemble dOd
..‘ . .ilui.iie .ill e’ustin9 and readily
available water quality-related data and
information and each State shall
develop the lists required by
§130 7(b)(2) based upon this data and
information. At a minimum, all existing
and readily available wate; 9 uality.
related data and informatii* iticludes
all of the categories of waters listed in
§ 130.10(d)(6).
(8) Each State shall provide
documentation to the Regional
Administrator to support the States
determination to list or not to list waters
as required by § 130.7(b)(2). This
documentation shall be submitted to the
Regional Administrator together with
the lists required by § 130.7(b)(2) and
shall include as a miniinunu
(i) A description of the methodology
used to develop each list and
(ii) A description of the data and
information used to identify waters.
including a description of the data and
information used by the State as
required by § 130 7(b)(5) and described
in § 130 10(d)(6), and
(iii) A rationale for any decision to not
use any one of the categories of existing
and readily available data required by
§ 130.7(b)(5) and described in
§ 130.10(b)(6): and
• (iv) Any other information requested
by the Regional Administrator. Upon
request by the Regional Administrator.
each State must demonstrate good cause
for not including a water or waters on
one or more lists Good cause includes.
but is not limited to. more recent or
accurate data, more sophisticated water
quality modeling; flaws in the original
analysis that led to the water being
listed in the categories in § 130.10(d)(8):
or changes in conditions, e.g.. new
control equipment, or elimination of
discharges.
(7) The State shall establish a priority
ranking for such water quality limited
segments identified and listed pursuant
to paragraph (b) of this section taking
into account the severity of the pollution
and the uses to be made of such waters.
(8) For each segment of each list of
waters required under paragraph (b)(2)
of this section. the State shall identify
each pollutant causing or expected to
cause violations of the water quality
standards
(9) For each segment of navigable
waters included on the list required
pursuant to § 130.7(b)(2)(ii). the Stale
shall identify the specific point sources
discharging any toxic pollutant which is
believed to be preventing or impairing
the water quality The State shall submit
a list of these point sources to EPA no
less frequently than every two years.
(dl Submission and EPA approval (1)
E.ich State Shdll submit bienn’jllv for
approval to the Regional Administrator
the lists of waters and pollutants
required under paragraph (b) of this
section The lists of waters and
pollutants shall be submitted to EPA in
the biannial water quality report
required by § 130.8 of this part and
section 305(b) of the CWA.
• . . I
(2) The Regional Administrator shall
approve or disapprove each list required
by § 130.7(b)(2}. The Regional
Administrator shall approve each list
under § 130.7(b)(2) only if it meets the
requirements of § 130.7(b)(2) and if the
State has met the reqturements of
§ 130.7 (b)(5) and (b)(6).
(3) Each State shall submit to EPA no
less frequently than every two years the
list of point sources required under
§ 130.7 (b)(9). The list of sources may be
included in the State’s biennial section
305(b) report under § 130.8 of this part or
submitted to EPA under separate cover
3. Section 130 8 is amended by adding
paragraphs (b) (5) and (6) to read as
follows:
§ 130.8 Water quality report.
• • • • •
(b)
(5) The lists of waters and pollutants
required under § 130.7(b). These lists
fulfill the requirements for listing under
section 303(d) of the CWA and are
subject to the review and appro%al
procedures of that section of the Act.
(6) An assessment of the water qualits
of all publicly owned lakes, including
the status and trends of such water
quality as specifically outlined in
section 314(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act.
• . . • •
4. Section 130.10 is amended by
adding paragraphs (d)(4), (d)(5). (d)(6).
(d)(7), (dH8), (d)(9). (d)(10). and (d)(11) to
read as follows:
§ 130.10 State submiftats to EPA.
(4) For the purposes of listing waters
under § 130.10(d)(2). ‘applicable
standard” means a numeric criterion for
a toxic pollutant within State water
quality standards. Where a State
numeric criterion for a toxic pollutant is
not established in State water quality
standards, for the purposes of listing
waters “applicable standard” means the
State narrative water quality standard
(e g.. “no toxics in toxic amounts”)
interpreted by applying the EPA
national water quality criteria on a
chemical-by-chemical basis
(5) If a water meets one or more of the
three conditions listed below it meets
the requirements for being listed under
-------
1322
Federal Register / VoL 54. No. B / Thursday, January 12. 989 / Proposed Rules
4 130.10(d )(2) on the grounds that the
applicable standard is nut achieved or
expected to be achieved due entirely or
substantially to discharges from point
sources.
(i) initial or additional water quality-
based limits on one or more point
sources would result in the achievement
of an applicable water quality standard
for a toxic pollutant or
(ii) The discharge of a toxic pollutant
from one or more point sources.
regardless of any nonpoint source
contribution of the same pollutant.
would be sufficient to cause a violation
of the applicable water quality standard
for the toxic pollutant or
(iii) The contnbution of a toxic
pollutant from one or more point sources
is large enough that the applicable water
quality standard for that toxic pollutant
may be exceeded and adthtional point
source controls are needed to limit the
discharge of the toxic pollutant.
(8) Each State shall assemble and
evaluate all existing and readily
available water quality-related data and
information and each State shall
develop the lists required by paragraphs
(d) (1). (2). and (3) of this section based
upon this data and information. At a
minimum, all existing and readily
available water quality-related data and
information includes all of the following
categories of waters:
(iJ Waters where fishing or shellfish
bans and/or advisories are currently in
effect or are anticipated.
(ii ) Waters where there have beers
repeated fishkills or where
abnormalities (cancers. lesions, tumors.
etc.) have been observed in fish or other
aquatic life during the last ten years.
(iii) Waters where there are
restrictions on water sports or
recreational contact.
(iv) Waters identified by the State in
its most recent State section 305(b)
report as either “partially achievmg” or
“not achieving” designated uses.
(v) Waters identified by the States
and reported to EPA as waters needing
water quality-based controls.
(vi) Waters identified by the State as
priority waterbodies. (State Water
Quality Management plans often include
priority waterbody lists which are those
waters that most need water pollution
control decisions to achieve water
quality goals.)
(vii) Waters where ambient data
indicate potential criteria exceedances
due to toxic pollutants from. primary
industries.
(viii) Waters for which effluent
toxicity lest results indicate possible
violations of State water quality
standards. including narrative free
from” criteria or EPA criteria where
Slate standards are not available.
(lx ) Waters with primary industrial
motor dischargers where dilution
analyses indIcate exceedances of State
water quality standards (or EPA criteria
where St te standards are not available)
for toxic pollutants. ammonia, or
chlorine. These dilution analyses must
be based on estimates of BAT levels
from effluent guidelines development
documents, NPDES permit application
data (e.g.. Form 2C). Discharge
Monitonng Reports (DMRsI, or other
available information.
(x) Waters with municipal mapor
dischargers requiring pretreatment
where dilution analyses indicate
exceedances of State water quality
standards (or EPA criteria where State
standards are not available) for toxic
pollutants. ammonia, or chlonne. These
dilution analyses roust be based upon
data from NPDES permit applications
(e g, Form 2A). Discharger Monitoring
Reports (DMRs). or other available
information.
(xi) Waters with facilities not
included in the previous twa categories
such as municipal majors, and minors
having waler quality Impacts where
dilution analyses indicate exceedances
of State water quality standards (or EPA
criteria where State standards are not
available) for toxic pollutants. ammonia.
or chlorine. These dilution analyses
must be based upon estimates of BAT
levels from effluent guideline
development documents. NPOES permit
application data. Discharge Monitoring
Reports. (DMRs), or other available
information.
(xii) Waters classified for uses that
will not support the ‘flshablal
swimmable” goal of the Clean Water
Act.
(xiii) Waters where ambient toxicity
or adverse water quality conditions
have been reported by local. State. EPA
or other Federal Agencies. the private
sector, public interest groups. or
universities. These organizations and
groups should be actively solicited for
research they may be conducting or
reporting. For example, university
researchers, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Extension Service, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the U S. Geo’ogical
Society. and the ’U S. Fish and Wildlife
Service are good sources of field
research and activities
(xiv) Waters identified as having
impaired or threatened designated uses
in the Clean Lake Assessments
conducted under section 314 of the
Clean Water Act.
(xvi Waters identified as impaired by
nonpoint sources in he 1985 -lrm,’rico $
Clean Water State Nonpoint Source
4ssessments (Association of State and
Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators {ASIWPCA)) or waters
identified as impaired or threatened in
the rioripoint source assessments
submitted by States to EPA under
section 319 of the Clean Water Act
(xvi) Surface waters impaired by
pollutants from hazardous waste sites
on the National Priority List prepared
under section 105)8) (A) of CERCLA
(71 Each State shalt provide
documentation to the Regional
Administrator to support the States
determination to list or riot to lisi waters
as required by paragraphs (d)(1). (d)(2).
and (d)(3) of this section. This
documentation shall be submitted to the
Regional Administrator together with
the lists required by paragraphs (d)(i).
(d)(2). and (d)(3) of this section and shall
include as a minimum’
(i) A description of the methodology
used to develop each list: and
(ii) A description of the data and
information used to identify waters and
sources including a description of the
data and information used by the State
as required by paragraph (d)(8) of this
section: and
(iii) A rationale for any decision to not
use any one of the categories of existing
and readily available data required by
paragraph (d){6) of this section. and
(iv) Any other information requested
by the Regional Administrator. Upon
request by the Regional Administrator.
each State must demonstrate good cause
for not including a water or waters on
one or more lists. Good cause includes.
but is not limited to. more recent or
accurate data: more sophisticated water
quality modeling; flaws in the original
analysis that led to the water being
listed in the categories in 130 l0(d )(61.
or changes in conditions. e.g.. new
control equipment, or elimination of
discharges.
(8) The Regional Administrator shall
approve or disapprove each list required
by paragraphs (dill). (d )(2), and (dJ(3) of
this section no later than June 4. 1989
The Regional Administrator shall
approve each list required under
paragraphs (dill), (d)(2) and (dfl3) of
this section only if it meets the
regulatory requirements for listing under
puragr phs (d)(i). (d)(2). and (d)(3) of
this section and if the State has met dli
the requirements of paragraphs jd)lbI
and (d117) of this section.
(9) tEa State fails to submit lists in
accordance with paragraph (d) of this
section or the Regional Admirnstraiur
does not approve the lists submitted by
such State in accordance with this
paragraph then not later than June 4.
-------
Federal_Register / Vol. 54. No. 8 / Thursday. idnuary 12. 1989 / Proposed Rules
1323
1990. the Regional Administrator, in
cooperation with such State. shall
implement the requirements of CWA
section 304(I)(1) in such State.
(10) lIthe Regional Administrator
disapproves a States decision with
respect to one or more of the waters
required under paragraphs (d) (1). (2).
and (3) of this section. or one or more of
the individual control strategies required
pursuant to section 304(l)(1)(D), then not
Liter than June 4. 1989. the Regional
Administrator shall give a notice of
approval of disapproval of the lists
submitted by each State pursuant to this
paragraph. The notice shall include the
following
(i) The name and address of the EPA
office that re iews the States
submittals
(ii) A brief description of the section
304(I) procrss.
(iii) A list of waters, point sources and
pollutants disapproved under this
paragraph.
(iv) If the Regional Administrator
determines that a State did not provide
adequate public notice and an
opportunity to comment on the lists
prepared under this section. or if the
Regional Administrator chooses to
exercise his or her discretion, a list of
waters, point sources, or pollutants
approved under this paragraph.
(v) The name, address. and telephone
number of the person at the Regional
Office from whom interested persons
may obtain more mformation.
(vi) Notice that written petitions or
comments are due within 120 days.
(Ii) Not later than January 4, 1990. the
Regional Office shall issue a response to
petitions or comments received under
paragraph (d)(10) of this section Notice
shall be given in the same manner as the
notice descried in paragraph (10) of this
section. except for the following
changes:
(I) The lists of waters, point sources
and pollutants must reflect any changes
made pursuant to comments or petitions
received.
(ii) A brief description of the
subsequent steps In the section 304(l)
process shall be included.
IFR Doc. -423 Filed —ii-89- 845 aml
Si LffiG cOot 5510-50-M
-------
832
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 6 / Tuesday , January 10, 1989 I Proposed Rules
Skeily Drive, Suite 550, Tulsa. Oklahoma
74235: telephone: (918) 581—843a
SUPPt.EUENTARY INFORMAT1OIC The
Federal rules at 30 CFR 943.16
established a May 15. 1987, deadline for
Texas to submit rules governing the
training, examination, and certification
of blasters. Texas was not able to meet
that deadline, and in a letter dated June
4, 1987 [ Administrative Record No. Tx—
3891, Texas requested an extension of
the deadline until December 31, 1987. By
letter dated July 31. 1987 [ Administrative
Record No. Tx—393J, Texas submitted.
along with numerous other proposed
amendments, proposed rules governing
the training, examination, and
certification of blasters, OSMRE was
not immediately aware that the July 31,
1987. package contained the blaster
rules, and on August 18, 1987, [ 52 FR
30930j OSMRE published a notice in the
Federal Register announcing receipt of
the request to extend the deadline for
Texas to submit rules governing the
training, examination, and certification
of blasters.
OSMRE had received the proposed
amendments before the notice proposing
to extend the deadline was published:
therefore, the proposed rule published in
the August 13, 1987, Federal Register
extending the deadline for Texas to
submit rules governing the training,
examination and certification of blasters
is withdrawn. and 30 CFR 943.16 is not
amended,
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 943
Coal mining, Intergovernmental
relations, Surface mining, Underground
mining.
Raymond 1.. Lawns,
.4ss,stang Director. We.,geri7 Field Operetions.
Date December 30, 1988.
(VP. Doc. 89-407 FIled 1-9-89:8:43 am
Lm CCC I 4 11046 -M
30 CFR Part 943
Withdrawal of a Propos.d Rulemaking
To Amend the Texas Permanent
Regulatory Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE),
Interior.
acrto c Withdrawal of proposed
amendments.
SUMMARY: OSMRE is announcing the
withdrawal of proposed amendments to
the Texas permanent regulatory
program. The proposed amendments
consisted of changes to the Texas
regulations governing prime farmland,
waI ’r quality slandard8 and effluent
lIrnut,jt ons, d ’iignoiio of lands as
unsuitable for surface coal mining, and
notices of violation.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 10. 1989.
FOR FtJRTH ER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. James H. Moncnef. Director, Tulsa
Field Office, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement. 5100 E.
Skelly Drive, Suite 550, Tulsa, Oklahoma
74135: telephone: (918) 581 -843o.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATTOIc By letter
dated October 22, 1986, (Administrative
Record No. TX..373), Texas submitted a
package of proposed amendments to
OSMRE. The proposed amendments
consisted of modifications to Texas
regulations governing prime farmland.
water quality standards and effluent
limitations, designation of lands
unsuitable for mining, and notices of
violation. OSMRE announced receipt of
the amendments on December 3, 1986
(51 FR 43818).
Texas followed the State rulemaking
process and solicited comments on the
proposed amendments. Texas revised
the amendments based on comments
received and OSMRE announced receipt
on February 17, 1988 (53 FR 4645) of the
revised amendments.
By letter dated November 29. 1988
(Administrative Record No. TX-422),
Texas withdrew the proposed
amendments, stating that it intends to
resubmit them with other amendments
at a future date, Therefore, the revised,
proposed amendments published in the
February 17, 1988 Federal Register are
withdrawn,
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 943
Coal mining, Intergovernmental
relations, Surface mining. Underground
mining.
Date’ January 4, 1989.
Raymond L Lawns,
Assistant Director, Western Field Opervtioris.
IFR Doc. 89-408 Filed 1-4-89: 8:45,.
IU.L1Jr4 CCCI 431G.Os.e
DEPARTMEP4’r OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33CFR Part 165
(CGO13 S8-o9i
Seeurfty zone Sinclair Inlet, WA;
Correction
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTIOPe Proposed rule: correction.
SUMMARY: In the Federal Register, Vol.
53, No. 236, dated December 8, 1988.
commencing on. page 49562, a notice of
proposed rulemaking considering a
prnpoqal to .stahlish a security 70fl0 I r S
the waters of Sindair Inlet immedidtely
adjacent to the Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard Bremerton, Washington was
published. Upon further review of the
coordinates of the proposed secuiity
zone an error was detected.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
CDR W.O. Harper, (2061 442—1711.
PART 165—(CORRECTEDJ
§ 165.1303 (Con-ectedJ
Paragraph (a) of 165.1303 entitled
‘Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
Bremerton. WA”, is correctly added ti)
read as follows:
(a) Location. The Following is a
security zone: The waters of the Sincldir
Inlet encompassed by a line
commencing on the north shore of
Sinclair Inlet at latitude 4733’40N.
longitude 12237’ZgW; thence to
latitude 47 ’33’35N, longitude
122372EW, thence to latitude
47’33’21 ‘N, longitude 122 ’37’37W
thence to l.mtitude 47 ’33’02N, longitud i
1223828W; thence to latitude
47 ’33’02N, longitude 12238’4IYW:
thence to the shoreline at latitude
47 ’33’23N, longitude 12238’4tYI.V;
thence easterly along the shoreline to
the point of origin.
Dated. December 28, 1988,
6. /i. Peniagton,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Commander.
Thirteenth Coast Guard District ii cLing
IFR Doc 89-350 Filed 1-0-89:8:45 aml
coos ,to-,.-e
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 122 and 403
LEN-fRt.-35 03 -.8l
EPA Administered Permit Programs;
The National Pollutant Discharge
Eflmlnatlon System; General
Pretreatment Regulations for Existing
and New Sources Proposals to
Implement the Recommendations of
the Domestic Sewage Study
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ac’no c Notice of extension of public
comment period.
SUMMARY: The United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is today providing notice that the public
comment period for proposed
amendments to 40 CFR Parts 122 md
463 to carry out the recommendations of
the Domestic Sewage Study is extpnded
The proposed rimrndments were
-------
Fe Iera1 Register / Vol. 54. No. 0 / Tuesday. January 10, 1989 / Proposed Rules
published in the Federal Register on
November 23. 1988 (53 FR 47032).
DATES: All comments on the November
23. 1988 proposed rule published at 53
FR 47632 must be received on or before
February 21 1989.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons may
submit written comments to Marll)n
Goode. Permits DIvision (EN—336J,
Environmental Protection Agency. 401 NI
Street SW., Washington. DC 20480.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marilyn Goode. Permits Division (EN—
336). Environmental Protection Agency.
401 M Street SW., Washington DC
20460. (202) 475—9528.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORUATIOP4 On
November 23, 1988. EPA published
proposed amendments to 40 CFR Parts
122 and 403 to implement the
recommendations of the Domestic
Sewage Study. The November 23 notice
set a period of 60 days for the receipt of
public comments. Since publication of
that notice. EPA has received several
requests to lengthen the comment
period. In response to these requests.
EPA has decided to extend the comment
period to February 22. 1989.
Date: January 3. 1989.
Rebecca W. Hanmer.
Acting Assistant Admintstrutor for Wafer.
(FR Doc. 89-422 FlIed 1.4-89: 8.45 am)
ujao cose er-ri-
GENERAL SERViCES
ADMINISTRATION
41 CFR Parts 201-8, 201-13, and 201-
39• . -
Restructuring and Simplification of
Federal Information Resources
Management Standards
AQENCY Information Resources
Management Service. GSA.
*ciioic Notice of proposed ruIetnaking
SUMMARY The purpose of thi, proposed
rule is to simplify provisions on the use
and implementation of Federal
automatic data processing and
telecommunications standards. It results
in maior changes in the regulatory
coverage and presentation of FIRMR
provisions on standards. The intent of
these changes is to remove redundant
and non-regulatory provisions from the
FIRMR that may be found in other
agency issuances. and to reorganize the
FIRMR so that users may more readily
locate standards provisions relevant to
their particular requirements. The
changes do not relax an agency’s
obligation to comply with the standards.
The use of uniform standards permits
the integration and sharing of
information and processes among
‘.endors, and helps agenc;es maximize
the productivity of their investments in
information technology. Ready access to
information about standards
applicability and to standards
specifications is critical to realizing thc
benefits standards can help provido. To
ensure that agencies have up-’to-late
standards specifications for use in
solicitations and contracts. GSA plans
to publish and distribute its “ADP and
Telecommunications Standards Index”
initially on a semi-annual basis. FIRMR
changes are publiahed infrequently, and
continued inclusion of information about
standards and specifications in the
codified regulation will not provide such
timely access as more frequent
distr:bution of the Index. These changes
will also make FIRMR ccvernge of
standards specifications consistent with
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAIt)
coverage of similar specificatior.s.
Federal Information Processing
Standards (FIPS), and the implementing
specifications that are included in
agency contracts, can have important
effects on agencies and on businesses
that sell to the Government Proposed
changes to standards and specifications
will continue to be published in the
Federal Register and circulated to
agency regulatory and standards
contacts for comment, and the
comments resolved, before changes are
adopted and printed in the Index.
The specific changes in this proposal
include the following. Information
regarding the applicability of Federal
standards is removed, the individual
standard “requirements statements” for
inclusion in solicitation doci ments are
removed, and overall policies and
procedures governing the use of
standards are separated from
contracting policies and procedures
regarding the implementation of
standards, In addition, contracting
provisions are reorganized for
consistency with the FAR.
Because these changes represent such
a radical departure from current FIRMR
provisions, this notice solicits comments
riot only on the changes but also on any
adverse impact the changes may cause.
Comments are specifically requested on
whether the proposed approach will
make the FIRMR easier to use.
DA’TL Comments are due: March 13.
1989.
ADDRESS: Comments should be
submitted to the General Services
Administration (KMPR). Project 87 20A.
Washington. DC 20405.
_______ 833
FOR FURTHER IN ORMAT1ON CONTACT:
Margaret Truntich or Mary Anderson.
Regulations Branch. Office of
Information Resources Management
Policy, telephone (202) 568-0194 or FTS.
506—0194. The full text of the proposed
rule for Protect 87 26A is available upon
request, by telrphoning (202) 508—0194 or
F1 S. 568-0194
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORUATIO C (1)
FIRMR Part 201—8, Implementation and
Use of Federal Standards, will be
removed and reserved and provisions
will be relocated as follows: (a)
Provisions addressing overall policies
and procedures for using Federal
standards will be relocated in FIRMR
Part 201—13. and (b) contracting
provisions that implement standards in
the acqiusitmo process will be amended
and relocated in FIRMR Part 201—39. All
existing Federal standard “requirement
statements’ for inclusion in soiicitation
documents will be removed.
(2) The changes proposed br FIRMR
Part 201—13 are explained in the
following paragraphs.
(a) Reserved Part 201—13 will be
activated under the title, Operations and
Control. It will contain management
policies and procedures pertaining to the
use of standards and other aspects of
information resources management.
(b) Subpart 201—13.1. Standards. will
be established to contain overall
policies and procedures for using
standards, including Federal
Information Processing Standards
(FIPS), Federal Telecommunications
Standards (FED—STDS). joint FIPS/FED—
STDS. and agency standards.
(c) Other subparts in Part 201—13 will
be reserved.
(3) The changes proposed for FIRMR
Part 201—39 are explained in the
following paragraphs.
(a) Reserved Part 39 will be activated
under the title. Acquisition of
Information Resources. It will contain
the special acquisition rules that apply
Govemmentwide to information
resources.
(b) Subpart 201—39.10. Standards. will
be established and organized consistent
with Part 10 of the FAR. It will contain
policies and procedures from Part 201—8
pertaining to the implementation and
use of requirements statements in the
acquisition process. Provisions will be
amended by replacing the term
“requirements statement” with the term
“specifications”. removing the
applicability statements for individual
standards, and adding a requirement for
agencies to review the GSA ‘AUP and
Telecommunications Standards index”
to determine standards applicability.
-------
NPDES Program
Regulations and Preambles
1992-1995
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wastewater Management
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
1995
-------
Wednesday
December 6, 1995
EnvirOnmentaL
Protection Agency .
40 CFR Partl22, etaL-
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permit Application., Requirements
for Publicly. Owned Treatment Work3 and
Other Treatment WOrks. Treating, Domestic
Sewage; Proposed RuIe ’
I
Part Ii•
C
-------
62548 Federal Reg1ste I VoL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTTON
AGENCY - -
60,No. 234 I Wednesday, December 6, 1995 I Proposed Rule 3
The costs associated with the new and downloading at the -
requirements are not significant since :., location: gopher.epa.g
many permitting autho titles require FOR FURTHER INFORMA
40 CFR Parts ifl, 123,403, and 501 essentIally the Same information alrearfy Information on Form 2A and
through a variety of reporting - - wastewatn permittj g Iss1Ia
(FRL -632 5.41 mechaniqrns. The proposed rule allows notice, contact Geoi
O1SCh • waivers where Information Is already 260-9530, PermIts I
- EU nation System P mit Applicatien available to the permitting authority. United States Envir
• RequIrement for P ’ . t u s Ow, The new forms would make it easier far Agency. 401 M Street S.
Treatment Works and Other Treatment permit applicants to provide the D.C., 20460.
Works Treating Domestic Sewage - necessary Information with their - - For information 00 Form 2S and “-
applicatjon and would minimize the sewage sludge permitting Issues Ln
AGENCY: Environmental Protection need for additional follow-up - ‘ notice, contact Wendy Bell. (202) 260.
Agency. information requests from permItting 9534, Permits Division (4203), lt erI
ACTION: Proposed rule. - authorities. The proposal is estimated to States Environmental Protection
SUMUA y: The Environmental reduce the cwTent annual reporting and Agency, 401 M Street S.W., Was) g ,
Agency (EPA) today proposes to amend record keeping burden by about 9,000 D.C., 20460.
permit application requirements and houzs or ten percent. EPA is interested - SUPPLEMFJfl ’ARY INFORMATIO ”N:
application forms for publicly in identifying additional ways to further BaCk md -
treatment works{POTWs) and other ‘ reduce the burden associated with the A. Purpose of Today’s Propoq J
treatment works treating domestic applications and is seeking Comment Ofl B. History of the NPDES Permit Proajan
sewage (TWTDS). TWTDS include the use of electronic data transmission . 1. National Pollutant Discharge
facilities that generate sewage sludge, and other streamlining opportunities. :: - System — -
a. Federal Water Pollution Controj Act
provide commerrjaj treatment of sewage DATES: In order to be considered, - -- of 1972 -
sludge, manufacture a product derived comments must be received on or before b. Changes Leading to the Clean W tet A;
from sewage sludge, or provide dIsposal March 5, 1998. of 1977 -
of sewage sludge. Today’snotjce solicits AOORE$s s; Comments should be ‘ c. Permit Consolidation and
Deconsolidatlon
public comments on the proposed addressed to Municipal and Sludge d. The Water Quality Act of 1987 and’
- ‘ regulations, proposed forms and
instructions. Application Rule Comment Clerk, Water Water Quality-Based Permitting -
The proposed regulations and Form Docket MC—4101; United States 2. Background of the Preb -eat jent Pmg m
ZA woizJd replace existing Standard Environmental Protection Agency. 401 3. Program to Control Combined Sewer
Form A and Short Form A to account for M Street SW., Washington. DC, 20460. - OverfloWs -
changes in the NPDES program since Commenters are also requested to C. Sewage Sludge Program Backgrcun
1. Statutory Requirements for Sewagi
the forms were Issued u 1973. ‘I - . submit an original and 3 copies of their — Sludge
proposal would consolidate P(YTW - - Written comments as well as an Original 2. Sewage Sludge Permit Program
application requirements, Including - and 3 copies of any attachments, -. Re tj
don regarding toxics . enclosures, or other documents —- -. 3 Part 503 TechnIcal Standards
monitoring, whole effluent toxicity - referenced in the comments. —. 4. Implementation of Part 503 Technical
(WET) testing, pretreatment facility and Commenters who want receipt of their Standards -
hazardous waste contributions, and -comments acknowledged should - - 5 I t rii Sewage Sludge Application
Form
combined sewer overflows (CSOs). The include a self-addressed, stamped 0. NPDES Watershed Strategy
most significant proposed revisions envelope. All comments must be . Permit Writer’s Information Needs
would require toxic and w ’r -postmarked or delivered by hand by Relaud to Endangered Species and
monitoring by major and prefreatroent March 5. 1996. No facsimiles (faxes) Historic Properties
POTWs and monitoring of 17 will be accepted. - - F. Permit as a Shield -
arametem by minor POTWs. EPA EPA will also accept comments ‘ C. Pollutant Data from POflAts
H. Public Consultation in the Development
lleves this information l needed In electronlcaJly. Comments should hO - of Today’s Proposal
order for perrnithng authorities to issue addressed to the following Internet - U. Approach Taken in Today’s Notice
permits that will equately protect the address: ow-docket@epamail.epa.gov & Scope of Todays Rulemaking
Nation’s water resources. Electronic comments must be submitted - B..The Agency Proposes to Revise the
The proposed regulations and Form as an ASQI file avoiding the use of - Definition of POTW and Existing Permit
‘ZS would replace the existing Interim special characters and any form of Application Requirements for POVWs
Sewage Sludge forms The most encrypti on. Electronic comrnenti will be C. EPA Proposes Form 2A for POTWs to
significant proposed revision would transferred into a paper version for the Replace Standard Form A and Short
Form A
require POTWs and other TWTDS to official record. EPA will attempt to , Applicability of Form ZA to Pnvately
anal yza sludge and provide data for ten clarify electronic comments if there IS Owned and Federally Owned Treatment
metals, nitrogen, and phosphorus. Class an apparent error in transmission. -- - Wo - -
I sludge management facilities Comments provided electronically wiJJ S. PA Proposes Revised Application
(pretreatment POTW ) would also have be considered timely if they ar -. Requirements and Form 2S for Sewage -
to analyze for most of the priority submitted electronically by 11:59 p.m. Sludge Permits
pollutants. The Interim Form only (Eastern time) March s, 1996. EPA i - F. Reasons for Separate Form 2A and Form
2S
requires the use of existing data. EPA experimenting with electronic - . on the Use of
believes the additional information is commenting, therefore cominenters may E1ec onic Application Forms
needed in order for permitting want to submit both electronic -- 111. Desaiption o Proposed Requirements
authorities to issue permits that meet comments and duplicate paper A. EPA
the requirements of the
to Revise Requirement
sewage sludge comments. This document has also been i2z.21( , (d). and
use or disposal regulations,
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 234 I Wednesday. December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
62547
1 uueifl 5flt to Submit Form 2A
I• R U re 1 to Submit Form 2$
ApPIiCat on Requizementa fo p y,
(40 CFR 122.21W)
Basic Application lnmitlon
In (011100 on E U Discharges
Monitoring fø $p C fi 5
parameters
a. pollutant Data Requirements for all
pOTWS
b geportln8 of Additional Pollutants for
Some POTWS
4 Effluent Monitoring for Whole Effluent
Discharges. Prefreatment. and
R( A/C Ra.A Waste -.
6 DiSCh8t from Hazardous Wast . -
Sources -.
i. Combined Sewer Overflows
8. ContraCtO 5 ...
9. Ceitlficatlon .s
C. Application Requirements far TWTDS
(40 CFR 122.21(q))
i. Facility Information -
2. AppLicant Information
3. Permit Information .
4. Federal Indian Reservations - •
5. Topographic Map . -
6. Sewage Sludge Handling
7. Sewage Sludge Quality
a. aasa I Sludge Management Facilities
b All TWTDS
8 RequirementS for a Person Who Prepares
Sewage Sludge
g. Land Application of Bulk Sewage Sludge
10. Surface Disposal •‘ -.
11. Incineration
12. Disposal in a Municipal Solid Waste
Landfill
13. Contractors
14 Other Information
15. Signature
IV Paperwork Reduction Act
V Executive Order 12866 -
VI Executive Order 12875
VII Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
and Consultation with State, Local, and
Tnbal Governments
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I. Background
A Purpose of Today’s Proposal
Today’s notice proposes to amend
NPDES permit application regulations
for publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs) and other treatment works
treating domestic sewage (TWTDS).
Proposed Form 2A would apply to
POTWs and replace Standard Form A
and Short Form A, which wore
deve loped in 1973. Proposed Form 2$
would be used to report sewage sludge
information consistent with applicable
permit program regulations and
technical standards for sewage sludge
use or disposal. Proposed Form 2S
would be used by POTWs and other
TWTDS.
EPA proposes these application
regulations and forms for several
reasons. First, this rulemaking addresses
changes to the NPDES program since
1973. The NPDES program applicable to
POTWs has changed significantly slnce•
that time, specifically In the areas of
toxins control, water cjuallty.based
P ’m ttIng and pretreatment programs.
Second, the proposal would consolidate
application requirements from existing.
regulations into a “modular” permit
application form, thereby streamlining
and clarifying the process for permit
applicants. Third, those revisions will
provide permit writers with the
Information necessary to develop
appropriate NPDES permits consistent
with requirements of the Clean Water
Act and thus also help to ensure for
perinlttees the effectiveness of the
permit as a shield for purposes of
compliance with the CWA. Fourth, the
- Agency seeks to reduce redundant
reporting by allowing waivers where
Information is already available to the
‘.permitting authority and, further, to
provide a platform for electronic data.
transmission.
The proposed revisions would result
in a net reduction in overall reporting
burden hours nationwide. The burden
‘reduction for the combined municipal
and sludge proposed application
requirements Is calculated to be nearly
9,000 hours annually, from a total .. - -.
existing annual burden of 80,000 hours.
Thlslsdueinparttothereduced . .
number of WET tests calculated to be
performed by POTWa. It is also due to
the reducedjuimber of major ‘ -
respondents that would be required to -
comply with the proposed regulations
as compared to the number of major
respondents estimated to complete the
existing municipal application forms
(Le., different cnteria apply). Finally,
the respondent burden for CWA sec. 308
application requests also would be
expected to decrease, because much of
the information currently obtained
.through routine and medium sec. 308
• requests is reflected in the proposed
rule. -
This burden reduction accounts for
nearly 9,000 of the 287,000 hours
projected to be saved, for an overall
- reduction of twenty-five percent for the
— NPDES program. The total savings will
be achieved through revisions to this
form, revisions to storrewater -
application forms, revisions to the
Industrial application form 2C, and
reductions in discharge monitoring
reports (DMRs). It is anticipated.
however, that most of the NPDES
burden reduction will involve reduced
burden for DMRs, which currently
account for greater than eighteen
million annual burden hours.
At the same time, this proposed rule
would result in increased net costs to
municipal and sludge applicants of
mote than four million dollars per year
on a nationwide basis. ft Is calculated ,‘
that this proposal would apply to more
than 7,000 permIt applications per year.
with a total universe per year of more
than three thousand applicants each for
municipal and sludge permitting. Costs
vary considerably from application to
• application. Thus, the average Eve-year
- cost per application would range from
an average of about $450 (less than $100
per year) for small municipalities to an
average of about $4,000 (less than
$1,000 per year) for larger -
• municipalities. Most of the costs
associated with this proposal would be
due to proposed pollutant data
requirements for municipal perznlttees.
The Agency believes that the
• proposed Increased costs are
appropriate because certain data may be
necessary to the permit writer In order
to allow the Issuance of permits that
provide a “shield” to permittees (see
discussion, “Permit as a Shield,” at LF.).
and to ensure compliance with Clean “
Water Act requirements, especially
water quality standards.
B. Histoiy of the NPDES Permit Program
1. National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
a. Federal Water Pollution Confrol Act
Amendments of 1972
The Clean Water A t (CWA) was
enacted in 1972 (Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972) to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological -
integrity of the Nation’s waters. CWA
sec. 101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). The
Immediate predecessor to the CWA was
the Water Quality Act of 1965 (Pub. L
89—234). The 1965 Act directed each
State to develop water quality standards
for all interstate navigable waters. States
had difficulty developing these
standards, however, and by 1971 barely
half the States had developed complete
programs. States that did develop
standards had difficulty implementing
them because the 1965 Act lacked a
workable mechanism for translating
State water quality standards into limits
enforceable against individual
dischaigers. -- -
In response to this dilemma, Congress
passed the CWA. Section 402 directed
EPA to assume a substantial role in
directing and defining the nation’s
water pollution control programs. The
Act established the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit program to be administered by
EPA and the States with EPA approval.
The NPDES program prohibits the
discharge of any pollutant into waters of
the United States except when
-------
62548 Federal Register / VoL 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
authorized by a permit (sec. 301(a) and
4021.
Somian 301 signIficantly changed the
methods used to set and enforce
standards to abate and control water
pollution. First. It introduced the
concept of minimum technology-based
discharge requirements. Initially, sec.
301(b)(1)(B) required POTWs to achieve
effluent limitations based on secondary
treatment The “degree of effluent
reduction achievable through
application of secondary treatment” was
to be defined by the Administrator,
pursuant to sec. 304(d)(1). Later. POTWs
were to achieve a mare stringent level
of technology-based discharge limits
based on best practicable waste
treatment technology (BPWTF) under
sec. 301(b)(2)(B). That section was
repealed in 1981. Finally, POTWe were
required to comply with any more
stringent limitations necessary to
implement any applicable State water
quality standards. Water quality-based
discharge limitations were imposed by
sac. 30 1(b)(1)(C).
To achieve the effluent reductions
called for in sec. 301, sec. 402 provides
for the NPDES permit program to
implement and enforce these controls.
NPDES permits may be issued on the
condition that authorized discharges
meet the applicable requirements of the
CWA, Including: technology-based
Limitations; water quality-based
linutations; new source performance
standards; toxic and pretreatment
effluent standards; inspection and
monitoring provisions; and ocean
discharge criteria. EPA was authorized
to issue regulations to implement these
provisions throughout the CWA. NPDES
permit requirements are based either on
regulations promulgated under these
sections or, in the absence of
regulations, on the permit wrIter s best
professional judgment (BPfl, when
necessary to carry out the provisions of
the CWA. CWA sac. 402(a)(1), 33 U.S.C.
13421a)(1). The CWA also authorized
States to assume responsibility for
issuing NPDES permits, provided that
State programs meet the requirements of
sec. 402(b) and regulations published
under sac. 304(l)(2) (previously, sac.
304(h)(2)). EPA promulgated the
original regulations outlining the
NPDES program on December 22. 1972
(37 FR 28390) and May 22. 1973 (38 FR
13528).
The CWA required the Admmlstrator
to promulgate guidelines for
“establishing uniform application forms
and other minimum requirements for
the acquisition of information” from
point sources, within 60 days after its
enactment CWA sac. 304(i)(1)
(previously, sec. 304(h)(1)). EPA
promulgated short forms to enable
dischargers to meet deadlines imposed
by the CWA, on February 27, 1973 (38
FR 52791. These included Short Form A,
which was to be completed by all
POTWs. EPA promulgated standard
forms to gather additional Information
from certain dlschargers, on July 24.
1973 (38 FR 19894). This rule induded
Standard Form A. for POTWs meeting
certain criteria relating to size.
population, and industrial
contributions. At the time, there were
no effluent standards for POTWa.
Secondary treatment regulations, setting
limits for biochemical oxygen demand.
suspended solids. .fecal collform, and
pH. were not promulgated until August
17. 1973 (38 FR 22298).
b. Changes leading to the Clean Water
Actof 1977
The first major change in the NPDES
program’s focus was the shift from
conventional to toxic pollutants.
Though sec. 307(a) required EPA to
identify and establish effluent standards
for toxic pollutants, the thrust of the
“first round” of NPDES permits was to
control conventional pollutants, rather
than to identify and establish standards
for toxic pollutants. As the WPDES
program was impLemented, several
interested parties criticized the
Agency’s lack of progress in establishing
sec. 307(a) standards. Among the terms
in settlement of litigation lii 1976, EPA
was to establish technology-based
standards as necessary to address 65
compounds or classes of compounds for
certain industries. See NRDC V. EPA, 8
E.R.C. 2120 (D.D.C. 1976). This list of 65
compounds is now contained in 40 CFR
401.15.
In 1977. amendments to the Clean
Water Act refocused Agency priorities
on the control of toxic pollutants. As a
result, the NPDES program expanded
beyond control of conventional
pollutants to control of noncorivendonal
pollutants, such as ammonia, chlorine,
and nitrogen, as well as certain metals
and organic chemicals. The list of the 65
compounds was Incorporated into see.
307 when the CWA was amended in
1977 (see Committee Print Number 95-
32, Hearings before the Subcommittee
on Investigations and Review of the
Committee on Public Works and
Transportation. u .S. House of
Representatives. pages 399—405) and
subsequently was published on January
31. 1978 (43 FR 4109). The compounds
on the list were chosen according to
various criteria, including known
occurrence in point source effluents and
substantial evidence of cardnogenicity
In studies of humans or animal systems.
Because the list included broad
categories or classes of chemicals
chlorinated benzenes, DDT
motabclileg, haloethers. etc
restructured the List in order to ev
and control the specific pollutant
greatest concern. This produced a
129 indivIdual high priority toxic
pollutants. As Information becani
available regarding the toxic effec
chemicals on the list, the Agency
amended the regulations to establ
current list of 126 “priority poilut
See 40 G’R Part 4 3, Appendix A
1977 amendments also amended s
402(b)(8 1&(g) to require that appro
State NPDES programs provide for
administration of the pretreatment
program to regulate industrial user
POTWs.
In 1979, EPA extensively revise c
NPDES regulations to implement
changes in the CWA, to conform to
recent court decisions, and to clan:
and improve existing procedures. ‘r
1979 regulatory revisions eliminate
duplication of substantive and
procedural requirements between i
existing State and Federal NPDES
program regulations. Under the fin
regulations, promulgated on June 7.
1979 (44 FR 32854), the basic
substantive and procedural
requirements applicable to all’ r
permits were set out in Parts 1 .
124. Part 123 established State Nz DE
permit program requirements. EPA
believed that this new regulatory
structure would simplify the regulati
and avoid inconsistencies between
and Federal programs. These regulat
were challenged judicially and, as
discussed below, petitions for revie
were merged with and resolved in
litigation challenging the consolidate
permit regulations and subsequent
rulemakings.
ci Permit Consolidation and
Deconsolidatlon
To simplify permitting programs, El
published regulations on May 19, 198.
(45 FR 33290), to consolidate the
requirements and procedures for five
the permit programs administered by
the Agency the NPDES program, the
Underground Injection Control (1JIC)
program underthe Safe Drinking Wate
Act (SD WA), State “dredge or fill”
programs under sec. 404 of the CWA,
the Hazerdous Waste Management
(HWM) program under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA
and the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program unde
Clean Air Act. The Agency beliei.
would be efficient to consolidate
environmental permitting programs
wherever feasible, This effort sought to
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 234 / Wednesday,
ember 6, 1995 I Proposed Rules 62549
eliminate gaps and overlaps and ensure
consistency among the programs.
At the same time, EPA revised certain
of the permit application regulations.
The Agency ceated three new
application forms: Form 1,.Forzn 2B.
and Form 2C. Form 1 requires general
information about permit applicants and
was required to be completed by
applicants for each of the five types of
permits under the consolidated permit
rule. Form 28 is specific to part of the
NPDES program, specifically, permit
applications for concentrated animal
feeding operations and aquatic animal
production dlschargers. Form 2C, also
specific to the NPDES program, applies
to manufacturing, commercial, mining,
and silvicultural operations. All three
forms incorporated EPA’s emphasis on
toxic pollutants and other modifications
to the CWA and NPDES program
regulations.
Following promulgation of the
consolidated permit regulations,
interested parties complained that the
consolidated format made the
regulations unnecessarily difficult to
use. The division of responsibilities
among various entities at the State and
Federal levels resulted in additional
problems In practice, consolidated
processing of multiple permits was rare
because the various permit programs
regulated different activities with
different standards and thus Imposed
different types of requirements on
permittees. Subsequent petitions for
judicial review of various aspects of the
consolidated permit regulations were
consolidated with pending petitions for
review of the June 7, 1979, final NPDES
regulations In the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit.
As part of an agreement to resolve that
litigation, and in response to problems
encountered by permit writers, EPA
deconsolidated the five permitting
programsonApril 1. 1983 (48 FR
14148), The NPDES regulations rem lin
In Part 122 (substantive permit
requirements) and Part 123 (State -
program requirements). Part 124
(common pemzlthng procedures)
remains applicable to all of the
programs. On September 1, 1983 (48 FR
39611), EPA promulgated additional
revisions covering a number of Issues
affecting the consolidated permit
ieconsolIdation, the NPDES
program continued to use Forms 1,28.
and 2C. In 1984, EPA amended Form ZC
to Include toxic pollutant sampling and.
In 1988, promulgated two new NPDES
forms: Form 2D, for use by new
manufacturing, commercial, mining and
all vioziturnl operations; and Form ZE.
Lischarge
for use by facilities that do n I 2 , July
process wastewater (51 FR z however,
28, 1986). The Agency did n or Short
revise either Standard Form \ Jo not
Form A. Thus, these two form l of the
request information to reflect icluding
CWA’s current requirements. tOXiC
the emphasis on the control’
pollutants. i and
d. The Water Quality Act of t ’4
Water Quality-Based Permitt was
On February 4. 1987, the t*tality Act
amended again by the Water’. the
(WQA) of 1987 (Pub. L 1oo iItIs that
WQA included several provti S.
affect POTWs and other TW1 1.1
Statutory amendments includçu sludge,
requirements addressing sewi ” mpa1red
storm water, and water quail It’
streams. In response to the inuchnical
amendments, EPA publlshedt
revisions to amend the NPDI .L S 4 FR
regulations on January 4. ign ulafions
246). EPA promulgated final tirograms
for State sludge management t S Part
on May 2, 1989 (54 FR 1871fljt çQIt. the
of the WQA implementation tienting
Agency published rules implutiges to
CWA sec. 304(1) and other cliii’ Wi Jinie
surface water tonics regulatkiti9
2, 1989 (54 FR 23868). This i t ,C ICy’S
rulemaking recognized the Agt talitY
commitment to protect wat8r 4tuutting.
through water quality-based JMOd that
The 1987 amendments pro , ater
States were to adopt numeric r’
quality criteria for the “priori? C .
pollutants” listed pursuant lu
307(a)(1J, if discharge of thoq&u expected
pollutants could reasonably h use under
to interfere with a designated :4ates
State water quality standards. ,wnever
were to adopt these criteria w hid new
they reviewed, revised, or adiI quent
water quality standards. Subs iltat 43
review of all States indicated u as
States had adopted the onteri aver,
required. Fourteen States, hovivith the
were not fully in compliance ,,ber 22,
1987 amendments as of Decensilgated
1992. On that date, EPA prom.ieila for
chemical-specific numeric crrrul%tUP IY
those States, as necessary, to
with the CWA (57 FR 60848) , . hed Its
On July 22, 1994. EPA publi poLicy (59
whole effluent toxicity (WE ’fl, 1 ded (I) to
FR 37494). The policy is thteni
promote uniform, nationwide j
compliance with statutory and” control
regulatory requirements for thn It writers
of WET, and (ii) to assist perrvarneflts.
In Implementing these requfrnnneflCs in
The policy reflects EPA’s exp ’? quality-
implementing the 1989 water . t 40 GR
based permitting regulations ,.ivides for
122.44(d). The WET’ policy prn(C WET
evaluation of acute and chronji ut at the
water quality criteria attauun”
edge of the respective mixing zones:
review of all major dlschargors for
reasonable potential to cause or
contribute to exceedanca of WET’ water
quality criteria: consideration of
available WET testing data and other
information in evaluating whether a
discharger has reasonable potential to
cause or contribute to exceedance of
WET criteria: imposition of effluent
limitations to control WET upon finding
reasonable potential to cause or
contribute to exceedance of WET
criteria: imposition of WET monitoring
conditions where appropriate for
dlschargers that do not have effluent
limitations to control WET’; schedules
for compliance with WET effluent
limitations; application of water quality
permitting regulations to apply without
regard to the pollutant(s) that may be
causing toxicity, induding ammonia
and chlorine: and application of the
water quality-based permitting
regulations to all dischargers, including
POTWs.
2. Background of the Pretreatment
Program
Congress recognized that regulating
only those pollutant sources discharging
effluent directly into the nation’s waters
would not achieve the CWA’s goal to
eliminate pollutant discharges.
Consequently, the CWA required EPA to
promulgate nationally applicable
pretreatment standards that restrict the
Introduction of pollutants from
Industrial users of POTWs, also called
Indirect dischargers.
EPA first issued pretreatment
standards on November 8, 1973 (38 FR
30982). Following the 1977 CWA
amendments, EPA revised those
regulations and Issued the “General
Pretreatment Regulations for Existing
and New Sources of Pollution,’ on June
26, 1978 (43 FR 27736). The regulations
were revised again on January 28, 1981
(46 FR 9439). As amended, the
pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR Part
403 require that “any P01W (or
combination of POTWs operated by the
same authority) with design influent
flow rates greater than five million
gallons per day (mgd) and receiving
from industrial users pollutants that
pass through or interfere with the
operation of the P01W” establish
pretreatment programs as part of its
NPDES permit. In addition, POTWs
with design influent flow rates of less
than. five mgd may be required to
develop pretreatment programs if non-
domestic wastes cause upsets, sludge
contaminfitlon. or violations of NPDES
permit conditions or if their industrial
users are subject to national
pretreatment standards, EPA estimates
-------
62550 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 I Wednesday. December 6, 1995 1 Proposed Rules
that 1,500 treatment facilities are
required to ath, 4ni ter such
pretreatment programs.
The National Pretreatment Program’s
primary goal Is protection of POTWs
and the environment from the effects of
discharges into municipal sewerage
systems. This protection Is achieved
principally through regulating industrial
users that discharge toxic pollutants or
unusually large amounts of
conventional pollutants into municipal
systems. The General Pretreatment
Regulations control pollutant discharges
into POTWa in several ways. First,
prohibited discharge standards apply to
all industrial and commercial
establishments connected to POTWs. 40
R 403.5. These standards include
general prohibitions against the
introduction of pollutants into POTW
that may pass through the POTW or
interfere with the operations of the
POTW, as well as specific prohibitions
retating to the introduction of pollutants
which have the potential to cute
hazards for the POTW. such as heat,
explosivity. and corrosivity. Second,
categorical pretreatment standards
apply to discharges by industrial users
in specific industrial categories
determined to be significant sources of
toxic pollutants. Categorical standards
are designed to ensure that wastewaters
from direct and indirect Industrial
dischazgers are subject to similar levels
of treatment.
Finally. 40 CFR 403.5(c) requires
POTWs to develop and enforce local
limits designed to ensure that Industrial
users meet both the general and specific
prohibitions. Thus, local limits are
intended to ensure that POTWs are able
to comply with NPDES limits, including
water .quality based standards. Local
limits are Federally enforceable
pretreatment standards, as defined by
sec. 307(d). En cases where local limits
are more stringent than categorical
standards. the more stringent limit
applies and is enforceable as a Federal
standard.
On July 24, 1990. EPA promulgated
amendments to the NPDES and General
Pretreatment Regulations to reflect the
findings of the “Report to Congress on
the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to
Publicly Owned Treatment Works,” elsa
known as the Domestic Sewage Study
(OSS) (55 FR 18716). The nile contained
a number of regulatory changes
intended to improve control of
hazardous wastes discharged to POTWs,
including revisions to the application
requirements for POTWs at 40 C ’R
122.21(j). Paragraphs 122.21( 1) (1)—(3)
contain whole effluent toxicity (WET)
testing requirements and paragraph
122.21(j)(4) requires POT’ Vs with
approved pretreatment programs to
submit a written technical evaluation of
the need to revise local limits. Today,
EPA proposes to revise the WET
reporting requirements at § 122.21fl) and
to revise the provision forthe local
limits technical evaluation by making
this a POTW pretreatment program
requirement rather than an application
requirement based on concerns about
the timing of such evaluations relative
to imposition of water quality.based
effluent limitations in POTW permits.
3. Program To Control Combined Sewer
Overflows
Combined sewer systems (CSSs) are
wastewater collection systems that
transport both sanitary wastowater and
storm water to PorNs. During dry
weather, CSSs carry sanitary wastes, as
well as industrial and commercial
discharges. to POTW treatment plants.
In periods of heavy wet weather flows.
transported sewer waters can overflow
the regulator structures, which normally
convey waste streams to the treatment
plant. and discharge into adjacent
surface waters. These discharges are
called “combined sewer overflows”
(CSOs). CSOs often contain htgh levels
of suspended solids, bacteria,
pathogens. and, in many instances.
heavy metals and other toxic pollutants.
floatables, nutrients, oxygen-demanding
materials, oil and grease. and other
contaminants.
CSOs are point source discharges
subject to technology-based treatment
requirements and applicable water
quality-based standards through NPDES
permits. Because they occur prior to the
headworks of the POTW treatment
plant, these discharges are not
considered discharges from a POTW
and, consequently, are not subject to
secondary treatment requirements.
In the United States, approximately
1,100 (mostly older) municipalities have
CSSs, with approximately 11,000 CSO
outfalls that periodically discharge
untreated sewage. commercial and
industrial wastes, and storm water
during wet weather events. Almost 85
percent of these municipalities are
located in the Northeast and Great Lakes
areas. Studies conducted in recent years
reveal that CSO discharges are a leading
cause of reduced water quality.
increased health risks, degraded
ecological conditions, and Impaired
beneficial uses within the Nation’s
surface waters. Although pollutant
concentrations in CSOs frequently are
lower than those in untreated average.
flow municipal wastewater (due to
dilution occurring during high flows),
CSOs often result in large pollutant
loadings within a short time, potentially
causing beach closures, shellfish
closures, and fish kills.
In 1989, EPApublishedL
Combined Sewer Overflow I.. .
Strategy (54 FR 37370, Sept. 8, Ig
On April 19, 1994, EPA expanded
the 1989 strategy by publishing th
Control Policy (59 FR 18688). The
Policy was developed through
negotiated dialogue with State,
environmental group, and munic
representatives. The Policy explan
EPA’s expectations for control of C
under the CWA and guides NPDE
permitting authorities in issuing pi
(or CSO discharges. The Policy out
a phased approach to permitting
requirements. Under a Phase I perr
the permittee should document
implementation of the nine minim
control measures identified in the
Policy as minimum technology-bas
requirements established through b
professional judgment (BP)) to mm
CSO discharges. The nine minimur
controls include review and
modification of local pretreatment
programs to minimize CSO impact
receivrng waters; maximization of
to the POTW for treatment; control
solids and floatables: and monitoru
characterize effectively ‘ ‘
and the efficacy ‘t’
The nine rnini r
measures that can
implemented expeci...
CSOs and their effects on r .
water quality. The Phase I pecr...
should not only require implements
of the nine minimum controls, but
should also require development of
long.term control plan. The long.ter
control plan describes the long-term
control strategy developed to ultima
result in compliance with the
requirements of the CWA (including
attainment of water quality standard
Under a Phase 11 permit. th oermittt
i.mplernents the speciF -
described in the long-i urol p1
C. Sewage Siudge Program
1. Statutory Requirements for Sewagr
Sludge
En 1987, Congress amended sec. 40
to establish a comprehensive sewage
sludge control program. This prograi
regulates the use and disposal of sew.
sludge by POTWs and by other
treatment works treating domestic
sewage (TWTDS). Section 405 requtrc
EPA to develop technical standards tF
would establish sewage sludge
management practices and accept hle
levels of toxic pollutants in slui
SectIon 405 also provides that
permits issued to TWTDS contain
requirements implementing the sewag
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 234 I Wednesday , December
6. 1995 / Proposed Rules 62551
sludge standards. unless sewage sludge
control requirements are included in a
permit issued under one of the
following: Subtitle C of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act: Part C of the Safe Drinking
Water Act: the Marine Protection,
Research. and Sanctuaries Act; the
Clean Air Act; or EPA-approved State
programs that comply with sec. 405.
EPA may also issue “sludge-only”
permits to TWTDS that are not
otherwise subject to the NPDES
or to the other permitting programs-
listed above.
2. Sewage Sludge Permit Program
Regulations
On May 2. 1989. EPA promulgated
regulations establishing the legal and
programmatic framework for the
National Sewage Sludge Program (54 FR
18716). Sewage sludge management
provisions are to be incorporated into
EPA.issued permits or permits issued by
a State under an EPA-approved sewage
sludge program. Sewage sludge
information reporting requirements
were also added to the oveinil NPDES
permit application requirements of 40
CFR 122.21. The new regulations.
however, neither listed the specific
sewage sludge information requirements
nor provided a form for reporting this
information. Instead, the rulemaking
cross’referenced the existing State
Sludge Management Program
regulations in Part 501 and required
applicants to submit the information
listed at § 501.15(a)(2). Paragraphs (i)—
(v) of § 501.15(a)(2) require information
on the location and permitting status of
the TWTDS. Paragraphs (vi)-(xii)
require technical information on the
applicanrs sewage sludge use or
disposal practice(s).
On February 19, 1993, EPA amended
the sewage sludge permit program
regulations (58 FR 9404). This
a.mendment phased in requirements for
submitting sewage sludge permit
application information, Any TWTDS
that is required to have, or that requests,
site-specific pollutant limits was
required to submit permit application-
informatIon. by August 18. 1993. for the
first round of Part 503 standards. Other
TWTDS with NPDES permits must
submit application information with
their next NPDES permit applications.
Finally. TWTDS without NPDES
permits (“sludge-only facilities”) were
to submit identification and screening
information to the permitting authority
by February 19, 1994, for the first round
of Part 503 standards,
3. Part 503 Technical Standards
On November 25. 1992. EPA
promulgated the sewage sludge use and
disposal standards required by section -
405 of the CWA (58 FR 9248, et seq.,
February 19, 1993). These standards
regulate the use and disposal of sewage
sludge when it is applied to land.
placed on a surface disposal site
(including sludge-only landfills), fired
in a sewage sludge incinerator, or sent
to a municipal solid waste landfill
(MSWLFJ. The standards for each
regulated sewage sludge use or disposal
method consist of general requirements,
pollutant limits, management practices,
operational standards, and requirements
for monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting. A number of parties
petitioned for review of the regulations
and on November 15. 1994, the United
States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit remanded several
aspects of the regulations for
modification or additional justification.
Leather Industries of America. Inc. v,
Environmental Protection Agency. 40
F.3d 392 (DC Cir. 1994).
4. Implementation of Part 503 Technical
Standards -
Section 405(f) of the CWA requires
that permits issued to facilities involved
in sewage sludge generation, treatment,
or disposal include Part 503
requirements. Both POTWs and other
TWTDS are engaged in sewage sludge
generation, treatment, or disposal.
However, some of these facilities are not
required to obtain NPDES discharge
permits pursuant to sec. 402 of the CWA
because they do not discharge -
pollutants to surface waters. These are
“sludge-only” facilities.
POTW permits must contain
requirements implementing applicable
Part 503 technical standards and other
Part 122 permit conditions (such as
boilerplate conditions and compliance
monitoring requirements). POTW
permits may also contain any other
conditions the permitting authority
develops on a case-by-case basis to
protect public health and the
environment. The permit also
establishes a POTW’s responsibilities
for sewage sludge it sends to other
facilities for disposal.
In addition to POTWs, other TWTDS
may also be issued permits. These
treatment works include facilities
dedicated to sewage sludge disposal
(i.e., surface disposal sites and sewage
sludge incinerators), as well as certain
facilities that provide treatment or
otherwise change the quality of the
sewage sludge before ultimate use or
disposal. Sewage sludge has undergone
a change in quality if its pollutant
concentrations, pathogen levels, or
vector attraction properties have been
altered sufficiently to change the
sludge’s regulatory status under Part
503. Therefore, processes such as
stabilization, composting, digestion,
heat treatment, or blending with hulking
agents or with sewage sludge from
another treatment works may all qualify
as sewage sludge treatment. (For a more
detailed discussion of who must apply
for a permit, see the preamble to the
May 2. 1989, regulations at 54 FR
18725.)
5. Interim Sewage Sludge Permit
Application Form
On November 8. 1993. EPA published
a notice about the interim sewage sludge
permit application form (58 FR 59260).
This interim form was developed to
simplify the application process until
Form 2S was completed. Section
122.21(d)(3)(ii) requires sewage sludge
permit applications to include the
information at §501.15(a)(2). which
includes both specific and general
information. This interim form ensures
that perrnittees submit the necessary
information; helps perrnittees to
understand exactly which requirements
apply to them; and makes the
application requirements consistent for
all permittees.
Proposed Form 2S is based on the
interim application form. EPA
welcomes comments on the proposed
Form 2S, especially from users of the
interim form.
D. NPDES Watershed Strategy
The Watershed Protection Approach
is an Agency initiative which promotes
integrated solutions to address surface
water, ground water, and habitat
concerns on a watershed basis. It
represents EPA’s renewed emphasis on
addressing all stressors within a
hydrologically defined drainage basin.
instead of viewing individual pollutant
sources in isolation, It is not a new
program competing with, or replacing,
existing programs; rather, it provides a
management framework, within which
baseline CWA program requirements,
related public health concerns, and
newer initiatives can be integrated to
address restoration and protection of
aquatic ecosystems cost-effectively.
The Watershed Protection Approach
has four components. First, it focuses
protection and restoration activities
within a geographically defined
resource, the watershed. Second, it
emphasizes the involvement of all
affected stakeholders wijhin a
watershed; these may include Federal
authorities, State governments, local
goverrunents, the regulated community,
environmental groups, and other
interested parties. Third, it stresses the
need for appropriate stakeholders to
-------
82552 Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wadnesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
take comprehensive, integrated actions
to address environmental priorities.
Finally. it promotes a regular effort to
evaluate the success of these actions in
protecting and restoring the watershed.
The broad range of NPDES functions
and activities gives the NPDES program
a key role in implementing the
Watershed Protection Approach. On
March 21. 1994, the EPA Assistant
Administrator for Water issued the
NPDES Watershed Strategy. The
Strategy represents a first step toward
OW’s goal of fully integrating the
NPDES program into the broader
Watershed Protection Approach.
The Strategy outlines national
objectives and implementation
activitIes: (1) to integrate NPDES
program functions into the broader
Watershed Protection Approach; and (2)
to support the development of
Statewide basin management
approaches. To this end, the Strategy
identifies six areas that are considered
essential for the Agency to support these
objectives:
Statewide Coordination—Support the
development of Statewide basin
management frameworks, coordinate
EPA Office of Water grants application
and reporting processes. and coordinate
interstate basin efforts to facilitate
Implementation of the Watershed
Protection Approach;
NPDES Permits—implement a
methodology for Issuing NPDES permits
on a watershed basis and emphasize
training on watershed protection.
Streamline the NPDES permit
development. issuance, and review
process. Develop and implement
innovative approaches to NPDES
permitting on a watershed basis, where
feasible;
Monitoring and Assessment—Develop
a Statewide monitoring strategy
establish point source ambient
monitoring requirements, where
appropriate, to facilitate the
development of monitoring consortla
and individual monitoring efforts; and
promote comparable data collection,
analysis. and utilization by all
stakeholdere;
Programmatic Measures and
Environmental Indicators—Revise
existing national accountability
measures to facilitate implementation of
the Watershed Protection Approach and
establish new measures of success that
reflect assessment of progress toward
short- and long-term watershed
protection goals
Public. Participation—Utilize existing
NPDES public participation process and
development of basin-wide management
plans to encourage informed
participation by watershed stakeholders.
educate stakeholders about watershed
planning efforts, and seek broad public
participation in identifying local
environmental goals: and
Enforcement—Include emphasis on
minor facilities which are discharging to
priority basins, within the base national
enforcement program, and use 308
authorities. inspections and
supplemental environmental projects.
where appropriate, to support
watershed protection activities.
The Agency views today’s rulemaking
as an opportunity to further the
objectives of the Watershed Protection
Approach and the NPDES Watershed
Strategy. Both proposed Form 2A and
proposed Form 2S request information
which support these objectives. These
questions are discussed in detail below.
The Agency requests comment on what
specific additional changes might be
made to proposed Form 2A and
proposed Form 2S to support the
Watershed Protection Approach.
E. Permit Writer’s Information Needs
Related to Endangered Species and
Historic Properties
EPA is considering whether the
permit application regulations should
require permit applicants to provide
available information related to
endangered species and historic
properties. The Endangered Species Act.
16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq., creates certain
obligations requiring the Agency to
consult with other federal agencies (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and National
Marine Fisheries Services) when EPA
carries out, authorizes, or funds an
action that may affect threatened or
endangered (“listed”) species. The
National Historic Preservation Act. 16
U.S.C. § 470 et seq.. creates certain
obligations requiring the Agency to
consult with State officials (State
Historic Preservation Officers) and/or
federal officials at the Advisory Council
for Historic Preservation In order for
EPA to take into account the effect on
historic properties of an “undertaking.”
as that term is defined by the National
Historic Preservation Act. EPA believes
that the collection of such Information
would be usefu1 to regulatory officials in
considering permit applications for
activities or undertakings that may
affect listed species or historic
properties. respectively. Absent
information in the permit application.
EPA may need to collect such
information on a case-by-case basis.
which could delay the permit issuance
process in some instances.
EPA invites public comment on the
information that could or should be
provided by the permit applicant.
Specifically. if EPA established permit
application questions about lir’
species or historic properties,
of information can or should thu per
applicant provide? Would it be
appropriate to request that the perrn
applicant Identify whether there are
known or suspected listed species.
including species proposed for listi:
and designated aitical habitat, or
historic properties in the area of the
POTW discharge (or sludge use or
disposal site by a TWTDS) that wou
be affected by that POTW discharge
sludge use or disposal by a TWTDS)
How could or should EPA provide
applicants with flexibility to assist
regulatory officials in the considerat
of potential impacts of activities on
listed species or historic properties?
Though EPA does not propose what
type of information related to
endangered species or historic
properties would be sought in today
proposal,, any such information
collection requests in the final
regulation may affect the costs
associated with complying with the
permit application regulations, both
terms of financial cost and burden
hours. EPA invites public comment
all aspects of efficient federal permi
of POTWs (and TWTDS) consist ” -it
requirements of the Endangerr
Act and the National Historic
Preservation Act.
F. Permit as a Shield
Section 402(k) of the CWA, also
known as the “shield” provision.
provides that compliance with an
NPDES permit shall be deemed
compliance, for purposes of sec. 30
and 505 enforcement, with sec. 301.
302, 306, 307, and 403 of the CWA
(except for any standard imposed ur
sec. 307 for toxic pollutants injuriou
human health). In response to quest.
raised regarding EPA’s interpretatioi
the scope of the “shield” associated
with NPDES permits under the CW
the Agency issued a policy statemen
July 1. 1994. to describe the Agency’
current position on the scope of the
authorization by EPA to discharge u
en NPDES permit and the shield thu
associated with permit authorizatioc
As part of anapplication for an
individual NPDES permit, EPA requ
that an applicant provide certain
information on its facility. In the cas
industrial permit application, this
includes specific information about
presence and quantity of a number c
specific pollutants in the facilit’’
effluent, as well as general infi
on all waste streams and operat .
contributing to the facility’s effluent
the treatment the wastewater receive
Present application requirements for
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 234 I Wednesday. December 6, 1995 I Proposed Rules
62553
municipal discharges focus primarily on
the operation and treatment processes at
the municipal treatment works.
although some quantitative information
is also required.
Historically, EPA has viewed the
permit. together with material submitted
during the application process and
information in the public record
accompanying the permit, as important
bases for an authorization to discharge
under sec. 402 of the CWA. The
availability of the sec. 402(k) shield Is
predicated upon the issuance of an
NPDES permit and a permittee’s full
compliance with all applicable
application requirements, any
additional information requests made by
the permit authority and any applicable
notification requirements under 40 CFR
§5 122.41(1) and 122.42, as well as any
additional requirements specified in the
permit
In the July 1, 1994. policy statement.
the Agency explained that a permit
provides authorization and therefore a
shield for the following pollutants
resulting from facility processes. waste
streams and operations that have been
clearly identified in writing in tha
permit application process when
discharged from specified outfalls:
(1) Pollutants specifically limited in
the permit or pollutants which the -
permit, fact sheet, or administrative
record explicitly Identify as controlled
through indicator parameters (of course.
authorization is only provided to
discharge such pollutants within the
limits and subject to the conditions set
forth in the permit);
(2) Pollutants for which the permit
authority has not established limits or
other permit conditions, but which are
specifically identified in writing as
present In facility discharges during the
permit application process; and
(3) Pollutants not Identified as present
but which are constituents of
wastestreanis, operations or processes
that were clearly identified during the
permit application process (the permit.
of course, may explicitly prohibit or
limit the scope of such discharges).
With respect to subparts 2 and 3 of
the permit authorization described
above, the Agency recognizes that a
discharger may make changes to its
permitted facility (which contribute
pollutants to the effluent at a permitted
outfall) during the effective period of
the NPDES permit. Pollutants associated
with these changes (provided they are
within the scope of the operations
identified in the permit application) are
also authorized provided the discharger
has complied in a timely manner with
all applicable notification requirements
(see 40 CTR 122.41(1) and 122.42 (a) and
(b)) and the permit does not otherwise
limit or prohibit such discharges.
Section 122.42(b) requires that POTWs
must provide adequate notice, including
information on the quality and quantity
of discharges to the POTW and
anticipated Impacts on the quantity or
quality of effluent discharged by the
POTW, of new introductions of
pollutants by indirect dischargers into
the POTW and any substantial change
in the volume or character of pollutants
being introduced by sources introducing
pollutants into the POTW at the time of
permit issuance.
Notwithstanding any pollutants that
may be authorized pursuant to subparts
1 and 2 above, an NPDES permit does
not authorize the discharge of any
pollutants associated with
wastestreams, operations, or processes
which existed at the time of the permit
application and which were not clearly
identified during the application
process.
In the July 1994 policy statement, the
Agency committed to revise the NPDES
permit application regulations for both
municipal and industrial discharges, so
as to ensure that applicants would have
the responsibility to characterize more
fully the nature of their effluents and
the contributions of their effluents to
receiving waters. The Agency stated
that, in addressing this issue, it would
review EPA’s position on the scope of
the shield provided by sec. 402(k).
Generally, the discharger is in the best
position to know the nature of its
discharge and potential sources of
pollutants. Consequently. requiring as
full a disclosure as technically possible
in the permit application is one option
EPA may want to consider in light of the
protection afforded the discharger by
the permit shield. However, in the case
of POTWs, providing a permit shield
only for pollutant discharges fully and
completely characterized in the permit
application could represent a significant
burden on POTWs if they were required
to identify every pollutant discharged.
This is so because of the potential
pollutant contribution into POTW sewer
systems from industrial users and
residential dlschargers. Narrowing the
scope of the shield and consequent
expansion of potential liability would
likely raise the cost associated with the
failure to anticipate, detect, and provide
information on these discharges.
The Agency has concerns that, using
the current applipation form, permitting
authorities using the existing municipal
application forms may not always
receive the information about an
applicant’s discharge needed to develop
permits consistent with the
requirements of the CWA. In today’s
proposed rule, the Agency is updating
its POTW discharge application
requirements (proposed Form 2A and
proposed § 122.21(j)) to provide more
Information to permit writers and to
streamline the permitting process by
ensuring that the informauon needed
from most applicants is consolidated
onto a single application form. The
Agency solicits comment on whether
the proposal adequately addresses these
concerns. Moreover, EPA is seeking’ the
public’s views on how to strike the
proper balance between the need for
environmental protection, incentives to
ensure adequate disclosure, and the
discharger’s need for certainty that its
conduct meets legal requirements.
The Agency also specifically requests
comment on adding additional
application requirements that would
make applicants responsible for
providing more information than that
specified on the form. For example, the
Agency is considering adding a question
asking whether the POTW has any other
information on pollutants not otherwise
requested on the form. The Agency is
also considering whether to ask whether
the PO1’W has any information on
adverse impacts on water quality, such
as information concerning beach
dosings, citizen complaints. or fish
kills. In providing comments on such
questions, cornmenters should state
whether they would have a chilling
effect on—that is, might tend to
inhibit—the activities of POTWs already
participating, for example, in ambient
monitoring. Comment is also requested
on the extent to which such information
Is already available to permitting
authorities.
C. Pollutant Data from POTWs
In preparing options for pollutant data
collection for today’s proposed rule, the
Agency sought to identify relevant
pollutant data records for reference. Lu
so doing, the Agency reviewed POTW
effluent “priority pollutant scan” data
from EPA Region V I and from North
Carolina. These data represented data
from samples of the effluents of several
hundred POTWs with a design flow
eater or equal to one (1.0) mgd (i.e.,
“major” POTWs). Although the
information requested by the Region
and State differed in some respects.
each required major POTWs to report on
all “priority pollutants” (i.e., the
pollutants listed in 40 CFR Part 122.
Appendix D, Tables U and ff1). The
Agency compiled this information in a
database, and analyzed it to determine
the pollutants most frequently detected
in these effluents.
The Agency concluded that, although
this survey was not conducted based o.
-------
62554 Federal Register I Vol. 60 , No. 234 / Wednesday, December 8, 1995 I Proposed Rules
statistical methodologies, It was
possible to discern certain general
patterns in the Incidence of pollutants
reported. Our review of Region VI and
North Carolina data indicated that over
90% of 300 POTWs sampled reported at
least one of the chemicals listed in
Appendix D, Table III, Copper and zinc
each appeared in two-thirds of all the
POTWs surveyed; lead and nickel each
appeared in about thirty percent of the
effluents sampled; antimony, arsenic.
cadmium, and silver each appeared in
more than fifteen percent of facilities:
and mercury and cyanide each appeared
in slightly fewer than fifteen percent
Certain volatile organica (I.e., THMs)
each appeared in roughly a quarter or
more of the POTWs sampled; and
certain base neutral compounds (i.e..
pthalate esters) each showed up in ten
to twenty . percent of POTWs. Finally,
only a few of the pesticides listed in
Appendix D, Table II were reported in
a small number of these scans.
While this information was not
determinative lathe Agency’s decisions
about what to include on the forms, it
was consistent with other information
provided, and supported some of the
Agency’s assumptions articulated
- elsewhere in this preamble concerning
the appropriate pollutant test data to
require from major POTWs. Notably
lacking, however, were data on
discharges from “minor” POTWs (those
with a design flow of less than one (1.0)
mgd). The Agency is seeking
information concerning the discharges
from minor POTWs and intends to
collect such information between this
proposal and the final rule that will
provide a basis for determining the
appropriate sampling requirements for
those POTWs.
H. Public Consultation in the
Development of Today’s Proposai
In the course of developing today’s
proposed rule. EPA made efforts to
consult with Interested stakaholders in
the application process. In late 1993 and
early 1994, the Agency sought feedback
on draft forms and other elements of the
proposal from States with approved
NPDES programs, local governments,
the Association of State and Interstate
Water Pollution Control Administrators
(ASPNPCA). the Association of
Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
(AMSA), the California Association of
Sanitation Agencies (CASA). the Water
Environment Federation (WEF), and
several environmental groups. In
response to this outreach effort, the
Agency received written comments from
a dozen States, several municipalities,
and from AMSA. Agency
representatives also met with State and
municipal representatives and
conducted a conference call through
WEF.
With respect to the POTW wastewater
discharge application, the Agency was
particularly interested in issues relating
to pollutant data collection. The Agency
Indicated that it was considering a
tiered approach. based upon POTW size
and the level of industrial contribution
(i.e., whether the POTW was required to
implement a local pretreatment
program). Most commenters generally
supported the idea of a tiered approach
(I.e., that the Agency not require the
same information from all POTWs). The
Agency received an array of suggestions
concerning what pollutant data should
be required. Among the concerns raised
by commenters were the following: ease
of completion; flexible implementation
by States; reduced pollutant data
requirements; sensitivity to impacts on
small municipalities: and elimination of
redundant reporting. In addition, the
Agency received numerous technical
comments concerning various details of
the information to be reported.
In response, the Agency has made
changes to the proposed rule to provide
a user-friendly modular design for the
forms and has revised its initial
approach to municipal pollutant data
collection for this proposal. The
Agency’s proposed approach to
pollutant data collection would limit
pollutant data requests to those
pollutants of greatest concern and
would require less pollutant data from
smaller municipalities. However, the
Agency is still considering several
options concerning the amount of
pollutant data to be provided, including
options that would require minor
POTWs to provide sampling data on
metals, some organic compounds. and
whole effluent toxicity.
With respect to the sludge
application, the Agency was interested
In the type and amount of pollutant data
currently requested by States. Responses
showed variation among States. -
Comments were also received that
questioned the need for some of the
information to be collected by Form 2S.
The Agency has removed some
questions that it agrees are not necessary
for sludge permit applications. The
Agency al ,so requests comment on
several options for pollutant data
collection.
Finally, the Agency proposes to allow
the use of existing date and to reduce
redundant reporting by allowing
permitting authorities to waive
reporting of information to which they
have direct access. This proposal is
discussed in more detail in those
portions of the preamble which focus on
the relevant provisions of the p no
rule. The Agency also solidt
on alternative considerations
specifically addressed to pollutant c
submission and industrial user
Information.
IL Approach Taken In Today’s Not
A. Scope of Todays Rulemaking
Today’s notice proposes two sets
NPDES application requirements an
corresponding permit application fc
together with instructions, for each.
Proposed § 122.21(j) contains
application requirements pertaining
wastewater treatment and discharge
publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs), and would require that
applicants submitting this inforrnati
to EPA use new Form ZA. Proposed
§ 122.21(q) contains application
requirements pertaining to generatic
treatment, and disposal of sewage
sludge at POTWs and other treatmer
works treating domestic sewage, ar
would require that appkc.v ’t
submitting applicatior.
Form 2S.
The proposed forms w .
both by EPA and by approved NPE
States that choose to adopt these fori
Approved States could also eIer
forms of their own design so lc
information requested includes.
the information required by ‘h—
NPDES/sludge regulations
State NPDES authorities
additional Information frori .e InL,
applicants whenever necessary to
establish appropriate permit limits a
conditions. CWA sec. 308.
The proposed forms and instructic
for each form are included with toda
proposed rule as an appendix to the
rulemaking package. EPA is not
lnten4lng to publish the forms and
instructions with the final rule, so as
reduce the length of the Federal
Register notice for the final rulernaki
and solicits comment on this issue.
8. The Agency Proposes to Revise the
Definition of P07W and En sting Pert
Application Req uirements for P07W
Today, EPA proposes to revise the
definition of the term “P(JTW,” as
4eflned In 40 CFR Part 122 to confer-
more exactly with the definition of th
term at 40 CFR Part 403. “POTW” is
defined at 40 FR 403.3 as “a treat.me
works. . . which is owned by a Statr
or municipality.” This definition
includes devices and systems use’ 1 in
the storage, treatment. recycIin
reclamation of municipal sewag
industrial wastes of a liquid nature. ar
weLl as sewers, pipes, and other
conveyances that carry wastewater to
-------
!ed! I Register I Vol. 60, No. 234 I Wednesday, December 8, 1995 / Proposed Rules
62555
POTW treatment plant. As defined, the
term “POTW” also refers to the
municipality that has jurisdiction over
the discharges to and from such a
treatment plant. In today’s proposed
rule, the Agency proposes to revise the
definition of POTW in Part 122 so as to
be consistent with the more commonly
understood definition located in Part
403.
The Agency’s intention is to simplify
and clarify, though EPA recognizes that
any change may create unanticipated
confusion. The Agency solicits
comments on effects on conforming the
Part 122 defimtion with the Part 403
definition. Specifically, the Agency is
interested in the extent the change
would affect: implementation of the
Combined Sewer Overflow policy;
regulatory consideration of sanitary
sewer overflows; and implementation
and applicability of the NPDES and
pretreatment programs to sewerage
collection systems that are not owned!
operated by the owner/operator of the
treatment plant to which collected
waste waters are transported.
The Agency proposes to revise whole
effluent toxicity testing requirements
found in the existing POTW permit
application regulations at 122.21(j).
Under existing § 122.21(j) (1)—(3), a
POTW must provide the results of
whole effluent biological toxicity testing
as part of its NPDES permit application.
if the POTW has a design flow equal to
or greater than one million gallons per
day; if it has (or is required to have) an
approved pretreatment program; or if it
is required to report by the Director
(NPDES State Program Director or EPA
Regional Administrator). The Agency
proposes to revise this requirement to
reflect Agency guidance and policy, as
well as practical experience in
implementing existing requirements, as
set forth at proposed § 122.21(j)(4).
The Agency proposes to change the
pretreatment requirement for local limit
calculations from an application
requirement to a permit requirement
Under existing § 122.21(j)(4), any POTW
with an approved pretreatment program
must provida a written technical
evaluation of the need to revise local
limits under 40 R 403.5(c)(1). The
existing provision requires that the local
limits evaluation be done prior to
permit issuance. This has generated
feedback from States and municipalities
that it would be better to require the
evaluation after permit issuance, so as to
avoid the need for a second technical
evaluation if the POTW’s permit limits
are revised In the new permit. In
response to these concerns, the Agency
proposes to change this from an
application requirement to a POTW
pretreatment program requirement, at
proposed § 403.8(fl(4)(B).
C. EPA Proposes Form 2A for PO7Ws to
Replace Standard Form A and Short
Form A
Today EPA proposes a new t’4PDES
application form. Form 2A, for POTWs.
Currently, POTWs may be required to
submit one of two forms, depending on
the size of the POTW. While both of
these forms are approved Federal forms.
the NPDES regulations do not require
use of the forms by POTWs when
applying for a permit. Standard Form A
is intended to be used by all ?OTWs
with a design flow equal to or exceeding
one million gallons per day. Standard
Form A contains questions about the
facility and collection system.
discharges to and froaf the facility
(including information on some specific
pollutant parameters), and scheduled
improvements and schedules of
implementation. Short Form A is
intended for use by all POTWs with a
design flow of less than one million
gallons per day. Short Form A contains
only fifteen questions of a summary
nature, and asks for virtually no
information on specific pollutants.
Many States use one or both of the
Federal forms, but a number of States
have developed State forms that request
information not included on the Federal
forms.
EPA proposes to replace both
Standard Form A and Short Form A
with a single Form 2A, subdivided into
two parts, titled “Basic Application
Information” and “Supplemental
Application information”. Basic
application information would include
information about the collection system
and the treatment plant, general
information concerning the types of
discharges from the treatment plant,
identification of outfalls, certain effluent
characteristics, and scheduled
Improvements. The Agency believes
that a separate short form for all minor
POTWs is no longer appropriate.
because in order to establish adequate
permit limits, information such as that
mentioned above must be collected from
all POTWs, regardless of size.
On the other hand, the Agency
recognizes the need to be selective in
requiring further additional information.
For this reason, the Agency has divided
the proposed form into two parts. To
limit the reporting burden for smaller
POTWs without significant industrial
contributions, EPA proposes to require
affluent monitoring data .for 17
parameters from POTWs with design
flows less than one million gallons per
day (rngd) and without pretreatment
programs. These 17 parameters consist
mostly of conventional and
nonconventional pollutants. Larger
POTWs and pretreatment POTWs, by
comparison, would be required to report
effluent monitoring data for metals and
organic compounds as well as the 17
parameters required for smaller POTWs.
Thus, the Basic Application Information
part of Form 2A would require reporting
on those parameters required of all
POTWs. while the Supplemental
Application Information part of the form
would be used by applicants providing
data on toxic pollutants (i.e.. larger
POTWs and pretreatment POTWs).
Similarly, the Supplemental
Application Information part of Form
2A is intended to be used by applicants
required to provide the results of whole
effluent toxicity tests, applicants with
significant industrial users, and
applicants with CSOs.
The Agency also invites comment on
requiring use of the form itself. As
explained previously, EPA conducted
significant public outreach to design an
application form that is easy to use,
including outreach on the form itself.
Use of the form would provide all of the
information requested in the proposed
application regulations, whereas
modification of the form may result in
failure to provide information to be
required in the proposed regulations.
On the other hand, EPA seeks to provide
maximum flexibility by “streamlining”
procedures for permit development. The
Agency seeks comment on whether
requiring use of the form would
interfere with streamlining permitting
procedures.
0. Applicability of Form 2A to Privately
Owned and Federally Owned Treatment
Works
As in the case of existing Standard
Form A and Short Form A, EPA
proposes that Form 2A and the
application requirements at § 122.21(j)
be required only for POTWs. However,
the Agency proposes that the Director
have the discretion to use the proposed
form for treatment works that are not
POTWs. As previously discussed, the
NPDES program has evolved
considerably since Standard Form A
and Short Form A were promulgated in
- 1973, and now embraces facilities that
operate similarly to POTWs but which
do not meet the regulatory definition of
POTW. Although not owned by a State
or municipality, such facilities
nevertheless receive predominantly
domestic wastewater, provide physical
and/or biological treatment, and
discharge effluent to waters of the
United States. Such facilities include
Federally owned treatment works
(FOTWs) and privately owned treatment
-------
62556 Federal Register I VoL 60, No. 234 I Wednesday, December 6. 995/ Proposed Rules
works that treat primarily domestic
wastawater.
EPA is aware that Federal and State
permitting authorities use a number of
merh n ms for obtaining NPDES
permit application Information from
non. .ThDTW treatment works. These
mechanisms include Standard Form A,
Short Form A. Form 2C (“Existing
Manufacturing. Commercial, Mining,
and Silvicultural Operations”), and
Form ZE (“Facilities Which Do Not
Discharge Process Wastewater”). The
Agency believes that Form ZA would in
many cases be the more appropriate
application form for non .POTW
treatment works, and solicits comments
on its applicability to such facilities.
Nevertheless, the Agency does nut
propose o require Form 2A for non-
POnY treatment works. Despite many
functional imilsrjtjes to POTWs, such
facilities do not share the same
regulatory requirements and thus might
not be required to report the same
information to permitting authorities. In
many instances, non-POTW treatment
works are not required under the
NPDES regulations to develop -
pretreatment programs, meet secondary
treatment requirements, or report results
of whole effluent toxicity testing with
their permit applications. For those
facilities, requiring such information
through Form 2A might be unnecessary.
The Agency solicits comments on
whether the provisions of 122.21(3)
and the requirement to use Form ZA
should be extended to treatment works
other than POTWs. EPA Is paxticularly
interested Eu commenters’ views on how
to collect appropriate information in
appropriate circumstances. EPA also
seeks to design permit application
requirements to account for
privatizatlon of treatment plants
initially constructed as publicly owned
treatment works. The permit application
requirements In this proposed rule may
be appropriate for partially prlvatlzed
portions of POTWs, particularly because
the proposed Information regulations in
today’s rule would solicit Information
about sewerage collection systems that
might not otherwise be collected under
the industrial permit application
regulations. Finally, EPA solicits
comment on the extent of the similarity
between POTWe and FOTWs, for
example, whether FOTWs would have
combined sewage collection systems. In
another part of today’s proposal. EPA is
soliciting comment about the definition
of POTW to which the permit
application regulations would apply.
H. EPA Pm poses Revised Application
Requirements and Form aS for Sewage
Sludge Permits
Today, EPA also proposes a now form,
Form 2S, to collect information on
sewage sludge from treatment works
treating domestic sewage (TWTDS). The
term “treatment works treating domestic
sewage” is a broad one, intended to
reach facilities that generate sewage
sludge or effectively change its pollutant
characteristics as well as facilities that
control its disposal. The term includes
all POTWs and other facilities that treat
domestic wastewater. It also includes
facilities that do not treat domestic
wastewater but that treat or dispose of
sewage sludge, such as sewage sludge
incinerators. coniposliug facilities,
commercial sewage sludge handlers that
process s1ui e for distribution, and sites
used For sewage sludge disposal. In
addition, EPA may designate a facility a
TWTDS when the facility’s sludge
quality or sludge handling, use, or
disposal practices have the potential to
adversely affect public health and the
envirorunent. Septic tanks or similar
devices are not considered TWTDS.
In addition to proposing sewage
sludge application requirements lii new
paragraph 12121(q), EPA also proposes
to delete the cross-reference to
§ 501.15(a)(2) in paragraph
122.21(d)(3)Ui). This would consolidate
all of the sewage sludge application
requirements in paragraph 122.22(q).
The information included in
S 122.21(d)(33(il) and 5 501.15(a)(2) was
not intended to be a final,
comprehensive list of all of the
application information required of a
TWTDS. Such a comprehensive list was
not possible until after promulgation of
the technical sewage sludge standards.
Rather, with these sections, EPA
provided a minimum set of information
requirements to suffice until more
comprehensive sewage sludge permit
application regulations could be
promulgated. In light of the
promulgation oltechnical sewage
sludge use or disposal standards, at 40
CFR Part 503, EPA today proposes to
modify the sewage sludge permit
application requirements to add new
§ 122.21(q) and to revise paragraph
§ 122.21(d)(3)(li) accordingly.
EPA intends to maintain consistehcy
between the NPDES permit application
requirements of Part 122 and the State
sewage sludge permitting requirements
of Parts 123 and 501. This reflects EPA’s
belief that a TWTDS should submit the
same application iiiforrnatlon regardless
of whether the permitting authority
regulates sludge management under an
approved NPDES or under a non-NPDES
program. Therefore, under today’s
rulemaking. EPA also proposes to r’.
the language of §5 123.25(a)(4) and
501.1S(a)(2) to modify the slurI
information requirements. El’ e
comment on this revision.
F. Reasons for Separate Form 2A a
Form 2S
EPA today proposes two separat
forms for municipal wastewatar
discharges and sludge for.several
reasons. First, the forms would di
their applicability. Form 2A woul
apply only to POTWs; Form 2S w
require information from all TWT
Most facilities that generate, treat.
dispose of sewage sludge are POT
and will be required to submit bat
application forms. However, sevei
thousand TWTDS do not dischar
surface waters and therefore are ii
required to have NPDES discharg4
permits. Thus, they would be req
to submit Form 2$ but not Formn
Second. separate application fo
are also appropriate because was
and sewage sludge are often regui
by different permitting authoritie
States and territories, the NPDES
program is administered at the S
level through an EPA-approved>
program. Therefore. POTWs in I’
States would obtain NPDES perir
from the State permitting authori
submitting Form ZA to the
sewage sludge permits fror.
submitting Form 2S to the h .
Office). Separate application forr
would facilitate this bifurcated
permitting process. In addition. i
when a Slate sludge permitting p
is approved, the program will nc
necessarily be administered by t
Slate’s NPDES permitting author
example. a POTW in a State wiLl
NPDES and sludge permitting ai
could receive its NPDES permit
water management agency and i
sewage sludge permit from a sal
agency. Separate Forms 2A and
would also facilitate permitting
situation.
C. EPA Solicits Comment on the
Electronic Application Forms
Consistent with recenfamend
the Paperwork Reduction Act, U
Agency intends to develop elect
data submission as an alternath
of application. The use of electr
media should help to streamlin
application process and to redu
amount of repetition associated
completing application forms Ll
only available on hard copy. Ai
previously noted, the elixninati
redundant reporting is or I
of this rulemaking.
.
-------
It is not clear, however, how this
would best be accomplished, especially
because permit application forms must
be “signed” to ensure reliability of
permit application Information (and
enforceability of the permit application
regulations). Options range from
transmitting data electronicaLly,
submitting disk copies, or submitting a
hard copy. It might be most feasible to
have electronic forms that could be
distributed and completed
electronically, and then printed, signed,
and submitted. Although the Agency is
considering how “signatures” for
electronic submissions could be
obtained, there are other issues
concerning the use of application forms,
such as how to attach accompanying
documents. The Agency solicits
comments regarding the interest that
applicants and permitting authorities
may have in this area, and suggestions
as to how it could most feasibly be
accomplished.
Ifi. Description of Proposed
Requirements
A. EPA Proposes to Revise Re uirements
n § 122.21 (c). (d) and (/7 Concerning
the Use of Forms 1. 2A, and2S
EPA proposes revisions to the existing
general application requirements for all
NPDES perinittees, which would require
the use of Forms 2A and ZS by
applicants for VA-issued permits. The
proposed rule would not require
applicants using thesb forms to use
Form 1, as is currently required. Today’s
proposed rule substantially incorporates
the requirements of § 122.21(fl into the
requirements of proposed § 122.21
paragraphs (j] and (q).
1. Requirement to Submit Form 2A
EPA proposes in § 122.21(d) to require
POTWs to submit the information at
§ 122.21(j) using Form 2A or an
equivalent form approved by the
Director. The Agency proposes to
require applicants for EPA-issued
permits to complete Form ZA. but is
considering not requiring the use of the
form so long as the proposed regulatory
requirements are met. The Agency
intends to allow the use of any method
of electronic data submission the
Agency may approve as part of the final
rule in lieu of the form itselL
2. Requirement to Submit Form 2S
EPA also proposes in §122.21
paragraphs (c)(2)(lii) and (d) to require
TWTDS to submit the information at
§ 122.21(q) using Form ZS or an
equivalent form approved by the
Director. As with Form 2A, the Agency
proposes to require applicants for EPA-
Issued permits to complete Form 2S, but
is considering not requiring the use of
the form so long as the proposed
regulatory requirements are met. Also as
with Form 2A, the Agency Intends to
allow the use of any method of
electronic data submission the Agency
may approve as part of the final rule.
B. Application Requirements for POTWs
(40 CFJ? 122.21(j))
Today’s proposed rule includes
application requirements for all POTWS.
These requirements are proposed at 40
CFR 122.21(j). Form 2A tracks the
information required by the regulation
in parallel fashion. Applicants for State-
issued permits are not required to use
Form 2A, so long as the other
application (aria provided by the
Director requests the information
required by proposed § 122.21(j).
EPA acknowledges concerns relating
to redundant reporting which were
raised by State and municipal
cornmenters during the consultation
process. The Agepcy does not wish to
require applicants to report information
already provided or available to the
permitting authority. Today’s proposal
would allow permitting authorities to
waive reporting requiremonts, as.
appropriate. The introductory paragraph
of proposed § 122.21(j) would allow the
Director to waive any requirement in
proposed paragraph (j) if the Director
has access to substantially identical
information. The Agency solicits
- comment on this approach and,
specifically, on the conditions for
allowing such a waiver. In today’s
proposed rule, the Agency also solicits
comments on more narrowly defined
waivers for specific requirements (see
discussion below concerning pollutant
data requirements and industrial user
information requirements).
The Agency also solicits comment on
ways to allow the permit writer or.
permitting authority discretion l.a
waiving particular informaticin whore
the permitting authority determines that
such information is not necessary for
the app licadon. In other words, there
may be flexible ways to look at each
applicant In light of the overall “matrix
of characteristics” regarding a particular
facility. Where, for example, historical
data Indicate that additional sampling is
not warranted unless other conditions
have changed, the Agency Is allowing
the permitting authority to waive such
sampling. Such flexibility would
involve a holistic approach to
implementing these proposed
requirements. The Agency solicits
comment as to ways in which it could
be accomplished without making these
previsions entirely discretionary, and
6255’
thus nijiking It difficult for the applicant
to predict how discretion would be
exercised. This might be particularly
relevant on the second and subsequent
rounds of permitting under these
proposed provisions. The Agency also
seeks comment on what Information
might be appropriate and what
information might be inappropriate for
such waivers.
1. Basic Application Information
Today’s proposal would require all
P01W applicants to provide the
Information in proposed § 122.21(j)(1).
All of this information is also requested
in Questions 1—16 of the Basic
Application Information part of
proposed Form 2A.
Proposed § 122.21(j)(1) of today’s rule
would require information on the
P01W’ 5 service area and physical plant
The proposed rule would require all
applicants to provide information
regarding the commumty served and
physical characteristics of the treatment
works.
Proposed § 122.21(j)(1)(i) requests
facility identification information.
Proposed § 122.211 j)(1)( ii) requests
information about the applicant, which
may or may not be the facility itself.
Proposed § 122.21(j)(1)(jjj) asks the
applicant to provide permit numbers of
any existing environmental permits that
have been issued to the facility.
Proposed § 122.21(j)(1)(iv) would
require the applicant to list the
municipalities and populations served
by the POTW. The P01W may serve
several areas (including unincorporated
connector districts) in addition to the
one in which Itis located. The permit
writer needs to know what areas are
served and the actual population served
in order to calculate the potential
domestic sewage loading to the facility.
The information on the community is
also useful for providing notice and
public comment for permit reissuance.
and for public education.
Proposed § l22.21(j)(1)(v) would
require the applicant to report the
facility’s design flow rate and the
annual average daily flow rate for each
of the past three years. This information
enables the permitting authority to
calculate limits appropriate to the
P01W, to alert the permitting authority
to the need for flow restrictions or
facility expansion, and to compare
design and actual flows.
Proposed § 122 . 2 1(j)(1)(vi) would
require information on the type of
collection system used by the facility.
The applicant would also identify
whether the collection system is a
separate sanitary system or a combined
storm and sanitary system. The
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
-------
62558 Federal Register / Vol 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6. 1995/ Proposed Rules
applicant would also estimate the
percent of sewer line that each type
comprises. Familtexfty with the type of
collection system enables the permit
writer to anticipate combined collection
system overloading in wet weather. The
current application form. Standard
Form A. requests that. the applicant also
provide the length of the collection
system (in miles). The proposed rule
does not .uiclude this requirement
because the Agency does not believe
that such infonriation is useful to the
permit writer.
Proposed § 122.21(fl(1)(vll) would
also require information on inflow and
infiltration. Inflow is the uncontrolled
entrance of water into the collection
system from surface sources such as
unsealed msnholes. Infiltration is water
that enters the collection system
through deteriorated or defective pipes.
joints, and connections. Both conditions
may Indicate the need for special permit
conditions (such as best management
practices) to reduce the inadvertent flow
of water to the POTW. EPA requests
comment on the availability of inflow
and infiltration information at POTWs.
This provision would also request
information on steps the facility is
taking to minimi inflow and
infiltration.
Proposed § 122.21(j)(1)(viii) would
require the applicant to provide a
topographic map that Includes
Information on the layout of the
treatment plant. induding all unit
processes; intake and discharge
structwes; wells, springs, and other
surface water bodies; sewage sludge
management facilities; and the
location(s) at which hazardous waste
enters the treatment plant by truck, rail.
or dedicated pipe. This provision
reflects the topographic map
requirements of § 122.21(0(7), and is
more specifically designed to include
features most likely to be found at a
Po v.
Proposed § 122.Zlffl(1)(Ix) would
require the applicant to submit a
process flow diagram or schematic.
together with a narmtivedesniptlon.
The permit writer uses this information
to develop secondary treatment and
water quallty.based permit
requirements, as well as other
applicable permit conditions,
Proposed § 122.21(j)(i)(x) would
require information about bypasses,
which are intentional diversions of
wastestreaxns from any part of a
treatment plant. Regulations governing
bypasses axe set forth at 40 C’R
122.41(m). Facilities experiencing
bypasses are required to estimate the
frequency, duration, and volume of
bypass incidents, and the reasons why
bypasses have oocurred. Information on
bypasses is used by the permit writer to
develop appropriate permit limits and
conditions for these discharges.
Proposed § 122.21Q)(1)(xiF would
require general information regarding
discharges to waters of the United States
as well as discharges to destinations
other than surface waters. This
information enables the permit writer to
account for all wastewater that enters
the POTW. regardless of whether or not
it is discharged directly to receiving
waters. From a watershed permitting
standpoint, permitting authorities may
use this information to identify flows
that individually or collectively may
have an impact on the watershed.
whether or not they axe discharged
directly into waters of the U.S.
LI any effluent is discharged to surface
impoundments with no discharges to
waters of the U.S.. the applicant would
report the location of each surface
impoundment, the annual average daily
volume discharged to each surface
impoundment. and whether the
discharge is continuous or intermittent.
if effluent is applied to the land, the
applicant must provide the site location.
the site size, and the annual average
daily volume of effluent applied. The
applicant must also state whether land
application is continuous or
intermittent. This information alerts the
permit writer to the potential for point
source discharges to arise from land
application sites under certain
circumstances, such as cold weather or
high volume discharges. or from surface
impoundments.
Proposed § 122.21(j)(1 )(xi) would also
require the applicant to report whether
wastewater is discharged to another
treatment works, the means by which
the wastowater is transported. the
average daily flow rate to that facility.
and information identifying the
receiving facility. The applicant must
also identify the orgsni tion
transporting the discharge. if other than
the applicant. The permit writer needs
this information in order to track the
wastewater and verify the trelisler.
Finally, proposed 122.21(IX1)(xi)
would require information on other
types of disposal, such as underground
percolation or injection. These types of
disposal may result in the transfer of
pollutants to waters of the U.S. through
underground flows, and thus are of
interest both to the permit writer in
writing the permit and to the permitting
authority in designing watershed
protection strategies.
Proposed § 122.21(j)(1J(xii) would
require the applicant to report whether
the POTW is located on a Federal Indian
Reservation, discharges to a receiving
water that Is on a Federal Indian
Reservation or upstream of a’
eventually flows through a I s
Indian Reservation. This infi . .ai
enable, the permit writer to identi
proper permitting authority and
applicable requirements, includic
applicable water quality standard
Proposed § 1Z2.21(j)(l)(xiii) we
require the applicant to provide
information about any stheduled
facility improvements. Improvem
the facility may change its flow oi
removal efficiency, necessitating
permit modification. The permit
may modify the permit when the
improvement is complete, or may
include alternate limits in the per
that would take effect upon conip
of the improvement.
The current application form,
• Standard Form A, requests certair
Information about required
improvements including laformai
dates for completion of the prelixr
plan, completion of the final plan
awarding of contract, and site
acquisition. EPA is proposing to
these requirements but solicits cc
on their usefulness. Standard For
also requires the applicant to ide
the authority imposing the impro
and the general and specific actic
codes. The Agency propose’ ‘t
this requirement because p
have indicated that this informati
unnecessary to writing the permit
2. Information on Effluent Discha
Proposed § 122.21(j)!2) of today
would require all POTWs that dim
effluent to waters of the U.S. to pr
specific Information for each out!
through which effluent is dischar
surface waters, excluding CSOot
This information would be report
QuestIons 17,18, and 19 of the B.
Application Information part of
proposed Form 2A. The applican
would be required to submit the
information required for each out
Proposed § 122.21(jX2)(i) wo lt
require general information about
outfall. The applicant must specii
outfall number, location, latitude
longitude, distance from shore (if
applicable), distance below surfa
applicable), and average daily lb
million gallons per day). EPA eM
latitude and longitude points intc
water quality data base STORET.
of the location of water discharge
developed to examine the relatiox
between NPDES outfalls and othe
of concern, such as d nidnp
intake points or sensitive e<
This information is also uset.
establish water quality.based effli
limits appropriate for the particul
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 80, No . 234 / Wednesday, December
6, 1995 I Proposed Rules 62559
receiving water. The locational data
requested by this question also supports
the Watershed Protection Approach.
because It provides Federal and State
environmental managers with
information they need to geographically
locate discharge points.
Latitude and longitude would be
required to be reported to the nearest
second. This is consistent with EPA’s
Locational Data Policy (LDP) (See
‘Locatlonal Data Policy implementation
Guidance, Guide to the Policy (March
1992)”). En aciordance with this policy,
all latitude/longitude measurements in
Agency data collection should have
accuracies of better than 25 meters (i.e..
roughly, one second).
Proposed § 122.21(j)(2j(i) would
require information about the interval
and duration of effluent discharges that
are seasonal or periodic. Such
discharges arise from certain conditions.
usually related to the process at an
industrial user, whereby the industrial
user discharges intentionally at
specified thnes following treatment. For
each outfall with an intermittent
discharge, the applicant must report the
annual frequency, duration, flow, and
the months in which the discharge
occurs. The permit writer uses this
information to develop permit limits
that reflect the intermittent nature of
such discharges.
Proposed 122.21(j)(2)(i) would ,also
require the applicant to specify whether
the outfall is equipped with a diffuser
and the type of diffuser (e.g., high•rate)
used. The permit writer uses this
information to make mixing zone
calculations. (See “Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-based
Toxics Control,” EPAJSOS/2-.9O—O0I,
March 1991.)
Most POTWs discharge treated
effluent to surface waters such as
streams or rivers. Proposed
§ 122.21(j)(2)(ilJ solicits information that
desal bee and Identifies the receiving
waters into which each outfall
discharges. Informat ion about the type
of receiving water is useful to the permit
writer because xxthdng zones and
wasteload allocations may be calculated
differently for different types of
receiving waters.
This provision would also require the
name of the watershed, the Soil
Conservation Service watershed code,
the name of the State management
basin, and the United States Geological
Survey hydrologic code, This locational
information supports the Watershed
Protection Approach, by providing
Federal and State environmental
managers with a means of locating
dlschargers within the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service watershed
categorization system, a State’s river
basin categorization system, and the
U.S. Geological Survey cataloging
scheme. Some Slates, as well as EPA
Regions, are implementing a basin
management approach to watershed
protection and will require the
information requested by this question.
Proposed § 122.21(j)(2)(iii) would
require information on the level o?
treatment for discharges from each
outfalL The CWA requires PO’EWs, with
some exceptions, to treat Influent to the
level of secondary treatment prior to
discharge. Secondary treatment is
defined at 40 CFR 133.102 in terms of
flve.day biochemical oxygen demand
(80D 5 ), total suspended solids (SS or
TSS). and pH. Part 133 allows
adjustments to the secondary treatment
requirements for POTWs that meet
certain criteria, In addition, some,
POTWs are subject to requirements for
“treatment equivalent to secondary
treatment,” as described in § 133.105.
Finally, some POIWs may have more
advanced levels of treatment necessary.
for example, to meet water-quality based
standards for Certain pollutants, such as
nitroaen and phosphorous.
This provision would require data on
design removal efficiencies for BOD 5
and SS. information on these parameters
Is necessary in order for the permit
writer to set pollutant limits that
accurately reflect the pollutant removal
that the FOTW can achieve. It may also
alert the permitting authority to the
need for improvements to the treatment
facility.
Proposed § 122.21(j)(2)(lij) would also
require information on disinfection,
which usually Follows secondary or
advanced treatment and which destroys
bacteria, viruses, and other pathogens in
the wastewater, Disrnfectjon most
commonly occurs through chlorination.
Many POTWs also dechlorinate their
effluent prior to discharge because
excessive free chlorine in a wastewater
discharge can cause aquatic toxicity in
the receiving water.
3. Effluent Monitoring for Specific
Parameters
The purpose of proposed § 122.21(j)
and proposed Form 2A is to provide the
permit writer with the minimum
informati on necessary to issue to a
POTW an NPDES permit that contains
effluent limitations consistent with the
goals of the CWA. EPA recognizes that
the quality of a POTW’s effluent
depends on several factors, such as the
number and type of industrial users of
the POTW, and that not all POTWa need
to report the same information to ensure
developing NPDES permits to achieve
designated uses of the Nation’s waters.
ifence, EPA proposes a tiered approach
to collect needed effluent monitoring
information,
The Agency proposes to require all
POTWa to report effluent monitoring
Information for the 17 parameters listed
at proposed 40 R Past 122. Appendix
J, Table 1 (“Effluent Parameters For All
POTWs”) (see also proposed Form 2A.
Basic Application information, question
19). These parameters have a high
likelthood of being present in most
POTW effluents.
EPA Is proposing to require additional
reporting of pollutant’specific data for
POTWs with a design flow greater than
or equal to 1.0 mgd POTWs that have
or are required to have a pretreatment
program; and other POTWs required to
provide this information to the
permitting authonty. In general, the
pollutants for which additional data
would be required are those (or which
there are State water quality standards,
other than dioxin, asbestos, and
“priority pollutant” pesticides. Thus.
the Agency would require, at a
minimum, data on those pollutants
listed at proposed 40 CFR Part 122,
Appendix I, Table 2 (“Effluent
Parameters For Selected POTWs and
Treatment Works Treating Domestic
Sewage”) (see also proposed Form ZA.
Part A, Supplemental Application
Information: Expanded Effluent
Testing). The Agency would not require
data, unless otherwise specified by the
permitting authority, on those
pollutants listed at proposed 40 CFR
Part 122, Appendix J, Table 3 (“Other
Parameters for Treatment Works
Treating Domestic Sewage And Selected
POTWs”).
Proposed § 122.21(j )(3) would require
that data be separately provided f r each
outfall through which treated sanitary
effluent is discharged to waters of the
United States. Further, EPA recognizes
that a POTW’s effluent may have similar
qualities at more than one of its outfalLs.
EPA thus proposes to allow applicants
to provide the effluent data from only
one outfall as representative of all such
outfalls, where two or more outfalls
with substantially identical effluents,
and with the approval of the permitting
authority on a cas&by.case basis. For
outfails to be considered substantially
identical, they should, at a mirurnum, be
located at the same plant, be subject to
the same level of treatment, and have
passed through the same types of
treatment processes. The Agency solicits
comment oa.this approach and,
particularly, on whether data should be
separately collected from all such
outfalls. Alternatively, should
applicants generally be encouraged to
follow this approach rather than
-------
62560 Federal Register / VoL 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
selectively approved on a case..by-case
basis?
EPA proposes that effluent and
monitoring data submitted to the
permitting authority meet the following
conditions:
1. Maximum Period of Sam pie
Collection: All data summarized in
response to these questions Is proposed
to be collected within a 3-year period
preceding the permitapplication date.
2. Min,mwn Number of Doily Sample
Analyses: Results from a minimum of
three separate daily sample analyses
(pollutant scans) are proposed to
accommodate data needs for each
analyte on which information is
requested. Additional samples might be
required on a case-by-case basis.
3. Seasonal Considerntions: For most
POTWs, EPA expects that the three, or
more, sets of results for daily sample
analyses summarized in response to
these information needs would
represent typical daily discharges
occurring during at least three different
calendar seasons. For most applicants,
EPA proposes to require that a
minimum of 4 months and a maximum
of 8 months separate at least one pair of
the daily sample analysis results
included in the summary. Applicants
unable to meet this time requirement
due to. for example, periodic,
discontinuous, or seasonal discharges
could obtain alternative guidance on
this requirement from their permitting
authority. Permitting authorities might
alter this requirement to address
considerations of specific POTWs,
4. Testing Methods: Sampling and
analysis is proposed to be conducted in
accordance with methods approved
under 40 CFR Part 136. Applicants
would be expected to use methods that
enable pollutants to be detected at levels
adequate to meet water quality-based
standards. Where no approved method
can detect a pollutant at the water
quality-based standards level.
applicants would be expected to use the
most sensitive approved method. If the
applicant believed that an alternative
method should be used (e.&, due to
mauix interference), the applicant
would need to obtain prior approval
from the permitting authority. If an
alternative method approved In
accordance wIth 40 G’R Part 136 Is
specified In the existing permit, the
applicant would be expected to use that
method unless otherwise directed by the
permitting authority. When no approved
analytical method exists, an applicant
could use a suitable method and
provide a desclption of the method.
“Suitable method” means a method that
Is sufficiently sensitive to measure as
close to the water quality-based
standard as possible. The permit writer
needs to know which testing methods
are used in order to assess the technical
validity of the results.
5. Daily Samples: For most POTWe.
sampling is proposed to be conducted
using composite samples mixed on a
flow-proportional basis over a 24-hour
period from at least eight sample
aliquots (100 ml minimum) collected
using a automated sample collection
device. The flow-proportional basis
would involve either varying the
intervals between the collection of equal
volume samples or vary.ng the sample
volumes collected over equal interval
collection periods. The reason for using
automated samplers is that they are
designed to make the necessary
adjustments according to the rate of
flow.
For POTWs where automated sample
collection devices are not available, it is
proposed that appropriate daily
composite samples for analysis would
be produced by mixing at least four
sample aliquots (100 ml minimum).
each collected to represent typical
segments of the operating day effluent
flows.
Because pH. temperature, cyanide.
total phenois. residual chlorine, oil and
grease, and bacterial indicators cannot
be properly sampled by continuous
sampling devices, summarized results
for each daily analysis are proposed to
be based on individual analysis of a
minimum of four grab samples collected
to represent typical effluent flows over
the operating day. A grab sample has
100 ml minimum volume, collected
over 15 minutos or less.
For effluents from treatment ponds or
other impoundments that have retention
times of greater than 24 hours, single
grab samplas (100 ml minimum
collected over 15 minutes or less) would
be considered adequate to represent
daily conditions for all analytes
reported.
6. Maximum Data Summarization
Requirements: EPA recognizes that not
all analytes are sampled and analyzed at
the same frequency for effluents from a
single POTW or across all POTWs. EPA
thus proposes that summarized results
for analytes should include all data
collected over the preceding three-year
period, ending the calendar quarter
preceding the permit application date
(providing, for example, a total of 3
annual samples or 12 quarterly samples
summarized per analyte, as well as any
other samples taken by the applicant).
For those analytes sampled and
analyzed at monthly or more frequent
intervals, EPA proposes that applicants
only summarize and report data
collected aver a single one-year period
(e.g.. providing a summary of 12 -
monthly samples, together with any
other samples taken during that pr
per analyte). The one-year period
included in this data summarization
Interval would end the calendar quarter
preceding the permit application date.
Applicants would be required to
indicate for each analyte the number of
samples summarized and whether each
summary represents a one or three year
summarization period.
7. All Data Must Be Reported: For
each analyte. EPA proposes that all
samples conducted and analyzed in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 136 during
the reporting period be reported (i.e..
included with all other data for the
period reported), regardless of whether
or not they were required by the
permitting authority or these proposed
regulations.
8. Data Must Be Summarized: For
each analyte, EPA proposes that
applicants report the maximum daily
discharge. expressed either as
concentration or mass, of all of the
samples reported. Applicants would
also report the average daily discharge.
expressed either as concentr n or
mass, of all the samples repc: d.
The Agency is considering requiring
applicants to report only concentration
numbers on the application or,
alternatively, requiring that appllcr
who wish to report mass also provi .
flow Information used In calcu!’
mass figures reported. Tht
would be required to rapt
rate used in calculating ti.-
daily discharge and the avera
the flow rates used in calculating
average daily dischap.
Some States may wish to have
individual pollutant data reports, rather
than summary data, from applicants.
either from all applicants or on a case-
by-case basis, in addition to or instead
of the summary data required by
proposed § 122.21(j)(3). States would be
encouraged to obtain this information in
the manner considered most suitable to
their needs.
9. Existing Data May Be Reported:
Where the applicant has existing data
for a given pollutant, and where such
data meet the conditions described
above, EPA proposes to allow the use of
such data in lieu of data collected solely
for the purpose of the permit
application. If, for example, the
applicant were to have pollutant data
from two samples, only one more
sample would be needed to meet the
minimum requirement of three samples,
assuming that other conditions werv
met. Also, where such data have
previously been reported to the
permitting authority. the permitting
-------
Federal Register I Vol 60, No. 234 i’ Wednesday. December 6. 1995 I Proposed Rules
62561
authority could waive such
requirements as having been satisfied.
The Agency proposes the above
conditions in an effort to be clear about
the nature of what needs to be reported.
Accordingly. the Agency solicits
comment on whether these conditions
are sufficiently clear, on the one hand.
or whether they are overly restrictive,
on the other.
The Agency also solicits comment on
each of the particular conditions
described above. The Agency is
particularly Interested in comment on
two of these conditions: whether three
pollutant scans is the appropriate
number to require; and whether the
three-year requirement for reporting test
data should be waived, as proposed.
where sampling for poUutants is done
on a monthly basis.
The analytical data proposed to be
reported would result from a variety of
analytical methods, with detection
limits ranging from less than I ppb to
more than 10 ppb. The toxic analytes
that are of most concern at low
concentrations are primarily analyzed
by gas chromatography (CC), gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry
(GC/MS). inductively coupled plasma
emission spectrometry (ICP). and atomic
absorption spectrometry (AM. and high
resolution capillary column gas
chromatographyfhigb resolution mass
spectrometry (HRCCJHRMS). These
methods have different numeric
analytical endpoints, based upon
detection (e.g., method detection limit)
or quantification (e.g.. minimum level)
levels. In addition, the wide latitude of
data reporting definitions and
conventions in use in various regulatory
programs complicates the generation
and interpretation of analytical data
reported with this proposal.
In order for permit writers to develop
appropriate permit requirements. they
must be able to establish whether a
pollutant is present and. whether a
reasonable potential for environmental
impairment exists, as defined by water
quality standards and criteria. To
properly make such determinations,
permit writers require more complete
data and documentation than has been
previously supplied with the
application form. because any ambiguity
increases the likelihood that the permit
writer will need to indude in the permit
limits that are near or below 10 ppb or,
alternatively, additional monitoring
requirements for those pollutants for
which the data are ambiguous.
Thus, it is in the best interests of both
the applicant and the permitting
authority that the praposed rule would
require that the method detection limit
(MDL). minimum level (ML), or other
designated method endpoint, together
with Identification of the corresponding
analytical methods used be stated in the
permit application. Along with this.
information, the proposal would require
applicants to submit pollutant data
based upon actual sample values. In
other words, even where test values are
below the detection or quantification
level of the method used, the actual data
value should be reported, rather than
reporting “non-detect” (“ND”) or “zero”
(“0”) In such instances. If the endpoint
of the method used is reported along
with the actual sample results, the
permitting authority will be able to
determine if the data is in the “non•
detect” range or “below quantification”
range.
The Agency has provided guidance to
the applicant in the proposed Form 2A
instructions in order to minlmizfi the
conditions that lead to inaccurate
sampling data. The Agency proposes
that the permit applicant: (1) alert its
laboratory to the analytical and
detection limit requirements and ther
expectations for documentation; and (2)
report the necessary documentation to
ensure that the permit writer is fully
informed as to the methods used and —
the results obtained. For morn detailed
information concerning analytical issues
(acceptable methods, effluent-specific
detection limits, and documentation of
data and analytical problems),
applicants should refer to the
“Guidance on Evaluation, Resolution,
and Documentation of Analytical
Problems Associated with Compliance
Monitoring’S. EPA 821—B—93—00I, June
1993.
a. Pollutant Data Reporting
Requirements for All POTWs
EPA has identified certain pollutants
that are commonly found in PO’IW
effluents, regardless of size. and for
which permit limits may be necessary to
prevent adverse effects on receiving
waters. Proposed § 122.2I(j)(3) would
require each applicant. regardless of
size, to provide monitoring information
for the pollutants listed in proposed
AppendIx J, Table 1. These include the
conventional pollutants (defined. at 40
CFR 401.16. as biochemical oxygen
demand, total suspended solids, pH,
focal coliform, and oil and grease), as
well as other parameters that are
common to domestic wastestreams.
such as ammonia (and other n1o ogen
compounds), and compounds of other
origin, such as chlorine (which is used
for disinfection during the treatment
process).
The complete list is, as follows:
Flow
Temperature
Bacterial indicators (E. coil, Enterococci,
Focal coliforrn)
5-day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD 5 or CBOD 5 )
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
Kjeldahl nitrogen (total organic as N)
Oil and Grease
Total dissolved solids
Total suspended solids
pH
Phosphorus (POe-P)
Dissolved oxygen
Hardness (as CaCO 3 )
Ammonia (as N)
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)
The secondary treatment regulations
at 40 Q ’R Part 133 describe the
minimum level of effluent quality that
must be attained in terms of B0D 5 (or
CBOD 5 I, TSS, and pH. and specify
technology-based cnteria for each
parameter. Control of BOD, (or SOD,)
Is necessary to ensure sufficient’
dissolved oxygen in the receiving water
to protect aquatic life; BOD 5 (or CBOD,)
is also a key parameter in biological
treatment systems. Extremely high
levels of suspended solids in the
POTW’s influant can interfere with
POTW operations. High TSS levels in
the effluent also block light in the
receiving water and inhibit
photosynthesis. Permit writers use
information for these, as well as all
other parameters listed above, to set
appropriate water quality-based limits
for permit applicants. In instances
where POTWs have been allowed to
substitute chemical oxygen demand
(COD) or total organic carbon (TOC) for
BOD 5 , in accordance with 40 CFR
133.104, applicants would report the
substituted parameter.
EPA has determined that enterococci
and H. coii are better biological indicator
organisms than focal coliform. From
1973 through 1982, the Agency studied
marine and freshwater bathing beaches.
These studies reveal strong correlations
between instances of gastrointestinal
illness and concentrations of certain
indicator organisms at these beaches.
That is, in both fresh and marine waters.
enterococci and E. coil were strongly
correlated with gastroenteritis. (For
more Information on this study. see
“Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Bacteria— 1986,” EPA44015—84--002,
January 1986.)
Because high numbers of these
organisms in receiving water indicate an
Increased potential for human
gastrointestinal illness following
swimming or ingestion, and because
both enterococci and E. coli are
contained in all domestic sewage.
indicating the potential for
gastrointestinal Illness, EPA Is
-------
62562 Federal Register I VoL 60, No. 234 I Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
proposing to require all POTWs to test
for these biological indicator organicras
in their discharged effluents. The
Agency is also proposing, however, to
allow the use of fecal coliforni as the
biological indicator for those applicants
where the applicable permitting
authorities have not yet switched to
monitoring requirements for entorococci
and H. coil. EPA solicits comments on
allowing the use of fecal coliform in
cases where permitting authorities have
not switched from using focal coliform
as the pathogen indicator. The Agency
also solicits comment as to whether
testing for enterococci and B. coli
should be required at all before the
Agency has developed approved lest
methods for those parameters.
The Agency proposes that all POTWs
report chlorine and ammonia levels.
EPA ’s experience with toxicity
identification evaluations (TIEs) at
many POTWs indicate that chlorine and
ammonia frequently cause effluent
toxicity. Additional studies also reveal
frequent adverse effects by these
compounds within receiving waters.
Therefore, at POTWs that chlorinate
their wastewaters without subsequent
dechlorination prior to discharge,
chlorine may be present in
concentrations sufficient to cause
toxicity in receiving waters. Ammonia,
which is common in nearly all sanitary
sewage, is highly toxic to aquatic life in
its un-ionized form. The ratio of the
relatively toxic unionized ammonia
form (Nil 3 ) compared with the
considerably less toxic ionized
ammonium form (Nl-L 1 ) Is dependent
on pH and temperature.
Chlorine and ammonia are listed in
many State water quality standards, and
“The Quality Criteria for Water 1986”
(EPA 440/5—88—001, also known as the
“Gold Book”) lists criteria for both
pollutants. Chlorine and ammonia can
react to form chloramines, which can be
toxic, and are more persistent In the
aquatic environment than elemental
chlorine. In estuaries or ocean water,
bromiirnines can also form. Analytical
methods recommended for the
quantification of total residual chlorine
(TAC) also indicate the presence of
chloraniines and bremamines. If a
disinfectant other than chlorine is used,
the permitting authority has the
discretion to require additional data for
that disinfectant. If alternative
disinfection technologies are used, the
applicant must submit a description of
the alternate process.
Depending on the type of treatment
provided, different sampling regimes
may be appropriately required. For
example, POTWs that do not use
chlorination for disinfection, and do not
otherwise use chlorine in their
treatment pr e . perhapa should not
be required to sample for chlorine. The
Agency solicits comment on whether to
waive chlorine data from such POTWa.
EPA criteria for nitrate,, nitrite, and
phosphorus are published In The Gold
Book. Because these parameters are
prevalent in most POTW effluents and
because of their Impacts on receiving
waters, EPA is proposing to require all
applicants to test for them. Nitrogen and
phosphorus are often limiting nutrients
in marine and fresh water systems.
respectively. Excessive loadings of
nitrogen (discharged as ammonia
(including ammonjum), nitrate, nitrite,
and organic nitrogen) and phosphorus
(discharged as phosphate) can stimulate
algae growth, interfering with shoreline
aesthetics and recreational uses. In
addition, decaying algae can reduce
dissolved oxygen concentrations, thus
impairing the aquatic environment At
concentrations not typically
encountered in surface waters, nitrate is
toxic to fish.
Today, EPA proposes monitoring and
reporting requirements for total nitrate
plus nitrite, Kjeldahl nitrogen, and total
phosphate. EPA is proposing to request
the reporting of nitrate plus nitrite,
combined rather than separately.
because the chemical equilibnum
between the two forms can change
rapidly when chemical conditions in
effluents and receiving waters differ.
Such differences can cause
concentration ratios between these two
nitrogen oxide forms to change rapidly
shortly after effluents enter receiving
waters. Thus, separately knowing the
effluent concentrations of nitrate and
nitrite often bears little significance to
their likely concentrations shortly alter
discharge into receiving waters.
Kjeidahl nitrogen concentrations (a
measure of organic nitrogen
concentrations) are requested to allow
permit writers to evaluate the total
concentration and total mass of nitrogen
discharged. determined by summing
concentrations of discharged ammonia,
nitrate plus nitrite, and Kjeldahl
nitrogen, when all are reported La
equivalent nitrogen concentrations
(NH 3 -N and NO .4 ’NO 3 -N). Phosphate
is to be reported in equivalent
phosphorus concentrations (P0 4 —P).
Concentrations of elemental phosphorus
in most effluents occur at less than
potentially toxic levels; consequently,
no reporting requirements are proposed
for elemental phosphorus.
The Cold Book also provides criteria
values on concentrations of oil and
grease. Concentrations of oil and grease
sufficient to create a sheen on the
receiving water not only affect aesthetic
qualifies of these waters, but may also
reduce the re-aeration rate of the
receiving waters, potentially
contributing to dissolved oxygen sag
problems. Oil and grease may also
indicate the presence of other high-
molecular-weight organic pollutants of
concern, because they are often
discharged with or act as a sink for such
pollutants. Finally, oil and grease
interfere with POTW operations.
Therefore, today’s proposal Includes
monitoring and reporting requirements
regarding concentrations of oil and
grease.
Standard Form A currently requires
applicants to test for most of the
parameters discussed above. Today EPA
is proposing to delete reporting
requirements for the following
parameters, which are currently
included on the list for which sampling
is required on Standard Form A:
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Focal Streptococci
Sattleable matter
Total Coliforin Bacteria
Total Organic Carbon
Total Solids
EPA is proposing to delete chemical
oxygen demand (COD) and total organic
carbon (1CC) because biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD 5 or CBOD 5 ) is
generally more relevant to municipal
treatment systems. EPA is proposing to
delete settleable matter and total solidr
because there is considerable overlap
between these parameters and total
suspended solids and total dissolved
solids. The Agency believes that the two
selected parameters provide sufficient
information to permit writers. Finally.
the Agency proposes to drop reporting
requirements for focal streptococci and
total coliform bacteria because the
Agency believes that the selected
pathogens (E. coil, enteracocci: and fecal
coliform) are better indicators for risk.
The Agency requests comments on its
proposal to delete the above Standard
Form A parameters from the proposed
application requirements.
In addition to the parameters
discussed above, Standard Form A
requires that POTWs Indicate the
presence of (but not provide
quantitative data for) certain pollutants.
If known. Such pollutants include
metals, as well as other toxic and non-
conventional pollutants. The Agency is
proposing to require that some POTWs
sample and report on certain toxic
(priority) pollutants. as described in the
discussion. “Reporting of Additional
Pollutants for Some POTWs’ (at
IILB.3.b). The Agency is proposing,
however, not to include P01W
reporting requirements for the following
pollutants listed on Standard Form A:
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 234 I Wednesday. December 6. 1995 I Proposed Rules
62563
Bromide
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfide
kluminuin
Barium
Boron
Cobalt
Iron -
Manganese
Titanium
Tin
Algicides
Chlorinated Organic Compounds
Pesticides
Surfactants
Radioactivity
A number of these parameters
(including bromide, chloride, boron,
cobalt, iron, manganese. titanium, and
tin) are proposed for deletion because
they are relatively less toxic than
priority polhitants for which the Agency
is proposing to require testing (see,
“Reporting of Additional Pollutants for
Some POTWs” (at IILB.3.b)); and the
levels of these pollutants in most
municipal discharges are low. EPA is
proposing to delete algicides, pesticides.
and chlorinated organic compounds
because the Agency does not believe it
is relevant to ask for information about
these contaminants at this level of
generality.
EPA considered, but does not Include
is part of today’s proposal, requirements
that all applicants test and report on
sulfide and sulfate concentrations in
effluents. Sulfide is of concern because
the anaerobic decomposition of sewage
and other naturally deposited organic
material is a major source of hydrogen
sulfide. EPA considered proposing
monitoring requirements for sulfate
because high sulfate concentrations,
which are caused by sewer co?rosion,
are converted anaerobically to hydrogen
sulfide, Hydrogen sulfide is toxic to
aquatic life; it also biologically
reoxidizes on sewer walls that are
exposed to air, forming sulfuric acid
that corrodes the concrete of the sewer
channels. It was considered that, based
on this monitoring information, the
permit writer could set permit limits for
sulfide and sulfate or to require
appropriate best management practices.
These monitoring requirements,
however, were not included as part of
today’s proposed requirements because
of the view that sulfide is rapidly
converted to sulfate in aerobic waters.
which rapidly dissipates its toxic risk.
In most instances, maintaining
monitoring requirements and permit
limits for dissolved oxygen to maintain
ttainable uses of receiving waters will
adequately safeguard receiving waters
from toxic risks due to sulfide or sulfate
potentially contained in effluents.
Regarding corrosivity within the sewer
system, the Agency believes that, In
general, the POTW Is in a better position
than the permit writer to address such
concerns. Special considerations may
lead to the requirement that some
applicants submit analytical results for
these chemicals, as determined on case-
by-case basis. EPA invites comment on
these conclusions.
The Agency also considered testing
for surfactants, but is not proposing to
require such testing as part of this rule
because: most POTWs do not discharge
surfactants at toxic levels; the Agency
has not developed water quality criteria
for surfactants; and sources are difficult
to control. In cases where surfactants in
municipal wastestreams occur at toxic
levels, the Agency believes that whole
effluent toxicity (WET) testing should
reveal any toxicity arising from
surfactants. EPA invites comment on
this approach. -
The Agency also considered including
monitoring requirements for three
additional nonconventional pollutants:
aluminum, barium, and fluoride:
because of their regular appearance in
analytical results from the numerous
pollutant scans reviewed during
preparation of the proposed rule and
because published criteria exist for
these three conventional pollutants. But
such requirements have not been
included on the proposed rule for the
following reasons:
(1) Toxicity problems related to
excess aluminum concentrations,
especially for aquatic organisms, occur
primarily in a idic receiving waters
(most often in waters with pH less than
6.0) having low hardness levels (i.e.,
concentrations of calcium less than 2.0
mgIl). The majority of effluent water
analyses reviewed did not contain
sufficient aluminum conceatra ons to
likely impair beneficial uses of receiving
waters;
(2) Although barium regularly
appeared in the pollutant scans of
effluents reviewed by EPA, the
concentrations reported in all samples
remained below the 1.0 mg/I Gold Book
criterion value for barium in domestic
water supplies: and
(3) According to the 1972 “Blue
Báok”, potentially adverse physiological
effects due to excess fluoride
concentrations increase with increasing
environmental temperatures.
Consequently, recommended criteria for
fluoride range from 1.4 to 2.4 mg/I for
average annual air temperatures of 50 to
91°F. Concentrations for the majority of
reported results from the many
pollutant analyses reviewed by EPA
revealed that although fluoride was a
regular constituent of effluents, in the
majority of the instances It occurred at
concentrations less than suggested Blue
Book criteria.
At this time, based on information
currently available to EPA.
concentrations ofaluminum, barium,
and fluoride in the majority of effluents
are generally less than those necessary
to produce significant risk for beneficial
uses of receiving water. As such, EPA
concludes at this time that it is
unwarranted to require all dlschaxgers
to monitor for these chemicals as part of
the municipal application process.
Individual permit writers can,
nevertheless, require analysis of any or
all of these chemicals, wherever
treatment works or environmental
considerations suggest that such
requirements are warranted. Further.
EPA intends to continually review this
conclusion as more effluent monitoring
results become available, and continues
to seek informed input from outside
EPA on this decision.
b. Reporting of Additional Pollutants for
Some POTWs
As discussed above, the Agency
proposes to require all POTWs to report
information on pollutant parameters
commonly associated with POTW
effluents. Proposed S 122.21(j)(3) (see
also, proposed Part A in the -
Supplemental Application Information
part of Form 2A) requires the reporting
of additional parameters listed in
proposed Appendix J. Table 2. by those
POTWs that the Agency believes are
most likely to discharge toxic pollutants
to receiving waters. Toxic pollutants
may interfere with POTW performance
or pass through the POTW to receiving
waters, thus potentially causing adverse
water quality impacts.
Certain POTWs discharge toxic
organic and Inorganic pollutants
prunanly as a result of contributions
from non-domestic sources. Section
122.21(j)(3)(iii) of today’s proposal
requires the applicant to submit
monitoring data for the pollutants listed
-in proposed Appendix J, Table 2, if the
POTW meets any one of the following
criteria: (1) The POTW has a design flow
rate equal to or greater than 1.0 mgd; (2)
the POTW has a pretreatment program
or is required to have one under 40 CFR
Part 403; or (3) the POTW is otherwise
required to submit this data by the
permitting authority.
POTWs with a design flow equal to or
greater than 1.0 mgd are designated as
“major” POTWs by the Agency. EPA
estimates that roughly 25 percent of the
approximately 16,000 POTWs
nationwide have design flows of at least.
-------
62564 Federal Register / VoL 6q. No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6. 1995 / Proposed Rules
1.0 mgd. The Agency has found that
major POTWs have a high potential to
discharge toxic pollutants because of the
strong likelihood that they receive
industrial wastewaters and becaus, of
the large number of substances entering
the treatment works from various
sources. Therefore, the Agency believes
that it is necessary to collect toxic -
pollutant data from these POTWs.
EPA also proposes to require data on
toxic pollutants from POTWs that are
required to develop pretreatment
programs under 40 CFR Part 403. A
POTW is required to develop a
pretreatment program if it receives
discharges from significant industrial.
users that may interfere with the POTW
or pass through the treatment works.
Approximately ten percent
(approximately 1.500) of all POTWs
have or are required to develop
pretreatment programs. Most FOTWs
with pretreatment programs are also
major POTWs, and so this criterion only
slightly expands the requirements of
this provision.
In addition to POT’iVs with design
flows greater than or equal to 1.0 mgd
and POTWs with pretreatment
programs. EPA is proposing to allow the
permitting authority to require any other
POTW to submit monitoring data for
some or all of the pollutants listed in
proposed Appendix J, Table 2. The
Agency would recommend that the
permitting authority require an
applicant to perform a complete or
partial pollutant scan if toxicity is
known or suspected In a POTW’s
effluent. Alternatively, if the facility’s
effluent causes adverse water quality
effects, or if the POTW discharges to an
impaired receiving water, the permit
writer could require the applicant to
provide analytical results from a -
camp late pollutant scan.
The permit writer could also require
the applicant to test for these parameters
depending on the number or kinds of
Industrial users. EPA Is proposing to
grant the permit writer such discretion
because smaller POTWs that receive
Industrial conthbuti ens also have the
potential to discharge toxic pollutants.
Although a POTW with a desl flow
less than 1.0 mgd may not have as great
a volume of toxic pollutants entering its
treatment system as a larger POTW, the
Impact of its industrial users could
easily be more pronounced due to other
considerations, such as smaller
treatment capacity or an effluent-
dominated receiving stream. Testing for
toxic pollutants would provide the
Information needed to wnte a protective
permit for such a POTW.
The Agency solicits comments on the
3 bove criteria for determining which
POTWs must test effluent for the
pollutants in proposed Appendix J,
Table 2. The Agency also solicits
comment on whether other POTWs
should be required to sample for some
or all of these pollutants. Alternatively.
the Agency solicits comment as to
whether other POTWs should be
required to provide any existing data on
these pollutants. Such data would be
important information in conducting
watershed assessments.
The proposed approach for
determining which POTWs must submit
data on toxic pollutants is not the only
approach being considered by the
Agency. Among the alternatives being
considered is one that would expand
upon the approach described above, and
require toxics data from two groups of
non-pretreatment minors, each of which
includes about half of all minor POTWs.
In this approach, POTWs with a
population between 1.000 and 10,000
(and not otherwise required to report as
described above) would be required to
provide a single pollutant scan for the
Metals, Cyanide. and Total Phenols and
the Volatile Organics groups in
proposed Appendix J, Table 2. POTWs
with a population of less than 1,000
(and not otherwise required to report as
described above) would be required to
provide a single scan for certain metals
i.e.. cadmium, chromium, copper, lead,
nickel, zinc, silver, and mercury). The
Agency specifically solicits comment on
this alternative approach. Commenters
are requested to address the suggested
cutoff points for different levels of
reporting, the pollutants for which
reporting is suggested. and the number
of samples that should be required.
EPA proposes that POTWs meeting
the three criteria enumerated above
monitor for the pollutants in proposed
Appendix J, TabLe 2. and any other
pollutants for which there are
establish d State water quality
standards. Proposed Table 2 is a subset
of the priority pollutants list previously
described. As discussed In the
background discussion of this preamble,
these pollutants are regulated under the
CWA and have been identified by
Congress and/or EPA as potential
threats to human health or aquatic life.
Proposed Table 2 also includes total
phenols, a parameter commonly used as
an Indicator pollutant for certain
priority pollutants. Also as discussed.
EPA and most States have developed
numeric criteria and standards for most
of these pollutants.
Proposed Appendix J, Table 2
represents pollutants that have been
identified in priority pollutant scans of
effluent from POTWs. Permit writers
will be able to use data on these
pollutants as a basis to derive
appropriate permit limits.
The Agency is proposing to not
require pollutant data for certain
priority pollutants (I.e., dioxin, asbestos,
and priority pollutant pesticides).
Available information on the occurrence
of asbestos, dioxin, and priority
pollutant pesticides reveals that these
pollutants rarely occur at detectable
levels in POTW effluents. Absent
information to the contrary, the Agency
does not consider asbestos to be a
pollutant of concern in municipal
wastewater effluents. Dioxin, while
nearly ubiquitous. Is present in such
minute amounts in those industrial
outfalLs where it is known to be present
in relatively high concentrations, that
the Agency does not believe that, in
general, it is appropriate to require
POTWs to monitor for the pollutant at
the POTW outfall, due to the high level
of dilution in municipal wastestreams.
Permitting authorities may wish to
require such monitoring on a case-by-
case basis if there Is reason to believe
that dioxin may be present in
measurable amounts. To the extent that
priority pollutant pesticides. incu - -.
for example. DDT and PCBs, -
municipal wastestrearns. the
believes that their presence is du..
the most part, to background
concentrations, rather than to new
Introductions by discharges to the
POTW. Where these pesticides result in
toxicity problems or where other
conditions merit, the Agency believes
that permitting authorities should
require sampling for them on a case-by.
case basis. In the alternative, the Agency
is considering adding pesticides to the
list of required pollutants in proposed
Appendix I, Table 2. The Agency
solicits cor ment on whether routine
monitoring and screening should be
required for pesticides from all POTWs
meeting the criteria of proposed
§ 122.21(j)(3)(ill) or whether the
proposed approach is the appropriate
one.
EPA also solicits comment on
alternative ways to collect information
in permit application about pollutants
that occur in low levels, such as dioxin.
or that otherwise present water quality
concerns even in highly dilute effluent.
As discussed previously, the proposal
would require information about
significant Industrial users from certain
POTWs so the permit writer should
have sufficient knowledge about the
potential for pass through of such
pollutants. The Agency is interested in
comnientars’ views on the adequacy of
SIU identification for the purposes of
developing adequate FOTW permit
Limitations. Proposed § 122.21(j)(3)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60 . No.234 I Wednesday, December 6, 1995 I Proposed Rules
62565
would also require that POTWs meeting
“q above criteria monitor for pollutants
tisted in proposed Appendix J,
Ae 2. for which the State or EPA have
established State water quality
standards (see discussion in Background
section of this preamble). A number of
States have established water quality
standards for pollutants not listed as
CWA sec. 307(a) priority pollutants. For
the reasons stated in the above
paragraph, the Agency believes that It Is
appropriate to require sampling for
these pollutants, as well.
In addition. EPA considered, but is
not proposing, requiring applicants to
monitor for other pollutants, such as
those on the “Gold Book” list of Federal
Water Quality criteria, those regulated
under the Safe Drinking Water Act, or
those on data bases such as the Toxics
Release Inventory System (TRIS), the
Aquatic Toxicity Information Retrieval
data base (AQUIRE), and the Integrated
Risk Information System (IRIS). The
Agency determined that adding these
other pollutants to the list of pollutants
proposed would impose additional
monitoring and reporting requirements
on the applicant, at substantial
additional cost, but without significant
benefit. Additionally, not all pollutants
on these lists have been assigned
‘ieric criteria. Moreover, available
rmation reviewed by EPA does not
indicate that these chemicals occur with
either sufficient frequency or at high
enough concentrations in typical POTW
effluents to support their inclusion
among pollutants for which monitoring
is proposed to be uniformly required.
Under today’s proposal, in proposed
122.21(j)(3)(v), permit writers would
have the option to require monitoring
and reporting for any other potentially
toxic chemicals for which the authority
has a reasonable basis to suspect that
such materials may be contained in
POTW effluents. Such basis could
include the presence of industrial users
known to release chemicals not
included among the pollutants for
which routine analyses are otherwise
required. EPA invites comments on all
aspects of this proposal that would
allow for case-by.case information
requests that might otherwise extend the
time involved in streamlined permit
issuance procedures.
in addition. EPA solicits comment on
whether to require applicants to
summarize and report. as part of the
application process. analytical results
for any toxic pollutant determined
‘ 1 ”nng the three-year period preceding
application to be a known or likely
.tstituent of the facility’s discharge.
That is, when an applicant has reason
to know or suspect the presence of other
toxic constituents in their effluents, its
reporting requirements would not
necessarily be limited either to the
general list of toxic pollutants provided
by proposed Appendix J, Tables I and
2, or to specific monitoring
requirements placed on the applicant by
the permitting authority. EPA considers
results from toxic release inventory
(TRI) as providing one likely basis for
Information that could cause applicants
to initiate additional effluent monitoring
analyses during the application process.
Finally, the Agency is interested in
providing flexibility where POTWs can
demonstrate that the risk of occurrence
of pollutants in the discharge is
sufficiently small. The Agency seeks
comment on whether POTWs could be
exempted from providing information
on specific pollutants where there are
statistically valid data to allow the
permitting authority to predict the
absence of particular pollutants. In
addition, EPA solicits comments on the
appropriateness of exempting POTWs
from providing information about
certain contaminants which are
detectable in only a small fraction of
POTWs (e.g., less commonly occurring
metals such as antimony) and which
would not be expected to occur based
on other data about the PO ’fl V or the
indirect discharge.
Other approaches to collecting
pollutant data were considered for
proposaL EPA solicits comment on each
of these, as follows: -
A. Types of Industrial Contributors
This approach would have required
monitoring for specific pollutants.
depending on the identity of industrial
users discharging to the POTW.
Although this approach was supported
by a number of commenters in the
course of our outreach efforts, it
appeared to be too difficult to
implement for non-pretreatment
POTWs. Non-pretreatment POTWs are
not required to do user inventories of.
for example. all categorical industries.
and thus would probably be unaware of
what monitoring data to provide. On the
other hand, pretreatment POTWs would
be required to provide entire priority
pollutant scans if they had only 2—3
different types of industries. The
Agency solicits comment on how,
specifically, such an approach would
work and how it would benefit
applicants and provide permit writers
with appropriate information. -
B. TRI as a Basis for Determining
Additional Pollutants for Sampling
It was suggested that we use TRI data
to determine what additional pollutants
for which to require sampling. Although
industrial user TRI reports are not
currently provided to POTWe by TRI-
reporting industries, such reporting
could be required. for example, through
the pretreatment program. Of course,
permit writers maST always request TR1
data from EPA. At issue is whether the
applicant should be required to provide
additional monitoring data for
pollutants reported through TRI. The
Agency solicits comment as to whether
this approach might be feasible and
whether It would provide useful
information to the permit writer that is
not otherwise available.
C. Existing Pollutant Data from SIlls
In order to obtain inforthation on
pollutants that occur in POT’ V
discharges in low concentrations,
permit writers could. make use of
information provided to POTWs by SIUs
during the term of the existing permit
The Agency solicits comment on this
approach. and is particularly interested
in whether such information could be
provided in lieu of requiring end-of-
pipe effluent data for certain pollutants
(e.g., dioxin, pesticides, or other organic
chemicals received principally from
Industrial sources).
D. Ambient Data
Another issue considered was
whether or not to require POTWs to
provide the results of ambient
monitoring as part of the permit
application. Although some have
suggested that this information would
be helpful for implementation of the
watershed approach, States were
generally opposed to requiring POTWs
to collect ambient data. The view was
expressed that it is the permitting
authority’s responsibility to collect this
information, and not the POTW’s
responsibility to provide it.
Nevertheless, the Agency is interested
in soliciting comment as to whether
such data should be required.
H. Bioaccumulation Data
Although analytical methods to assess
bioaccumulation in the aquatic biota are
available, they are costly compared to
approved test methods for pollutants in
effluent. Since WET tests are an indirect
indicator for human health risks, the
Agency is not proposing to require
bioaccwnulation data from POT%Vs.
However, such data are directly relevant
to human health risk considerations.
Therefore, the Agency solicits comment
on whether to require bioaccuniulation
data. Because of cost considerations, the
Agency also solicits comment as to what
tradeoffs, in terms of other types of
reporting. might make such an approach
acceptable.
-------
82566 Federel Register / VoL 60, No. 234 / Wednesday. December 6. 1995 I Proposed Rules
4. Effluent Monitoring For Whole (1) requiring all minor POTWs not
Effluent To3aQty . covered under the above terla to
As discussed in the background -. submit the results of a minimum of one
section, the July 24. 1990, amendments ‘WET test, so as to allow the permitting
to the c ei R tiO11 authority to scan for minor POTWe that
require that certain POThTs provide the may have toxlctty problems; and
results of whole effluent bIological (2) where a State has Identified a
toxicity testing as part aitheir NPDES watershed as a priority watershed,
permit application (411 122.21(j) requiring one or more WET ’ tests for all
(1)—(3)). Such testing was required to - ‘0 ’l ” ’1 5 discharging to the watershed.
have been conducted since the la Third. the Agency proposes to require.
.NPI)ES permit reiss”sinrn or permit * j’ for e from the
modification, under 40 CFR 122.62(a). treatment works (not Including CSOs).
whichever €i i . with exceptions foridentical outfalls
In today’s proposed rule, EPA to those proposed for pollutant
- proposes to revise this provision, specific data, as discussed above.
Proposed § 122.21(j)(4) setsforth thes& Proposed § 122.Z1(j)(4) WoUld
revised that data be separately provided for each
are required to identify any biological outfall through which treated sanitary
tests the applicant believes to have been effluent Is dIsr hnrged to waters of the
conducted within three years of United States. EPA proposes to allow
of application. the applicant. where the POTW has two
Second. as in the existing regulation, or more outfalls with substantially
the following POTWe would be required Identical effluents diachirging to the
to conduct and provide the results of S O receiving stream, and with the
whole effluent biological toxicity ET’) approval of the permitting authority on
tests a. case-by-case basis, to provide the
(A) All POTWa with design Influent results of WET testing from only one
equal to- or greater than one million outfall as representative of all such
outfalls. For outfalls to be considered
with approved substantially Identical, they should at a
pretreatment programs or POTWS minimum be located at the same
required to develop a piutreatinent treatment plant, be subject to the same
prt am. level of treatment and have passed
Other POTWs, as required by the through the same types of treatment
Director, based upon consideration of processes. The Agency solicits comment
the following factors: On this approach and, particularly. on
(1) The variability of the pollutants or whether WET test data should be
pollutant parameters In the POTW separately collected from all such
effluent (based on chiimlrnl.specific outfalls.
information, the type of treatment The existing WET testing
- facility. and types of Industrial - requirements do not specify the number
contributors); or frequency of tests required. the
(2) The dilution of the effluent in the number of species to be used, or
receiving water (ratio of effluent flow to whether to provide the results of acute
receiving stream flow); .. C chronic toxicity tests. Proposed -
(3) ExistIng controls on point ornon- § 122.21(1li4) sets minimum reporting
point sources. including total maxjnium requirements of four quarterly tests for
daily load 1rnlntIOfl1 for the water a year, using multiple species (no less
body segment and the relative i than two species. e.g., flab.. Invertebrate.
,contrlbution of the POTW; -. . plant), an testing for acute or chronic
(4) ReceIving stream charaderistica, toxicity, depending on the range of
Including possible or known water receiving water dilution. This proposal
quality Impairment. and whether the Is based In part on Agency guidance.
P0 1W dIscharges to a coastal water; one and in part on Agency experience in the
- of the Great Lake’ , or a water designated lm ementation of that guidance.
as an outstanding natural resource; or ‘ March 1991. EPA issued guidance
(5) Other considerations (including establithlng Agency policy for WET
but not Limited to the history of toxic testing protocols (see “Technical
Impact and compliance problems at the Support Document for Water Quality”
POflN). which the Director determines Based To,dcs Control (1991).” or
could cause or contribute to adverse “TSD1. In that document, tile Agency
water quality Impacts. -recommended “as a minimum that three
The Agency specifically solicits species (for example. a vertebrate, an
comment on whether the requirement to invertebrate, and a plant) be tested
conduct WET testing should be quarterly for a rni.rumum of a year”.(sae.
extended to other POTW8 . The Agency TSD p. 58). In making this
Is considering several options, recommendation, the Agency explained
Includ lnç that the use of three species is more
protective than two species since a
wider range of species sensitivity can b .
measured. In practice, however, a
number of permitting authorities are
-only requiring the use of two species.
Since existing requirements for using
three species are less common, the
Agency proposes to require the use of
“multiple species.” The Agency
proposes this as a minimum
requirement, and does not intend It as
a change In the policy recommendations
outlined In the TSD.
In setting a minimum frequency of
quarterly testing for a year. the Agency
Indicated that this was recommended to
adequately assess the variability of
toxicity observed in effluents, as
follows:
Below this minhinum the chances of
missing toxic events Inorease. The toxicity
test result for the moat sensitive of the tested
species is considered to be the measured
toxicity for a particular effluent sample.
The data generation recommendations
• a represent minim testing
requirements. Since uncertainty regarding
whether or not an effluent causes toxic
Impact is reduced with more data. EPA
recommends that this test frequency be
Lnaeased where necessary to adequately
assess effluent variability. If less frequent
testing Is required In the permit. It I.
preferable to use three spades tested less
frequently than to test the effluent more
frequently with only a single species whose
Sensitivity to the effluent Is not well
characterized. SD. p. 59)
It I. the Agency’s understanding that
many permitting authontles currently
require quarterly testing. While other
permitting authorities require less
frequent monitoring, at least from some
facilities. In many Instances such
information Is being collected on a
yearly basis. This proposal would only
require one cycle of quarterly testing
within three years of the date of the
permit application (Le., only once Lu
fly. years). The Agency solicits
cnTnment on whether this is an
appropriate frequency, and specifically
wheth& permitting authorities should
be allowed to waive quarterly testing on
a case-by-case basis. Commenters
should Indicate what specific oriteria
would have to be met for such a waiver.
The current whole effluent toxicity
testing requirements, at § 122.21W. do
not specify whether applicants should
test for acute or chronic toxicity. An
acute toxicity test is defined as a test of
96-hours or less in duration in which
lethality (of the test org nicm) is the
measured endpoint A chronic toxicity
test is defined as a long-term test in
which sublethal effects, such as
fertilization. growth. and reproduction,
are usually measured. in addition to
lethality. (TSD. p.4.)
-------
Federal Register / VoL 60, No. 234 I Wednesday. December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
62567
The Agency proposes that testing for
acute or chronic toxicity be based upon
die ratio of receiving water to effluent at
the edge of the nuxing zone. The term
“mixing zone” refers to an area around
an outfall within which a State may
allow ambient concentrations above
water quality criteria levels. States may
have two or more mixing zones (e.g., an
acute mixing zone, beyond which acute
criteria must be met. and a chronic
mixing zone, beyond which chronic
criteria must be met). Not all States
allow calculation of effluent limitations
using mixing zones, and mixing zones
are not universally allowed by States
that do allow use of mixing zones. For
purposes of determiiiing whether acute
or chronic toxicity testing is
appropriate, the ratio of receiving water
to effluent should be considered at the
point nearest to the outfall where water
quality criteria are required to be met.
This proposal incorporates the
recommendations of the 1991 TSD,
which stated that applicants should
conduct acute or chronic testing based
upon the following dilutions:
(A) Acute toxicity testing if the
dilution of the effluent Is greater than
1000:1 at the edge of the mixing zone
(B) Acute or chronic toxicity testing If
the dilution of the effluent is between
100:1 and 1000:1 at the edge of the
nthdng zone. Acute testing may be more
appropriate at the higher end of this
range (1000:1), and chronic testing may
be more appropriate at the lower end of
this range (100:1); and
(C) Chronic testing if the dilution of
the effluent is less than 100:1 at the edge
of the mixing zone. (See TSD, pp. 58—
59.) Ia order to determine the proper
dilution ratio, measurement should be
made at the point where chronic criteria
apply. Thus, where there is a chronic
mixing zone, the dilution ratio should
be measured at the edge of the chronic
mixing zone. It may be inappropriate to
use an acute test if there is too little
dilution.
Although the Agency is not proposing
to require that applicants follow these
recommendations, the Agency believes
that they are reasonable, based on the
discussion in the TSD. For example.
with regard to the use of chronic
toxicity testing where the dilution ratio
falls below 100:1, the Agency stated,
“ [ tihe rationale for this recommendation
Is that chronic toxicity has been
observed In some effluents down to the
1,0 percent effect concentration.
Therefore, chronic toxicity tests,
although somewhat more expensive to
conduct, should be used directly In
order to make decisions about toxic
impact” (TSD, p. 59.) The Agency
solicits comment as to whether these
recommendations should instead be
added as requirements in the .nal rule.
The whole effluent toxicity testing
requirements that currently exist, at
§ 122.21(j), do not specify which
information must be reported as a result
of such testing. To clarify reporting
requirements for the applicant and the
permit writer, EPA today proposes
specific reporting requirements in
§ 122.21ffl(4). First, applicants required
to perform WET tests under the
proposed rule are required to indicate
the number of tests performed since
permit reissuance and since any
modification of the permit pursuant to
40 CFR 122.82(a). It Ia up to the
permitting authority to determine
whether previously submitted results
provide the equivalent of the
information proposed to be required.
Proposed § 122.21(j)(4)(v) sets forth In
detail the Information that the Agency
believes will provide the permit writer
with adequate information to determine
whether the test was conducted In
accordance with EPA methods and
protocols and whether the reported
results are otberwise valid. The Agency
solicits comment on whether the
information requested is the proper
information to require or whether other
information should be required.
Induding for purposes of quality
‘assurance. As in the current regulatory
requirements, in conducting the testing.
applicants must use EPA-approved
methods. The Agency solicits comment
on this approach.
Where biornonitoring data have been
submitted to the permitting authority
within three years of the permit
application, applicants would be
required t o provide the dates on which
such data were submitted and a
summary of the results of each such test,
Where any WET test conducted within
three years prior to the permit
application reveals toxicity, proposed
§ 122.21(j)(4)(vi) would require that
applicants. at a minimum, provide any
information they may have on the cause
of toxicity. Further, applicants would be
required to provide written details of
any toxicity reduction evaluation
conducted. Toxicity reduction
evaluations (TEEs) are used to
Investigate the causes and sources of
toxicity and identify the effectiveness of
corrective actions to reduce it. The
purpose of a TRE is to help bring
dlschargers into compliance with water
quality-based whole effluent toxicity
requirements where monitoring
indicates unacceptable effluent toxicity.
The permitting authority may require a
perrnIttee to conduct a TEE in those
cases where the discharger is unable to
adequately explain and immediately
correct non-compliance with a whole
effluent toxicity permit limit or
requirement TEEs may be required of
permittees under existing permits or
through a variety of other legally
binding mechanisms. Since the results
from TREs may have considerable
Impact in the evaluation of municipal
permit applications, this kind of
Information would need to be available
to the permit writer. It is recommended
that applicants conducting a TEE at the
time of permit application would
provide a brief summary of the status
and results from the ongoing TEE.
The Agency solicits comment on all of
the above proposed revisions to the
existing WEt’ test requirements,
5. IndustrIal Dischargei. Pretreatment.
and RCRAJCERCL.A Waste
Today’s proposed rule would require
applicants to provide information on
Industrial (non-domestic) discharges to
the POTW, particularly discharges from
significant Industrial users (SIUs). This
Information is to be required by
proposed § 122.21(1115).
Proposed § 122.21Q)(5)(i) would
require the applicant to list the total
number of significant industrial users
(SIUs) and categorical industrial users
discharging to the POTW. to estimate
the average daily flow from these users
and from all industrial (non-domestic)
users, and to estimate the percent of
total Influent contributed by each class
of users. This Information provides the
permit writer with a means of
determining the relative impact.
individually and collectively, of
Industrial contributions to the POTW.
As defined in 40 CFR 403.3. the terra
“Industrial user” means “a source of
indirect discharge,” which in turn is
defined as the introduction of pollutants
Into a POTW from any non-domestic
source regulated under sec. 30 7(b), (c),
or (d) of the CWA. In general, this term
encompasses industrial and commercial
sources of toxic pollutants discharging
to POTWs. Commercial entities such as
hospitals, nursing homes, restaurants.
offices, and stores may be included.
A categorical industrial user is any
discharger subject to categorical —
pretreatment standards under 40 CFR
403.6 and 40 CFR Chapter 1. Subchapter
N. “Significant industrial user” is
defined at 40 R 403.3(t) as any
categorical Industrial user and any other
Industrial user that:
(1) discharges an average of 25.000
gallons per day or more of process
wastewater to the POT’wV (excluding
sanitary. non-contact cooling and boiler
blowdown wastewater);
(2) contributes a process wastestreaxn
which makes up 5 percent or more of
-------
62568 Federal Register I Vol. 80, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6. 1995 1 Proposed Rules
the average dry weather hydraulic or
organic capacity of the POTW; or
(3) is designated as such by the
control authority (40 C R 403.12(a))
because of a reasonable potential to
adversely affect the POTW’s operation
or violate pretreatment requirements.
Proposed § 122.21 (J)(5)Ui) would
require POTWs with approved
pretreatment prograrasto describe any
substantial modifications to the POTW’s
pretreatment program that have not yet
been approved In accordance with 40
‘R 403.18. EPA is considering revising
the pretreatment regulations to
streamline approved program
requirements. Such revisions may make
the need for this Information
unnecessary.
Proposecfg 122.21(j)(5)(iil) would
require information on individual
significant Industrial users (SIUs)
discharging to POTWs. This provision is
cITnilRr to questions currently found on
Standard Form A. The Agency desires to
incorporate into the final rule
provisions that reduce duplication of
effort. One possible way is to allow the
applicant to reference substantially
qirniI r information about Sills
previously submitted to the permitting
authority rather than to resubmit the
Information. The Agency solicits
comments on using this approach In the
final rule and suggestions of other
possible options. EPA is also
considering whether to waive, either
entirely or on a case-by-case basis, such
reporting for any POTW with an
approved pretreatment program under
40 CFR Part 403 that submits an annual
report within the year preceding its
application to the extent that the annual
report contains Information equivalent
to that required in proposed Section M.
The Agency solicits comment on this
question.
The proposed provision requires
POTWs to provide the following
information for each Sm: Name and
mailing address, description of the
Industrial processes affecting the
discharge. principal products and raw
materials, average daily volume of
process and non•procesa wastewater
,discharged, and whether the SIU is
subject to local limits or categorical
pretreatment standards. The description
of each Sm’s industrial activity and its
principal products and raw materials
alerts the permit writer to the potential
presence of pollutants in the discharge
in concentrations that may be of
concern to the POT’vV, and can be useful
in establishing permit Limits.
Information on the average daily volume
of process wastewater discharged helps
the permit writer to estimate pollutant
loads to the POTW. Knowing the
volume of non-process wastewater
dl.echarged will alert both the permit
writer and the POTW to the possibility
of hydraulic overload to the system, and
wilj help (he tft/ mIn4mIa such
occurrences.
Currently, Standard Form A requires
the applicant to identify the quantities
of product manufactured and raw
materials used by each SIIJ. The Agency
is not proposing to require this
information In today’s proposal because
neither the amount of production nor
the amount of raw materials used
necessarily correlates directly to the
toxicity of the waste stream. For
example, the SIU might use all of the
raw material and release little Into the
waste stream. The Agency is instead
requesting a narrative description of
products and raw materials involved In
the industrial activity.
Standard Form A also requires the
applicant to characterize each Sill’s
Industrial discharge. Although this
Information may be necessary to
establish permit limits at some POTWs,
this question appears to be unnecessary.
In many cases, the permit writer is able
to determine parameters of concern
from the principal products and raw
materials for that industrial user. In
other cases the permit writer may
request this information on a case-by.
case basis.
The proposed provision would also
require the applicant to describe any
problems at the POTW attributable to
wastewater discharged by Sills
Identification of such problems is
necessary to set permit limits tur
pollutants that the POTW mi ht riot
adequately remove, and should tiad to
other strategies for control of toxic
pollutants, such as: more sth.ngent local
limits or other pretreatment
requirements; best management
practices, if the toxic pollutants appear
to be from diffuse sources; or toxicity
reduction evaluations (TREs), if toxicity
testing shows that the effluent causes an
excursion above water quality standards
in the receiving stream. instances of
pass through and interference identified
In this step will alert the permit writer
to violations of the POTW s PDES
permit.
6. Discharges From Hazardous Wiiste
Sources
Proposed § 122.21(j)(6) would require
applicants to provide general
information concerning diccharges of
RCRA hazardous wastes to POTWs and
discharges ftom hazardous waste
cleanup or remediauon sites The
purpose of this information is to alert
the permit writer to potential concerns
regarding the constituents of such
discharges.
Proposed § 122.21(j)(5)(I) would
require the applicant to provide
Information about any hazardous
wastes, as defined under Subtitle C of
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (R( A). or authorized
State law, that are delivered to the
facility by truck, rail, or dedicated pipe.
This requirement does not apply to
RCRA hazardous wastes discharged to a
sewer system that mix with domestic
sewage before reaching the POTW,
because the Domestic Sewage Exclusion
(sec. 1004(27) of RCRA) provides thar
solid or dissolved material in domestic
sewage is not solid waste as defined in
RCRA, and therefore is not a hazardous
waste.
If the POTW receives RCRA
hazardous waste by truck, rail, or
dedicated pipe, the applicant must list.
for each waste tecelved, the hazardous
waste number, quantity, and method by
which it is received. The permit writer
would use this information to
coordinate appropriate RCRA
requirements including, where
appropriate, additional permit terms to
address such requirements. In addition.
this Information will enable permitting
authorities to identify potential impact
in the POTW’s discharge.
In order to establish appropriate
permit requirements. the permit writer
also needs to be aware of wastewaters
discharged to the POTW that originate
from remedial activities conducted
under the Comprehensive
EAvironmental Response. Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA), the RCRA
corrective action program, or other
authorities. POTWs are sometimes used
for the disposal of wastewaters
generated during remedlatlon of
CERCLA (Superfund) sites or during
RCM corrective action activities at
industrial facilities. Paragraphs (ifl—(iv).
In proposed § 122.21(j)(6), would
require the applicant to identify
wastewaters frnrn remedial activities
known or expected to be received
during the life of the permit, the origin
of such wastes and the treatment, if
known, that such wastes receive pnor to
entering the POTW. This Information is
intended to help the permit writer
decide whether to establish additional
monitoring or permit requirements for
the effluent and sewage sludge
7. Combined Sewer Overflows
in developing permit requirements to
meet BAT/BCr using BPJ and to meet
applicable water quality standards for
CSO discharges, the permit writer
requires certain information. To ensure
that the permit writer has the necessary
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 234 I Wednesday. December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
62569
information, A proposes to require
information that reflects the Agency’s
1994 CSO Control Policy (see discussion
In background section). This paragraph
is intended to complement, and not
overlap, other reporting that POTWs
may be required to provide by the
NPDES authority In accordance with the
CSO Control Policy.
Proposed § 122.21(j)(7)(i) would
require information about the combined
sewer system (CSS). Including a system
map and system diagram that describe
the relevant features of the system.
Applicants are also required to Identify
the number of CSO discharge points to
be covered by the permit application.
Because municipalities with CSOs often
have more than one treatment plant,
different POTW permits may Include
different outfalls from their CSS.
Similarly, proposed § 122.21(j)(7)(lI)
would require that applicants provide
information on each outfall speci&ally
covered by the application. This
includes some locational Information
similar to that for outfalls of treated
effluent in proposed § 122.21(I)(2L
paragraphs (I) and (11). As discussed
previously, this sort of locational data is
consistent with Agency policy
concerning the reporting of such
Information. It also provides permitting
authorities with a means of locating
dischargers within the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service watershed
categorization system, a State’s river
basin categorization system. and the
U.S. Geological Survey cataloging
scheme.
This provision would also require
information about any monitoring
conducted on the outfall by the
applicant and any CSO incidents that
occurred in the year previous to the
permit application. Finally, proposed
§ 122.21(fl(7)Ul)(E) would require the
permittee to identify any significant
Industrial users (see discussion on
pretreatment and industrial user
Information) that contribute to the CSO
and to describe any known water
quality Impacts . such as beach or
shellfish bed closings and fish kills. The
Agency considers this to be a minimal
amount of information to be provided to
the permit writer, innemuch as the
permit writer must have adequate
information to specifically authorize
discharges at each of the identified
outfalls.
8. Contractors
Proposed § 122.21(j)(8) would require
the applicant to identify all contractors
responsible for any operation or
maintenance aspects of the P01W and
to specify such contractors’
responsibilities. This Information
enables the permit writer to determine
who has primary responsibility for the
operation and maintenance of the
P01W; and thus determine whether a
contractor should be included on the
permit as a co-permittee.
9. Certification
Proposed § 122.21(j)(9) would require
the signature of a certifying official in
compliance with 40 CFR 122.22, which
requires the signature of a certifying
official on all NPDES applications. The
certification would apply to all
attnr.hments identified on the
application form, as well as any others
Included by the applicant.
10. RevIsion to Pretreatment Program
Requirements
Existing § 122.21(j) (iv) requires
applicants with a pretreatment program
to provide a technical evaluation of the
need to revise local limits, under 40
CFR 403.5(c)(1). SInce 1990, when that
requirement was promulgated, the
Agency has received numerous requests
to change the provision to make It
effective after the date of permit
Issuance. The concern has been raised
that a P01W most needs to review Us
local limits after permit reissuance,
when new permit limits are In place.
rather than prior to permit reissuance.
The Agency agrees with these
comments and proposes to make this
change. In order to be clear, the
provision has been reworded and is
proposed to be moved to 40 CFR
403.8(0(4), with the existing P01W
pretreatment program requirements. The
Agency solicits comment on this
approach.
C. Application Requirements for
TWTDS (40 CFR 122.21(q))
Under § 122.21(d)(3)(li), POTWs and
other treatment works treating domestic
sewage ( ‘flPiTDS) are currently required
to submit the sewage sludge information
listed at § 501.15(a)(2) with their permit
applications. Today A proposes
regulatory language at § 122.21(q) to
update the information that must be
reported. Proposed revised
§ 501.15(a)(2) would reference the
requirements of proposed § 122.21(q).
A also proposes a new form, Form 2S,
for collection of this information.
Section (q) would require all TWTDS,
except “sludge-only” facilities, to report
Information regarding sewage sludge
generation. treatment, use, and disposal.
The permitting authority may also
require a “sludge-only” facility to
submit a permit application containing
this Information. These proposed new
requirements are Intended to clarify
existing sewage sludge apphcation
requirements, an necessary to
Implement the Agency’s Part 503
standards for sewage sludge use or
disposaL
As with the proposed P01W
application requirements. the Agency
does not wish to require redundant
reporting by TWIDS. Thus, the Agency
Is proposing to allow a waiver for
information required to be reported
under § 122.21(q) similar to that
proposed for § 122.21(j). This would
allow the Director to waive any
requirements in proposed paragraph (q)
if the DIrector has access to
substantially Identical Information. The
Agency solicits comment on this
approach and the proposed conditions
for allowing such a waiver.
Also as with the proposed P01W
application requirements, the Agency
also solicits comment on ways to allow
the permit writer or permitting authority
discretion In waiving particular
Information where the permitting
authority determines that such
information is not necessary for the
application. In other s ords, there may
be fleidble ways to look at each
applicant In light of the overall “matrix
of characteristics” regarding a particular
facility. Where, for example, historical
data indicate that additional sampling is
not warranted unless other conditions
have changed. the Agency is
considering waiving such sampling.
Such flexibility would involve a holistic
approach to implementing these
proposed requirements, and the Agency
solicits comment as to ways in which it
could be accomplished without making
these provisions entirely discretionary,
so that one could predict the exercise of
discretion. This might be particularly
relevant on the second and subsequent
rounds of permitting under these
proposed provisions. The Agency also
seeks comment on what information
might be appropriate and what
Information might be inappropriate for
such waivers.
1. Facility Information
Proposed § 122.21(q)(1) would require
summary Information on the identity,
size, location, and status of the facility.
Proposed paragraph (ii) would request
that the facility location be described by
latitude and longitude to the nearest
second. This information meets the
specifiratlons of EPA’s Locational Data
Policy and supports the Watershed
Protection Approach, by providing
permit writers and other Federal and
State environmental managers with a
means of geographically locating
potential sources of polluted runoff.
EPA believes that this change would
-------
62570 Federal Register / Vol. 60. No . 234 / Wednesday, December 8. 1995 / Proposed Rules
merely clarify, without expanding, an
existing reporting requirement.
2. ApplIcant Information
Proposed § 122.21(q)(2) would require
Information concemmg the identity of
the applicant and its status as a Federal.
State, private, public, or other entity.
3. Permit Information
Proposed § 122.21(q)(3) restates the
§ 501.15(a)(2)(v) requirement that the
applicant list the facility’s NPDES
permit number and any other permit
numbers or construction approvals
received or applied for under varous
authorities.
4. Federal Indian Reservations
Proposed § 122.2 1(q)(4) clarifies
existing § 501.15(a)(2)(iv), which asks
only “whether the facility is located on
Indian Lands.” A sewage sludge use or
disposal permit, however, may cover
acthritles occurring beyond the
boundaries of the “facility.” Therefore,
the proposed paragraph asks whether
any generation, treatment, storage, land
application, or disposal of sewage
sludge occurs on a Federal Indian
Reservation. EPA believes that this
Information will better enable the
permit writer to Identify the proper
permitting authority and applicable
requirements.
5. Topographic Map
Proposed § 122.21(q)(5) would require
the applicant to submit the following
Information on a topographic map (or
maps) depicting the area one mile
beyond the property boundaries of the
TWTDS: All sewage sludge management
facilities, all water bodies, and all wells
used for drinking water listed in public
records or otherwise known to the
applicant within 1/4 mile of the
property boundaries. This proposed
requirement is different from the
existing topographic map requirement at
§ 501.15(a)(2)(vi) In that the proposed
requirement asks for Information on use
and disposal sites rather than just
disposal sites. EPA believes that It is
just as important to get Inormatlon on
land application sites as on disposal
sites. Neither the existing northe
proposed requirements request a map
for sites that extend more than a mile
beyond the TWTDS’s pro’ier y
boundary. The permiffin; rn rity
could request maps of ail or
disposal sites ii they believø ‘ i.ic iii
information is necessary to db k p
adequate permits. EPA requests
comments on whether maps he’i!d he
required for all use or dispo’i ! it4 . o
whether this requueme it shci. . d he
niodifled L s . ‘ ot ier way
8. Sewage Sludge Handling
Proposed § 122.21(q)(6) would require
the applicant to prepare a flow diagram.
and/or a narrative description that
Identifies all sewage sludge
management practices (Including on-site
storage) to be employed during the life
of the permit EPA believes that this
information is necessary because the
applicant may employ sewage sludge
management practices not covered
under the more specific questions
proposed in today’s rule. To draft a
complete permit. the permit writer must
be aware of all sewage sludge storage,
use, or disposal practices that may have
an adverse affect on public health and
the environment. EPA requests
comments on whether more specific
Information about on-site and off-site
storage of sewage sludge should be
required of permit applicants.
7. Sewage Sludge Quality
Currently, § 501.15(a)(2)(vii) requires
applicants to report “any sludge
monitoring data the applicant may
have.” However, this requirement
neither identifies the parameters that
must be reported nor provides a
mechanism for reporting this
Information. Proposed Form 2S and
§ 122.21(cij(7) would address this need
by requiring monitoring data for specific
parameters in sewage sludge that is used
or disposed.
Proposed paragraph (i) of
§ 122.21 (qR7) would require all Class I
sludge management facilities to submit
the resuLts of at least one toxicity
characteristic leaching procedure
(TCLP) conducted during the last five
years to determine whether the sewage
sludge is a hazardous waste. The TCLP
is described in 40 CFR Part 261,
Appendix II. and is a method for
determining whether a solid waste
exhibits the characteristic of toxicity, In
accordance with 40 CFR 261.24. 40 G’R
Part 503 does not establish requirements
for the use or disposal of sewage sludge
determined to be hazardous under the
procedures in Appendix II of 40 CFR
Part 261 and § 261.24. Hazardous
sewage sludge must be used or disposed
of In accordance with the hazardous
waste regulations in 40 CFR Pars 261—
268, or authorized State law. Using the
results of the hazardous waste test, the
permitting authority will detehnme
which requier erits ipply to the use or
disposal of the applicant’s sewage
sludge. EPA requests comments on
w ’ithn fac:htio chould be allowed to
i ‘o method other than a TCLP to show
t 1 Ir cHw3g’) sli,d e is non.
hazar4r vi and whether non-Class I
sludge management facilities should be
required to perform a TCLP.
Proposed paragraph (H) of
§ 122,21(qJ(7) would require all
applicants to submit data on Individual
pollutants in the sewage sludge.
Existing data could be submitted if It
were two years old or less. EPA is
proposing a two-tier approach for
collection of pollutant data that is based
on whether the treatment works has an
Industrial wastewater pretreatment
program.
Under the two-tier approach, Class I
sludge management facilities would
submit sewage sludge data for the
pollutants listed in proposed 40 CFR
Part 122, Appendix J, Table 2 (“Effluent
and Sewage Sludge Parameters for
Selected POTWs and Treatment Works
Treating Domestic Sewage”) and Table
3 (“Other Effluent and Sewage Sludge
Parameters for Treatment Works
Treating Domestic Sewage and Selected
POTWs”) and for other selected
pollutants, as part of the application for
a permit for the use or disposal of
sewage sludge. Other TWTDS would be
required to submit data for the
pollutants regulated In Part 503 and for
other selected pollutants.
a. Class I sludge management
facilities. A Class I sludge managr -
facility is any POTW required tc
an approved pretreatment program
under 40 CFR 403.8(a) and any TWTDS
classified as a Class I sludge
management facility because of the
potential for the TWTDS’s sewage
sludge use or disposal practice to affect
public health and the environment
adversely. Under today’s proposal a
Class I sludge management facility
would submit sewage sludge
concentration data for all the prionty
pollutants. except asbestos, as listed in
Tables 2 and 3 of Appendix J; for the
Part 503 pollutants: and for total
kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), ammonia,
nitrate, and phosphorus (total).
EPA is proposing to require Class I
sludge management facilities to submit
data on the priority pollutants because
they are known to have adverse effects
on human health and the environment
and are of concern to the general public.
Since sewage sludge from Class I sludge
management facilities has an industrial
component. It is important to reassure
the public that this sewage sludge will
not cause harm if it is used or disposed
according to Part 503. A pollutant scan
every five years should help promote
the beneficial use of sewage sludge by
dcmonstratlng its quality. If any
pollutants that are not regulated by Part
503 show up in the scan, the results
would enable the permitting authority
to determine whether additional permit
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 234 / Wednesday. December 6. 1995 / Proposed Rules
62571
conditions (I.e., in addition to the
requirements in Part 503) are necessary
to protect public health and the
environment.
Many Class I sludge management
facilities are already required by their
pretreatment program to monitor their
sewage sludge for these pollutants. In
addition, many State sewage sludge
programs require monitoring for some or
all of these pollutants. EPA seeks
comments on this approach.
Section 405(d) of the CWA
contemplates a phased approach to
establishing numerical limits for
pollutants In sewage sludge that is used
or disposed. Moreover. sec. 405(d)(2)(D)
of the CWA provides that “ [ flrom time
to time, but not less often than every 2
years. the Administrator shall review
the regulation * * for the purpose of
identifying additional pollutants and
promulgating regulations for such
pollutants a a a”
The Standards for the Use or Disposal
of Sewage Sludge that were published
on February 19, 1993, constitute Round
One of EP4t’s sewage sludge standards
program. The Agency has identified a
tentative List of pollutants for which
limits will be established in a Round
Two regulation (i.e.. an amendment to
the Round One regulation) and has
announced a tentative schedule for the
publication of that amendment.
Pollutants on the tentative list for the
Round Two regulation include acetic
acid (2.4..dichlorophenoxy). aluminum.
antimony*, asbestos, barium,
berylliujn*, boron. butanone (2-), carbon
disulfide, cresol (p-). cyanide (soluble
salts and cornplexes)*, dioxin/
dibenzofuran (all monochloro to
octochloro congeners), endsul.fan -Il,
fluoride, manganese, methylene
chioridea, mtratea, nitritea.
pentachloronitrobenzene, phenol.
phthaiate (bis.2.ethylhexyl)*,
polychlorinated biphenyls (co-planar).
propanone (2.), slivera, thajltuma. tin
titanium, toluenea,
trich.lorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4.5.).
trichlorophenoxypropionic acid ((2-
(2,4,5.)), and vanadium. EPA has
indicated that it retains the discretion
either to add to or delete pollutants from
the above list of pollutants.
The Agency is considering adding the
above pollutants to the list of pollutants
for which data have to be submitted by
Class I sludge management facilities
with a permit application. Eleven of the
above pollutants are included in Tables
2 or 3 of proposed Appendix J or are
nutrients (see pollutants marked with an
asterisk). Therefore, this approach
would require that Class I sludge
management facilities submit data for 20
additional pollutants. The Agency
requests comments on this proposaL
b. All T1VTDS. Part 503 contaIns
pollutant limits for ten inorganic
pollutants for sewage sludge that Is land
applied (subpart B). three inorganic
pollutants for sewage sludge placed on
an unlined surface disposal site (subpart
C). and five inorganic pollutants for
sewage sludge fired in a sewage sludge
incinerator (subpart E). There are no
pollutant limits in Part 503 for sewage
sludge placed on a lined surface
disposal site or for sewage sludge placed
in a municipal solid waste landfill unit.
The pollutants for which limits are
included in Part 503 are arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, copper. lead,
mercury, molybdenum. nickel.
selenium, and zinc. Part 503 also
contains an operational standard for
pathogens (I.e.. fecal colllorm.
Salmonella sp. bacteria, enteric viruses,
and viable helminth ova) and for total
hydrocarbons (mc). The operational
standards for pathogens are values that
can not be exceeded in sewage sludge
and the operational standard for THC is
a value that can not be exceeded In the
air emlsmons for a sewage sludge
incinerator stack.
With today’s rulemaking, EPA
proposes that applicants for a sewage
sludge use or disposal permit submit
sewage sludge concentration data for all
of the Part 503 inorgapic pollutants. The
permitting authority needs to determine
whether a TWTDS can change its use or
disposal practice If the need arises. Data
for all of the Part 503 pollutants will
help the permitting authority make that
determination.
The Agency is aware that many
TWTDS employ only one sewage sludge
use or disposal practice, and that such
treatment works may object to
submitting data for pollutants that are
not regulated for that practice.
Nevertheless. EPA believes that the
additional information burden to collect
and submit data for all of the Part 503
pollutants is offset by the value of the
data to the permitting authority. The
Agency solicits comments on whether
an applicant should be required to
submit data only for the pollutants
regulated for the TWTDS’s use or
disposal practice.
As indicated previously, EPA also
proposes that all applicants submit
sewage sludge data for TKN, ammonia.
nitrate-nitrogen, and total phosphorus
with a permit application. in addition,
the percent solids of the sewage sludge
that is used or disposed of would have
to be reported. Percent solids is required
to ensure that all sewage sludge data can
be converted to dry weight values.
Information on the nitrogen and
phosphorus content of sewage sludge is
needed for several reasons. One
important use of the nitrogen data is to
help the permit writer to evaluate the
design of the agronomic rate for a land
application site. Part 503 requires that
sewage sludge be land applied at a rate
that is equal to or less than the
agronomic rate for the application site.
The Agency also can use the data on
nutrients in sewage sludge in future
considerations as to whether to establish
limits for nitrogen and phosphorus in
sewage sludge. r
The Agency Is also considering
adding certain pathogens to the list of
pollutants for which data would be
required with an application. These
include Solmonella sp. bacteria, enteric
viruses, and viable helminth ova. Part
503 contaIns density levels for these
m1croorgnni ms that cannot be exceeded
in sewage sludge that Is used or
disposed. In addition to pathogens. the
Agency is also considering requesting
data for focal coliform, which is used in
Part 503 as a pathogen Indicator. The
permitting authority would use these
data to determine whether the sewage
sludge meets the Class A or Class B
pathogen requirements in Part 503.
Pathogen data only would have to be
submitted by persons who land apply or
place sewage sludge in a surface
disposal site. EPA Is seeking comments
on this Issue as part of today’s proposal.
Results of current efforts within the
Agency may require that limits be
established prior to the Round Two
sewage sludge regulation, for dioxin.!
dibenzofuran and co-planar
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in
sewage sludge that is used or disposed.
Dioxinldibenzofuranis a carcinogen
that is highly toxic in low
concentrations. Because the chemical
stricture of co-planar PCBs is similar to
the chemical structure of dioxin.!
dibenzofuran, they are expected to have
gtTniblr human health effects (i.e., toxic
in low concentrations). Data for these
two pollutants could be used to develop
Part 503 limits for these pollutants or to
evaluate the Part 503 limits. For this
reason, the Agency is considering
requesting all TWTDS to submit data for
these oUutant.s with a sewage sludge
permit application. EPA seeks
comments on whether TWTDS who are
not Class I sludge management facilities
should be requIred to submit data on
these two pollutants.
8. Requirements for a Person Who
Prepares Sewage Sludge
Proposed § 122.21(q)(8) identifies
permit application information that a
person who prepares sewage sludge for
-------
62572 Federal Register / Vol. 80. No. 234 / Wednesday. December 6 , 1995 / Proposed Rules
use or disposal would be required to
submit. A “person who prepares,” as
defined at 40 QR 503.9(r), is “either the
person who generates sewage sludge
during the treatment of domestic sewage
in a treatment works or the person who
derives a material from sewage sludge.”
This section would thus pertain to any
POTWor other treatment works that
generates sewage sludge. It also would
include facilities (such as composting
operations) that receive sewage sludge
from another fadilty and then derive a
material from that sewage sludge.
Paragraphs (I) and (ii) of proposed
§ 122.21(q)(8) would request
information on the amount of sewage
sludge “prepared” at the facility. This
Includes the amount generated
(paragraph (I)) plus any other amount
that is received from off-site (paragraph
(U)). These paragraphs are intended to
clarify the existing requirement at
§ 501.15(a)(2)(x), which tells the
applicant to report annual sludge
production volume. Paragraph (11)
would also solicit information on
sewage sludge treatment practices at any
off.site facility from which sewage
sludge is received. The off-site facility
providing the sewage sludge is. by
definition, also a “person who
prepares,” and, therefore, would also be
subject to sludge permitting
requirements. EPA believe, that
information on the delivering facility
enables the permit writer to assess the
quality of sewage sludge received by the
applicant. It also fosters more
appropriate allocation of permit
requirements between the applicant’s
facility and an off-site “person who
prepares.”
As in the case of the Municipal
Application regulations, the Agency
desires to incorporate into the final rule
provisions that reduce duplication of
effort. One possible way Is to allow the
applicant to reference substantially
similar Information previously
submitted to a permitting authority
rather than resubmit the Information.
The Agency solicits comments on using
this approach in the final rule and
suggestions of other possible options.
Before sewage sludge Is applied to the
land or placed on an active sewage
sludge unit, it must meet the •
requirements for pathogen reduction In
§ 503.32 and for vector attraction
reduction in § 503.33. Therefore,
paragraph ( U I) of proposed
§ 122 .21(q)(8) would request
information on sewage sludge treatment
processes at the applicant’s fitcility.
Including pathogen or vector at ion
reduction processes. The permit writer
needs to know whether pathogen and
vector attraction reduction requirements
are met at the applicant’s facility and
thus should be addressed In the
applicant’s permit If these requirements
are not met by the applicant, pathogen
and vector attraction reduction must be
met by a subsequent “person who
prepares” or the owner/operator of a
surface disposal site.
“Exceptional quality” (EQJ sewage
sludge must meet the ceiling
concentrations in 40 CFR 503.13(b)(1),
the pollutant concentrations in
§ 503. 13(b)(3), the Class A pathogen
requirements in § 5 03.32(a), and one of
the vector attraction reduction
requirements in § 503.33 (b)(i) through
(b)(8). Because of its high quality, “EQ”
sewage sludge is not subject to the
general requirements of § 503.12 or the
management practices of § 503.14.
Therefore, fewer permitting and permit
application requirements pertain to
facilities generating such sewage sludge.
Proposed paragraph (iv) of 5 122 .21(q)(8)
would ask for the amount of sewage
sludge that is applied to the land. EPA
believes that this information is all that
is needed to develop sewage sludge
conditions for such a facility. Under
paragraph (iv), the applicant would not
need to provide the other, more-
detailed, information in proposed
§ 122.21(a)(8) paragraphs (v) and (vi) for
sewage sludge meeting “EQ’ criteria.
The existing requirement at
§ 501.15(a)(2)(vjji) asks for the “name of
any distributors when the sludge will be
disposed of through distribution and
marketing.” This requires the names of
any facilities that sell or give away “EQ”
sewage sludge. EPA believes that “EQ”
sewage sludge should be treated
similarly to other fertilizers. Thus, the
Agency believes that the names of
distributors should not be required and
is proposing to delete the requirement at
§ SOI.15(a)(2)(vijfl, The Agency seeks
comments on this approach.
Paragraph lv) of proposed
§ 122.2 1(a)(8) would seek Information
on sewage sludge that is not “EQ” but
Is nevertheless placed in a bag or other
container for sale or give-away for
application to the land. Under Part 503,
such sewage sludge must meet the Class
A pathogen requirements in 5503.32(a )
and one of the vector attraction
reduction requirements In § 503.33(b)(1)
through (8). In addition, the sewage
sludge must meet either the pollutant
concentrations in Table 3 of § 503.13 or
the annual pollutant loading rates
(APLRs) in Table 4 of5503.13. If this
sewage sludge meets the Table 3
pollutant concentrations, it is “EQ”
sewage sludge and thus would be
subject to proposed paragraph (iv).
Proposed paragraph (v) would only
apply to sewage sludge subject to t .ie
Table 4 APLRs that is placed In a bag’
or other container for application to t’
land. EPA proposes to require that the
applicant employing this type of sewage
sludge use provide the volume of
sewage sludge placed in bags or other
containers and a copy of all labels or
notices that accompany the product
being sold or given away.
Paragraph (vi) of proposed
§ 122.21(q)(8) would seek information
about any other “person who prepares”
who receives sewage sludge from the
applicant’s facility. This information
helps the permit writer to identify
which permit requirements should
apply to the applicant and whether the
subsequent preparer needs to obtain a
permit Paragraphs (C) and (E) of
proposed paragraph (vi) would provide
the permit writer with necessary
Information on the quality of the sewage
sludge that is ultimately land applied.
This information also enables the permit
writer to Identify activities of the
subsequent “person who prepares” that
may subject the applicant to additional
regulation or permit requirements.
Therefore, these requirements would
ensure that the sewage sludge will meet
all applicable Part 503 requirements at
the time of land application, regardless
of the number of parties involved. One
possible way to obtain this information
is to allow the applicant to reference
substantially similar information
previously submitted to a permitting
authority rather than resubmit the
Information. The Agency solicits
comments on using this approach in the
final rule and suggestions of other
possible options.
9. Land Application of Bulk Sewage
Sludge
Proposed § 12 2.21(q)(9) would request
information on sewage sludge that is
land applied in bulk form. This section
would apply only where the applicant’s
permit must contain all applicable Part
503 requIrements for land application.
ThJs section would not apply if the
applicant generates “EQ” sewage sludge
subject to proposed § 122.2 1(q)(8)(iv), or
if the applicant places sewage sludge in
a bag or other container for sale or give-
away for application to the land subject
to proposed § 122.21 (q)(8 )(v). fn neither
of these cases Is it necessary to control
the ultimate land application through a
permit and thus the applicant would not
need to provide this information as part
of the application. The section also
would not apply if the applicant
provides sewage sludge to another
“person who prepares” subject to
proposed § 122.21(q)(8)(vi). In this case.
the ultimate land application would be
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
62573
(.ontxolled by the subsequent “person
ho prepares.”
paragraph (i) of proposed
§ 122.21(q)(9) would darify the existing
requirement at § S01.15(a)(2)(x) which
tells the applicant to report annual
sludge production volume. Paragraph
(ii ) asks how the applicant will satisfy
the § 503.12(1) notification requJremeat
for land application sites in a State other
than the State where the sewage sludge
is prepared.
Paragraph (A) of proposed
§ 122.21 (q)(9)(iii) would ask the
applicant to identify the land
application site. This question would
request locational Information which
supports the Watershed Protection
Approach. by providing permit writers
and other Federal and State
environmental managers with a means
of geographically locating potential
sources of polluted runoff.
Paragraphs (B) and (C) of proposed
§ 122.21(q)(9llhii) would ask the
applicant to identify the land
application site owner and applier, If
different than the applicant. EPA
believes that this information is
necessary in order to ensure that the
permit is issued to the correct party.
These proposed paragraphs would
clarify and expand on existing
requirements at § 501.15(a)(2)(vliI).
One of the land application
management practices in § 503.14
mandates that bulk sewage sludge shall
not be applied to land at greater than the
agronomic rate. Therefore, paragraphs
(D) and (E) of proposed
§ 122.21(q)(9)(ili) would ask the
applicant to identify the type of land
application site, the type of vegetation
grown on that site, if known at the time
of permit application, and the
vegetation’s nitrogen requirement. This
information enables the permit writer to
calculate an appropriate permit
management practice regarding
agronomic rate. EPA recoen .izes that
different crops may be grown on a site
during the life of a permit. If the crop
for a site is not known or likely to
change, the applicant should submit
whatever information is available.
Paragraph (F) of proposed
§ 122.21(q)(9)(iii) would request
information on vector attraction
reduction measures undertaken at the
land application site. Before sewage
sludge is applied to the land, it must
meet the requirements for vector
attraction reduction in § 503.33. These
measures may be undertaken either by
the “person who prepares” sewage
sludge or by the operator of the land
application site.
Paragraph (G) of proposed
§ 122.21(q)(9)(iil) would ask the
applicant to submit any existing ground.
water ‘mon.itortng data for the land
application site. Section 503.14(d) states
that bulk sewage sludge may not be
applied to land at greater than the
agronomic rate. Section 503.11(b)(2)
explains that “agronomic rate” is the
whole sludge application rate that
min.unizes the amount of nitrogen that
passes below the root zone and into the
ground water. EPA believes that
permitting authorities need to review
existing ground-water monitoring data
for land application sites in order to
ensure that sewage sludge application
rates are appropriately protective of
ground water.
Section SO1.15(a)(2)(ix) asks for
Information necessary to determine if
the site is appropnate for land
application and a description of how the
site will be managed. This requirement
could be interpreted in different ways.
Today’s rule attempts to dearly specify
the site management requirements in
proposed paragraphs (D)—(G) of
proposed § 122.2 1(q)(9)(ili). The
permitting authority could request other
site management information if It is
needed to identify appropriate permit
conditions.
Proposed § 122.21(q)(9)(lv) would
request information that the permitting
authority needs in order to verify
whether the § 503.12(e)(2)(i)
requirement for appliers of bulk sewage
sludge subject to cumulative pollutant
loading rates (CPLRs) has been met. A
cumulative pollutant loading rate, as
defined in § 503.11(1) is “the maximum
amount of an inorganic pollutant that
can be applied to an area of land.” This
information enables EPA to ensure that
the CPLRs are not exceeded when more
than one facility is sending sewage
sludge subject to CPLRs to the same site.
Proposed § 122.21(q)(9)(v) restates the
requirement in existing
§ 501.15(a)(2)(jx) for information on
land application sites not identified at
the time of permit application.
10. Surface Disposal
Proposed § 122.21(q)(1O) requests
information on sewage sludge that is
placed on a surface disposal site. By
definition, a sewage sludge surface
disposal site is a TWTDS. Many surface
disposal site owner/operators, however,
would not have to complete this section,
but would instead submit the limited
background information required by
§ 122.21(c)(2)(iii). The applicant would
be required to provide the uiforination
requested by proposed § 122.21(q)(10)
only lithe surface disposal site were
already covered by an NPDES permit; if
the owner/operator were requesting site-
specific pollutant limits, or if the
permitting authority were requiring a
full application.
Paragraph (i) of proposed
§ 122.21(qJ(10) would clarify the
existing requirement at § 501.15(a)(2)(x)
which tells the applicant to report
annual sludge production volume.
Paragraph (ii) of proposed
§ 122.21(q)(10) would require that the
applicant provide the name or number,
address, telephone number, and amount
of sewage sludge placed on each surface
disposal site that the applicant does not
own or operate. This paragraph would
clarify and expand on existing
requirements at §501.15(a)(2)(vlii). EPA
believes that this information is
necessary in order to ensure that the
permit Is issued to the correct party.
Paragraph (lii) of proposed
§ 122.21(q)(1O) would request detailed
information on each active sewage
sludge unit at each surface disposal site
that the applicant owns or operates. A
“sewage sludge unit” is defined In
§ 503.21(n) as “land on which only
sewage sludge is placed for final
disposal.” A “surface disposal site” is
“an area of land that contains one or
more sewage sludge units.” Information
on each active sewage sludge unit Is
necessary because Part 503 provides for
different pollutant limits, monitoring
requirements, and management
practices for each unit. This information
enables the permitting authority to
establish proper permit conditions.
Paragraph (I) of § 122.21(q)(10)(iii)
would request Information on sewage
sludge sent to the active sewage sludge
unit by any facility other than the
.applicant’s. This information helps the
permit writer to determine which
requirements apply to the surface
disposal site owner/operator and which
apply to the facility which sends sewage
sludge to the surface disposal site. As
previously mentioned, one way to
reduce duplicate reporting, is to allow
the applicant to reference substantially
similar information already submitted to
a permitting authority. The Agency
solicits comments on using this
approach in the final rule and
suggestians for other options.
Paragraph (J) of proposed
§ 122.21(q)(I0)(iii) would request
information on vector attraction
reduction measures undertaken at the
active sewage sludge unit. Before
sewage sludge is placed on an active
sewage sludge unit, it must meet the
requirements for vector attraction
reduction In § 503.33. Since vector
attraction reduction measures may be
performed either by the facility
preparing sewage sludge or by the
surface disposal site owner/operator,
EPA believes that both should be
-------
62574 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
required to supply information on their
practices.
Section 503.24(n)(2) requires surface
disposal sites to demonstrate by way of
a ground-water manitonng program or
certification that sludge placed on an
active sewage sludge unit does not
contRminate the underlying aquifer. In
order to ensure that this requirement Is
implemented, paragraph (K) of proposed
§ 122.2 1(q)(10)(iii) would request
information on ground-water
monitoring programs or certifications.
Because many communities rely on
ground water as a source of drinking
water, EPA believes that this
information is necessary to protect
public health and the environment
After August 18, 1993, only surface
disposal sites showing good cause may
apply for site-specific pollutant limits,
Paragraph (Li of proposed
§ 122.21(q)(10)(iii) would request the
information necessary for the permit
writer to determine whether such site-
specific limits are warranted. This
information would include a
demonstration that the values for site
parameters at the applicant’s site differ
from those used to develop the surface
disposal pollutant limits in Part 503.
11. IncineratIon
Proposed § 122.21(q)(11) would
request Information on sewage sludge
that is fired in a sewage sludge
incinerator. According to § 503,41(k), a
sewage sludge incinerator is “an
enclosed device in which only sewage
sludge and auxiliary fuel are fired.” A
sewage sludge Incinerator is a TWTDS
and is required to submit a full permit
application.
Paragraph (I) of proposed
§ 122.21(q)(11) would clarify the
existing requirement at § 501.15(a)(2)(x)
which tells the applicant to report
annual sludge production volume.
Paragraph ( ii) of proposed
§ 122.21(q)(11) would require that the
applicant provide the name or
identifying number, address, telephone
number, and amount of sewage sludge
fired in each sewage sludge incinerator
that the applicant does not own or
operate. This paragraph would clarify
existing requirements at
§501.15(a)(2)(viii). EPA believes that
this information is necessary in order to
ensure that the permit is issued to the
correct party.
Paragraph (iii) of proposed
§ 122.21(q)(11) would request detailed
information on each sewage sludge
incinerator that the applicant owns or
operates. Paragraph (B) of proposed
paragraph (iii) would request the total
amount of sewage sludge fired annually
in each incinerator. This information is
necessary because the monitoring
requirements for sewage sludge
incinerators are based on the total
amount fired.
Paragraphs (C) and (D) of proposed
§ 122.21(q)(n)(IIi) would request
information on compliance with the
beryllium and mercury National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPs). SectIon 503.43
paragraphs (a) and (b) require
compliance with these standards
through a cross-reference to 40 CFR Part
61 subparts C and E. If the incinerator
is required to perform stack testing.
these paragraphs would require the
applicant to submit a report of that
testing.
Under § 503.43, the pollutant limits
applicable to each sewage sludge
incinerator are calculated based on
factors unique to each incinerator.
Paragraphs (E). (F). and (G) of proposed
§ 122.21(q)(11)(lii) would require each
applicant to submit these factors for
their incinerator(s). Calculating
pollutant limits on an individual basis
allows the actual performance of each
Incinerator and actual site conditions,
such as topography, to be taken into
account EPA believes that this is more
appropriate than mandating national
pollutant limitations for sewage sludge
incinerators.
En the development of Part 503, EPA
determined that it would be infeasible
to establish individual limits for each
hydrocarbon in sewage sludge
Incinerator exit gas. Instead, the Agency
adopted a 100 ppm total hydrocarbon
(THC) limit and required continuous
THC monitoring to show compliance.
Part 503 was amended. on Febrdar) 25.
1994 (59 FR 9oc5), to allow sewage
sludge incinerators whose exit gas does
not exceed 100 ppm carbon monoxide
(GO) to show compliance with the THC
operational standard by monitoring CO
instead of THC. Paragraphs (H). (I). and
(1) of proposed § 122.21(q)(t1)(iil) would
request the incinerator information
necessary to establish the correct
hydrocarbon monitoring requirements.
Many of the incinerator’s site-specific
factors that are used to calculate
pollutant limits and compliance with
the operational standard are highly
dependent on the temperature at which
the incinerator is operated and the rate
at which ses age sludge is fed into the
incinerator. For most incinerators. these
parameters are determined during an
initial performance test. In order to
appropriately calculate pollutant limits
and ensure appropriate pollutant limits
and that the incinerator is operated
within the parameters of the original
performance test. EPA needs to know
the information in paragraphs (K)
through (0) of proposed
§ 122.21(q)(1l)(ill).
Paragraphs (P1 and (OJ of proposer
§ 122.21(q)(11)(iii) would request
Information on the monitoring
equipment and air pollution con j
devices installed on the incinerator.
Information on this equipment is
necessary to ensure that the facility
complies with the management
practices at § 503.45.
12. DIsposal in a Municipal Solid Waste
Landfill
Proposed § 122.21(q)(12) would
request information on sewage sludge
that is sent to a municipal solid waste
landfill (MSWLF). Section 503.4 states
that sewage sludge sent to a MSWLF
that complies with the requirements in
40 CFR Part 258 constitutes compliance
with sec. 405(d) of the CWA. The
questions in § 122.21(q)(12) axe
necessary to ensure the availability of
accurate information about a MSWLY
and the sewage sludge that is sent there.
Paragraphs (I) and (Ii) of proposed
§ 122.21(q)(12) would clarify existing
requirements at §50L15(afl2)(v). (viii).
and (x) that request information on
other permits. the location of ‘
sites, and the annual sludge proa .
volume. Paragraph (iii) would request
information on the sewage sludge
quality to ensure that it is acceptable I
a MSWLF. Paragraph (iv) would request
available information on whether the
MSWLF Is in compliance with Part 258.
13. Contractors
Proposed § 122.21(q)(13) would
require the applicant to provide
contractor information. The applicant
would be required to identIfy all
contractors responsible for any
operation or maintenance aspects of the
TWTDS, and specify their
responsib liUes. The permitting
authority uses this information to
determine who has primary
responsibility for the operation and
maintenance of the TWTDS.
14. Other Information
Proposed § 122.21(q)(14) would
require the applicant to report any
information necessary to determine the
appropriate standards for permitting
under 40 CFR Part 503. and any other
information the permitting authority
may request and reasonably require to
assess the sewage siudge use and
disposal practices, to determine whether
to issue a permit. or to identify
appropriate permit requirements. This
paragraph restates the existing
requirements in § 501.15(a)(2)(xi) and
(xii).
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 234 / Wednesday , Dtcc rnher 6. 1995 I Proposed Rules
62575
is Signature
i’rnpused § 122.21(q)(15) would
rt’qwre that a certifying official sign the
n compliance with 40 CFR 122.22.
This would ensure that the person
it fling the form has the authority to
eak for and legally bind the perinittee.
iv. paperwork Reduction Act
rlie information collection
requirements in this proposed rule have
liei’n submitted for approval to the
Office of Management and Budget
OMB) wider the Paperwork Reduction
Act. 44 U.s.c. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request
document has been prepared by EPA
( ICR No. 0226.13) and a copy may be
obtained from Sandy Farmer,
Information Policy Branch; EPA; 401 M
St . S.W. (Mail code 2136); Washington,
DC 2U460; or by calling (202) 260—2740.
This collection of information has an
estimated reporting burden averaging
to: hours per response, including
annual recordkeeping burden. These
estimates include time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the
data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information.
Send comments regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden to
Chief, Information Policy Branch; EPA;
401 M St., S W. (Mail Code 2136);
Washington. DC 20460; and to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget. Washington. DC 20503, marked
‘Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.” The
final rule will respond to any 0MB or
public comments on the information
collection requirements contained in
this proposal.
V. Executive Order 12886
Un4er Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735 (October 4, 1993)). the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory
action is “significant” and therefore
subject to 0MB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines “significant
regulatory action” as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity. competition. jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or
commiinities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof: or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
Presidents priorities, or tho principles
set forth in the Executive Order.”
Pursuant to the terms of Executive
Order 12866, It has been determined
that this rule is a “significant regulatory
action” because it may adversely affect
local governments by incrementally
increasing permit application costs. As
such, this action was submitted to 0MB
for review. Changes made In response to
0MB suggestions or recommendations
will be documented in the public
record.
VI. Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875 (58 FR
58093 (October 28, 1993)), no executive
agency shall promulgate any regulation
that Is not required by statute and that
creates a mandate upon a State, local, or
tribal government, unless:
(a) Funds to pay the direct costs
associated with the regulation ale
provided by the Federal Government, or
(b) The agency, prior to promulgation.
provides 0MB a description of its
consultation with representatives of the
affected governments, the nature of their
concerns, any written communications
submitted to the agency by them, and
the agency’s position supporting the
need for the regulation. Each agency is
also required to develop an effective
process to permit elected officials and
other representatives of these
governments an opportunity to provide
meaningful and timely input on
significant unfunded mandates,
As discussed above (“Public
Consultation in the Development of
Today’s Proposal,” at I.H.), the Agency
consulted with States, local
governments, and other parties in the
development of this proposed rule. This
is further discussed in the discussion
below (“Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 and Consultation with State,
Local, and Tribal Governments,” at VII).
VII. Unfimded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 and Consultation With State,
Local, and Tribal Governments—
Title U of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded
Mandates Act”), Public Law 104—4,
establishes requirements for Federal
agencies to assess the effects of their
regulatory actions on State, local, and
tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the
Unfunded Mandates Act, EPA generally
must prepare a written statement,
including a cost-benefit analysis, for
rules with Federal mandates that may
result in expenditures to State. local.
and tribal governments in the aggregate.
or to the private sector, of S WO million
or ‘nore in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205
of the Unfunded Mandates Act generally
requires EPA to identify and Lonsider a
reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly,
most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section
205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law.
Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to
adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted.
Under section 203 of the Unfunded
Mandates Act, EPA must develop a
small government agency plan before it
establishes regulatory requirements that
may significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, including tribal
governments. The plan must provide for
notifying potentially affected small
governments, enabling officiaLs of
affected small governments to have -
meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule
does not include a Federal mandate that
may result in expenditures of $100
million or more to either State, local and
tribal governments in the aggregate. or
to the private sector in any year. To the
extent enforceable duties arise as a
result of today’s proposed rule on State,
local and tribal governments, such
enforceable duties do not result in a
significant regulatory action being
imposed upon State, local and tribal
governments since the estimated
aggregate cost of compliance for them is
not expected to exceed $5.7 million
annually. Thus, today’s proposed rule is
not subiect to the written statement
requirement in section 202 of the Act
In compliance with E.O. 12875. which
requires the involvement of State, local
and tribal governments in the
development of certain Federal
regulatory actions, EPA conducted a
wide outreach effort and actively sought
the Input of representatives of State,
local, and tribal governments in the
process of developing the proposed rule
Agency personnel have communicated
with State and local representatives in
-------
62570 Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 234 1 Wednesday . December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
a number of different fonims. For
example, EPA staff Involved in
development of today’s proposed rule
invited comments on earlier drafts of
the proposed rulemaking. forms, and
Instructions from States and local
governments both directly and through
organizations such as the Association of
Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
(AMSA). the Water Environment
Federation (WEF), and the California
Association of Sanitation Agencies
(CASA). In response to these efforts, the
Agency was able to communicate
directly, including through meetings
and telephone communications, with
representatives of a number of
Interested State and local
representatives, Including
representatives of more than twenty-five
local governments. Cities represented in
a telephone conference arranged
through WEF included Price (UT).
Owosso (M I). Saginaw (MI), Rockwood
(M l). Grand Rapids (Ml ). Roseburg (OR).
Central Mann San. Dist. (CA), Little
Rock (AR). Dallas (TX). Northeast Ohio
Regional Sewer Dist (OH). Cities
represented In a meeting with AMSA
representatives included Detroit (MI),
Boise (ED). City of Los Angeles (CA).
Phoenix (AZ). Passaic Valley (Nfl;
Middleton (NJ). Hampton Roads (VA).
Orange County (CA). Anchorage (AK),
and Alexandria (VA). Other discussions
were held individually with
representatives of local governments.
The Agency received written comments
from AMSA. several cities, and a
number of States. In the comments
received from States, a number of issues
were raised concerning.possiblo impacts
on local governments. EPA Invited, but
did not receive, written comments from
the Association of State and Interstate
Wator Pollution Control Adn,inistrators
(ASIWPCA) and the National League of
Cities.
Once the proposed rule Is fim Ii,nd ,
the Agency intends to provide
information through a variety of
sources, and to educate and advise local
governments concerning compliance
with the proposed requirements. In the
Communication Plan prepared for this
proposal, the Agency has outlined
which organizations EPA will contact
directly concerning the proposal. The
same parties will also be contacted
directly regarding the final rulemaking.
The communication plan is available in
the record supporting this proposal. The
Agency seeks to assist, educate, and
advise applicants on how to ply
with the permit application
reqwrements pnmanly through the
instructions to the proposed forms, and
seeks comment as to how the
Instructions could be improved.
Additionally, the Agency intends to
provide training for permit writers, so
that they can assist, educate, and advise
applicants on an as-needed basis when
completing their applications.
VIII. Regulatory flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub.
L. 96—354) requires Federal agencies to
consider the effect of proposed rules on
small entities. Agencies must consider
alternatives to proposed rules that
would minimize the economic Impact
on small entities so long as these
alternatives are consistent with the
stated objective of the statute under
which such rules are developed.
However, the requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act do not alter
standards otherwise applicable to
agency action. For example. section 405
of the CWA requires EPA to promulgate
regulations that are adequate to protect
public health or the environment
against reasonably anticipated adverse
effects.
In developing these proposed
regulations, EPA considered the effects
of the proposed regulations on small
entitles. The regulatory flexibility
analysis (RFA) conducted for this
proposed rule meets the requirements
specified in the “Guidelines for
Implementing the Regulatory Flexibility
Act” (U.S. EPA, Office of Regulatory
Management and Evaluation and Office
of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation,
April 1992).
Most of the applicants that would be
required to complete the municipal and
sludge application fbrms. if finalized,
are small entities. For the purposes of
the RFA, EPA employs the definition of
small government entities that was
originally advanced In a related
rulemaking. See U.S. EPA, “Regulatory
Impact Analysis of the Part 503 Sewage
Sludge Regulation,” November 25. 1992,
for a complete discussion of the
development of this definition. For the
purposes of this rule, the term “small
government entitles” is considered to
mean small POTWs, Small POTWa are
defined as POTWs processing less than
1 millIon gallons per day (mgd) of
wastewater. POTWa of this size
generally serve a population of 10,000
people or less, This definition is
consistent with the designation of major
and minor POTWs under the NPDES
program,
The estimate of the number of small
POTWs subject to both sets of proposed
application requirements is based on the
number of minor POT’ Vs. Also, for the
purposes of the RFi\, the AgencY
conservatively assum’d that all “sludge.
only” POTWs are small entities.
Generally, treatment facilities serving
large populations (greater than 10,000)
generate effluent of sufficient volume
that it must be discharged to waters of
the U.S.. and thus require an NPDES
permit The Agency also assumed for
purposes of the RFA that all privately
owned treatment facilities are small
entitles. Overall. EPA estimates that
nearly 70 percent of municipal
applicants and 74 percent of sludge
applicants are small entities.
EPA considered a range of regulatory
options for the proposed forms. In this
proposal, the Agency has developed a
two-tier approach for municipal
applicants and a two-tier approach for
sludge applicants. Applicants are
categorized according to size and
whether or not they are required to have
a pretreatment program. Under each
regulatory option considered, less
stringent standards are required for
smaller facilities that are loss likely to
pollute and have a lower capacity to
absorb large monitoring costs.
The costs of complying with the
proposed application requirements
would consist entirely of paperwork and
testing costs associated with completing
the forms and collecting the required
information. Therefore, the costs for
these activities estimated in the ICR for
this proposed rule are used in the RFA.
The five-year compliance cost estimates
for POTWa applying for NPDES permits
(i.e., for both sets of application
requirements) range from $681 to $3,627
for small POTWs under the four
regulatory options under consideration
for the municipal permit application
and the three regulatory options under
consideration for the sludge application
requirements. The five-year compliance
cost estimates for the various options
under this proposed rule range from
approximately $507 to $2,849 for small
privately owned treatment works. These
costs would represent between 0.06 and
0.31 percent of the average annual
revenues of small POTWs and small
privately owned treatment works. As a
percent of average household
expenditures on sewage treatment, these
figures would range between 0.10 and
0.54 porcent for small POTWs and small
privately owned treatment works. The
five-year compliance costs for sludge.
only facilities (i.e.. paperwork costs
associated with the proposed sludge
application requirements) range from
$375 to $2,809 under the three
regulatory options under consideration
for small POTWa and from $299 to
$2,849 for privately owned treatment
works. These costs would represent well
below 0.5 percent of both the average
annual revenues for small treatment
works (public and private) and of the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
62577
average annual household costs for
sewage treatment. Thus, impacts on
small treatment facilities and their
customers are not expected to be severe.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 122
Environmental protection.
Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information.
Reporting and recordkeoping
requirements. Sewage disposal, Waste
treatment and disposal. Water pollution
control.
40 CFR Part 123
Confidential business information.
Hazardous materials, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements. Sewage
disposal, Waste treatment and disposal,
Water pollution control. Penalties.
40 CFR Part 403
Confidential business information,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waste treatment and
disposal, Water pollution control.
40 CFR Part 501
Confidential business information,
Environmental protection, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Publicly owned treatment works,
Sewage disposal. Waste treatment and
disposal.
Dated: November 2, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble. EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR Chapter I as followe:
PART 122—EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE NATIONAL
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM
• a a a a
1. The authority citation for part 122
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.SC 2s1
et seq.
2. Section 122.2 is amended by
revising the definition for “Publicly
owned treatment works (“POTW”) and
adding a definition for “TWTDS’ in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
§122.2 DefinItions.
a a a a
Publicly owned treatment works
(“P07W”) means a treatment works as
defined by section 212 of the CWA,
which is owned by a ‘State” or
“municipality” (as defined by section
502(4) of the CWA). This definition
includes any devices and systems used
in the storage, treatment, recycling arid
reclamation of municipal sewage or
industrial wastes of a liquid nature. It
also includes sewers, pipes and other
conveyances only if they convey
wastewater to a POTW Treatment Plant.
as defined in § 403.3(p) of this chapter.
The term also means the municipality as
defined in section 502(4) of the CWA,
which has jurisdiction over the Indirect
Discharges. as defined in §403.3(g) of
this chapter, to and the discharges from
such a treatment works.
• a a a a
7WFDS means treatment works
treating domestic sewage.
3—6. Section 122.21 is amended by
revising paragraph (c)(2)(i) through (iii)
Introductory text, paragraph (d)(3), the
Introductory text of paragraph (0.
paragraph (j) and by adding paragraph
(q) before the notes to reed as follows:
§ 122.21 ApplIcation for a permit
(applicable to Stote programs, see § 123.25).
* a . * a
(c) • a a
(2) Perm, s under section 405(f) of
CWA. (1) Any existing treatment works
treating domestic sewage (TWTDS)
required to have site-specific pollutant
limits, or requesting such limits, as
provided in 40 CFR Part 503, must
submit the permit application
information required by paragraph
(d)(3)(iii) of this section within 180 days
after publication of a standard
applicable to its sewage sludge use or
disposal practice(s). After this 180-day
period, TWTDS may only apply for site-
specific pollutant limits for good cause
and such requests must be made within
180 days of becoming aware that good
cause exists.
(ii) Any TWTDS with a currently
effective NPDES permit, not addressed
under paragraph (d112)(i) of this section,
must submit the application information
required by paragraph (d)(3)(iii) of this
section at the time of its next NPDES
permit renewal application. Such
information must be submitted in
accordance with paragraph (d) of this
section.
(iii) Any other existing TW1’DS not
addressed under paragraphs (c)(2)(i) or
(ii) of this section must submit the
information listed in paragraphs
(c)(2)(iii)(A) through (E) of this section,
to the Director within 1 year after
publication of a standard applicable to
its sewage sludge use or disposal
practice(s), using Form 2S or another
form approved by the Director. The
Director shall determine when such
TWTDS must apply for a permit.
(d) * • *
(3)(i) All applicants for EPA-issued
permits, other than POTWs, new
Sources, and TWTDS. must complete
Forms I and either 2B, 2C, or 2E of the
consolidated permit application forms
to apply under § 122.21 and paragraphs
(0. (g). (h). and (i) of this section.
(ii) All POTWs must submit the
application information required by
paragraph (j) of this section. within the
time periods established in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section, using Form 2A or
another form approved by the Director.
All POTWs applying for EPA-issued
permits must complete Form 2A.
(iii) All TWTDS, except “sludge-only
facilities” subject to paragraph (c)(2)(iii)
of this section, must submit the
application information required by
paragraph (q) of this section, within the
time periods established in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section, using Form 25 or
another form approved by the Director.
All such applicants applying for EPA-
issued permits must complete Form 2S.
(I ) Information requirements. All
applicants for NPDES permits, other
than POTWs and other TWTDS, shall
provide the following information to the
Director, using the application form
provided by the Director (additional
information required of applicants is set
forth in paragraphs (g) through (k) of
this section).
* * a a a
(j) Application requirements for new
and existing PO7Ws. Unless otherwise
indicated, all POTWs shall provide, at a
minimum, the information in this
paragraph (j) to the Director, using Form
2A or another application form
provided by the Director. The Director
may waive any requirement of this
paragraph if the Director has access to
substantially identical information.
(1) Basic application information. All
applicants shall provide the following
information:
(i) Facility information. Name,
mailing address, and location of the
facility for which the application is
submitted;
(ii) Applicant information. Name,
mailing address, and telephone number
of the applicant, and indication as to
whether the applicant is ths facility’s
owner, operator, or both:
(iii) Existing environmental permits.
Identification of all environmental
permits or construction approvals
received or applied for (including dates)
under any of the following programs:
(A) Hazardous Waste Management
program under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
subpart C of this part;
(B) IJIC program under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA);
-------
62578 Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 234 I Wednesday. December 6. 1995 / Proposed_Rules
(C) NPDES program under Clean
Water Act (CWA);
(Dl Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program under the
Clean Air Act:
(E) Nonatthinment program under the
Clean Air Act:
(F) National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Pollutants (NESHAPS)
preconstruction approval under the
Clean Air Act:
(C) Ocean dumping permits under the
Marine Protection Research and
Sanctuaries Act;
(H) Dredge or fill permits under
section 404 of the CWA; and
(I) Other relevant environmental
permits. including State permits:
(iv) Population. The name and
population of each municipal entity
served by the facility, including
unincorporated connector disthcts;
(v) Flow rate. The facility’s design
flow rate and annual average daily flow
rate for each of the previous 3 years:
(vi) Collection system. Identify type(s)
of collection system(s) used by the
treatment works (i.e.. separate sanitary
sewers or combined storm and sanitary
sewers) and an estimate of the percent
of sewer line that each type comprises;
(vii) Inflow and infiltration. The
current average daily flow rate volume
of inflow and infiltration, in gallons per
day. and steps the facility is taking to
minimize inflow and infiltration:
(viii) Topographic map. A
topographic map (or other map if a
topographic map is unavailable)
extending at least one mile beyond
property boundaries of the treatment
plant. including all unit processes. and
showing:
(A) Treatment plant area and unit
processes;
(B) The pipes or other structures
through which wastewater enters the
treatment plant and the pipes or other
structures through which treated
wastewater is discharged from the
treatment plant Include outfails from
bypass piping. If applicable;
(C) Each well where fluids from the
treatment plant are In )ected
underground;
(D l Wells, springs, other surface water
bodies. and drinking water wells listed
in public records or otherwise known to
the applicant within the map area:
(E) Sewage sludge management
facilities (including on-site treatment.
storage, and disposal sites) within the
property boundaries; and
(F) Location at which waste classified
as hazardous under RCM enters the
treatment plant by truck, rail, or
dedicated pipe:
( Ix) Process flow diagram or
schematic.
(A) A diagram showing the processes
of the treatment plant. including all
bypass piping. This includes a water
balance showing all treatment units,
including disinfection, and showing
daily average flow rates at Iniluent and
discharge points, and approximate daily
flow rates between treatment units: and
(B) A narrative description of the
diagram;
(x) Bypasses. The following
information for each outfall that is a
discharge from a bypass point:
(A) The actual or approximate number
of wet.weather and dry-weather bypass
incidents in the twelve months prior to
the date of the permit application;
(B) The actual or approximate
duration of each wet-weather or dry.
weather bypass incident:
(C) The actual or approximate
volume, in millions of gallons. of each
wet-weather or dry-weather bypass
incident: and
(0) The reason(s) why such bypasses
occurred;
(xi) Outf ails and other discharge or
disposal methods. The following
information for outfalls to waters of the
United States and other discharge or
disposal methods:
(A) For effluent discharges to waters
of the United States, the total number
and types of outfalls (e.g. treated
effluent. CSOs) to surface wateri
(B) For wastowater discharged to
surface impoundments:
(I) The location of each surface
impoundment;
• (2) The annual average daily volume
discharged to each surface
impoundment; and
(3) Whether the discharge is
continuous or intermittent;
(C) For wastewater applied to the
land:
(1) The location of each land
application site;
(2) The size of each land application
site, in acres;
(3) The annual average daily volume
applied to each land application site, in
gallons per day: and
(4) Whether land application Is
continuous or intermittent:
(0) For wastewater discharged to
another facility:
(1) The means by which the discharge
is transported:
(2) The name. mailing address,
contact person, and phone number of
the organLzauon transporting the
discharge. if the transport is provided by
a party other than the applicant;
(3) The name, mailing address,
contact person. phone number, and
NPDES permit number (if any) of the
receiving facility; and
(4) The average daily flow rate from
this facility into the receiving facility.
millions of gallons per day; and
(E) For wastewater disposed of in a
manner not Included In paragraphs
(j)(1)(Ix) (A) through (D of this section
(e.g.. underground percolation,
underground injection):
(I) A description of the disposal
method, including the location and size
of each disposal site, if applicable;
(2) The annual average daily volume
disposed of by this method, in gallons
per day: and
(3) Whether disposal through this
method is continuous or intermittent:
(xii) Federal Indian reservations.
Information concerning whether the
facility is located on a Federal Indian
Reservation or whether the facility
discharges to a receiving stream that
flows through a Federal Indian
Reservation; and
(xiii) Scheduled improvements,
schedules of implementation. The
following information regarding
scheduled improvements;
(A) The outfall number of each outfall
affected;
(B) A narrative description of each
required improvement:
(C) Scheduled or actual dates of
completion for the following:
(1) Commencement of construction
(2) Completion of construction;
(3) Commencement of discharge: and
(4) Attainment of operational level;
and
(0) A description of permits and
clearances concerning other Federal
andior State requirements:
(2) Information on effluent discharges
Each applicant must provide the
following information for each outfall.
including bypass points, through which
effluent is discharged, as applicable:
(i) Description of outfall. The
following information about each
outfall:
(A) Outfall number
(B) State. county, and city or town in
which outfall is located:
(C) Latitude and longitude, to the
nearest second:
(0) Distance from shore and depth
below surface:
(E) Average daily flow rate, in million
gallons per day:
(F) The following information for each
outfall with a seasonal or periodic
discharge:
(1) Number of times per year the
discharge occurs;
(2) DuratIon of each discharge
(3) Flow of each discharge. and
(4) Months in which discharge occt’
and
(C) Whether the outfall is equipped
with a diffuser and the type (e g high.
rate) of diffuser used:
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 234 I Wednesday, December 6. 1995 / Proposed Rules
62579
(ii) Description of recewing waters.
rtie following information (if known)
br each outfall through which effluent
is dic harged to waters of the United
States
(A) Type (e.g.. stream, river, lake,
estuary. ocean) and name of receiving
water:
(B) Nami of watershed/river/stream
stem and United States Soil
Conservation Service 14-digit watershed
code:
(C) Name of State ManagementlRiver
Basin and United States Geological
Survey 8-digit hydrologic cataloging
unit code; and
CD) Critical flow of receiving stream
and total hardness of receiving stream at
critical low flow (if applicable); and
(iii) Description of treatment. The
following information describing the
treatment provided for discharges from
each outfall to waters of the United
States:
(A) The highest level of treatment
(e.g.. primary, equivalent to secondary,
secondary, advanced, other) that is
provided for the discharge for each
outfall and:
(1) Design biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD, or CBOD,) removal
(percent);
(2) Design suspended solids (SS)
removal (percent); and, where
pplicable;
(3) Design phosphorus (F) removal
(percent):
(4) Design nitrogen (N) removal
(percent); and
(5) Any other removals that an
advanced treatment system is designed
to achieve.
(B) A description of the type of
disinfection used, and whether the
treatment plant dechlorinates (if
disinfection is accomplished through
chlorination);
(3) Effluent monitoring for specific
parameters. (i) As provided in
paragraphs (j)(3) (ii) through Cx) of this
section all applicants shall submit to the
Director effluent monitoring information
for samples taken from each outfall
through which effluent is discharged to
waters of the United States, except for
CSOs. The Director may allow
applicants to submit sampling data (or
only one outfall on a case-by-case basis,
where the applicant has two or more
outfalls with substantially identical
effluent;
(ii) All applicants must sample and
analyze (or the pollutants listed in
Appendix J of this part, Table 1;
(lii) The following applicants must
‘.mple and analyze for the pollutants
sted in Appendix I of this part. Table
2, and for any other pollutants for which
the State or EPA have established water
quality standards applicable to the
receiving waters:
(A) All POflYs with a design influent
flow rate equal to or greater than one
million gallons per day;
(B) All POTWs with approved
pretreatment programs or POTWs
required to develop a pretreatment
program: and
(C) Other POTWs, as required by the
Director
(iv) Unless otherwise required by the
Director, applicants are not required to
sample for the pollutants listed in
Appendix J of this part, Table 3;
(v) The Director should require
sampling for additional pollutants, as
appropriate, on a case-by-case basis;
(vi) Applicants must provide data
from a minimum of three samples taken
within three years prior to the date of
the permit application. Samples must be
representative of the discharge from
each outfall, and at least two samples
should be at least four months, but no
more than eight months apart. Existing
data may be used, if available, in lieu of
sampling done solely for the purpose of
this application. The Director should
require additional samples, as
appropriate, on a case-by-case basis;
(vii) All existing data for pollutants
specified In paragraphs (j)(3) (ii) through
(v) of this section that is collected
within three years of the application
must be included with the pollutant
data submitted by the applicant. If,
however, the applicant samples for a
specific pollutant on a monthly or more
frequent basis, it is only necessary, for
such pollutant, to provide all data
collected within one year of the
application:
(viii) Applicants must collect samples
of effluent and analyze such samples for
pollutants in accordance with analytical
methods approved under 40 CFR part
136 unless an alternative Is specified in
the existing NPDES permit. When no
analytical method is approved.
applicants may use any suitable method
and must provide a description of the
method. Grab samples must be used for
pH, temperature, cyanide, total phenols,
residual chlorine, oil and grease, (ecal
coliform, E. coil, and enterococci. For all
other pollutants, 24-hour flow-weighted
composite samples must be used. For a
flow-weighted composite sample, only
one analysis of the composite of aliquots
is required. A single grab sample may be
taken for effluent from holding ponds or
other impoundments, so long as they
have a retention tune of greater than 24
hours;
(ix) The effluent monitoring data
provided must include at least the
following information for eat.h
parameteri
(A) Maximum daily discharge,
expressed as concentration or mass,
based upon actual sample values;
(B) Average daily discharge for all
samples, expressed as concentration or
mass, based upon actual sample values,
and the number of samples used to
obtain this value;
(C) The analytical method used; and
ID) The threshold level (i.e., method
detection limit, minimum level, or other
designated method endpoints) for the
analytical method used; and
lx) Unless otherwise required by the
Director, metals must be reported as
total recoverable;
(4) Effluent monitoring for whole
effluent toxicity. (I) All applicants shall
provide an identification of any
biological toxicity tests that the
applicant knows or has reason to believe
have been made during the three years
prior to the date of the application on
any of the applicant’s discharges or on
a receiving water in relation to a
discharge.
(ii) As provided in paragraphs (j)(4)
(iii) through (ix) of this Section. the
following applicants shall submit to the
Director the results of valid whole
effluent biological toxicity tests for
acute or chronic toxicity for samples
taken from each outfall through which
effluent is discharged to surface waters.
except for combined sewer overflows:
(A) All POTWs with design influent
flow rate equal to or greater than one
million gallons per day:
(B) All POTWs with approved
pretreatment programs or POTWs
required to develop a pretreatment
program: and
(C) Other POTWs. as required by the
Director, based on consideration of the
following factors:
(1)The variability of the pollutants or
pollutant parameters in the POTW
effluent (based on chemical-specific
information, the type of treatment plant,
and types of industrial contributors);
(2) The ratio of effluent flow to
receiving stream flow:
(3) Existing controls on point or non-
point sources, including total maximum
daily load calculations for the receiving
stream segment and the relative
contribution of the POTW;
(4) Receiving stream characteristics.
including possible or known water
quality impairment, and whether the
POTW discharges to a coastal water, one
of the Crest Lakes, or a water designated
as an outstanding natural resource
water- or
(5) Other considerations (including,
but not limited to. the history of toxic
impacts and compliance problems at the
POTW) that the Director determines
-------
62580 Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 234 / Wednesday. December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
could cause or contribute to adverse
water quality impacts.
(iii) Where the POTW has two or more
outfalls with substantially identical
effluent discharging to the same
receiving stream segment. the Director
may allow applicants to submit whole
effluent toxicity data for only one outfall
on a case-by-case basis.
(lv) Each applicant required to
perform whole effluent biological
toxicity testing pursuant to paragraph
(j)(4)(ii) of this section shall provide the
results of a minimum of four quarterly
tests for a year. Applicants shall
conduct tests with multiple species (no
less than two species; e.g., fish,
invertebrate, plant), and test for acute or
chronic toxicity, depending on the range
of receiving water dilution. It is
recommended that applicants conduct
acute or chronic testing based on the
following dilutions:
(A) Acute toxicity testing if the
dilution of the effluent Is greater than
1000:1 at the edge of the mixing zone;
(B) Acute or chronic toxicity testing if
the dilution of the effluent Is between
100:1 and 1000:1 at the edge of the
mixing zone. Acute testing may be more
appropriate at the higher end of this
range (1000:1). and chronic testing may
be more appropriate at the lower end of
this range (100:1); and
(C) Chronic testing if the dilution of
the effluent is less than 100:1 at the edge
of the mixing zone
(v) Each applicant required to perform
whole effluent biological toxicity testing
pursuant to paragraph (j)(41(lI) of this
section shall provide the number of
chronic or acute whole effluent toxicity
tests that have been conducted since the
last permit relssuance.
(vi) Provide the results using the form
provided by the Director, or test
summnries if available and
comprehensive. for each whole effluent
toxicity test conducted pursuant to
paragraph (j)(4)(lI) of this section for
which such information has not been
reported previously to the Director.
v1I) Whole effluent toxicity testing
conducted pursuant to paragraph
(fl(4)(li) of this section shall be
conducted using methods approved
under 40 CFR part 138.
(viii) For blomonitoring data
submitted to the Director within three
years prior to the date of the
application, applicants must provide the
dates on which the data were submitted
and a summary of the results.
(lx) Each POTW required to perform
whole effluent biological testing
pursuant to paragraph (j)(4)(ii) of this
section roust provide any Information
on the cause of toxicity and written
details of any toxicity reduction
evaluation conducted, if any whole
effluent toxicity test conducted within
the past three yeals revealed toxicity.
(5) Industnoj discharges and
pretreatment. Applicants must submit
the information in paragraphs (j)(5)(l)
through (iii) of this section, as
applicable, regarding industrial user
discharges to the POTW.
(I) Genera! information. General
information on industrial users.
(A) Number of significant Industrial
users (SIUs) and categorical industrial
users (CIIJs) discharging to the POTW:
(B) Total average daily flow rate from
all industrial (non-domestic) users, from
STUs, and from all CIUs discharging to
the POTW; and
(C) Estimated percent of total influent
contributed by all industrial (non-
domestic) users, by SIUs only, by CIUs
only, and by domestic sources
discharging to the POTW.
(Ii) Pretreatment program and local
limits. POTWs with an approved
pretreatment program under 40 CFR
part 403 shall provide information
concerning pretreatment program
modifications that are required to be
submitted but have not been approved
in accordance with 40 CFR 403.18.
(iii) Significant industrial users.
POTWs with one or more significant
industrial users (SIUs) shall provide the
following information for each SIU. as
defined at 40 CFR 403.3(t), that
discharges to the POTW:
(A) Name and mailing address;
(B) Description of all industrial
processes that affect or contribute to the
S U ’s discharge;
(C) Principal products and raw
materials of the SRI;
(0) Average daily volume of
wastewater discharged. indicating the
amount attributable to process flow and
non-process flow
(E) Whether the SIU is subject to local
limits;
(F) Whether the SIU is subject to
categorical standards, and if so, under
which category(Ies) and
subcategory(ies); and
(C) Whether any problems at the
POTW (e.g., upsets, pass through,
Interference) have been attributed to the
SIU In the past three years;
(6) Discharges from hazardous waste
generators and from waste cleanup or
remediatlon sites. POTWs receiving
RCRA. CERCLA, or RCRA Corrective
Action wastes or wastes generated at
another type of cleanup or remediation
site must provide the following
information:
(i) RCPU4 hazardous waste. If the
POTW receives by truck, rail, or
dedicated pipe any wastes that are
regulated as RCRA hazardous wastes
pursuant to 40 CFR part 281. or
authorized State, or if it Is expected to
receive such wastes during the life of
the permit, the applicant must report
the following:
(A) The method by which the waste
Is received (I.e.. whether by truck, rail,
or dedicated pipe); and
(B) The hazardous waste number and
amount received annually of each
hazardous waste;
(ii) CERCL4 wastewaters. If the POTW
receives wastewaters that originate fr-
response activities undertaken pursua.-
to the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA). or if it is expected to
receive such wastewaters during the life
of the permit, the applicant must report
the following:
(A) The identity and description of
the site(s) at which the wastewater
originates or is expected to originate;
(B) The identities of the hazardous
constituents In the wastewater and
(C) The extent of treatment, if any, the
wastewater receives or will receive
before entering the POTW;
(iii) RCRA corrective action
wastewaters. If the POTW receives
wastewaters that originate from
remedial activities undertaken pursuant
to sections 3004(u) or 3008(h) of RCRA,
or authorized State. or if it Is expected
to receive such wastewaters during th
life of the permit, the applicant must
report the following:
(A) The identity and description of
the faculity(Ies) at which the wastewater
originates or Is expected to originate;
(B) The identities of the hazardous
constituents in the wastewater- and
(C) The extent of treatment, If any, the
wastewater receives or will receive
before entering the POT’vV; and
(iv) Wastewat rs from other remedial
activities, lithe POTW receives
wastewaters that originate from
remedJai activities other than those in
paragraphs (j)(6) (ii) and (iii) of this
section, the applicant shall provide a
written description that includes the
following Information:
(A) The Identity and description of
the facility(les) at which the wastewater
originates or is expected to originate;
(B) The identities of the hazardous
constituents In the wastewater ’ and
(C) The extent of treatment, If any, the
wastewater receives or will receive
before entering the POTW;
(7) Combined sewer overflows. Each
applicant with combined sewer systems
shall provide the following information:
(I) Combined sewer system
information. The following information
regarding the combined sewer system:
(A) CSQ discharge points. The
number of combined sewer overflow
-------
62581
(CSO) discharge points in the combined
sewer system to be covered by the
application;
(B) System mop. A map Indicating the
location of the following:
(1) All CSO discharge points;
(2) Sensitive use areas potentially
affected by CSOs (e.g.. beaches, drinking
water supplies. shellfish beds, sensitive
aquatic ecosystems, and outstanding
natural resource waters); and
(3) Waters support ing threatened and
endangered species potentially affected
byCSOs:
(C) System diogrnzn. A diagram of the
combined sewer collection system that
includes the following mformatlon
(1) The location of major sewer trunk
lines, both combined and separate
sanitary;
(2) The locations of points where
separate sanitary sewers feed into the
combined sewer system;
(3) In-line and off-line storage
structures;
(4) The locations of flow-regulating
devices; and
(5) The locations of pump stations;
and
(D) System evaiuatjon. A list of
studies, including modeling studies,
hydraulic studies, past monitoring
efforts, and facility plans, that have been
performed on the collection system
suice the last permit application; and
(II) Information on CSO outf ails. The
following information for each CSO
discharge point covered by the permit
application:
(A) Description of outfail. The
following information on each outfall:
(1) Outfall number;
(2) State. county, and city or town in
which outfall is located:
(3) Latitude and longitude, to the
nearest second; and
(4) Distance from shore and depth
below surface;
(B) Monitoring. Indicate if any of the
following were monitored in the past
year for this CSO and provide the
results of this monitoring:
(1) Rainfall;
(2) CSO flow volume;
(3) CSO water quality;
(4) Receiving water quality; and
(5) The number of storm events;
(C) CSO incidents. The following
information about CSO incidents:
(1) The number of incidents in the
past year:
(2) The average duration per incident;
(3) The average volume per CSO
incident; and
(4) The minimum rainfall that caused
a CSO incident in the last year;
(D) Description of receiving waters.
The following information about
receiving waters:
(1) Name and type ef receiving water
(e.g.. stream/river, lake/pond, estuary,
ocean);
(2) Name of watershed/stream system
and the United States Soil Conservation
Service watershed (14-digit) code (if
known); and
(3) Name of State Management/River
Basin and the United States Geological
Survey hydrologic cataloging unIt (8-
digit) code (if known); and
(E) CSO operations. The following
information concerning CSO operations:
(1) Whether the CSO includes
contributions from significant industrial
users; and
(2) A description of any known water
quality Impacts on the receiving water
caused by the CSO (e.g.. permanent or
Intermittent beach closings, permanent
or internuttent shellfish bed closings.
fish kills, fish advisories, other
recreational loss, or exceedance of any
applicable State water quality standard);
(8) Contractors. AU applicants shall
provide the name, mailing address,
telephone number, and responsibilities
of all contractors responsible for any
operational or maintenance aspects of
the facility: and
(9) Signature. All applications shall
be signed by a certifying official in
comp1iance vith 122.22.
(q) Sewage sludge management. All
treatment works treating domestic
sewage, except “sludge-only facilities”
subject to paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this
section, shall provide the information in
this paragraph to the Director, using
Form 2S or another form approved by
the Director. The Director may waive
any requirement of this paragraph if the
Director has access to substantially
identical information.
(1) Facthty information. All
applicants shall submit the following
information:
(i) The name, mailing address, and
location of the treatment works treating
domestic sewage for which the
application is submitted;
(ii) The facility’s latitude and
longitude to the nearest second, and
method of deterzninauori;
(iii) Whether the facility is a Class I
Sludge Management Facility;
(iv) The design influent flow rate (in
million gallons per day); and
(v) The total population served;
(2) Applicant information. All
applicants shall submit the following
information:
(1) The name, mailing address, and
telephone number of the applicant;
(ii) Indication whether the applicant
is the owner, operator, or both; and
(iii) The applicant’s status as Federal,
State, private, public, or other entity;
(3) Permit information. All applicants
shall submit the facility’s NPDES permit
number, if applicable, and a listing of all
other Federal, State, and local permits
or Construction approvals received or
applied for under any of the following
programs:
(i) Hazardous Waste Management
program under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (R A);
(ii) UIC program under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA);
(iii) NPDES program under the Clean
Water Act (CWA);
(lv) Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program under the
Clean Air Act;
(v) Nonattainment program under the
Clean Air Act;
(vi) National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)
preconstruction approval under the
Clean Air Act;
(vii) Dredge or fill permits under
section 404 of CWA; and
(viii) Other relevant envuon.mentaj
permits, including State or local
permits;
(4) Federal Indian Reser.’ations. All
applicants shall identify any generation.
treatment, storage, land application, or
disposal of sewage sludge that occurs on
Federal Indian Roservatf ens;
(5) Topographic map. All applicants
shall submit a topographic map (or
other map if a topographic map is
unavailable) extending one mile beyond
property boundaries of the facility and
showing the following information:
(I) All sewage sludge management
facilities, including use and disposal
sites;
(ii) All water bodies; and
(iii) Wells used for drinking water
listed in public records or otherwise
known to the applicant within 1/4 mile
of the facility property boundaries:
(6) Sewage sludge handling. All
applicants shall submit a line drawing
andlor a narrative description that
identifies all sewage sludge
management practices employed during
the term of the permit, including all
units used for collecting, dewatering,
storing, or treating scwage sludge, the
destination(s) of all liquids and solids
leaving each such unit, and all
processes used for pathogen reduction
and vector attraction reduction:
(7) Sewage sludge quaiity. (i) If the
applicant is a “Class I sludge
management facility.” the applicant
shall submit the results of a toxicity
characteristic leaching procedure
(TCLP), as described in 40 CFR part 261.
conducted In the last five years to
determine whether the sewage sludge is
a hazardous waste.
(ii) The applicant shall submit sewage
sludge monitoring data for the
Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6. 1995 / Proposed Rules
-------
62582 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 I Wednesday . December 6. 1995 / Proposed Rules
parameters indicated in paragraphs
(q)(7)(il) (A) through (B) of this section.
Monitoring data shall be two years old
or less. The data for each parameter
shall Include the concentration In
sewage sludge (rnglkg dry weight), the
sample date(s), the analytical method.
and the minimum detection level for the
analysis.
(A) “Class I Sludge Management
Facilities.” as defined in § 122.2, shall
subnut sewage sludge monitoring data
for TKN, ammonia. nitrate, total
phosphorus, the pollutants in Appendix
J of this part, Tables 2 and 3, and any
other parameters for which limits in
sewage sludge have been established in
40 CFR part 503 on the date of permit
application.
(B) All other facilities required to
apply under this section shall submit
sewage sludge monitoring data for TKN,
ammonia, nitrate, total phosphorus and
those pollutants for which limits in
sewage sludge have been established in
40 CFR part 503 on the date of permit
appllcation
(8) Preparation of sewage sludge. If
the applicant is a “person who
prepares” sewage sludge, as defined at
40 CFR 503.g(r), the applicant shall
provide the following information:
(I) If the applicant’s facility generates
sewage sludge, the total dry metric tons
per 36 5.day period generated at the
facility:
(II) If the applicant’s facility receives
sewage sludge from another facility, the
following Information for each facility
from which sewage sludge is received:
(A) The name, mailing address, and
location of the other facility;
(B) The total dry metric tons per 365-
day period received from the other
facility; and
(C) A description of any treatment
processes occurring at the other facility,
including blending activities and
treatment to reduce pathogens or vector
attraction characteristics;
(ill) If the applicant’s facility changes
the quality of sewage sludge through
blending, treatment, or other activities,
the following Information:
(A) Whether the Class A pathogen
reduction requirements in 40 CFR
503.32(a) or the Class B pathogen
reduction requirements in 40 CFR
503.32(b) are met, and a description of
any treatment processes used to reduce
pathogens in sewage sludge;
(B) Whether any of the vector
attraction reduction options of 40 CFR
503.33(b)(1) through (b)(8) are met, and
a description of any treatment processes
used to reduce vector attraction.
properties in sewage sludge: and
(C) A description of any other
blending. treatment, or other activities
that change the quality of sewage
sludge;
(iv) If sewage sludge from the
applicant’s facility meets the ceiling
concentrations in 40 CFR 503.13(b)(1).
the pollutant concentrations in 40 CFR
503.13(b)(3), the Class A pathogen
requirements In 40 CFR 503.32(a). and
one of the vector attraction reduction
requirements in 40 CFR 503.33(b)(1)
through (b)(8), and if the sewage sludge
is applied to the land, the applicant
shall provide the total dry metric tons
per 365-day period of sewage sludge
subject to this paragraph that is applied
to the land;
(v) If sewage sludge from the
applicant’s facility is sold or given away
in a bag or other container for
application to the land, and the sewage
sludge is not subject to paragraph
(q)(8)(iv) of this section. the applicant
shall provide the following information:
(A) The total dry metric tons per 365-
day period of sewage sludge subject to
this paragraph that is sold or given away
in a bag or other container for
application to the land; and
(B) A copy of all labels or notices that
accompany the sewage sludge being
sold or given away;
(vi) If sewage sludge from the
applicant’s facility is provided to
another “person who prepares,” as
defined at 40 CFR 503.9(r), and the
sewage sludge is not subject to
paragraph (q)(e)(lv) of this section, the
applicant shall provide the following
Information for each facility receiving
the sewage sludge:
(A) The name and mailing address of
the receiving facility:
(B) The total dry metric tons per 365-
day period of sewage sludge subject to
this paragraph that the applicant
provides to the receiving facility:
(C) A description of any treatment
processes occurring at the receiving
facility, including blending activities
and treatment to reduce pathogens or
vector attraction characteristic;
(1)) A copy of the notice and necessary
Information that the applicant is
required to provide the receiving facility
under 40 CFR 503.12(g); and
(EJ If the receiving facility places
sewage sludge in bags or containers for
sale or glve.away to application to the
land, a copy of any labels or notices that
accompany the sewage sludge;
(9) Land application of bulk sewage
sludge. If sewage sludge from the
applicant’s facility is applied to the land
in bulk form, and is not subject to
§ 122.21(q)(8)(iv), (v), or (vi). the
applicant shall provide the following
information:
(ii The total dry metric tons per 365-
day period of sP%% age sludge subject to
this paragraph (q)(91 that Is applied to
the land; —
(ii) If any land application sites e
located in States other than the Stai
where the sewage sludge is prepared, a
description of how the applicant will
notify the permitting authority for the
State(s) where the land application sites
are located;
(lii) The following information for
each land application site that has been
identified at the time of permit
application:
(A) The name (if any), and location for
the land application site;
(B) The name, mailing address, and
telephone number of the site owner, if
different from the applicant;
(C) The name, mailing address, and
telephone number of the person who
applies sewage sludge to the site, if
different from the applicant:
(D) Whether the site is agricultural
land, forest, a public contact site, or a
reclamation site, as such site types are
defined under 40 CFR 503.11;
(E) The type of vegetation grown on
the site, if known, and the nitrogen
requirement for this vegetation;
(F) Whether either of the vector
attraction reduction options of 40 CFR
503.33(b)(9) or (bib) is met at the site,
and a description of any procedures
employed at the tune of use to reduc ’
vector attraction properties in sewa
sludge; and
(C) Any available ground.water
monitoring data, with a description of
the well locations and approximate
depth to ground water, for the land
application site;
(iv) The following information for
each land application site that has been
identified at the time of permit
application, if the applicant intends to
apply bulk sewage sludge subject to the
cumulative pollutant loading rates in 40
CFR 503.13(b)(2) to the site:
(A) Whether the applicant has
contacted the permitting authonty in
the State where the bulk sewage sludge
subject to 40 CFR 503 ,13(b)(2) will be
applied, to ascertain whether bulk
sewage sludge subject to 40 CFR
503.13(b)(2) has been applied to the site
on or since July 20, 1993, and if so, the
name of the permitting authority and
the name and phone number of a
contact person at the permitting
authority;
(B) Identification of facilities other
than the applicant’s facility that have
sent, or are sending, sewage sludge
subject to the cumulative pollutant
loading rates in 40 CFR 503.13(b)(2) to
the site since July 20, 1993. if, based
the inquiry in paragraph (q)(9)(iv)(A).
this section, bulk sewage sludge subject
to cumulative pollutant loading rates in
-------
62583
40 CFR 503.13(b)(2) has been applied to
the site since July 20, 1993;
(v) If not all land application sites
have been identified at the time of
permit application, the applicant shall
submit a land application plan that, at
a minimum:
(A) Describes the geographical area
covered by the plan;
(B) Identifies the site selection
criteria;
(C) Describes how the site(s) will be
managed;
(D) Provides for advance notice to the
permit authority of specific land
application sites and reasonable time for
the permit authority to object prior to
land application of the sewage sludge;
and
(E) Provides for advance public notice
as required by State and local law, but
in all cases requires notice to
landowners and occupants adjacent to
or abutting the proposed land
application site;
(10) Surface disposal. If sewage
sludge from the applicanrs facility is
placed on a surface disposal site, the
applicant shall provide the following
information’
(i) The total dry metric tons of sewage
sludge from the applicant’s facility that
is placed on surface disposal sites per
365-day period:
(ii) The following information for
each surface disposal site receiving
sewage sludge from the applicant’s
facility that the applicant does not own
or operate’
(A) The site name or number, contact
person, mailing address, and telephone
number for the surface disposal site; and
(B) The total dry metric tons from the
applicant’s facility per 365-day period
placed on the surface disposal site; and
(iii) The following information for
each active sewage sludge unit at each
surface disposal site that the applicant
owns or operates:
(A) The name or number and the
location of the active sewage sludge
unit.
(B) The total dry metric tons placed
on the active sewage sludge unit per
365-day period,
(C) The total dry metric tons placed
on the active sewage sludge unit over
the life of the unit;
(D) A description of any liner for the
active sewage sludge unit: including
whether it has a maximum permeability
of lx 10’crn/sec;
(El A description of any leachate
collection system for the active sewage
sludge unit, including the method used
for leachate disposal, and any Federal,
State, and local permit number(s) for
leachate disposal;
(F) If the active sewage sludge unit Is
less than 150 meters from the property
line of the surface disposal site, the
actual distance from the unit boundary
to the site property line;
(C) The remaining capacity (dry
metric tons) for the acuve sewage sludge
unit;
(H) The date on which the active
sewage sludge unit is expected to close,
if such a date has been identified;
(I) The following information for any
other facility that sends sewage sludge
to the active sewage sludge unit:
(1) The name, contact person, and
mailing address of the facility; and
(2) Available information regarding
the quality of the sewage sludge
received from the facility, including any
treatment at the facility to reduce
pathogens or vector attraction
characteristics;
(J) Whether any of the vector
attraction reduction options of 40 CFR
503.33(b)(9) through (b)(11) is met at the
active sewage sludge unit, and a
description of any procedures employed
at the time of disposal to reduce vector
attraction properties in sewage sludge;
(K) The following information, as
applicable to any ground-water
monitoring occurring at the active
sewage sludge unit:
(1) A description of any ground-water
monitoring occumng at the active
sewage sludge unit;
(2) Any available ground-water
monitoring data, with a description of
the well locations and approximate
depth to ground water-
(3) A copy of any ground-water
monitoring plan that has been prepared
for the active sewage sludge unit, and
(4) A copy of any certification that has
been obtained from a qualified ground-
water scientist that the aqw Icr has not
been contaminated; and
(L) If site-specific pollutant limits are
beuig sought for the sewage sludge
placed on this active sewage sludge
unit, information to support such a
request;
[ 11) Thczneration If sewage sludge
from the applicant’s facility is fired in
a sewage sludge incinerator, the
applicant shall provide the following
infotmation:
(i) The total dry metnc tons of sewage
sludge from the applicants facility that
is fired in sewage sludge incinerators
per 365-day period.
(ii) The following information for
each sewage sludge Incinerator firing
the applicant’s sewage sludge that the
applicant does nol own or operate:
(A) The name and/or number. contact
person. mailing address, and telephone
number of the sewage sludge
incinerator: and
(B) The total dry metric tons from the
applicants facility per 365-day period
fired in the sewage sludge incinerator;
(iii) The following information for
each sewage sludge incinerator that the
applicant owns or ooerates:
(A) The name and or number and the
location of the sewage sludge
incmeratori
(B) The total dry metric tons per 365-
day penod fired in tao sewage sludge
incinerator;
(C) Information, test data, and
documentation of ongoing operating
parameters indicating that compliance
with the National Emission Standard for
Beryllium in 40 CFR part 61 will be
achieved;
(D) Information, test data, and
documentation of ongoing operating
parameters indicating that compliance
with the National Emission Standard for
Mercury in 40 CFR part 61 will be
achieved;
(E) The dispersion factor for the •
sewage sludge incinerator, as ‘veil as
modeling results and supporting
documentation;
(F) The control efficiency for
parameters regulated in 40 CFR 503.43,
as well as porformance test results and
supporting documentation;
(G) Information used to calculate the
risk specific concentration (RSC) for
chromium, Including the results of
Incinerator stack tests for hexavalent
and total chromium concenfl’ations. if
the applicant is requesting a chromium
limit based on a site-specific RSC value;
(H) The con(entration (ppm) of total
hydrocarbons (THC) or Carbon
Monoxide (CO) in the exit gas for the
sewage sludge incinerator, as well as
supporting docunientation, both before
and after correction for zero percent
mols’ure and c’rrpctjcr 1 to seven
percent oxygen ‘ s req ..ilre’I in 40 CFR
503.44,
(I) The oxygen ccncentratlon in the
sewage sludge :n riertor stzirk exit gas,
(ii Laformation used to d terrniue the
moisture content ot the set a e sludge
incinerator stack e ’it i as,
(K) The type of sewage sludge
incinerator:
(L) The combustion Lemperaturc, as
obtained dutirig the performance test of
the sewage sludge ai_inezator ic
deterrntne pollutant control efficiencies,
(Mi The follo’A’lrig information on
sewage sludge fecd rate,
(1) Sewage sludge feed rate in dry
metric tons per day;
(2) Identification ‘ ,f whether the feed
rate submitted is avr’rage use or
maximum desigr. and
(3) A description nf how the feed rate
was calculated.
(N) The incinerator stack height in
meters for each stack. inc!uding
identification of whether actual or
creditable stack height was used;
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
-------
62584 Federal Register / Vol. 60. tSIo. 34 / Wednesday. December 6, 1995 I Proposed Rules
(0) The operating parameters for the
sewage sludge incinerator air pollution
control device(s), as obtained during the
performance test of the sewage sludge
incinerator to determine pollutant
control efficiencies:
(P) Identification of the monitoring
equipment in place. including (but not
limited to) equipment to monitor the
following:
(1) Total hydrocarbons or Carbon
Monoxide;
(2) Percent oxygen;
(3) Percent moisture; and
(4) Combustion temperattire; and
(QJ A list of all air pollution control
equipment used with this sewage sludge
incinerator.
(U) Disposai in a niunicipoi solid
waste landfill. If sewage sludge from the
applicant’s facility is sent to a
municipal solid waste landfill
(MSWLF). the applicant shall provide
the following information for each
MSWL.F to which sewage sludge is sent:
(i) The name, contact person. mailing
address, location, and all applicable
permit numbers of the MSWLF;
(ii) The total dry metric tons per 365-
day period sent from this facility to the
MSWLF;
(iii) A determination of whether the
sewage shidge meets applicable
requirements for disposal of sewage
sludge in a MSWLF. including the
results of the paint filter liquids test and
any additional requirements that apply
on a site-specific basis; and
(iv) Information, if known, indicating
whether the MSWLF complies with
criteria set forth in 40 R Part 258;
(13) Contractors. All applicants shall
provide the name, mailing address.
telephone number, and responsibilities
of all contractors responsible for any
operational or maintenance aspects of
the facility;
(14) Other information. At the request
of the permitting authority, the
applicant shall provide any other
Information necessary to determine the
appropriate standards for permitting
under 40 CFR part 503, and shall
provide any other information necessary
to assess the sewage sludge use and
disposal practices, determine whether to
issue a permit. or identify appropriate
permit requirements: and
(15) Signature. All applications shall
be signed by a certifying official in
compliance with § 122.22.
7. Part 122 is amended by adding
Appendix J to read as follows:
Appendix to Part 12Z—NPDES Permit
Testing Requirements for Publicly
Owned Treatment Works ( 122.21(j))
and Treatment Works Treating
Domestic Sewage ( 122.21(q))
Table 1—Effluent Parameters for All
POTWS
Ammonia (as N)
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD—5 or
CBOD-5)
Chlorine (total residual. TRC)
Dissolved oxygen
£ Col,
Enterococci
Fecal coirforin
Flow Rate
Hardness (as CaCO 3 )
Kjeldahl nitrogen
Nitrate/Nitrite
Oil and greace
pH
Phosphorus
Temperature
Total dissolved solids
Total suspended solids
Table 2—Effluent and Sewage Sludge
Parameters for Selected POTWS and
Treatment Works Treating Domestic
Sewage
Metals (Total If ecoveroble). ( vanide and
Total Phenols
Antimony
7440—36—0
Arsenic
7440—38—2
Beryllium
7440—41—7
Cadmium
7440—43—9
Chromium
7440—47—3
Copper
7440—50—8
Lead
7439—92—1
Mercury
7439—97—6
NIckel
7440—02—0
Selenium
7782—49—2
Silver
7440-22—4
Thallium
7440—29—0
Zinc
7440—66—6
Cyanide
57—12—5
Phenols, total
Volatile Organic Compounds
Acrolein
107—02—8
Acrylonitrile
107—13— I
Ben zone
271—43—2
Bromoform
75—25—2
Carbon tetrachioride
56—23—5
hlorobenzene
108—90—7
Cliloroclibromomethane
124—48—1
Chloruethane
75—00—3
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
110—75—8
Chloroform
67—66—3
Diclilorobromomethane
75—27—4
1.i-dichioroethane
75—34—3
1.2-thcblornethane
107—08—2
Trans-I .2-dichloroethylene
156—60—5
1,1- dlchloroethylene
75—35—4
1.2-dichloruprc ipane
78—87—5
1.3-dichloropropene
542—75—6
Ethylbenzene
100-41-4
Methyl bromide
74—83—9
Methyl chloride
74—87—3
Methylane chionde
75—09—2
1.1.2.2 tetrachioroethano
630—20-6
Tetrach loroethyicce
127—18—4
Toluene
108—88-3
i. 1,i-tr ich!oroethane
71—55—6
1.1.2 .trichioroethane
7q. _QQ _5
Trichloroethyiene
79—01—6
Vinyl chloride
75—01-4
.lc,d-etiroctable compounds
P .chloro -m-creso l
59-50-7
2-chloropheno l
95-57—8
2.4’d lchlorophenol
120—83—2
222.4 .d l inethylphonol
105—67—9
4.6 .dirntro-o-tresol
534—52—1
2.4-dinitrophenol
51—28—5
2.nitrophenol
887—5—S
4-nitrophonol
100—02—7
Pentachloropheiiol
87—86—5
Phenol
108-205-2
2.4.6-mchlornphenol
88—06—2
Bose-Neutml Compounds
Acenaphthene
83—32—9
A.enaphthylene
208—96—6
Ar ithracone
-------
Federal Register / Vo O, No. 234 ‘.. iv. Decemoer (3. 1995 / Proposed Rules 62585
120-12-7 62 1-64-7 PART 123—STATE PROGRAM
Beuzidine N-nitrosodimothylazmne REQUIREMENTS
92—87—5 82—75—9
Benzo(a)anthracene N•mtrosodipheny lamine 8a. The aut.hority citation for part 123
56—55—3 86—30-6 continues to read as follows.
Benzo(a)pyrerie Phenanthrene
50—32—8 85—01—8 AuthorIty: Clean Water Act. 33 U S.C. 1251
3.4 benzofluoranthene Pyrene ot seq.
205—09—2 129-00-0 8b. Section 123.25 is amended by
Benzo(ghi)perylene 1.2.4. . trichlorobenzane
revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as
191—24—2 120—82—I follows:
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
207-08—9 Table 3—Other Effluent and Sewage
Bis (2-chioroethoxy) methane Sludge Parameters for Treatment § 123.25 RequIrements for permitting.
111—91—1 Works Treating Domestic Sewage and (a) * •
Bis (2.chloroethyl) ether Selected POTWS (4) Sections 122.21(a). (b), (c)(2), (e)
111—44—4 through (k). (m) through (p). and (qi—
Bis (2-chiorolsopropyl ether Metals (Application for a permit);
108—60—1 MoLybdenum . * * s *
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 743 9 - 9 9 -7
117—81—7
4 -bromopheny! phenyl ether P st c:dea PART 403-GENERAL
101-55-3 AIdrin PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS FOR
Butyl benzyl phthalate 309-00-2 EXISTING AND NEW SOURCES OF
85-68-7 Alpha-BHC POLLUTION
2 -chloronaphthalene 319 . .84 . .6
91 -58—7 Beta -BHC 9. The authority citation for part 403
4-chiorophenyl plienyl ether . 319—85—7 continues to read as follows:
7005—72—3 Delta -BHC Authority: Sec. 54(c)(2) of the Clean Waer
Chrysene 319—86—8 Act of 1977. (Pub. L 95—217) sections
218—01—9 Gaznma- BHC 2o4(b)(1)(c). 208(b)(2)(C)(ijj), 301(b)( I )(A)(ii).
Di-n-butyl phthaiate 58—89—9 - 301(b)(2)(C), 301(h)(5), 301(i)(2), 304(e).
84—74—2 Chlordane 304(g). 307. 308, 309, 402(b). 405, and 501(a)
Di-n-octyl phthalate of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
117 . 46-0 4.4’—DDD (Pub. L 92—500) as amended by the Clean
Dibenzo(e .h)anthracene 72—54-8 Water Act of 1977 and the Water Quality Act
53—70—3 4.40DE of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-4).
1,2-dich lorobeozene 72—55—9
95—50—i 4.4’—DDT 10. Section 403.8 is amended by
1.3-dichlorobenzene 50-29-3 revising paragraph (fl(4) to read as
541—73— i Dieldrin follows:
1.4 -dichloroben zene 60—57—1
106—46—7 Alpha-endosulfan § 403.8 Pretreatment Program
3.3’-dichlorobenzidine 959—98—8 Requirements: Development and
91—94-1 Beta-endosulfan implementation by P01W.
Diethyl phthalate 3321365 . . ..9
84-68-2 Endosulfan sulfate
(f) *
Dimethyt phthalate 1031—07—8
131—11—3 Endrin (4) The POTW shall:
2.4-dinitrotoluene 72—20—8 (1) Develop local limits as required in
121—14—2 Endrrn aldehyde § 403.5(c)(1). or demonstrate that they
2.6 -dinitrotoluene 7421—93—4 are not necessary; and
606—20—2 Heptach lor (ii) Following permit issuance or
1.2-diphenylhydrazine 76-44-8 reissuance, provide a written techmcal
122—66-7 Heptachlorepoxide evaluation of the need to revise local
Fluoranthene 1024—57—3
limits under 40 CFR 403.5(c)(1).
206-44—0 PCB—1016 (Aroclor 1016)
Fluorene 12674—11—2 *
86—73—7 PCB—1221 (Aroclor 1221)
Hexachlorobenzeno 11104—28-2 PART 501—STATE SLUDGE
11 8 -74— 1 PCB-1232 (Aroclor 1232) MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Hexachlorobutadiene 11141— 16-S REGULATIONS
87—68—3 PCB—1242 (Aroclor 1242)
Hexachlorocyclopentadaene 53469-21 . .9 11. The authority citation for part 501
77—47—4 PCB—i 248 (Aroclor 1248) continues to reed as follows;
Hexach loroethane 12672—29—6
87—72—1 PCB—1254 (Aroclor 1254) Mithorfty Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq.
lndeno(1.2.3-cd)pyrene 11097—69-1
193—39—5 PCB— 1260 (Aroclor 1260) 12. Section 501.15 is amended by
Isophorone 11096.82—5 removing the reference
78—59—1 Toxaphena 501.15 a)(2)(ix)” In paragraphs (d)(4)
Naphthalene 8001—38-2 in ducto , text. (d)(4)W(C), and
91—20-3 Other (d)(5)(ii)(B) and adding In its place
Nitrobenzene
98-95—3 2.3.7.8-tetrachlorothbenzo-p-dioxin •• 122.21(q)(9)(v)”. and by revising
N-nitmosodl n-propylamine 1746—01—6 paragraph (a)(2) to read as foliows.
-------
62586 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No 34 I ‘Vednecday , December 6, 1995 I Proposed Rules
§ 501.15 RequIremen for permItth g.
(a) *
(2) fnfomiation requirements. AU
treatment works treaung domestic
sewage shall submit to the Director the
inforrna!Iwa listed at 40 CFR 122.21 (q)
within the tune frames established in
paragraph (dJ(iXli) of this section.
. . a * *
Note: The following form will not appear
in the Code of Federal Regulations.
81LW40 000! 6660-65-P
-------
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION;
A. Espanded Effluent Testing Data. A treatment works that discharges.
eliluent to suilace waters of the United States and meets one or more of
the following criteria must complete Pad A (Expanded Effluent Testing
Data) of the Supplemental Application Information packet:
1. Has a design flow rate greater than or equal to 1 mgd.
2. Is required to have a pretreatment program (or has one In place), g
3. Is otherwise required by the pem lt1ing authortly to provide the
intorrna lion
B. ToxicIty TestIng Data. A treatment works that meets one or more of the
following criteria must complete Part B (Toxicity Testing Data) of the
Supplemental Application information packet
1. Has a design flow fate greater than or equal to I mgd,
2 Is required to have a pretreatment program (or has one In place), g
3. Is otherwise required by the permitting authority to submit results of
toxIcity testing.
c Indusrnal Us.r Discharges, Pretreatment, and RCRA/CERCLA
.1 Wastee. A treatment works that accepls’process wastewater from any
5lgnlllcard lric jsIrial users (SIUs) or receives RCRA or CERCIA wastes
lust complete Pail C (industrial User DIscharges, Pretreatment and
RCRAfCERCL.A Wastes) of the Supplemental Application information
packet SIUs are defined as:
1. All industrial users subject to Categorical Pretreatment Standards
under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 403 6 and 40 CFR
Chapter I. Subchapter N (see instructions), and
2. Any olher industrial user that:
a.- Discharges en average of 25.000 gallons per day or more of
‘ process wastewater to thIs treatment works (wdh certaIn
exckislons);or,
b. Coritrbjtes a process wastastream that makes up 5 percent or
more of the average dry weather hydraulic or organic capacity of
this treatment plant; or
c. Is designated as a SIU by the control authonty.
Refer to the Instructions for further explanation.
0 Combined Sewer Systems. A treatment works that has a contined
sewer system must complete Part D Combined Sewer Systems) of the
Supplemental Application infomiatron packet.
Foan App.o d
OukfNumbe,
Approval Erpre. XX-XX-XX
IEPAIDNUUBER:
Ik ’ official uso one’)
I

FA UTYNAME: I NPDESPERUITNUMBER; I
I I
FORM -‘ -. . --
2A BASIC APPLICATION INFORMATION
NPOES . .. . J.
Form 2A has been developed In a modular formal and consists of a BasIc Application Inlormation packel and a Supptemenlal Application lntormatlon
packet. All applicants must complete the Basic Application information packet. Some applicants also must complete portions of the Supplemental Application
Information packel. To obtain the Supplemental Application Information packet, contact your permitting authority. The following gems explain which parts of
Form 2A you must complete.
BASIC APPLICATION INFORMATION:-
Alt applIcants must complete th. Basic Ap l ation tnformatlon
packet.
I
a
- . ALL APPliCANTS MUST COMPLETE THE CERTIFICATION ON PAGE 7.. ‘- -
EPA Fosm 3510-2A (flay 9-95) Ruplucus EPA Fours 7550-6 5 7550-22
-------
4. PopsdstJo . List the n ,unlclpalitjes or areas served (munlapalibea and kiwpcraiud saMoe
stSas) Also liii the populations g the teed pcpi .dadcn served
Pooijlabon Senie
Total popula llon served ________________
$. flow. Inclcele thided t!ueni flow vms yo .w abuient plani ( Ii • d i. wastawatef low
rate thai yosx plant was jIt te hareie) Also pnMclo th. average daily low rate and
maMnum daily ‘w vms kit Bacti of the last tiwee years Each yea?. dais nws* be based on.
12-month bme ponbd. with the 12th mend, of this yaas o inw* no more than three months
“prior te this app Vcabon submittal
a. Design mabawn dolly Infueni low rais _____ mgd
Two Years Me l Last Year This Year
b Mnted .veragocteiyftowrate ______ _____ _____ mgd
o Masimum daily (low rate __________ ________ _________ mgd
o CollectIon Sy.tsm. lndcele the type(s) of celedeen system(s) flowmg ib d’s doabnerd
plaot Check all that apply Also estimate the peroent canaibution (by i)o ep4i
— Separate sanatarysewer ________ ?
5- 1 ‘ ‘ 5’
CombIneds osmand.ankarysewer ‘, -
7. tnflow and lnflhi,.tlon. Estunate the average rennber ci gallons per day thai flow teta die
treatment works from inflow and or kilJ atJOfL
FAQLJTT NAME: NPDES PERMIT NUMUER:
IEPA ID NUMBER:
official use only)
TREATMENT WORKS: -
‘ ‘ 5 5 _ .
F.dIlly siform.doe.
Fadllay flaiThS
Maeng address
Contact parson
Tide
Phone
Facidty erickess
(nolPO Box)
Fan,, Appveved
I 0MB Num
Approval Exp z.s
“
- 5 ;
S
‘
-
‘
....
S

• ‘

‘
‘-
?
S
Mallmg eddresa
‘ ..
5•S ’, _
: - :. ‘
“
.-
2. Applkaril k ,Ionesflon. ( I tis appIcard Is ltbrani bern l above. provide the ki9owm
A_ n.m. ________________
Contact person
1 e ‘, _________________________
-Phdn numbs _______
Is the applic .nI the eerier or Operate. (or both) ci this Deatinern works?
— eerier — operator — other ( sa1be) ____________________
ki cete whether onnespcndence regwdng this permit should be rected te the (ac ty or
the applicant
— tactiity — app bcani
3. Eslsdng En*onmumtsl Permits. Provide the penal nisitber of any existing
enveonmental pennhls dial bsvu been Issued te you (acuity (undude state-issued pemills)
NPDES - - -- - PSD
U ’
•‘l
UIC ________________ Other
ACRA Other
___________ gpd
Snotty explaIn any steps imderway or planned te mInanize kiflow and ki itrabon.
S. Topographic Map Attach to d i . application a topograpiec map of the area .xtendng at leasi
one ado beyond property boundanes This map must ihow the outline ci the facility and di i
following unlormation (You may iubmtt more th i. . •.-p i does not show the
entire ales)
A Form 35 10-2A (Rev 995) Replaces EPA Forms 7550 6 & 7550 22
PA( 3f 7
-------
FACILiTY NAUE: - NPDES PLRUIr NUMBER
I . Topographic Map (cont’d)
a The wea auriounding the beabnunl plant, snclu ng aM unit processes
b The pipes or other structure, through which wastuwater enters the treatment woriri and
lie pp . 51 or other lVu .lUres through whs.h coatod was tewater Ia tlsd arged from lie
treatment plant Inducle outlets from bypas 5 piping. U appkcable
o (acts wol where eastowator tram the treatment plant Is injected underground
d Wels. spnngs. other suslace water bodies. and &u uiig water wefli that are I) within
Ill mile of the property boundanes of the treatment works. and 2) Islad in public record
or otheiwise knuan to Ure applicant
• My areas whore the a oye skidpa pro&cwd by the treatrrwrd works sstered.
boated. or disposed
• If the treatment works receive. waste that Is dassilied ii hazardeus undey the
Reso.uce Conservabun and Recovery A (RCRA) by tuck. id. ci epedai pipe, show
on the map where that ha*a&dous waste enters the Intetrnenf Wodts er d where it is
boated, stored, anthir dlspos4id
9, Proc. ,. Flow Diagram or Sthemsdc. Provide * diagram showing the processes o tie
treatment plant, induang all bypass p:pmg .*k.o provide a wawr balance showing all
treatment units incluthig cbs.nleceon (a g . clionnabon and dethbnnation) Th. water
b 0 tance must show dairy average o*’ rates at influent and discharge points and
appn..simato daily hu rates borwoen Deatmert units Include a brief nanative descnptlon of
the diagram An osampki ole typical diagram is shown in Figure A of the instructions
to. Bypass. Does your treaDnent plant have the abdity to bypass untreatud or pwually bested
wastewatw?
_Yes__No
Uno.answesontypar ie
s. 14mw many ames in the pail 12 months his your leatrnent plant bypassed untreated
or pertiedy coated ,vastewatail
Wot weather _____incidents (_ actual or appros)
Dryweather incidenls(_actualor_appws)
b What was the average duration per bypass incident?
Weiweather _____ hotss(_actua lor_approx)
Dty weather ____hours (,._ actual ci — appros)
c. What was the average vokime pe r bypass wictdurd?
Wet weather _____million gallons (_ acted ci — apples)
Dry weather _____ million gallons (_ actual ci — approx)
d. Briefly explain why bypass occurs at you treatment plant
I I PAl0NUMBER:
I (ft uftieiial US C one’)
Form Approbed
1 OMBNuinbe,
Approval Expires XX-XX•XK
10. Bypass. (contd)
• Does your treatment plant have b u genarsters te allow plant operadon end
testnsent te conbnue thing power outages?
,, ,Yes _No
Ii. Disidsaig.. end 0th., Dispossl U.thods.
• Does your toabnont wouka discharg, effluent te waters of the US? rWators of the
US • are domed in the inseucoons I
Yes
—
p
If yes, list hci many of each of the kslowing b ’ we of distharg. poInts yois Pesbnent
wozI(su.e
. ,m DtsdSoVuneeatedorpciDanyl.atedsplueat _________
(bypaispts)
Combined $tmer overflow points __________
Other_____ ____
b Does your tsabn.nt works disdwgw effluent te basins, ponds. or other suilace
.npounrknents diet do not have oudets far disdswg. te waters of the US?
I I yes. ppevlde lie f swrç foieacf urfaoe . moocpthnent
Loollion of each swtacelinpowidownt(s)_______________________
•‘l
ci
(I
•1
(5
0
0
z
0
.
- ‘S
CS
( 5
0 -
ci
LI
C S
9
0
c i
•1
Cs
‘-a
i 0
to
U’
- ‘ S
‘ -I
0
0
Ca
CD
0-
CD
U)
C,
I . ,
Ca
CC
Annual average doily vobime thdsarged te swlac* lmpoundis ent(s) -.
Is discharge — condnuous ci —
a. Does your treatment works land-apply tested wastewata ?
_Yes _No
If yes, provid, the IoN owing for each land sealicabon site
Location
Number of acies
EPA Form 35t0-2A (Rev 9 cib) fleptaces EPA Forms 755O a 75b0-22
PAGE 20F7
-------
Contact parson
1-li.
S I
Phone rsxnber _________________________
or each bualmeid worki that receIves thu dscha1 probide the Iolklwmg
Name
M tog address
Contact person
li fe
Phone number
II known. xovde the NPDES permit number of theDealrnent works that ruoeuvei tIes
d stharge
Form App’ow4 1
1 0MB Msmbe,
I ‘ ‘ Exprs,s X -XX-X%
11. DIschs,gss and Olh.i Disposal U.thods. (oanrd)
Provide the sewage daCy flow rate born yorx teatmen* works mto the recelw.g facility
___________mgd
0 Does yow treatment works k dude cornbwied sewer overflows?
Yea No
Ii yes. also onsnplete PatiO of the Sup emenial Appbcaboi Intormatuon packet.
I. Does your uatmert “torka thchac q or *spos of Its wu1gea It a manner not
included us II a -II e above (eg. undergrowid percotabon. wall r ectan)?
_Y.a_No
II yes, provide the lotbelug fir each thoosal method
DescrIption 01 method (victudmg location and be of site(s) C ap Cc.bio)
Mnual daily wtume daposed of by flu method ___________________
Is disposal through this method confinuous or — I tlern etioni?
12. edsrsl Indian Rssuv.IIon. •
a. Is your beatment wotks locetad on • Federal h dion Reservsaoi 7

Yes, N S.
b Does yas ir treatment wodis dstharge to a receiving waler thai us dthe on a Federal
I ndian Reservation or thetis upstream Iron s (and uventualy flows through) a Federal
&sdian Roservatuon?
Yes No
c If the answer to 12. or 12 b Is Yos. briefly describe
FA UTY NAME: NPDES PERMIT NUMBER:
I IEPAIDNUUBER:
I I(’°’ o1flc aI us. on4 )
11.
Dlsc*satgss and C her Disposal Methods. (conrd)
Mnual sewage defy vobims applied to sIte
Is land appication — centesuous or — In fermultent?
d
Does yosa beatmufli woiks dacherge or vansporl busted or untreated weatewator to
another treatment woiks?
Yes No
Describe fise mean(s) by which the wastawatar from your treatment wadis Is disdierged
Or transported to Cia other beaUnent works (09 • tank buck. poe).
II transport libya pasty other than the applicant. pro deV
Transporter name
Maibng sd*ess
FPA Form 3510 2A (Roy 9 95 Replaces EPA Forms 7550 6£ 755 22
PA( 3OF7
-------
____________________________ _____________________________ __________________________________________ Form App’o ed
FAaLn’V NAME: NPDES PERMIT NUMBER: EPA ID NUMBER: 0MB Number
( fur official use onty) Appn, V a ! Expc’ i XX-XX-XX
13. Op.rstIonIMsInt.n.nos P.,form.d by Contr.clor(a). 14. Sch.dul.d imp,ov.snerds. Sctiedulss of impl.ni.ntstlon. (contd)
p , 1
Are any operational or maintenance espe s (related to wastowater boatment and .flkjenl Planned lidependendy of any re 1rement c4 locel. state, or Federal agenaes
quatny) of yo a eoatment works the respunsiblity of a centractor? is
_Yes_No
Yes No
c Provide a narrative desa tion of eaob knprovernenl required or plamed lot
liyes, list the name, .dc*ess. telopiroqe number and status of each outfall(s) kstod m 4$
the conuactor’s rosponsibilibos (attach additional pages if necessary)
_____________________________ -S
Mel ed&es _________________
d - do thsproposdnswmsm tdel 1t* ow rate (if apØceble)
O s
_____rngd 0
T.lephon . number j’ P ovido dallas inposed by any oompiiancs uthâdi4e or any aetual dates of completion
Rpons 5ilibos of contrectot __________________________________ br the knplementation steps kted below, .5 sppbcable For trnpiovements planned
lisdopendenfly of focal, stale, at Federal agencies. mcIcate planned at actual
dSles. as epphcable kidaale dates as accurately as possible
14. Scheduled lsnpr3v.msnl.. Och.dub.. .1 knpl.m.nt.don. Provide intorniatlon on Schedule Actual Cornplobon
uncompleted implementation schedule or uncompleted plan, fur improvements that will efted Iniplementudan Stag. MO I DY MOl DY 1 YR
the wastewater treabuent, tfiuenl quality. or design capacity ci your treatment woil is U - n nm consDucbon / I
beatmont works has several different implemontaton idiedules or is planrung several — — — —
Improvements. si m1t separate responses to question 14 icr each (If none, go to the • End ccnsVu on I _ •,,. . , ..J_I_
c* ions.Ithebottomolthispago)
Begb discharge _‘_‘,...L, _i_i_
a. List the oulfal number (assigned is question 15) for each outfal that is covered by this
implementation schedule Attain operational level - _J_I_ , ,J_I_
f.. Have appropriate pensitskteamnat$ concerying Other FedereVst*te rcqufrumedtu been D
obtained? - -
b indicate whether the plarmed improvements or Implementation sdsodtie are - _
Yes No
— —
Required by local, stale, or Federal agencies CO
Desathobdelly
_Yes ,,,,,,,No —S
— IF This TREATMENT WORKS DISCHARGES EFFLUENT TO WATERS OF ThE UNITED STArES (AS DEFINED I tt THE —
INSTRUCTIONS ), GO TO GUESTION 15 -.
- - - . ‘,- —
I ThIS TREATMENT WORKS DOES I I DISCHARGE EFFLtiEI T TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATCS (AS DEFINED IN a
ThE INSTRUC T IONS)I DO NOT COMPLEIE QUESTIONS is-ta INSTEAD, GO TO QUES11ON 19 (CERTIFICATION
8TATEMEfIi) . ;. .: : - - -. . :.
$ r _ •• — ‘S
NOTE: You may also be required to complete portions 01 the Suppiementai ApplicatIon Intormatlon packet See the
— Appilcat lonOvervlew!ormore Irdormatlon.. - ; - Y. :‘ - - I .Y’. I 3
EPA Form 35 10-2A (Rev 95) Replaces EPA Forms 7550-66 7550-22
-------
FAcIUTYNAUE: I
WASTEWATER DISCHARGES: I
IS. DescriptIon .4 OutI.II.
a Oi4lalfxinbor
b Location
ii.
(City er tew
(Courtly)
n. U apphcet e)
(Zip Code)
(State)
.
ii .i.(
S
C Dstar.fromshw.WIppláWe)
I
d Depth bóow swta ( II apØc .ble)
a Average daily low rut. •
I I. outhiiJ sitter i kitemttaont era pedodcdscharge7
ii.
.
mgd
‘-‘j
Ityei.p’ovdeth.kitowuçrntannaacn:
I
I4wnbar c i Im.slyeer dsduar s oeairs
Average ó.,aton 01 ea t sthargs
Averageflow9ek$ iwgs
Itnthik vi*i idid th g. oc i,zi -.
g l.od Jsai içedenttsdIl uer?
I I so, de.aths ltuser type (ig . tdgh- lato)
Dsscdpflon 04 Rseslvlng Waters.
,
• Type Stream/River — Esniasy — Lake
Ocean Other:_______
b Namso.c04vfrigwalor______________________________
C
Ferm Appro ,
I OM8Ma bsr
I Appo iris Expires XX-ZX-XX
IS. DSSCIIpUOIi of R.cslvlng Wat.is. (confd)
d Nams . 1 51 .1 . ManagemunvRiver Bairn (d known) ________________-
United Stases Geclogicci Survey Idgit hy&cIogic catulcgrng w i aiio (J known):
5 Cithc& low flow ci reoelvfrsg seeam (it applicthlo)
-‘ < aQua ‘ ‘‘d$ 5 VtG ___________ di
‘ Total herdn$i 04 re vlog stream flow ( uc e).
mg4o )C.cO
U. DsiCdpUon 04 Te.itm.nL
a. What Ii tIi6 U hest level I Veaenenl (t any) provided the dsclwgs kern Iua auital?
Pnmary — Seccndaiy Ec uiviient te ss ndwy
Advanced Other Descthe ______________
b lndcete the ledowrng mmcvii retes (as . pp —°”e )
. -De!agn5QQ.ftmcv gL ‘ .:s ’ ç ‘
De ttgrsCBOD,runso tn i i S
. 1,
Detugn SS r mova1 P ‘ ‘ ,
DeugnPremova l _______S
DesIgn 14 removii — S
Other _______S
c What type 01 debdectlon Lx used ler the et uent front this outal? U itaksleciton vles by
season, please describe.
It denlecton Is by cisloonabon, Is deddorViajion used lor thri 0 14hii 1?
Yes No
d. Does the treatment plant have poti aeratort? Yes — No
EPA IDNUMBER;
I (For olflc,aJ wee
Cc l thU $p u ,
c it
I1
I D
m
•1
United Stales Soil Consesvalcn SeMce 14-dgl watershed code (it known)
EPA Form 3510-2* (Rev 9-g5) R€p laces EPA Forms 7550-657550-22
PAGE 5 OF 7
-------
FA UTY NAME:
EFFLUENT TESTING DATA:
I NPDESPERMITNUUBER• I
I I
EPAIONUNBEq
q1otoffi satuseo, j
Fon,i Appoi,ed
I 0MB Numb.,
Approv.A Expres XX-xx-xx
ii. ElfiusniTesting hito,m.tton: ConventIonal and HonoonventlonsI Pollutants. AU appt cenls that thch.rge to waters ot tie Unned Stales must provide of 8ient teseng data the fo8owmg
pc1ut nts Provide the Indicated etituent estrng sntorrnabon re wed by the pemuttmg .uthorøy c each outlal trrouoh wtrich atthsent Is dsctiarced Do not mdude mlomia cn on combmed
sewer oveitows In dO sethon AU Intormahon reported must be based on data coHect d through analyses conójcted usIng 40 CFR Part 136 methods hi atheon tf a data must comply with
Q*JQC requrements of 40 CFR Pail 136 and other appropriate OA OC re nrements tar ‘tandard methods lot snalytas not addressed by 40 CFR Pert 13$ Ais mInImum. elfhjent testing date
must be based on at least three po utant scaius Refer to th uns Uctzons to, further explanatIon nod for epecific po8utard scan re jIremerds
Oultal number _________(Compete queseon 18 once for each out? aN sctlargina effluent to waters of the Untied States )
V
‘
MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE
AVERAGE DAILY VALUE
V u
•‘
°‘ I ”
pH (flnlMai)
.
-
Flew Rate
Ten wtature (WInier)
Temperature (Summer)
POLLUTAflT
CASREGISTRYNUMBER
MAXiMUM DAILY D cHARQE
AVERAGE DALY DISCHARGE ANALYTICAL
‘I I’ ’ - ‘ MEfl OD ::
/ MDL
Cone. UnIts 1 a
CONVENUONAL AND NONCONVENT1ONAL COU POUNDS
.
AMMONIA (as N)
OCHEMICAL OXYGEN . DOD
DEMANDLROPoI1on) C6005
CHLORINE OTAL I1ESIDUAI. TRC)
.
<

.
:
.
:
> ‘

><-
5:

;:>- ; ,
i
.
—-—
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
‘
><
>.<
‘
‘
£ con
ENTEROCOCCI
FECAI. COLIFORM
><
:>- jç
>.<-
><
><
><
)> .-
><
V
HARDNESS (as CACO )
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
NITRATC/NITRITE
OILandGREASE
.
PHOSPHORUS (Total)
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (ISO)
TOTAl. SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS)
OTHER
PAGE 6 OF 7
‘•ul
C,
U ’
Afl t,eebnon wode that dantiarge .I!uent to waters of the Unttod S’aiu, mua ccmpletn quosSon 18
S .5 S . :. - V
FPA Fnnn 16111 PA (Rev 9 Q5) Rnr.l coa EPA Fonnl 7550 6 & 75 0.-22
-------
FA LITY N*l f:
CERTIFICATION :
f nn a*pl oqI F*A
I
r G I- n . ,,I&. n;
r II. flSJCCflj
(br oMcial use )
Appv vd
0MB
Ap uv&’ Espy,,. XX-X .X
rtofrtskt cdoi s fl 10 II fl Othc t k 4 I OPU P ø$ Of rU ftcaitOn,) Al must cmp e all pbso ) fl
Q d pwu i r n i he vs luled and ei SlbnlOn9. U si i . q It 9 fication i mm pIcw’t lodaTq e%a uy
55 (5
19. indIcate which pane of Fonn 2A you have completed and are submitting:
0 BasIc Application t,dorrnallon packet
(4
Supplemental Application Information packet:
0 Pail A (expanded Etffuern Testrng Data)
Pail B (Toxicity Testing; Biomonitorkig Data) .. -
Pail C (Industrial User 1)ischarges, Pretreatrnem, and RCRA,CERCLA Wastes)
Pafl D (Combined Sewer Systems)
. 5
I LAPp .ICAIftSMU$TCOMPLETèTHEpOLLOWING CER11FICA1ION. I
I certify under penaNy of law that this document and all attachments wore prepared Under my direction or superv ision In accordance with a system designed to
assure that c Jallf led personnel pi-opoily gather and evakiale the Information submitted. Based on my Incpilry of the person or persons who manage the system
or those persons directly responsible (or gathering the in1orniatIon the Irdormat Ion Is. to the best of my knowledge and beliefs true, accurate and complete. I am
aware that there are ndk ar penalties for submitting false Inlonnation, Inchiding the possibility of fine and Imprisonment for knowing violations.
1ai qnd otficlal thie
\ L) Ii
Phone marter
Data signed
-
- - -
. Y

;
r (
(
‘:
-
•
-
Upon recpiest of the permitting authority, you trust submit any other Infonnatlon necessary to assess wastewaler tre atmeni practices at your treatment woilis or
enhIty appropitale permitting rec ilremen1s.
Send this completed application to:
Send information concerning permit fee to:
EPA Form 35 10-2A Rov 9-95 Replaces EPA Forms 7550-6 5 755022
PAGE7OF7
-------
A. Expanded Effluent Testing Data. A treat me rd Works that discharges
effluent to surface waters of the United Slates arid meets one or more èt
the following criteria trust comp lete Part A (Expanded Effluent Testing ‘
Data) of the Supplemental Application Information packet.
I. Has a design flow rate  I mgd. g
2. is required 10 have a pretreatment program (or has one In place). g
3. Is otherwise required by the permitting authority to provide the
• Inforination .
Ø . Toxicity Testing bate. A treaImeri woiks that meets one or more M IitO
fotbwtng criteria must complete Part B (Toxicity Testing Data) of the j
Supplemental Application irilormatiori packet:
I. Has a design flow rate  1 mgd, g
2. Is required to have a pretreatment program (or has one in place). g
3. Is otherwise required by the permitting authority to submit resuits ci
toxicity testing.
C. Industrial User Dis harges Pretreatment, and RCRAICERCIA Wastes.
A treatment works 1ha aocePts piocees waslewater from any significant
likiustrial us r5 (SIUs) or receives RCRA r CERCIA wastes nusi
/ complete Pak C (Industrial User Disthargés, Pretreatment and RCRN
ERCLA Wdste ) t the Supplemental P ltcatIon Information packet.
SIUs are deibed 551 . .
t *1 indus i1al users sub(ect to Categorical Pretreatment Standards under
40 Code ol Federal Regulations (CFR) 4036 and 40 CFR Chapter I,
Subchaplet N (see instructions); gj ;
2. Any other Inckisldal user that:
a. Discharges an average of 25,000 gallons per day or more of
process wastewaler to this treatment works (with certain
excbjsloris);or •‘ t
b. COflktoutes process wastestream thai makeà up5 percent or
more of the average dry eather hy&autlc or organic capacity of
) uthfSireatmet plant; or. k. !
c. Is designated as a SIU by the control authorIty.
Refer to (ha instructions for tuflher explanation.
D. Combined Sewer Systeme. A treatment works that has a combined
sewer system must corrçlete Part 0 (Combined Sewer Systems) of the
Supplemental Application Information packet.
, 1utr r1AM :
I
NPU P HMIT I UM8Efl:
IEPA I D NusreEn:
Ii is u . *)
J SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
KPOES ..
APPLICATION OVER VIEW
Form 2A has been developed In a mec Iar formal and consists cia Basic Application tnformalion packet and a Supplemenlat Application Inbrmatlon
packet. AU applicants nusi complete the Basic Application Information packet. Some applicants also must complete pozilons ol the Supplemental Application
Inlormation packet. To oblain the Supplemental Application Information packet, conlaci your permitting authority. The following Items explain which pads of
Form 2A you must complete .
Form Ap o .d
1 0MB Nism ,
J Approva’ Expim, ZX-XX-XX
BASIC APPUCATION INFORMAT ION:
Alt epptlcants must-complete the Basic ApplIcation infomiaHon
packet.
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION:
“1
1

REMINDER: MAKE SURE YOU SIGNTHE CERTIFICATION ON PAGE 1
OF THE BASIC APPLIC4TION 1NFORMA1pQN ACKET. ;
Ok r .., cin A :flnv C ) Pent urq EPA Fom i 7550-657550-22
-------
Fcim App ee
1 OMBMmib.,
Appvv E uu -KX U
PART A. EXPANDED EFFLUENT TESTING DATA ,
rois . . “ ‘ .-‘ :L ‘,
j is, bth.d
Ap ioabcn lrslonpatiofl p idi,t -
0
I.3
FAOUTV NAME:
NPDES PERI6T NUMBER:
I EPA ID NUMBER;
I - (*oc a usec ,n ’)
c 1
a
Elilusni T.sllng: I mgd end Pr.Usa*m il Treatment Works. II yow Deatmerd woilti his a design capaaty greeter then or s iat w I mgd ci i has (or .sq.*ed hew) a prevsain.nl proveis.
or otheiwuse ,equued by the pornvtting suthonty provide the data, then provide efikient teseng deli lo t the loilowv ig polutents Provide the k’tdcat.d ettkssnt steig ithimabon cud asy oth
mlormaDcn requved by the pormkik g asijiotay ha h outlal thrau wblth effluent Is scharaed Do flotinclode In1ormItlo 1 or comb ed wwo waeu, site n. A trdonnason rspci d
mull be based on date coleclod duough analys.e ceockicled usrlg 40 GFA Part 135 methods In s den, *1. deli must amply with OM C ,. Immenti $ 40 CFA Pwi 136 end other repr s
OM)C requirements tot standaid methods ior y s not ad&esied by 40 CFR Put 136 kdcat* Inthi blank rows proli4dsd below any date you may hers so pdkitents not spedledly kstedki
thu lorm At a minimum, •lIuonI lo.bng data must be based on at least three polkiteifl scans Ruler U4leItJuc500s i x Iut ver .xpla .tuon end ha speci c polutent scan roqiA,smerot
/
Outtal number ________(Complete question Al once lo t aaeh buffal dethwolnc elitueni lo waters of the United 4ates r’-” ’

r
POLLUTANT DAILY DISCHARGE ‘ .AVERAGE DAB SCHARGE’ ;
CAS REGISTRY NUMBER Con I h I ‘ - ‘1 si!’ I “ ‘ I I
rM T iPO . ,
METALS (TOTAL RECOVERABLE) • CYANIDE, AND PHENOLS.
ANTIMONY
7440-38 0
ARSENIC
7440-33-2
BERYLLIUM
-

-
‘


‘ . - ‘
. .
.

.-$>
.


-
I

‘ 1i i  / •
C

.
?
74.40 41-?
CADMIUM
74.40-439
.
CHROMIUM
7440-473
COPPER
7440-50-8
LEAD
7439-92-I
MERCURY
7439 976
NICKEL
7440020
SELENIUM
7782 49 2
SILVER
7440-22-4
FPA Form 3510 2A tRau 9 951 Replaces EPA Forms 755064 7SSG?2
PAGE 1010
-------
FAaLITY NAME:
NPDES PERMIT NUMBER:
IEPA ID NUMBER:
cfficia us• one’)
Font, Appv .d
1 0MB Number
Approval Exprr... XX-XX-XX
m
C-
C sflaI ,s n’.ber (Complete queslcn A I once for each oulfafl clscharama effluent to waters ci the United Slates )
POLLUTANT :. MAXIMUM DAILY DISCHARGE
ASREGISTRYNUMBER c n u U
.
AVERAGE DA LY flISCHARGE .:‘ ANALY 1CAL
Caøo. IUr ‘I b$ts . ‘ METhOD
i.. .. I- -- / - > -- .
MLMD ‘
- -
.,-“-
ETALS (TOTAL RECOVERABIE cyANlD fr’ p PHENO) .
(conrdt
THALLIUI I
7140 26-0
ZINC
7440-66-6
..
- ..
-
. . .
C iANIDE ..
57- 12-5
PHENOLS.TOTAL
.
.
..
;. .
-.
..
:-
.
? ,••
, .
- ‘
..

1.-
Use ha spa (of • separate shoel) te
pro ldo tnloimat n on other
——
metals requested by fli
pennl wmer
I
.±
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
ACROLEIN
*07.02-08
ACRYLONITIULE
10 1- 13-1
BENZENE
71-43-2
..
-
PROMOFORM
7525-2
CARBON TETRACHLCRIDE
6-23-5
CHLOROBENZENE
.
.
..

,
— -...

-
-

-
.
.
.‘
._____
.
.
,
..
..
... . .
. .

,... .-. -
.
106907
CHLOROOIBROMOMETHANE
124- 4 8-I
CHLOROEThANE
75-00-3
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYI.
ETHER *10-758
CHLOROFORM
6746 3
DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
75-27-4
* .I-D ICHLORO€TI-IANE
75-34 3
‘
1.2 DICHLOROETHANE
*07-06-2
‘
TRANS-l.2-DICHLORO-
ETHYLENE 15660 5
PAGE 20(6
C)
C t ,
CO
EPA Form 35 10-2A (Rev 9-95) Replaces EPA Forms 75506 6 7550 22
-------
F m, A .j
1 0MB Numb.,
I Appi.w f Exptr,ea XX -XX-U
laU numbe qussion A I o ; each Pu a barg 9flffIu nt Iowp , f Untt d
POLLUTANT :
CAS REGI51RUPIthE I
MA?UMUM DAILY DISCHARGE >‘
SI Iq )
AVERAGE DAILY DISCHARÔE
S”
ANALYTICAL
S
MLf P 4 0 1.
co J “ui ia I
I I
I
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOWU)s.
(ccnrd)
‘
—
“
II . DICHLOHOETHYLENE
75-35-4
I,2-D )CHL0nOp opAJ4E
1887-6
,


1.3-OICHIO pMQpENE
542-756 -
ETI4YLBENzENE
100-4 1-4
5
‘ “
5
‘5
‘ ‘S’
‘
“
S
.
.
- -
METHYL BROMDE
74839 ‘
‘
S
‘
- -
‘
‘
‘
-‘
‘
5’
“ S

ET hYL CHLORiDE
74-873
.
S
‘
‘‘
‘
S
‘
‘
-
METHYLENE CHLORiDE
75-092
-
‘
‘
S
‘
‘

—
TETRACHLOROHJ NE
79-34-5
TETRACHLOROETH VI1NE
127-lB 4
‘
TOLUENE
108-88 3
l.l.1-TRICHL OROEWjJIE
71-55-6
112 TR1CH LOROET 4ANE
TRICH LQRQEThy 1 IE -
79014 “
‘
‘
t_
.
-
55


-
VINYL CHLORIDE
75-01-4
I
-- ‘
5
-
‘ ‘-
--
‘
-
Us. th s spa ( s eepws stieul) Io o’.4do Wdo m
ton on othec
volatle ganr
conWoundi-
equastedt
the pen, wgfteT
17
-
AC*D-EXTRACTAB COMPOUND5.
-T
P F4LORO.M.CRESOL
5950-7
2-CHL0ROPHEpj O
95-57-B
2.4 DICHLOROPHENOL
120 83 2
2 4 DIUETHYLPHFNOL
—
105 67 9
EPA Form 3510 -2A (Rev 9-95) Replace, EPA Foims 7550-6 £ 7550-22
r IL1.. IIAMC
1 NPDES PERMIT NUMBER :
IEPA ID NUUBER:
I(Iofu1 aIus. o 4.J
PAGF ‘16
-------
-I
EL
(5
to
( 5
0
C.
p
z
0
C-,
CD
0
CD
0
C t
-I
O J
C c
U)
—I
0
3
C D
0 -
C
CD
Cr
FA LITY NAME:
NPDES PERMIT NUMBER:
EPA IDNUMBER:
(br ot&s& U39 on ’J
Form App’o.od
0MB N. mbe,
AppvovLd AX-XX XX
*faI ,ain*er (Comt ote quesbon A 1 on br each outfal óscharotno effluent to watera of the United Sta gj)
POLLUTANT
CASR ISYRY NUMBER
MAXIMUM DAILY DISCHARGE
AVERAGE DAILY DISCHARGE
APIALYTICAL
METHOD
L MD
M I L
I ‘ I ‘ ‘ I
Co c ILcCS
ACID-EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS
(conrd)
•
4 .6-D!NIIRO-O -CRESO I.
534 -52-I
•
2.4- DUfiTROPHENOL
51-285
2-NITROPHENOL
an-is-s
.
-
.
-
4-NITROPHENOL
10002-7
-. ——
—
pioi ido nfo,mation on othe xtzactali)e compounds requesSe &y à.e pelmd w iTh ):
PENTACULOROPHENOL
8706-5
- — -
PHENOL
tI 95.2
-
.
2.4.6-TRICHIOROPHENOL
88-06-2
Uiidis spa (or a wpwata hoel) to
—
I____
liii -I
I-—I
I —
iI__ -.
BASE-NEUTRAL COMPOUNDS.
ACENAPHTHENE
83-32-9
-
.
ACENAPHTIWLENE
206-964
—____
ANThRAC NE
120-12.7
.•
—— - - -- — —
—-— ——
8EHZIDIUt
92 47-5
BENZO (A)ANTHRACENE
56-553
——
— -— — —
E IjPYRENE
50-328
.
_____
—
-
.
- —
3.4 EN2oFLUOflANT (-IENE
205 99-2
BENZO(OHI)PEAYLENE
191-24-2
—
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE
207-08-9
—
BIS (2-CHIOROETHOXY)
iA THANEIlIl9l-I
BIS (2 CHLOflOEfl-IYL)
T14 R 1 11 1 - 14 - 1
01512 CHLOROISOPROPYL
ETHERIIO2SO I
- PAGE40I6
U)
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev 9-95) Roptaces EPA Fomis 75506 $ 7550 22
-------
0
I1
CD
CD
•1
CD
0
z
0
CD
0
CD
a
CD
0
CD
•1
C D
CD
U I
•1
0
0
CD
CD
Cl I
EPA Form 3510-2* (Asy 945) Re 9 1.css EPA Forms 7550.61 7550-22
PA( )16
-------
NPDES PERMIT NUM8ER:
I ItPA ID NUMBER:
I I( r0 u1 *)
Fom , Appru d
1 0MB Mimt*r
I Ap OV& Exp , .s XX-XX-XX
4taI mJmber __________ (Complets quesion A I In 4s Nk. I —
POLLUTANT
CASR GI TRYNUMBER
MAXIMUM DAILY DISCHARGE
AVERAGE DAILY DI$CHAFIGE e
ANALYTICAL

D
° : I ‘ ‘ I “ I “ ;
BASE-NEUTRAL COMPOUNDS (oontd)
HEXACHIOf IOCHYCLO .
PFNTAO2 P1EI77-17-4
HEXACHLOROETHANE
7-72-I
r
‘
‘‘
INDENO(I,2.3-CDJPYRENE
193-39-5
ISOPHORONE
7 9- 3 9-I
.


.
.
..

‘
‘
f
..

.
,.
-
- -
,
-
NAPHTHALENE
9 120-3
NITROSENZENE
..
-
-/
7.
I /
....
.
L
. .
•
:.
— ....
.
98-953
‘
N-NITAOSOOI
N-PROPYLAMINE/621 -64-7
,
.
,
NI-NITROSOOMJHETHYLAMINE
2-7S-9
..
.
.
r
.‘

,
•
NI NITROSODIPHENYLANINE
96-30-s
.
PENENANThRENE
Ac-nt.a
PYRENE
129-00-0
12.4.1flIC $LOHO8ENZENE
120- 82-I
_____
•
-
-
..,

.
,
‘
_______
Use hi spooe (or a sepavo shoot) b prov Irdormation on other baso-noubil compounds rwqai d by ** psmul wrI r
I I I I II 1•II I I
Use hi spa (ore separate shoot) te o .ids information on other polrdants ag .pest.c*des’ruiqussled by 1* pormit wslMr.
I I I I II III I
- .- - - t ;- : -
ENDOFPARTA
: ‘ REFER TO THE.APPLICATION QY RVWT9’PTERM L
WHICh OTHER PARTS OF FORM 2AYOU MUST COMPLETE.
1 —
FA UTY KANE:
• ‘l
I
EPA Form 35 10-2A (Rev 9-95) Replaces EPA Form, 7550-8 & 7550-22
PAGE 6 016
-------
FACILiTY NAM :
NPUkS PERMIT NUMBER:
I I ” ID NUMBER;
I I(O’olaluseo*i
Fon A u
1 0MB Manbs
Approve £xpasa xx-xx.x*
S S #St•S 4 S S 5 S -
FORM — )
2A PART B, TOXICITY TESTING DI TA -
NPOE$ - S SS S S• . . 5
P01W. mee*io more of the toaow.ng W%* WNJU jyot4d the reII tI OBUBflIOstd? 1 IPI tS MI 4U orth,pnlc bxk*W kI .aCh Cf i IWI d ofsas . po I 1 iWi
design Influant w tale equal tow gioaias than I Ingd or 2) f 0TW . with a ptevepimpçd *o an çoivsoa t ha t are i qtnred k h&v eine updc 40 CFR Ps1403 w 3) P01W, fs i dby
pflivttal9 Wthodly le WtlTht dUe lor there pataniutars - - -
Au nilnuy um these results meat hciuc , quaiaslly g tot S 12-month p dw4th tha past S psaa using rnul plo species çmsrils,twnr4 two specIes) slid III *ig bvpei eq ’ej d c
lertc4 iy deper ng on die reps tal iaciihibig watem diuf an (See uctIani. Do — hicbjdq mtorrnabo at) Gombined s.eetovsiftgw, It) f$ sac an.
fri adddcm *uIe ith S a results of at y Cfhas whol edSien) tomulctly kr ta from se past dYes a tatiole efflu n* oooiy s s* candj ad &ibiá tha p’s! flimi years r.vea s4 p ci !óiPkI sj
S S
-. L I you hays pbip y eithmftw mmy Cf lie WramnUon requested ki Pail P. Od need pet * 14sn4 .pütt Rashes. pr. tie bi*misd o pa s dtn P ir s tgir
-k adolL WEPA methoria si not i ed 1 ,pg *tsasoim ki uslnØ lemsle ma ds. sest iaimwIes *• p iadab th çonlelqe of e fr qns t 9 upa y g p
sd. 1.ofpa,ta 4
H kto4 .t,$c 4011 ThbG’ __
8.1. RequIted Test.. S • - .
a lndcate the numbet of *tioto elftuerd tomudly tests conducted is the past three years : F
ctvon ic acute . - 5
82. IndIvIdual T.st Data. Complete lie telowwig diari fat each whole elitueni oxiOtl toil condictud ii the last three yaars *1 gw ens cokisin psi last (wiser, each spectes OonsdIMss teat)
Copy this page ii mate than 3 lasts we bemg reported
Test number Test number
Test number
a Toil inlormaton
Test .peoes -
- -‘
Age at miriaSon 01 teat
i1taIl tszmbe
-
Dales sample collected
Data lest starled
Duraton
b Give losloty
test methods lokraed.
Manual Lde
Edition number and
year 01 pubhcoeon
Page number(s)
N
I
EPA Form 3510 2A (Rev 9-95) Replaces EPA Form. 7550-8 1 7550-22
PAGE 1013
-------
I EPA ID NUMBER:
I I(kvoIuuc r*)
Fern, Appr’,i,d
mber
App’oval Expire, XN-U-XX
FACILITY NAME;
NPDES PERMIT NUMBER:
Hi. hedividusi Test Data. (conrd)
Test number. T.sl nianbsr Test iwmb.r
c Give the sample collection method(s) used For miisple grab samples. l d t. the ntsnber ci grab umples used
t4Iloix 1U lOUW
Grab
t lnócaie where the sample was taken at ielalion to disinlection (check
all that apply icr each)
BoIoredisk lectjon
Afterthinfection
.
‘
.

After d d lonnaDofl
;

• S.’
.
• Descr e v I b the eatinenl process at which the sample was c0U3C&ed
Sample was cetected 1°” [
I For each test. mdicato whether the test was intandod to assess chronic or acute toxicity
.
‘
Chronic toxicity
Acute toxicity
o Provicic the typo ol test perlonned
Slaac
S le D pnowai
‘
:I
‘
Fl .through
?
h Soisce ci th bon waler U laboratory water. specity type
Laboratory wal&
Rec on imO water
:
L Type of dilution water U salt waler. specdy nsftxar or typo ci wliftaal salt water used
Fresh water
Sal waler
Give the perrentage etftuent used (Or all concenDabons In the test series
F
EPA Form 35 10 -2A (Rev 9 95) Replaces EPA Forms 75504 £ 7550-22
PAGE 2013
-------
F* UTY NAUE: I
I
INPOES PERMIT NUMBER:
I
I
I
IEPA ID I4UUeER:
Itkfof&aJus.o,*)
Fon Ap d
I OMBM r
App vva1 Ex es XX-XXXX
5.2. IndIvIdu Teat Oats. (canrd
Tail ntanbet Teal ni.xT’bsr Test reai bec:
k Per e s meaawud dsinB I ii last. Pz ,cte m.rnittrJmawuian)
pH
Sa ly
Temperature
Ammonia
Druth’ed oq en
I. TesiResu2s
Acute
,
l a tcafltIU t iWa lIt
IOO%elftuenl
V
%
V•
V3
%
LC,
‘•

• V• VV• •
‘
,..,

O5%C5
V V
• V V
I
Otho,(desaibe3
:V
V VV
r
Cbron ic
NOW
,
V
IC . ’
Other (dusabe)
I I
in Coneol responses
ConeaJMolt b1y
Other (desciibe) V
V
B.3. TQSICIIY Reduction Evaktsllon. (a yow u.aerierti works m dved in a Toxicity Re&ceoe
_Yes _No
II yes. dusGiths.
5.4. Su. ma.y olSsibermnud Blomordtorlng Teas orinatlon. II you t ave submitted
bicnionilormg tasi inlormarion. or wilotmabon rugaltthg the cause ol soxiaty widin lie past
Sues years, piovidu th dates 1 1w mlonnabon wii aubmiflud So the peiiiui ig ilsuiUy ead
I summery of the ersuM
Date submitted
Summary of resu ta
(see mibucconi)
2
a
a.
. 5
cc
‘ c i
(0
c i ’
0
U,
a
—
m
U,
V V ’ :V V flVO PARTh ‘ Y . VV :V
REFER TO i jg APPLICATION OVERVIEW TO DETERMINE
WHICh OTH PARTS O ORP4 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE.
‘ Form 3510-2A (Ray -95 ). Re iIacas EPA Forms Th504 75 O-22
PAGE
-------
Ci. Ièimbst ol SI QnUICIM kidusMal Uses sid Cslsgodcsl We. Pronb d i, number c i se t h
of the blowing types of IIiC*JSIW users list dsthargs to yout treaunsal wcrtia
t N *stoinos c.wgo4ci 4iaicIubtGJ W uses (p4u1 )h”
I ‘ : 3 . 3.
• b. Nwrthsr SC*ts S Mass net ‘ t ______
21 3
- , /
CS Aveisgs DsIty Flow from hidupulsi Ussie. Eslmn tie — sworege d a V y wssbwslar;
lowfrunalsiclJsvlsluses. 3 I :-
a Mkirkisplatusrs. *flmgd
b. Noncstegoil sSlLlsordy - , sngd
c. CawcS h4astrtsl uses cr4 — sngd
CS. kidustilsi Visa Ccntdbudons.
— th.followiig -
2’ •: r
Nâsi.cstagcSoS SIU 5 any
Cslsgcflcat tidietnat uses cr4
Dcmsslc so ns ordy
Edna the psrmM blat IteM ambibubon S oath of
k ’
>
C
z
0
Co
0 -
C D
C l i
0.
03
‘-a
0
C D
n
CD
r 2 ’ 9
‘-5-.—,’ 4 2 0.
— I
(a
(a
:1 ’
1’
0
rj
3
C D
( / 2
CA. Prstr.slzneii Progism. Does your tealneni works haiie an spprowed petoatmeaa
2 (‘ •045- . _
C ‘; vt 5- ’-. J
- 1’ No . -
7
If yes 0 have there bg$fl erg p*s ntS modlicebofls lathe besirnent works appiovod
-‘ pcesbnenl progrim that have not been spprovsd hi nordanca with 40 CFR 403 IV?
“ L:
No N
U yes. Idensfy at s sepeslo plecs of pep s i al substenbal ieodbcabons that have not
bsen approved
Form Appwied
0MB Number
Apjrov& Exwre a JC%.XX-XX
GENERAL INFORMATION: ——n-- — g
C o
•1
0 )
N
C )
C
U ’
EPA Fern 3510-2* CRay 9-95) Replaces EPA Forms 7550-8 $ 7550-22
PAGE 1 of 4
-------
IEPA ID NUMBER:
I( r olk .iai USO one’)
Fonn Ap u sea
1 0M8 Numb.,
- - Appvoval krpims XV-XX X X
C I. Flow Rita.
• Process wastewater (low rile ln cete I aVerage deity wolum. 01 process
wastewater dacharged k to the c Uecbon system k s galons per day (gpdb and atseliar
I e thchargo Is centxwous or k lormItIent
_______________ gpd ( • conlotuolis ar — mthtant)
b Non-piocss wastewute, law l et !, k ate the • ersg. diiy wokime 01 neri .çwoc.ss
wasleweter w dlcchargød mb the colboceon system m gallons per day (gpd) and
whether tti• dschwge Is conb’vious or deimIttnnL
‘ contnuoui or termxfle n
Pr.fr..tm.nt Standa,d.. tnthute whether tho SIU z sub ec* to the toloerlng
$ Localkmite _Yes _Ho
b Categorical preDeainient standards — Yes —
I I subject te categoncal pre9ea erd stanc ,ds. whwii c&tagofy esid ivbca1e or 7
FAQUTY NAME:
NPDE8 PERMIT NUMBER:
&tpply te w ng *sipabon k*i i U t more than one Sit) d,thatgaa athem works, cpy questons C 8C 10 and provide ia ltilonnatjcin feiyiested for each Siti.
5: ‘ S
C I. Signilinant ktdusnt01 User Inlorerstion. Provide Sits name and addreu of serb SIU
disthargmg leyolt ts.t!nei wodia (Submit addbonal pages as necessary)
Name ____________________________________________
Ua ig d .ss ______________________________________________
S..’
CS. Indusirtal Process... Descthe dot the loctispal process.. V t aIte ciconmbus ta
theS U ’s discharge
5’ C.,
C.7. Ptlndp.I Producl(s) end Raw Material(s)
PnA6 proikic.).
Principal raw maxunalls)
a.
0
a:
•13
CD
•1
— 5
0
o
0
z
0
L
4 ;.
CD
C D
CD
0
CD
a:
-a
I0
5—
-I
0
0
C,
CD
0 -
C t
I n
C.lO. Problem. .5th. Tr.stm.nt Work. Alt,Il ul.d to Was ,. Dl .eh.rg.d by ha SIU. Has the
SIU caused w conubuted to a 1y ptoUum (eg, upsols. uiturtenrn ) at your 9 .am .an!
worlu in the past three OW31
Yes N c
U yes. descrtb each episodu
EPA Form 3510-2A (flo, 9 95) Rrplaces EPA Form. 7550 6£ 7550 22
2014
-------
*ai.nv NAME:
NPDES PERMIT HUUBER:
I IEPAIDNUUBER:
I
Form Appni wd
1 0MB Numb.,
Appov& Etpues XX.Xk-XX
ploW pe stiatád hto, tmady caIed p mu topcgrapN n p *Ipo i .t 1d RQRA ha’ dQus wast .rn.rth, 1Dtoi9$W Jt U f l d s 4 . rnedon S o( mu Bøilp
App 1 aboC) ktki qtior*p.C4et . C C 5 C C r
CII. RCRA West. Doss your teatm. l woiI .i receive or has Ii 1i the past twos yava received
RCRA hazardous waste by Pucli. sa l. or dodcoted p o?
CU West. D..cdpdon. Give EPA hazaideus waste numbsr and amount (voliane or mass.
spealy Units)
EPA Hazardous Waste Number Amount Units
-
C_IL W.s$.Tr.napost & thdbyRCRAwumSvOd(thect.alh’hatUPPly)
Tn.p C be c* dP .
ER LA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER AND RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION WASTEWATER: ——
Ci i. CERCLA Wait. Doess annerdwcd iscwrS y(olIsI.zpedad i*idngthshf .oS Ci ?. Wa.teT,astmsnl ,S .:. •.
fits permd that your Veabnssl oits wil) recesyv Waste frcm eCERCIA (Supertind) sits .. “ -
remodabon? a. Is tile w s$ tasted (or wI lbs teated) pilot to entering your besiment works?
Current .0 7) FuDi. IS CU)
— lIy.s• descnb. tie Peeti’nenl (provide I hxmalon about fis removal othcwncy)
Provide. tit of sites and ti. req*ssed h*rmsbon (C IS -C I ?) lou .edt aurent and
Siters Site
I no CERCLA waste Is curTonly received arid none Is expected I n tie tihirs. go to C II
b Is ti. thcltwge (or wIths thctucg. be) conanuous or Intermittent?
O. L West. 1gbi Desatou 1w SitS type of leclity to which tie CERCLA w*lte oi1 viatos 5 -.
(oq I sjzpeetedtoongmatber xt5v eyssrs).aIongw 1thEPAIDnumbers -°‘ ‘ ‘ C’
‘ •1 - 1 C’’ C ,‘ ‘
Ii fltOnTIl 1 wit
—. * ii ‘S S - • ‘ ‘ S S
It kttefnutlent. desal,e discharge sd erkilo
S
C.IS. Polutsnte list ti. CERCLA polutants that as. reourved (or are especiud to be received)
Induct. clot. on voltana and ncentaDon (Attach acklitoni sheeted necessary)
0 -
so
•1
so
0
a,
C
z
0
t’)
.
—S.
C D
0-
CD
In
0-
0i
CD
B
0
CD
•1
0,
Co
Co
U ’
--S
-D
-I
0
0
C I I
CD
0-
CD
d C
0,
a,
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev 9-95) Replaces EPA Forms 7550-65 7550-22
PAGE 30(4
-------
Provide aNs i c i s a and the rsq ssIsd ki nnaion (C I V - C 21) x eadl ills.
Form App
1 0MB Man Li.,
Appov E pves xx.xrx
CII. W.sI. Trestmsni Is this wait. treated ( c i anN N 1* Veiled) prior te snusrmg yew IS$ISeaM
work..?
—Ye.
I yes. describe th. tealieani• rsmov01 .tbclancy and kequency ci dsciue-g.
N no RCRA COITScIII sedan waste ls crai.ny r.ci,d end none h expected Ii the (ueim.
9010C22
CI I. Wait. Origin Describe 11w iii. and type o tia44y ii ieskti *ie RCRA Conuci Ivs Macn
Waswong inates(cius.xpedteongjn ).
.
...
,
C.20. Pollulanis U. S th pdhutsnti conanned m RCRA core jve aceon waste that .,e received
(or are expected te be received) Atiadi eikkDonal sheols 11 necesiery
.
Is the thcheige (ci wiN Ni. sctiatgs be) nontmt us or rmitzen 7
— COn U 4 .
!
,
..
C.22. Olhsr W.sl.s lions R.msdlatloniCis.n.up SR... Describ, any Wallswalws received by
the eee nens works thai we generated at a remerkabonJcIean up site noi listed above (a 9.
uJung underground iank lemediation silos and slate mandated lemediaDon silos)
• C..
FAaUTY NIAME: - - DES PERMIT NUMOER:
Cli RCRA Con.cUvs Action Wail.. Does yaw I.flnent works cwreniy (oils N expected
Nis hIs 01 this peirisi that yost hatei.nl works wiN) r.cetve wastes generated ala
so. underg*g AC M corrective sceon?
Current Yu(awnplsteC.19.-C2I) Fasts: _Yss(conspleteC*V -C 2*)
__No _ .No
I IEPAIDNUMBEH:
I I(bfoIux.o,*)
t .3
c i
0
; ,. ;
/ END OFPARTC —
REFEJflQ THE APPLICATION OVEF VIEWTQ DETERMINE
WHICH OThEFI PARTS OF FORM 2A OU ML ST COMPLETE.
A Form 35 10-2A (Rev 995) Replaces EPA Forms 7550-6 £ 7550-22
PAG. 014
-------
FAOUTY NAME:
NPDES PERMIT NUMBER:
FORM - -
2A PART P. COMBINED SEWER
N tS -* 1 < — - .- -- - t i I - .
yoáp.awa wu*s ft., a confined sawa system. çomplpi PM D .
0.1. CombIned Sews Oveiflow (CSO) Discharge Points. Provide the number of CSO
ãschsrge points fri tie nembuned sewer system covered by this app lication
0.2. System Map. Provides map infloatisig the lolowatg -
• ncsoosctwg.poous
b Sensitive use areas potentisly affected by Q$Os (e.g beaches. thinking water
supplies, shellfish beds. sensitive aq ac cosysisn. and osilstsrt*t naterel
msoia waters) ,
a. Waters tat supposi ttesiened aid endangered ‘flUes potenselly aftocted by csa.
0.3. System Diagram. Provide * diagram wthwM the map psobided In D 2 arena sepsute
thawing, of the combined sawer reSection system that inthides the katlowing Wonnabors:
a. Locations Of m os sews c y mk tines, both combated and ternary
b Locations 01 points wtiese separate sanitary sewers laud into tie combined sewer
system
c. Locations of n-bite •rid oil-tine storage sSuc$*es - -
S Locations of Uo*regutatng devices - .
t Locations of pump stat ons
H
0.4. System Evaluation. List below a
appicason on the colacton system
rnunsnngellasts, endlacibsyplaps
bides that have bess performed sites the last patina
kidude nedeSrig abides. hy*wbc ‘fuSs, past
Di i llsiDasameost
— — —“
, , -—-- -——. - -
; . . -
; i
CO700SCWNEXTPA OE
S um
_ 1

-
I
EPA Form 3550-2A (Rev 5 851 Replaces EPA Forms 75506* 1550 72
PAGE 1 l 2
-------
FA LITY NAUL
CSO OUTFALLS
D I. D.scdpdon c i Oud.IL
a. Oi taI mm1w
b Iti *i
G vs 1w caaobsr c i CSO kicidents ki Iii last yew.
—
1•
Give the vwag derebon put CSO k43unL i
_hours ( ac 5.ci _sppioa)
c, Give me avsra volisus per CSO k sdenL
— maSon gcions ( . . ._ adulci — approL)
d Give 1w mlmanwn odnlel t hat js.d a CSO ki denI ki me last year
kads ci tarnish
OS. Di tpllon ci R.cslvkig Waists.
a Type _SarvamIfl vw
b Name cal recorvrnu wale,
a.
NamsoIS a an nOntwsi8aiIn ’ ’_ ‘
:k\
/ \•; United S .ohoglcsh Suivey Sd t hydIrcIorcatalogma unit cods (d known).
\.. .. .
* a
D i. OOp.i. Ic*
c !!! 1w ltsnsd sawer low IncSid. con ilons from si ,vkant ki ji*nsI users?
b Oesa . eny lrviown water quaity knpac*s on the rscswa ws causad by this CSO
(eg . permanent er Inlenmflani beath dosrngs. pumwnunj or kiIemijinj sMI Ish bed
chowngi• hh kds, Slit sdvlsonus. other roaealaonaj lou. or violation olasiy applicable
Statewaterqi&ayi landwd)
-
,. . .
a,
4 . .- . . . , 7 .., . . ..
I
FovmAppro is
I INPOESPIRINTNUMOER; I IE N: I osia .,
I I I ‘ ‘° ‘• *J A provci Exptas X
:• •
or men.
(Slate)
DI. Dsactlpdo. .1 N.cslvtog Waists. (conrd)
- (Coclity)
C.
— 5—...
.
United States Sod Conservation Sarvion 14-aSga watershed cods (ii known)-
c. Distance loiti shots
dDep t hbe ha ssuda c e(9 uppbc s h l e) ‘
0.5. Uonllodng. Wn *a c i the olkenng were mcnloq d ô4v19 *a. last yew ku CSO? I
_Ruatal I _CSO wvoUiw f f
— cso wr quality ‘ . . . . ec .og _ - qi i y . .
How maty stoma .wnts wets mon4ci.d iirng 1w lean year? —
DY. cSO kicldunts.
Estuaty
.:. • ‘P F TD.
a . . _a &.
_________________ REFER TO IIjE APPUCAIlONs OVERVIEVI
TO DETERMINE WIUCH OTHER P fl $ Q Qffl4
- YOU MUST COMPLETE,. a: a
PAir 2o 12
EPA Form 35 10-2A (Rev 905) Roptaces EPA Forms 75506 I 755022
-------
Federal Re ster / Vol. 60. No. 234 / Wednesday , December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
62611
Instructions For Completing Form 2A
Application For a NPDES Permit
ickground Information
Each wastowater treatment works that
discharges treated effluent to waters of
the United States must apply for a
permit for its discharges. This
permitting requirement is part of the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program,
tvhich is implemented by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). You can obtain a permit for your
treatment works by filling out and
sending in the appropriate form(s) to
your permitting authority. If the State in
which your treatment works Is located
operates Its own NPDES program, then
the State is your permitting authority
and you should ask your State for
permit application forms. On the other
hand, if EPA operates the NPDES
program in your State. then EPA is the
permitting authority, and you must fill
out and send in Form 2A.
These instructions explain how to fill
out each question in Form 2A. Be sure
to read the Application Overview
section on the cover page of Form 2A
before you start filling out the form. Not
every applicant will have to fill out
every section of Form 2A. The
plicatIon Overview section wIll help
.1 determine which portions of Form
A apply to your treatment works.
EPA has developed Form 2A in a
modislar format, consisting of two
packets: The Basic Application
Information packet and the
Supplemental Application Information
packet. At a minimum, all applicants
must complete the Basic Application
Information packet, which contains
questions 1—19. As directed by the
Application Overview section on page 1
of the form. certain applicants will also
need to complete one or more parts of
the Supplemental Application
Information packet
Commonly Asked Questions
What If INeed More Space for My
Answer?
Some questions on Form 2A require
you to write out short answers. If you
need more room for your answer than Is
provided on the form, attach a separate
sheet called “Additional Information.”
At the top of the separate sheet, put the
name of your plant, your plant’s NPDES
permit number, and the number of the
outfall that you are writing about. Also,
next to your answer, put the question
ether (from Form 2A). Provide this
rmatlon on any drawings or other
papers that you attach to your
application as well.
Will the Public Be Able to See the
Information I Submit?
Any information you submit on Form
2A will be available to the public. If you
send in more information than is
requested on Form 2A that is considered
coinpany-pnvileged information, you
may ask EPA to keep that extra
information confidential. Note that you
cannot ask CPA to keep effluent data
confidential. If you want any of your
plant’s information to be confidential.
tell EPA this when you submit your
application. Otherwise, EPA may make
the information public without letting
you know in advance. For more
information on dairns of confidentiality.
see EPA’s business confidentiality
regulations at Title 40, Part 2 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
How Do I Complete the Forms?
Answer every question on Form 2A
that applies to your treatment works. If
your answer to a question requires more
room than there Is on the form, attach
additional sheets (see above). If a
particular question does not apply to
your treatment works, write ‘N/A”
(meaning “not applicable”) as your
answer to that question. 11 you need
advice on how to fill out these forms,
write or contact your EPA Regional
Office or your State office at the
following address:
Completing Form 2A
Facility Name and NPDES Permit
Number
At the top of each page of Form 2A,
put your plant’s name and NPDES
permit number (if you already have
been assigned one) in the appropriate
boxes. Also put this information on the
top of any “Additional Information”
sheets you attach. Do not write anything
in the space marked “EPA ID Number.”
As stated above, Form 2A consists of
two packets: the Basic Application
Information packet and the
Supplemental Application Information
packet. These instructions provide
directions for completing both of these
packets.
Basic Application Information Packet
Paperwork Reduction Act Notice: The
public reporting and recordkeepmg burden
for this collection of Information (the Basic
Application Information Packet) Is estimated
to average 5.3 hours per response. This
estimate includes the time needed to review
Instructions develop, acquire, Install, and
utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and
maintaining Information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing
ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to respond to a collection of
information, search existing data sources;
complete and review the collectrnn of
information, and transmit orotherwist,
disclose the information, An Agency may not
conduct or soonsor. and a person is not
required to respond to a LolleAzun of
information unless it displays a currently
valid 0MB control number
Send comments regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this collection
of information, incluthng su ge Tions for
reducing the burden, to Chief. OPPE
Regulatory Information Division. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agen (2136;. 401
M St., S.W., Washington, DC 20460. and to
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget.
725 17th SL. N.W.. Washington, DC 20503,
Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the
0MB control number in any correspondence.
Do not send the completed application form
to these addresses.
All applicants must complete the
Basic Application Information packet,
which consists of questions 1—19. Note
that seine questions in this packet may
not apply to your treatment works. For
these questions, write “N/A” In the
response space.
Application Overview
Read the Application Overview before
completing any of Form ZA. This
section will help you determine which
questions and parts of Form 2A apply to
your facility. Note that the permitting
authority may require you to complete
certain questions or provide additional
Information as weil.
As stated above, all applicants must
complete the Basic Application
Information packet. However, only
certain types of applicants will need to
complete the Supplemental Application
Information packet. Refer to the
directions in the Application Overview
section on Form 2A to determine which
parts of the Supplemental Application
Information packet you need to
complete.
Treatment Works
1. Facility Information
Provide your plant’s official or legal
name. Do not use a nickname or short
name. Also prbvlde your plant’s mailing
address, a contact person at the plant,
his/her title, and that person’s work
telephone number, The contact person
should be someone who has a thorough
understanding of the operation of your
treatment works. The permitting
authority may call this person If there
are questions about the application.
Also provide the actual facility address
(If different than the mailing address).
The facility location should be a street
address (not a Post Office box number)
-------
62612 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No . 234 / Wednesday. December 6. 1995 / Pr osed Rules
or other description of the actual
location of the facility. Be sure to
provide the city or county and state in
which your facility is located.
2. Applicant Information
if someone other than the facility
contact person is actually submitting
this application, provide the name and
maJing address of that person’s
organization. Also provide the name of
.1 .untact person. his/her title, and his!
her work telephone number. The
permitting authority may call this
person if there are questions about the
application.
In addition. indicate whether this
applicant is the owner or operator (or
both) of the treatment works. If it is
neither, describe the relations 1 iip of the
applicant to the treatment worKs (e.g.,
contractor). Also indicate whether you
want correspondence regarding this
application (phone calls, letters, the
permit. etc.) directed to the applicant or
to the facility address provided in
question 1.
3. Existing Environmental Permits
Provide the permit number of each
currently effective permit issued to the
treatment works for NPDES. UIC. RCRA.
PSD, and any other environmental
program. If you have previously filed an
application but have not yet received a
permit, give the number of the
application, If any. If you have more
than one currently effective permit
under a particular permit program, list
oath such permit number. List any other
relevant environmental permits under
“Other.” These may include permits
issued under the following projp ’ams: (1)
Federal: Ocean Dumping Act, Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, or the
Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act (2) State: new air
emission sources in nonattainment areas
under Part D of the Clean Air Act or
State permits issued under SectIon 404
of the Clean Water Act: or (3) local: any
applicable local environmental permit
programs.
4. Population
For all the cities, towns, and
unincorporated areas served by youi
plant. enter the number of people served
by your plant at the time you complete
this form. If you do not know the
population of each area, then only
provide the total population for your
entire treatment works. If another
treatment works discharges into your
plant, give the name of that other
treatment works and the population it
serves.
5. Flow
a. Provide your plant’s current design
maximum daily influetit flow rate.
“Design maximum daily influent floss
rate” moans the average amount of
wastewater flow your plant was
designed to receive on a daily basis.
Enter the flow number in million
gallons per day (mgd). Treatment works
with a design flow less than 5 ntgd must
provide the design influer.t flow rate to
two decimal places. Treatment works
that are greater than or equal to 5 ingd
must report this to I deimnal place. This
is because fluctuations of 0 01 mgd to
09 mgd in smaller treatment works
represent a significant percentage of
daily flow.
b. Enter the annual uverage daily flow
rate, in million gallons per day, that
your plant actually t.reeted this year and
each of the past two rears for days that
your plant a.tually discharges. Each
year’s data must be based on a 12 inonth
time period, with the 12th month of
“this year” occurring r.ii more than
three months prior to this apnlicatior.
submittal.
c. Enter the mnaidmum daily flow rate,
in million gallons per day (mgd), that
your plant received this year and each
of the past two years. Eith year’s data
must be based on a 12 month time
period, with the 12th month of “this
year” occurring no more Lflafl thrae
months prior to mis application
submittal.
6. Collection System
Indicate what type
system brmgs wosLe ‘ z • our plant
If you check both of th, . ,
systems indicated “ii the fnr.n, von m’ust
also provide an estimate of wnat
percentage (in terms of ‘itiles of pipe) ot
your entire ollectxon system each type
represents. For example. 80 percent
separate sanitary sewers would mean
that 80 percent of the actual miles of
pipes are separate sanitary sewers (end
20 percent are combined sewers).
“Separate s initary sewer” means a
system of pipes that only carries:
(1) Domneqic wastewater from
connections to houses, hotels, non-
industrial office buildings, institutions,
or sanitary waste from industrial
facilities.
(2) Industrial wastewater received
through connections to industrial plants
or facilities. This consists of water that
is used in the manufacturing processes
conducted at the facility.
• “Combinea storm and sanitary
sewer” means a system of pipes that
carries a mixture of storm water runoff
and sanitary wastewater.
7. Inflow and Infiltration
Estinfate, in gallons per day (gpd
average amount of water that enters .. s
treatment works through inflow and
infiltration, Also explain any actions
you are taking to correct or decrease
inflow and infiltration.
• “Inflow” means that water enters
the sewer system from the land’s curface
in art uncontrolled uay. Usually, this
happens wlie i surface water runs -in
through unsealed manhole covers. It
m4v also happen when people illegally
connect their foundation drains, roof
leaders, cellar drains, yard drains, or
catch basins to the sewer system.
• ‘ [ iifiltration” happens when non-
wastewater seeps into the sewer system
from the ground. Ground water usually
leaks tntu the sewer system through
defective pipes, pipe joints,
connections, or manholes.
8. Topographic Map
Pi ovide i topographic map or maps at
the area extending at least to one nule
beyond the property boundaries of the
facility wlucn clearly show the
following:
• The area surrounding the treatment
plant. nLl.iding all unit processes.
• The pipes or other s’.’uctures
through Inch wastewater enters th’
rreutment plant and the pipes em oil
strtictu.r ’u thi ough which treated
wastewater is discharged from the
treauneat plant. Include outfall; ñ’ im
bypass piping, d applIcable;
• Eaah well v. here was’ewater fro ii
the plait is injccted uide:grouid’
• Welts. springs, other surfaL ’ watci
bodics, and dr n.kin water wni’ h u
are. 1) Within ¼ m Ie of the property
bounrlaites of the ;reatment plane,
and(2) l sled ir. ‘ha publa. record ur
otherwise known to you;
• Any areas where the cewage sludge
produced by the treatment plant is
stored. tre.4tod, or disposen;
• If the treamient works receives
waste that is classified as hazaruotis
under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) by truck, rail, or
special pipe, show on the map where
that hazardous waste enters the
treatment plant and where it is treated
stored, and/or disposed.
if a discharge structure, hazardous
waste disposal site, or injection well
associated with the facility is located
more than one mile from the plant.
include it on the map, if possible. If not,
attach additional sheets describing the
location of the structure, disposal site,
orwell. and identify the U.S. Geolor
Survey or other) map correspondin 1
the location.
On each map, include the map stale,
a nieridian arrow showing north and
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 234 / Wedne dav, December 6, 1993 / Fr posed Rules
62613
tiude and longitude at the nearest
ile second. On all maps of rivers.
.v the direction of the current, and
tidal waters, show the directions of
‘lie ebb and flow tides. Use a 7’/ minute
eries map published by the U.S.
,eological Survey, which may be
btained through the U.S. Geological
Survey Offices listed below. ha 7½
ritnute series map has not been
uubiished for your facility, then you
iav use a 15 minute series map from
‘ne U.S. Geological Survey. If neither a
7 ‘/z minute or 15 minute senes map has
been published for your facility site, use
a plat map or other appropriate map,
including all the requested information;
iii this case, briefly describe land uses
in the map area (e.g., residential,
commercial).
Maps may be purchased at local
dealers (listed in your local yellow
iages) or purchased over the counter at
the following USGS Earth Science
Information Centers (ESIC):
Anchorage-ESIC. 4230 UniversIty Dr.. Rzn.
101. Anchorage, AK 99508-4664,
(907)786—7011
Lakewnod.ESIC, Box 25046. Bldg. 25, Rm.
1813, Denver Federal Center. MS 504.
Denver, CO 80225—0046. (303)236—5829
Lakewood Open Files-ESIC. Box 25286. Bldg.
810, Denver Feceral Center. Denver, CO
to Park-ESIC. Bldg. 3, Rm. 3128. MS 532,
5 Middlafield Rd., Menlo Park, CA
4025—3591. (415)329—4309
Reston-ESIC. 507 National Center. Reston.
VA 22092. (703)648—6045
olla ’ESIC. 1400 Independence Rd.. MS 231
RoUa, MO 65401—2602, (314)341—0851
Salt Lake City.ESIC. 2222 West 2300 South.
Salt Lake City, UT 84119. (801)975—3742
Sioux Falls-ESIC, EROS Data Center, Sioux
Falls, SD 57198—0001, (605)594—6151
Spokane-ESIC, U.S. Post Office Bldg. Rm.
135, 904 W Riverside Ave.. Spokane. WA
99201—1088. (509)353—2524
Stearns Space Center-ESIC. Bldg. 3101.
Stennis Space Canter. MS 3959. (601)688—
3541
Washiugton. D.C. ESIC, U.S. Dept. of Interior,
1849 C St., NW, Rzn. 2850. Washington.
D.C. 20240. (202)208—4047
All maps should be either on paper or
other material appropriate for
reproduction. 11 possible, all sheets
should be approximately letter size with
margins suitable for filing and binding.
As few sheets as necessary should be
.ised to clearly show what is involved.
Iach sheet should be labeled with your
i’acility’s name, permit number, location
(city, county, or town), date of drawing,
and designation of the number of sheets
of each diagram as “page — of _.“
0 Process Flow Diagram or Schematic
ovide a process flow diagram or
. einatic that shows how wastewater
flows through your plant. On your
diagram. include all bypass piping.
‘Bypass piping” Is a system of pipes.
conduits, gates, anc t valves that can be
used to intent i ’niriv divert wastewater
flow from any part ci your plant directly
to a discharge pelut. A bypass happens
before the wastowater has been fully
treated. Title voiu’ diagram “Schematic
Wastewater Flow.” An example of a
diagram or schematic is shown In Figure
A below. Also write a bnef description
of your diagram.
In addition to the diagram, provide a
water balance that shows the following
items:
• All treatment units. Treatment units
include all processes used to treat
wastewater, such as chlorination and
dechlorination units.
• The daily average flow rate (in mgd)
that has entered your plant and that has
been discharged from your plant over
the past 12 months.
• The daily average flow rate (in mgd)
between treatment units in your facility
for the past 12 months.
Figure A—Process Flow Diagram
If possible, submit diagrams that are
approximately letter size (8 ½x11
inches) and leave blank room at the
edges so the permitting authority can
file or bind the diagram(s) with your
application. Submit the fewest number
of diagrams that show the whole area.
Label all of your plant’s discharge
points with their outfall numbers. At the
top of each sheet, write your plant’s
name, NPDES permit number, location
(city. county, or town), the date you
made the diagram, and the number of
each diagram sheet as “page — of
“ (e.g., page 2 of 4).
10. Bypass
A “bypass” is the intentional
diversion of wastewater (e.g., through an
arrangement of pipes, conduits, gates.
andior valves) from any portion of your
treatment plant to a discharge point
before that wastewater is fully treated.
Bypasses are prohibited unless the
criteria In 40 CFR 122.41(m) are
satisfied. For questions 10.a—10.c.,
provide information on both wet
weather and dry weather bypasses if the
treatment plant has the ability to bypass
untreated or partially treated
wastewater.
a. Provide the number of bypass
incidents that occurred at your plant
during the past 12 months. Indicate
whether this Is an actual or apprdximate
number.
b. Provide the average number of
hours that each bypass lasted during the
past 12 months. Indicate whcthur this is
an actual or approximate number.
c. Provide the average volume (in
million gallons) of the bypasses over the
past 12 months. The average volume is
the total number of gallons that were
diverted from your plant divided by the
number of bypasses. Indicate whether
this is an actual or approximata number
d. Describe why bypasses happen at
your plant.
e. Provide information regarding the
presence and use of backup generators
at your plant.
11. DIscharges and Other Disposal
Methods
a. Indicate whether your treatment
works discharges effluent to waters of
the United States. If the answer to 11.a.
Is “No.” then goto ii.b.
List the number of each type of outfall
to waters of the United States your
treatment works has. If your plant has
outfalls (other than bypass points) that
discharge something other than treated
sanitary effluent, give the total number
of these outfalls and describe what type
of effluent Is discharged through them.
Note If your treatment works discharges to
waters of the United States, then you must
also complete the following sections of Form
• Questions 15—18.
• Refer to the Applicatida Overview
section to determine whether you must also
ccmplete the Effluent Testing InformatIon in
Part A of the Supplemental ApplIcation
Information packet.
b. A surface Impoundment with no
point source discharge (to waters of the
U.S.) Is a holding pond or basin that is
large enough to contain all wastewaters
discharged into it. It has no places
where water overflows from it. It is used
for evaporation of water and very little
water seeps into the ground. Your plant
must report the location of each surface
impoundment, on average how much
water is placed in the impoundment
each day, and how often water is
discharged into the surface
impoundment (continuous or
Intermittent). If your plant discharges to
more than one surface impoundment.
use an additional sheet (or sheets) to
give this information for each
Impoundment. Attach the additional
sheet(s) to the application form. The
information on the location of the
surface impoundment may be
referenced on the topographic map
prepared under question 8.
c. Land application is the spraying or
spreading of treated wastewater over an
area of land. If your plant applies
wastewater to land, you must list the
site location, how many acres the site is,
how much water is applied (as annual
average daily application), and how
often the wastewater is applied to the
site (continuous or intermittent). If your
plant appliiis wastewater to more than
-------
62614 Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
one site, provide the information for
each site on a separate sheet (or sheets).
Attach the additional sheet(s) to your
application form. The information on
the location of the surface
Impoundment may be referenced on the
topographic map prepared under
question 8.
d. If your plant discharges treated or
untreated wastewater to another
treatment works (including a municipal
waste transport or collection system),
provide the information requested in
question i1.d. If your plant sends
wastewater to more than one treatment
works, provide this information for each
treatment works on an additional sheet
(or sheets). Attach the additional
sheet(s) to your application form.
Describe how the wastewater is
transported to the other treatment
works. Also provide the name and
mailing address of the company that
transports your plant’s wastewater to
this treatment works as well as the
name, phone number, and title of the
contact person at the transportation
company.
Provide the name and mailing address
of each treatment works that receives
wastewater from your plant as well as
the name, phone number, and title of
the contact person at the treatment
works that receives your plant’s
wastewater, Also, provide the NPDES
number for the treatment works, If you
know it. Indicate the average daily flow,
in million gallon.s per day, that is sent
from your plant to the other treatment
works.
e. Indicate whether your treatment
works discharges, or has the potential to
discharge, through combined sewer
overflows. If your response to this
question is “Yes.” then you must also
complete Part 0 of the Supplemental
Application Information packet
f. If your plant disposes of its
wastewater in some way that was not
described by 11.a.—11.e., briefly describe
how your plant discharges or disposes
of its wastewater. Also give the annual
daily volumes disposed of this way and
Indicate whether the discharge is
continuous or Intermittent. Other ways
to discharge or dispose include
underground percolation and well
Injection.
12. Federal Indian Reservation
Federal Indian Reservation means all
land within the limits of any Indian
reservation under the jurisdiction of the
United States Government
notwithstanding the issuance of any
patent. and including rights-of-way
running through the reservation.
Indicate whether your plant is located
on (i.e., within the limits of) a Federal
Indian Reservation and whether the
water body into which your plant
discharges flows through a Federal
Indian Reservation alter it receives your
plant discharge. If you mark “Yes” for
either of these questions, describe
which parts of your plant are located on
- a Federal Indian Reservation or indicate
how far upstream from a Federal Indian
Reservation your plant’s discharge is.
13. Operation/Maintenance Performed
by Contractor(s)
If a contractor carries out any
operational or maintenance aspects
associated with wastewater treatment or
effluent quality at this facility. provide
the name, mailing address, and
telephone number of each such
contractor. Also provide a description 01
the activities performed by the
contractor. Attach additional pages if
necessary.
14. Scheduled Improvements,
Schedules of Implementation
Provide information on any
Improvements to your treatment works
that you are currently planning. Include
only those improvements that will affect
the wastewater treatment, effluent
qua ilty, or design capacity of your
treatment works (such improvements
may include regionallzation of
treatment works). Also list the schedule
for when these improvements will be
started and finished. If your treatment
works has more than one improvement
planned, use a separate sheet of paper
to provide information for each one.
a. List each outfall number that is
covered by the implerr.eritat on
schedule The outfall nunihors you use
must be the same as the oncs provided
under question 15.
b. Indicate whether the planned
improvements or implementation
schedules are required by or planned
independently of any local, state, or
Federal agencies.
c. Provide a brief description of the
improvements to be made for the
out falls listed in question 14.a.
d. If you are submitting Form 2A for
a renewal of an existing NPDES permit
and you plan to change your treatment
works’ influent design flow rate, then
provide the proposed new maiamum
daily influent design flow rate in mgd.
e. Provide the information requested
for each planned improvement. Supply
dates for the following stages of any
compliance schedule. For
improvements that are planned
independently of local. State. or Federal
agencies. indicate planned or actual
completion dates, as applicable. If a step
has already been flnished. give the date
when that step was completed.
• “Begin Construction” means the
date you plan to start construction.
• “End Construction” means the
you expect to finish construction.
• “Begin Discharge” means the date
that you expect a discharge will start.
• “Attain Operational Level” means
the date that you expect the effluent
level will meet your plant’s
implementation schedule conditions.
f. Note whether your treatment works
has received appropriate permits or
clearances that are required by other
Federal or State requirements. If you
have received such permits, describe
them.
Note If this treatment works discharges
treated ‘vascewater to waters of the United
S$ate , go to question 15. If this treamient
works ao s not discharge treated wastewater
to wAterS of the United States, do riot
complete questions 15—18. Instead, go to
question 19 (Certification Statement). (You
may also be requuea to complete portions of
the Supplemental Ap .licanon Information
pack ’Ll
Effluent Discharges
Answer questions 15—17 once for
each outfall through which your
treatment works discharges effluent to
surface waters of the United States. Do
not include informstion about combined
sewer overflow discharae points.
Surface water mean.c creeks, stream’
rivers, lakes, estuaries, and oceans.
your treatme.nt works has more than one
outfall, copy and complete questions
15—17 once for each outfall.
15. Description of Outfall
a —e. Give the outfall number and its
lo .ation. For location, provide the city
or town (if app!icablel; ZIP code; the
county; the state; and the latitude and
longitude to the nearest second. If this
outfall is a subsurface discharge (e.g
into an estuary, !ake, or ocean), indicate
how far the outfall is from shore and
how far below the water’s surface it is.
Measure the distances in feet. Give these
distances at the lowest point of low tide.
Also provide the average daily flow rate
In million gallons per day.
f. Mark whether this outfall is a
periodic or intermittent discharge. A
“periodic discharge” is one that
happens regularly (for example.
monthly or seasonally). but is not
continuous all year. An “intermittent
discharge” is one that happens
sometimes, but not guiarly Discharges
from holding ponds, lagoons. etc.. may
be induded as periodic or intermitter,t.
Do not include discharges from bypass
points or combined sewer o erflowc’
your answer. Gibe the number of tin
per year a discnargo occurs from this
outlall. Also tell how long each
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 234 / Wednesday. December 6. 1995 / Proposed Rules
62615
1 jjscharge lasts and how much water is
discharged, in million gallons per day.
- ci each month when discharge
pens. If you do not have records of
act months in which such discharges
occurred, provide an estimate based on
he best available information.
g Note whether the outfall is
t.iquipped with a diffuser. if so. provide
i brief description of the type of diffuser
1 ised (e.g., high-rate).
16. Description of Receiving Waters
a. Indicate which type of water this
outfall discharges into—strearniriver,
lake, estuary, ocean, or other (describe).
b. Give the names of the surface
waters to which this outfall discharges.
For exam pie. “Control Ditch A, then
into Stream B, then into River C, and
finally into River D in River Basin E.”
c. Provide the name of the watershed/
river/stream system in which the
receiving water (identified in question
16.b.) is located. If known, also provide
the 14—digit watershed code assigned to
this watershed by the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service.
d. Provide the name of the State
ManagenientlRiver Basin into which
this outfall discharges. If known, also
provide the 8-digit hydrologic
cataloging unit code assigned by the
U.S. Geological Survey.
e. If the water body is a river or
stream, provide the acute and chronic
critical low flow in cubic feet per
second (cfs). If you are unsure of these
numbers, the U.S. Geological Survey
may be able to give them to you. Or you
may be able to get these numbers from
prior studies.
f. Give the total hardness of the
receiving stream at critical low flow, in
milligrams per liter of CaCO,, if
applicable.
17. Description of Treatment
a. Indicate the highest level of
treatment that your plant provides for
the discharge from this outfall.
b. Give the design removal rates, in
percent, for biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD 5 ) or carbonaceous
biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD,),
suspended solids (SS), phosphorus (P),
and nitrpgen (N).
c. Describe the type of disinfection
your plant uses (for example,
chlorination, ozonatlon, ultraviolet, etc.)
and any seasonal variation that may
occur. If your plant uses chlorination,
indicate whether it also dechlorinates.
d. Note whether the facility has post
aeration.
Effluent Testing Data
18. Effluent Testing Information:
Conventional and Nonconventional
Pollutants
All applicants that discharge effluent
to waters of the United States must
complete question 18. Refer to the
Application Overview section to
determine if you must also complete the
Effluent Testing Information in Part A of
the Supplemental Application
Information packet.
Do not include information about
combined sewer overflow discharge
points in question 18.
Refer to the following table to
determine which effluent testing
information questions you must
complete and to determine the number
of pollutant scans on which to base your
data.
Complete question 18 once for each
outfall through which effluent is
discharged to waters of the United
States. Indicate on each page the outfall
number (as assigned in questions 15—17)
for which the data are provided. Using
the blank rows provided on the form,
submit any data the facility may have
for pollutants not specifically listed in
question 18.
For specific instructions on
completing the pollutant tables in
question 18, refer to Appendix A of
these instructions,
Certification
19. Certification
Notr Before completing the Certification
statement, review the Application Overview
section on the cover page of Form 2A to make
sure that you have completed all applicable
sections of Form 2A, Including any parts of
thq Supplemental Application Information
‘cot.
All permit applications must be
signed and certified. Also indicate in
the boxes provided which sections of
Form ZA you are submitting with this
application.
An application submitted by a
municipality. State, Federal, or other
public agency must be signed by either
a principal executive officer or ranking
elected official. A principal executive
officer of a Federal agency includes: (1)
The chief executive officer of the
agency, or (2) a senior executive officer
having responsibility for the overall
operations of a principal g ographic
unit of the agency (e g., Regional
Administrators of EPA).
An application submitted by a
corporation must be signed by a
responsible corporate officer. A
responsible corporate officer means: (1)
A president. secretary, treasurer, or vice
president in charge of a principal
business function, or any other person
who performs similar policy. or
decision-making functions; or (2) the
manager of manufacturing, production.
or operating facilities employing more
than 250 persons or having gross annual
sales or expenditures exceeding $25
million (in second quarter 1980 dollars).
if authority to sign documents has been
assigned or delegated to the manager in
accordance with corporate procedures.
An application submitted by a
partnership or sole proprietorship must
be signed by a general partner or the
proprietor, respectively.
After completing the certification
statement (all applicable sections of
Form ZA must also be complete), submit
the application to:
Supplemental Application Information
Packet
EPA has developed Form ZA in a
modular format, consisting of two
packets: the Basic Application
Information packet and the
Supplemental Application Information
packet. At a minimum, all applicants
must complete the Basic Application
information packet. As directed by the
Application Overview section on the
Treatment works tharactartstns
Form 2A requirementa
Mu imum

Appenc z A)
3
3
sign flow rate less than 1 mgd, and
.. ot required to have (or does not have) a pretreatment program.
•Designflowrategreaterthanccequsjto l mgd, or
Question 18
Question 18 and Pad A of Supplemental
Application Information Pa et.
‘Flequired to have a pretreatment program (Or has one in place), or.
Otherwise required by the pemlitting authority to provide the data.
-------
62616 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 /_Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
cover page of the form, certain
applicants will also need to complete
one or more parts of the Supplemental
Application Information packet
The Supplemental Applicatlon
Informatiqn packet Is divided Into the
following parts:
• Part A Expanded Effluent Testing
Data
• Part B Toxic1t r Testing Data
• Part C Industrial User Discharges.
Pretreatment, and RCRAJCERCLA
Wastes
• Part D Combined Sewer Systems
Refer to the Application Overview
section to determine which part(s) of the
Supplemental Application Information
packet you must complete.
Part A Expanded Effluent Testing Data
Paperwork Reduction Act Notice: The
public reporting and recordkeeping burden
for this collection of Information (Part A:
Expanded Effluent DetaIls estimated to
average 5.7 hours per response. This estimate
includes the time needed to review
instructions; develop, acquire. install. and
utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing
ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to respond to a collection of
information; search existing data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information: and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information. An Agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently
valid 0MB control number.
Send comments regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this collection
of information, including suggestions for
reducing the burden, to Chief, OPPE
Regulatory Information Division. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2138)
M St., SW., Washington, DC 2O46o- and to
the Office of Information and Regulat .
Affair,. Office of Management and Budg
725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503,
Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Indude the
0MB control number In any corresponde ,
Do not send the completed application form
to these addresses.
Note: All applicants that discharge effluent
to waters of the United States must complete
question 18 of the Basic Application
Information packet Refer to the Application
Overview section to determine if you must
also complete the Effluent Testing
Information in Part A of the Supplemental
Application Information packet.
Refer to the following table to
determine which effluent testing
information questions you must
complete and to determine the number
of pollutant scans on which to base your
data.
The following instructions apply only
to treatment works completing Part A of
the Supplemental Application
Information packet Note that the
permitting authority may require
additional testing on a case-by-case
basis.
Complete Part A once for each outfall
through which effluent is discharged to
waters of the United States. Indicate on
each page the outfall number (as
assigned in questIons 15—17 of the Basic
Application Information packet) for
which the data are provided. Using the
blank rows provided on the form,
submit any data the facility may have
for pollutants not specifically Listed In
Part A.
For specific instructions on
completing the pollutant tables in Part
A. refer to Appendix A of these
Instructions.
Note: After completing Part A, refer to the
Application Overview section to determine
which other sections of Form 2A you must
complete. If you have completed all other
required sections of Form ZA, you may
proceed to the Certification Statement in
question 19 of the Basic Application
Information packet.
Part B. Toxicity Testing Data
Paperwork Reduction Act Notice: The
public reporting and recardkeeping burden
for this collection of Information (Part B:
Toxicity Testing Data) is estimated to average
4.5 hours per response. This estimate
includes the time needed to review
instructions; develop, acquire. install, and
utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information: adjust the existing
ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements:
train personnel to respond to a collection of
information; search existing data sources;
complete and review the collection of
Information: and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information. An Agency may not
conduct or sponsor. and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of
Information unless it displays a currently
valid 0MB control number.
Send comments regarding thu huiden
estimate or any other aspect of this collection
of Information, including suggestions for
reducing the burden, to Chief, OPPE
Regulatory Information Division. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2136), 401
M St.. S.W , Washington. DC 20460: and to
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affair,. Office of Management and Budget.
725 17th St.. N.W.. Washington. DC 20503.
Attention. Desk Officer for EPA. Include the
0MB control number in any correspondence.
Do not send the completed application form
to these addresses.
Treatment works meeting one or more
of the following caiteria must submit the
results of whole effluent toxicity testing:
1. Treatment works with a design
influent flow rate greater than or equal
to one mgd: or
2. Treatment works with an approved
pretreatment program (as well as those
required to have one); or
3. Treatment works otherwise
required by the permitting authority to
submit the results of whole effluent
toxicity testing.
Applicants completing Part B must
submit the results from any whole
effluent toxicity test conducted during
the past three years that have not been
reported or submitted to the permitting
authority for each outfall discharging
effluent to the waters of the United
States. Do nct include information on
combined sewer overflows in this
section. If the applicant conducted a
whole effluent toxicity test during the
past three years that revealed toxicity,
then provide any information available
on the cause of the toxicity or any
results of a toxicity reduction
evaluation, if one was conducted.
Test results provided in Part B must
be based on multiple species being
Trealment works tharaclenstics
Form I A rmerits
.
Minimum
No. of
scans (see
appendix A)
• Design flow rate less than 1 mgd, and ._...._.. .,
• Not required to have (or does not have) a pretreatment program
• Design flow rate greater than or equal to I mgd. or
• Required to have a pretreatment program (or has one in place) or
• Othetwise required by the permitting authonty to provide the date
Question 18
Question 18 and Part A of Supplemental
Applcation Information Packet.
3
3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6. 1995 I Proposed Rules
62617
:e ted quarterly for a minimum of one
ar. For multiple species. EPA requires
ninimum of two species (e.g..
,crtebrates and invertebrates). The
permitting authonty may require the
applicant to include other species (e.g..
,Iants) as well. Applicants must provide
these tests for acute or chronic toxicity,
depending on the range of the receiving
waler dilution. EPA recommends that
ilppl lcants conduct acute or chronic
toxicity testing based on the following
dilutions:
• Acute toxicity testing if the dilution
of the effluent is greater than 1000:1 at
the edge of the mixing zone.
• Acute or chronic toxicity testing If
the dilution of the effluent is between
100:1 and 1000:1 at the edge of the
mixing zone. Acute testing may be more
appropriate at the higher end of this
range (1000:1). and chronic testing may
be more appropriate at the lower end of
this range (100:1).
• Chronic toxicity testing if the
dilution of the effluent is less than 100:1
at the edge of the mixing zone.
AU data provided in Part B must be
based on tests performed within three
years prior to completing this
application. The tests must have been
conducted since the last NPDES permit
qsuaflce or permit modification under
CFR 122.62(a). In addition,
Jplicants only need to submit data that
have not previously been submitted to
the permitting authority. Thus, if test
data have already been submitted
(within the last three years) in
accordance with an issued NPDES
permit, the treatment works may note
the dates the tests were submitted and
need not fill out the information
requested in question B.2. for that test.
Additional copies of Part B may be
used in subnuttlng the required
information. A permittee having no
significant toxicity In the effluent over
the past year and who has submitted all
toxicity test results through the end of
the calendar quarter preceding the time
of permit application would need to
supply no additional data as toxicity
testing data as part of this application.
Instead, the applicant should complete
question 5.4., which requests a
summary of bioassay test Information
already submitted. (See below for more
detailed instructions on completing
question B.4.)
Where test data are requested to be
reported, the treatment works has the
option of reporting the requested data
on Form 2A or on reports supplied by
laboratories conducting the testing.
ovided the data requested are
complete and presented In a logical
fashion. The permitting authority
reserves the right to request that the data
be reported on Form 2A.
B.1. Required Tests
a. Provide the total number of chronic
and acute whole effluent toxicity tests
conducted in the past three years. A
“chronic” toxicity test continues for a
relatively long period of time, often one-
tenth the life span of the organism or
more. An “acute” toxicity test is one in
which the effect is observed in 96 hours
or less.
B.2. Individual Test Pata
Complete B.2. for each test conducted
In the last three years for which data has
not been submitted. Use the columns
provided on the form for each test and
specify the test number at the top of
each column. Use additional copies of
question B.2. if more than three tests are
being reported. The parameters listed on
the form are based on EPA.
recommended test methods. Permittees
may be required by the permitting
authority to submit additional test
parameter data for the purposes of
quality assurance.
If the treatment works Is conducting
whole effluent toxicity tests and
reporting its results in accordance with
an NPDES permit requirement, then the
treatment works may note the dates the
tests were submitted and need not fill
out the Information requested In
question 8.2. for those tests (unless
otherwise required by the permitting
authority).
a. Provide the information requested
on the form for each test reported.
Under “Test species.” provide the
scientific name of the organism used in
the test. The “Outfall number” reported
must correlate to the outfall numbers
listed in questions 15—17 of the Basic
Application Information packet.
b. Provide the source of the toxicity
test methods followed. In conducting
the tests, the treatment works must use
methods approved In accordance with
40 CFR Part 136 (Note: Approved
methods are currently under
development(.
c. Indicate whether 24.hour
composite or grab samples were used for
each test. For multiple grab samples,
provide the number of grab samples
used. Refer to Appendix A of the
Instructions for a definition of
composite and grab samples.
d. Indicate whether the sample was
taken before or alter d1 infection andlor
alter dechlorination.
e. Provide a description of the point
In the treatment process at which the
sample was collected.
f. Indicate whether the test was
intended to assess chronic or acute
toxicity.
g. Indicate which type of test was
performed. A “static” test is a test
performed with a single constant
volume of water. In a “static-renewal”
test, the volume of water is renewed at
discrete intervals. In a “flow-through”
test, the volume of water is renewed
continuously.
h. Indicate whether laboratory water
or the receiving water of the tested
outfall was used as the source of
dilution water. If laboratory water was
used, provide the type of water used.
I. indicate whether fresh or salt water
was used as the dilution water. For salt
water, specify whether the salt water
was natural or artificial (specify the type
of artificial water used).
j. For each concentration in the test
series, provide the percentage of effluent
used.
k. Provide the minimum and
maximum parameters measured during
the test for pH. salinity, temperature,
ammonia, and dissolved oxygen.
L Provide the results of each test
performed. For acute toxicity tests.
provide the percent survival of the test
species in 100 percent effluent. Also
provide the LC 50 (Lethal Concentration
to 50 percent) of the test. “LC 50 ” Is the
effluent (or toxicant) concentration
estimated to be lethal to 50 percent of
the test organisms during a specific
period. Indicate any other test results in
the space provided.
For chronic toxicity tests, provide
data at the most sensitive endpoint.
While this is generally expressed as a
“NOEC” (No Observed Effect
Concentration), it may be expressed as
an “Inhibition Concentiation” (e.g.,
“1C 25 ”—lnhibltjon Concentration 1025
percent). The NOEC is the highest
measured concentration of an effluent
(or a toxicant) at which no significant
adverse effects are observed on the test
organisms at a specific time of
observation. The IC 15 Is the effluent (or
toxicant) concentration estimated to
cause a 25 percent reduction In
reproduction, fecundity, growth, or
other non-quantal biological
measurements. Indicate any other test
results in the space provided.
in. Provide the mortality (in percent)
of the control group. Indicate any other
relevant information about the control
group in the space provided.
B.3. Toxicity Reduction Evaluation
A Toxicity Reduction Evaluation
(TRE) Is a site-specific study conducted
in a stepwise process designed to
identify the causative agents of effluent
toxicity, evaluate the effectiveness of
-------
62618 Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
toxicity control options. and then
confirm the reduction in effluent
toxicity. If the treatment works is
conducting a TRE as part of a NPDES
permit requirement or enforcement
order, then you only need to provide the
date of the last progress report
concerning the TRE in the area reserved
for details of the TRE.
B.4. Summary of Submitted
Biomonitonng Test Information
As stated above, applicants that have
already submitted the results of
biomonitoring test information over the
past three years do not need to resubmit
this data with Form ZA. Instead.
indicate in question B.4. the date you
submitted each report and provide a
summary of the test results for each
report. Include in this summary the
following information: the outfall
number and collection dates of the
samples tested, dates of testing, toxicity
testing method(s) used, and a summeiy
of the results from the test (e.g. 100%
survival in 40% effluent).
Notei After completing Part B, refer to the
Application Overview section to determine
which other sections of Form ZA you must
complete. If you have completed all other
required sections of Form 2A. you may
proceed to the Certification Statement In
questIon 19 of the Basic Application
information packet.
Part C. Industrial User Discharges,
Pretreatment, and R ItERQ.A
Wastes
Paperwork Reduction Act Notice: The
public reporting and recordkeeping burden
for this collection of Information (Part C:
Industrial User Discharges. Pretreatment, and
R AJCERCLA Wastes) is estimated to
average 4.3 hours per response. This estimate
includes the time needed to review
Instructions: develop. acquire. Install, and
utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting. validating, and
verifying Information, processing and
mauilaiiuag information. and disclosing and
providing information: adjust the existing
ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements:
train personnel to respond to a collection of
Information. search existing data sources;
complete and review the collection of
Information: and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information. An Agency may not
conduct or sponsor. and a person is not
required to respond toe collection of
information unless It displays a currently
valId 0MB control number.
Send comments regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this collection
of Information, including suggestions for
reducing the burden, to Chief. OPPE
Regulatory Information Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2136), 401
M St., SW.. Washington. DC 20480: and to
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs. Office of Management and Budget.
725 17th St.. N.W., Washington. DC 20503,
Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the
0MB control number in any correspondence.
Do not send the completed application form
to these addressee.
All treatment works receiving
discharges from significant industrial
users (SIUs) or facilities that receive
RCRA or CERCLA wastes must complete
Part C.
A “categorical industrial user” is an
industrial user that is subject to
Categorical Pretreatment Standards
under 40 CFR 403.6 and 40 CFR Chapter
I, Subchapter N, which are technology.
based standards developed by EPA
setting industry-specific effluent limits.
(A List of Industrial Categories subject to
Categorical Pretreatment Standards is
included in Appendix B.)
A “significant industrial user” is
defined in 40 CFR 403.3(t) as an
industrial user that:
(1) is subject to Categoncal
Pretreatment Standards under 40 CFR
403.6 and 40 CFR Chapter 1, Subchapter
N; and
(2) any other industrial user that:
discharges an average of 25,000 gallons
per day or more of process wastewater
to the treatment works (excluding
sanitary, non-contact cooling and boiler
blowdown wastewater); contributes a
process wastestream that makes up 5
percent or more of the average dry
weather hydraulic or organic capacity of
the treatment works; or is designated as
such by the Control Authority as
defined In 40 CFR 403.12(a) on the basis
that the industrial user has a reasonable
potential for adversely affecting the
treatment works operation or for
violating any pretreatment standard or
requirement (In accordance with 40 CFR
403.8(fl(6)).
An “Industrial user” means any
industrial or commercial entity that
discharges wastewater that is not
domestic wastewater. Domestic
wastewater Includes wastewater from
connections to houses, hotels, non-
industrial office buildings, Institutions,
or sanitary waste from industrial
facilities. The number of “Industrial
users” is the total number of Industrial
and commercial users that discharge to
the treatment works.
For the purposes of completing the
application form, please provide
information on non-categorical JUs and
categorical industrial users separately.
General Information
Ci. Number of Industrial Users
Provide the number of SILls and the
number of categorical industrial users
only that discharge to your treatment
works.
C.2. Average Daily Flow From Industrial
Users
Provide an estimate of the daily fl
of wastewater, In mgd, received from all
industrial users, significant industrial
users only, and categorical industrial
users only.
C.3. Industrial User Contributions
Estimate the contribution (in terms of
the percent of total daily influent) from
all Industrial users, significant
industhal users only, categorical
industrial users only, and domestic
sources only.
C.4. Pretreatment Program
Indicate whether the treatment works
has an approved pretreatment program.
An “approved pretreatment program” is
a program administered by a treatment
works that meets the criteria established
In 40 CFR 403.8 and 403.9 and that has
been approved by a Regional
Administrator or State Director. If the
answer to question C.4. is no, go to CS.
Naota If this treatment works has or is
required to have a pretreatment program. you
must also complete Parts A and B of the
Supplemental Application Information
packet.
If the treatment works has an -
approved pretreatment program.
identify any substantial modification.
the POTW’s approved pretreatment
program that have not been approved In
accordance with 40 CFR 403.18.
Significant Industrial User (SILT)
Information
All treatment works that receive
discharges from SIUs must complete
questions C.5.—C.10.
If your treatment works receives
wastewater from more than one SILl,
complete questions C.5.—C.1O. once for
each SILT.
CS. Significant Industrial User
Information
Provide the name and mailing address
of each SIU. Submit additional pages as
necessary.
C.6. Industrial Processes
Describe the actual process(es) (rather
than simply listing them) it.the SIU that
affect or contribute to the SRi’s
dIscharge. For example, in describing a
metal finishing operation. include such
information as how the product is
cleaned prior to finishing, what type of
plating baths are in operation (e.g.,
nickel, chromium), how paint is
applied, and how the product is
polished. Attach additional sheets if
necessary.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 234 / Wednesday. December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
62619
C.7. Principal Product(s) and Raw
Material(s)
List pnncipal products that the SIU
generates and the raw materials used to
manufacture the products.
C.8. Flow Rate
“Process wastewater” means any
water that. dunng manufacturing or
processing, comes into direct contact
with or results from the production or
use of any raw material, intermediate
product, finished product, byproduct, or
waste product Indicate the average
daily volume, in gallons per day, of
process wastewater and non-process
wastewater that the SRJ discharges into
the collection system. Specify whether
the discharges are continuous or non-
continuous.
C.9. Pretreatment Standards
Indicate whether the SIU is subject to
local limits and categorical pretreatment
standards. “Local limits” are
enforceable local requirements
developed by treatment works to
address Federal standards as well as
state and local regulations.
“Categoncal pretreatment standards”
are national technology-based standards
developed by EPA, setting industry-
specific effluent limits. These standards
are implemented by 40 CFR 403.6.
C.10. Problems at the Treatment Works
Attributed to Waste Discharged by the
s lu
Provide information concerning any
problems the treatment works has
experienced that are attributable to
discharges from the SIUs. Problems may
include upsets or interference at the
plant. corrosion in the collection
system, or other similar events.
RCR.4 Hazardous Waste Received by
Truck. Rail or Dedicated Pipeline
C.11. RCRA Waste
As defined in SectIon 1004(5) of the
Resou.rce Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), “Hazardous waste” means
“a solid waste, or combination of solid
wastes, which because of its quantity,
concentration, or physical, chemical or
infectious characteristics may:
(A) cause or significantly contribute to
an j.ncrease in mortality or an increase
In serious irreversible, or incapacitating
reversible, iLlness; or
(B) pose a substantial present or
potential hazard to human health or the
environment when improperly treated,
stored. transported, or disposed of, or
otherwise managed.”
Those solid waste that are
uinsidered hazardous are listed under
O CFR Part 261 Treatment works that
accept hazardous wastes by truck, rail.
or dedicated pipeline (a pipeline that is
used to carry hazardous waste directly
to a treatment works without prior
Iiwdng with domestic sewage) within
the property boundary of the treatment
works are considered to be hazardous
waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities (TSDFs) and, as such, are
subject to regulations under RCRA.
Under RCRA. mixtures of domestic
sewage and other wastes that
comniingle In the treatment works
collection system prior to reaching the
property boundary. Including those
wastes that otherwise would be
considered hazardous, are excluded
from regulation under the domestic
sewage exclusion. Hazardous wastes
that are delivered directly to the
treatment works by truck, rail, or
dedicated pipeline do not fall within the
exclusion. Hazardous wastes received
by these routes may only be actepted by
treatment works if the treatment works
complies with applicable RCRA
requirements for TSDFS.
Applicants completing questions
Ci1.-C.13. should have Indicated all
points at which RCRA hazardous waste
enters the treatment works by truck, rail,
or dedicated pipe In the map provided
in question 8 of the Basic Application
Information packet.
C.12. Waste Iran port
Indicate the method by which RCRA
waste is received at the treatment works.
C.13. Waste Description
Provide the EPA hazardous waste
numbers, which are located in 40 CFR
Part 261, Subparts C & D, and the
amount (in volume or mass) received.
CERCLA (Superfund) Wastewater and
RCRA Remadiatjon/Coryecijve Action
Wastewater
Substances that are regulated under
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) are described and listed
In 40 CFR Part 302. Questions C.14.—
C .22. apply to the type, origin, and
treatment of CERCLA wastes currently
(or expected to be) discharged to the
treatment works.
C.14. CLA Waste
Indicate whether this treatment works
currently receives waste from a C CLA
(Superfluid) site or plans to accept
waste from a CERCLA site in the next
five years. lilt does, provide the
information requested in C.1S—C17.
If the treatment works receives, or
plans to receive, CERCLA waste from
more than one site, complete questions
C.15—.C.17. once for each site
C.15. Waste Ongin
Provide information about the
CERCLA site that is discharging waste to
the treatment works. Information must
include a description of the type of
facility and an EPA identification
number if one exists.
C.16. Pollutants
Provide a list of the pollutants that are
orwill be discharged by the CERCL.A
site and the volume and concentration
of such pollutants.
C.17. Waste Treatment
Provide information concerning the
treatment used (If any) by the CERCLA
site to treat the waste prior to
discharging It to the treatment works.
The information should include a
description of the treatment technology,
Information on the frequency of the
discharge (continuous or intermittent)
and any data concerning removal
efficiency.
Cia. RCRA Corrective Action Waste
Indicate whether this treatment works
currently receives RCRA Corrective
Action Waste or plans to accept RCRA
Corrective Action Waste In the next five
years. If It does, provide the information
requested in C.i9.-C21.
If there is more than one site from
which RCRA Corrective Action Waste
Is, or is expected to be, received, attach
additional sheets with the information
requested in questions C.19.—C.21. for
each site.
C.19. Waste Origin
Provide a description of the site and
of the type of facility that discharges or
is expected to discharge the RCRA
corrective action waste.
C.20. Pollutants
Provide a list of the pollutants that are
or will be discharged by each RCRA
corrective action site.
C.21. Waste Treatment
Provide information concerning the
treatment used (if any) by the RCRA
corrective action site to treat the waste
prior to discharging It to the treatment
works. The information should include
a description of the treatment
technology, any data concerning
removal efficiency, and information on
the frequency of the discharge
(continuous or Intermittent). If the
discharge is Intermittent, describe the
discharge schedule.
C.22. Other Wastes From Remediation/
Clean-up Sites
Describe any wastewater received or
expected to be received from leaking
-------
62620 Federal Register / VoL 60. No. 234 I Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
underground tank remedlation sites and
front remediatlonIcleanup sites that are
regulated by other laws (state.
municipal. etc.).
Note: After completing Part C. refer to the
Application Overview section to determine
which other sections of Form 2A you must
complete. 11 you have completed all other
required sections of Form 2A, you may
proceed to the Certification Statement In
question 19 of the Basic Application
Information packet.
Part D. Combined Sewer Systems
Pnperwork Reduction Act Notice: The
public reporting and rucordkeeping burden
for this collection of Information (Part D:
Combined Sewer Systems) is estimated to
average 8.2 hours per response. This estimate
includes the time needed to review
insttuctlons: develop, acquire, install. and
utilize technologj’ and systems for the
purposes of collecting. validating, and
verifying information, processing and
maintaining Infonnatlon. and disclosing and
providing lnformation adhist the existing
ways to comply with any previously
applicable insttuctlons and requirements;
ttain personnel to respond to a collection of
information; search existing data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and ttansmnit or otherwise
disclose the Information. An Agency may not
conduct or sponsor. and a person Is not
required to respond to a collection of
Information unless it displays a currently
valid 0MB control number.
Send comments regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this collection
of Information. Including suggestions for
reducing the burden, to Chief. OPPE
Regulatory information Division. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2136). 401
M Si. S.W.. Washington. DC 20460: and to
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
725 17th Si. N.W., Washington. DC 20503.
Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the
0MB control number in any correspondence.
Do not send the completed application form
to these addressee.
D.1. Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)
Discharge Points
A combined sewer system collects a
mixture of both sanitary wastewater and
storm water runoff.
Indicate the number of CSO discharge
points in the combined sewer system
covered by this application. Complete
questions D.5.—D.9. once for each
discharge poinL Attach additional pages
as necessary.
D.2. System Map
Indicate on a system map all CSO
discharge points. For each such point.
indicate any sensitive use areas and any
waters supporting threatened or
endangered species that are potentially
affected by CSOs. Sensitive use areas
include beaches, drinking water
supplies, shellfish beds, sensitive
aquatic ecosystems, and outstanding
natural resource waters.
Applicants may provide the
Information requested In question D.2.
on the map submitted In response to
questIon 8 lathe Basic Application
Information packet.
All maps should be either on paper or
other material appropriate for
reproduction. If possible, all sheets
should be approximately letter size with
margins suitable for filing and binding.
As few sheets should be used as
necessary to show clearly what is
involved. All discharge points should be
identified by outfall number. Each sheet
should be labeled with the applicant’s
name, NPDES permit number, location
(city, county, or town), date of drawing.
and designation of the number of sheets
ofeachdiagraxnas’ page ______ of
D.3. System Diagram
Diagram the location of combined and
separate sanitary major sewer trunk
lines and indicate any connections
where separate sanitary sewers feed into
the combined sewer system. Clearly
indicate the location of all flow
controlling devices in the system.
Include storage equipment. flow
regulating devices, and pump stations.
Also indicate the areas of drainage
associated with each CSO and the
pumping capacity of each pump station.
The drawing should be either on
paper or other material appropriate for
reproduction. if possible, all sheets
should be appro,dmately letter size with
margins suitable for filing and binding.
As few sheets should be used as
necessary to show clearly what is
Involved. All discharge points should be
identified by outfall number. Each sheet
should be labeled with the applicant’s
name, NPDES permit number, location
(city, county, or town), date of drawing.
and designation of the number of sheets
of each diagram as “page _______ of
D.4. System Evaluation
List any studies that have been
performed on the combined sewer
system since the last permit application.
Including inflow/infiltration studies.
engineering studies, hydraulic studies,
and water quality studies.
CSO Outfoiis
Fill out a copy of questions D.5.—D.9.
once for each CSO discharge point.
Attach additional pages as necessary.
D.5. Description of Outfall
a.—d. Provide the outfall number and
location (Including city or town if
applicable, state. county. and latitude
and longitude to the nearest second).
For subsurface discharges (e.g.,
discharges to lakes, estuaries, and
oceans), provide the distance (in feet’
the discharge point from the shore an..
the depth (in feet) of the discharge point
below the surface of the discharge point
Provide these distances at the lowest
point of low tide.
D.6. Monitoring
Indicate whether rainfall. CSO flow
volume, CSO water quality. and/or
receiving water quality were monitored
during the past 12 months. Provide the
number of storm events rnon.itored
during the past 12 months as welL
D.7. CSO Incidents
a. Provide the number of CSO
incidents that have occurred In the past
12 months. Indicate whether this is an
actual or approximate number.
b. Provide the average duration (in
hours) per CSO event Indicate whether
this is an actual or approximate value.
c. Provide the average volume (in
million gallons) of discharge per CSO
incidents over the past 12 months.
Indicate whether this is an actual or
approximate number.
a, Provide the minimum amount of
rainfall that caused a CSO incident in
the past 12 months.
D.8. Description of Receiving Waters
a. Indicate the type of water body m .
which the CSO outfall (identified in
D.5.a.) discharges.
b. List the name(s) of immediate
receiving waters starting at the CSO
discharge point and moving
downstream. For example. ‘ Control
Ditch A. thence to Stream B. thence to
River C, and thence to River D in the
River Basin E.”
c. Provide the name of the watershed/
river/stream system in which the
receiving water (identified in question
D.8.b.) Is located. If known, also provide
the 14-digit watershed code assigned to
this watershed by the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service.
d. Provide the name of the State
ManagementlRlver Basm into which
this outfall discharges. If known, also
provide the 8-digit hydrologic
cataloging unit code assigned by the
U.S. Geological Survey.
D.9. CSO Operations
a. Indicate whether wastewater from
significant industrial users (refer to the
instructions to Part C for a definition)
can enter the combined sewer system.
b. Provide a description of any known
water quality impacts on the receivu’
water caused by CSO from this
discharge point.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
62621
Note: After completIng Part D. refer to the
Application Overview section to determine
which other sectjoas of Form 2A you must
complete. If you have completed all other
required sections of Form 2A. you may
proceed to the Certification Statement in
question 19 of the Basic Application
Information packet.
Appendix A—Guidance for Completing
the Effluent Testing Information
All Treatment Works
All applicants must provide data for
each of the pollutants in question 18 of
the Basic Application Information
packet. Some applicants must also
provide data for the pollutants in Part A
of the Supplemental Application
Information packet. AU applicants
submitting effluent testing data must
base this data on a minimum of three
pollutant scans. All samples analyzed
must be representative of the discharge
from the sampled outfall.
If you have e dst1ng data that fulfills
the requirements described below, you
may use that data in lieu of conducting
additional sampling. 11 you measure
more than the required number of daily
values for a pollutant and those values
are representative of your wastestream,
you must include them in the data you
report. In addition, use the blank rows
provided on the form to provide any
existing sampling data that your facility
may have for pollutants not listed In the
appropriate sections. All data provided
in the application must be based on
samples taken within three years prior
to the time of this permit application.
Sampling data must be representative
of the treatment works’ discharge and
take into consideration seasonal
variations. At least two of the samples
used to complete the effluent testing
information questions must have been
taken no fewer than 4 months and no
more than 8 months apart. For example,
one sample may be taken in April and
another in October to meet this
requirement. Applicants unable to meet
this time requirement due to periodic.
discontinuous, or seasonal discharges
can obtain alternative guidance on this
requirement from their permitting
authority.
The collection of samples for the
reported analyses should be supervised
by a person experienced in pez ormin
wastewater sampling. Specific
requirements contained in the
applicable analytical methods should be
followed for sample containers, sample
preservation, holding times, and
collection of duplicate samples.
Samples sheuld be taken at a time
representative of normal operation. To
the extent feasible, all processes that
contribute to wastewater should be In
operation and the treatment system
should be operating properly with no
system upsets. Samples should be
collected from the center of the flow
channel (where turbulence is at a
maximum), at a location specified in the
current NPDES permit, or at any
location adequate for the collection of a
representative sample.
A minimum of four grab samples
must be collected for pH, temperature,
cyanide, total phenols, residual
chlorine, oil and grease, fecal coliforrn,
E. ccli, and enterococci (applicants need
only provide data on either fecal
coliform or E. coli and enterococci). For
all other pollutants, 24-hour composite
samples must be collected. However, a
minimum of one grab sample, instead of
a 24-hour composite, may be taken for
effluent from holding ponds or other
impoundments that have a retention
period greater than 24 hours.
Grab and composite samples are
defined as follows:
‘Grab sample: an individual sample
of at least 100 milliliters collected
randomly for a period not exceeding 15
minutes.
• Composite sample: a sample
derived from two or more discrete
samples collected at equal time Intervals
or collected proportional to the flow rate
over the compositing period. The
composite collection method may vary
depending on pollutant characteristics
or discharge flow characteristics.
The permitting authority may allow or
establish appropnate site-specific
sampling procedures or requirements,
including sampling locations, the
season in which sampling takes place,
the duration between sampling events,
and protocols for collecting samples
under 40 CFR Part 136. Contact EPA or
the State permitting authority for
detailed guidance on sampling
techniques and for answers to specific
questions. The following instructions
explain how to complete each of the
columns in the pollutant tables in the
effluent testing information sections of
Form 2A.
Maximum Daily Discharge. For
composite samples, the daily discharge
is the average pollutant concentration
and total mass found in a composite
sample taken over a 24-hour period. For
grab samples, the daily discharge is the
arithmetic or flow-weighted total mass
or average pollutant concentration
found in a series of at least four grab
samples taken during the operating
hours of the treatment works during a
24-hour period.
To determine the maximum daily
discharge values, compare the daily
discharge values from each of the
sample events. Report the highest total
mass and highest concentration level
from these samples.
• “Concentration” is the amount of
pollutant that is present in a sample
with respect to the size of the sample.
The daily discharge concentration is the
average concentration of the pollutant
throughout the 24-hour period.
• “Mass” Is calculated as the total
mass of the pollutant discharged over
the 24-hour period.
• All data must be reported as both
concentration and mass (where
appropriate). Use the following
abbreviations in the columns headed
“Units.”
Average Daily Discharge. The average
daily discharge is determined by
calculating the arithmetic mean daily
pollutant concentration and the
arithmetic mean daily total mass of the
pollutant from each of the sample
events within the three years prior to
this permit application. Report the
concentration, mass, and units used
under the Average Daily Discharge
column, along with the number of
samples on which the average is based.
Use the unit abbreviations shown above
in “Maximum Daily Discharge.”
If data requested in Form 2A have
been reported on the treatment works’
Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs).
you may compile such data and report
it under the maximum daily discharge
and the average daily discharge columns
of the form.
Analytical Method. All information
reported must be based on data
collected through analyses conducted
using 40 CFR Part 136 methods.
Applicants should use methods that
enable pollutants to be detected at levels
adequate to meet water quality-based
standards. Where no approved method
can detect a pollutant at the water
quality-based Standards level, the most
sensitive approved method should be
used. If the applicant believes that an
alternative method should be used (e.g.,
due to matrix Interference), the
applicant should obtain prior approval
from the permitting authority. If an
alternative method Is specified in the
existing permit, the applicant should
ppm
gpd
ingd
su
m g i
ppb
ugll
lbs
ton
mg
g
kg
T
Parts per million.
Gallons per day
Million gallons per day.
Standard units.
Milligrams per liter.
Parts per billion.
MIcrograms per liter.
Pounds.
Tons (English Ions).
Milligrams.
Grams.
Kilograms.
Tonnes (metric tans).
-------
62622 - Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 234 / Wednesday. December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
use that method unless otherwise
directed by the permitting authority.
Where no approved analytical method
exists, an applicant may use a suitable
method but must provide a description
of the method. For the purposes of the
application, “suitable method” means a
method that Is sufficiently sensitive to
measure as close to the water quality-
based standard as possible.
Indicate the method used for each
pollutant ui the “Analytical Method”
column of the pollutant tables. If a
method has not been approved for a
pollutant for which you are providing
data, you may use a suitable method to
measure the concentration of the
pollutant in the discharge, and provide
a detailed description of the method
used or a reference to the published
method. The description must include
the sample holding time, preservation
techniques, and the quality control
measures used. In such cases, indicate
the method used and attach to the
application a narrative description of
the method used.
Reporting Levels. The applicant
should provide the method detection
limit (MDL), minimum level (ML), or
other designated method endpoint
reflecting the precision of the analytical
method used.
All analytical results must be reported
using the actual numeric values
determined by the analysis. In other
words, even where analytical results are
below the detection or quantitation level
of the method used, the actual data
should be reported, rather than
reporting “non-detect” (“ND”) or “zero”
(“0”). Because the endpoint of the
method has also been reported along
with the test results, the permitting
authority will be able to determine if the
data are in the “non-detect” or “below
quantitatlon” range.
For any dilutions made and any
problems encountered In the analysis.
the applicant should attach an
explanation and any supporting
documentation with the application. For
CC/MS. report all results found to be
present by spectral confirmation (i.e..
quant.ltation limits or detection limits
should not be used as a reporting
threshold for GCIMS).
Total Recoverable Metals. Total
recoverable metals are measured from
unfiltered samples using EPA methods
specified In 40 CFR Part 136.3. A
digestion procedure is used to solubilize
suspended materials and destroy
possible organic metal complexes. The
method measures dissolved metals plus
those metals recovered from suspended
particles by the method digestion.
Appendix B: Industrial Categories
Subject to National Categorical
Pretreatment Standards
Industrial Categories With Pretreatment
Standards in Effect
Aluminum Forming
Asbestos Manufacturing
Battery Manufacturing
Builder’s Paper and Board Mills
Carbon Black Manufacturing
Coil Coating
Copper Forming
Electrical and Electronic Components
Electroplating
Feedlots
Ferroalloy Manufacturing
Fertilizer Manufacturing
Glass Manufacturing
Grain Mills Manufacturing
Ink Formulating
Inorganic Chemicals
Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Leather Tanning and Finishing
Metal Finishing
Metal Molding and Casting
Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal
Powders
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing
Organic Chemicals, Plastics and
Synthetic Fibers
Paint Formulating
Paving and Roofing
Pesticide Manufacturing
Petroleum Refining
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Porcelain Enameling
Pulp, Paper and Paperboard
Rubber Manufacturing
Soap and Detergents Manufacturing
Steam Electric Power Generating
Sugar Processing
Timber Products Manufacturing
Industriai Categories With Effluent
Guidelines Cun entJy Under
Development (Proposed and Find
Action Dates)
Pulp. Paper, and Paperboard (12117/93—
TBD)
( Pesticide Formulating, Packaging, and
Repackaging (4/14/94—8/95)
Centralized Waste Treatment (12/15/94-.
9/96)
Pharmaceutical ManufacturIng (2/95—8/
96)
Metal Products and Machinery, Phase
(3/95—9/96)
Industrial Laundries (12196—12/98)
Transportation Equipment Cleaning (12/
96—12198)
Landfills and Incinerators (3/97—3/99)
Metal Products and Machinery, Phase II
(12/97—12/99)
WLL O COOl 1 -r
-------
1 1 EPA ID NUMBER:
Ifti oMaal use only)
‘- , . , >%
& C- ,
C :
t )\ç 3, Z 1 C ,
This pagi Is designed 10 Indicate whether the applicant Is d iocnptètø Pan $ cc park,4flaview eØch coteówy, and Ihev complete Part i or Part
2ps hidicated For purposes of this fomi, lbs tern, “yet? ‘efe s to 0t eppucant, rT$ acH y’ md avow ¶aciq’çy” ipler to the facility for which
b ‘ c s Y ’ . S — 1’ 3,.. , t.. 3
appilcailop k a ’ o’!r !t1uIted;& r 1 :V * 1 J 3 t j — s - ‘ 3 C C
3. Facilities which have been directed by the pennltting authority to submit a full permit application alibis tUne.
ALL OThER FACILITIES MUST COMPLETE PART 1.
nø
NC) I FOR OFFICIAL Ut ,E
PRELIMINAHY INFORMATION
I
2. Facilities wlth •
a
0
I
(PA Form 35 tO-2S (Rev
-------
1 FAcILITYNAIIE: 1 1 NPDESPERMjTNUMDER;
a k4 It. type ol a ty
— Publidy owned beakn.nt works. (P01W)
— Privewly owned VeaSnent wedis
— Fedoraly owned Pasimoni wedis
— Blendrç or teatment operation
\ H 1 .O.I II O # . I
Sqwa9. udge inc.n’ br
II \il ll thw. . xr(f ’
2. Appllctt btfor a on. I I the p&snt Is arani kern Ii. sbots. pro’M. Its IslowI
a Applicant nan. ____________________________________
b MalIsigakkwss _______________________________________
c Contact person ____________________________________________
EPA Form 3510-2S (Rev 9-95)
I. Fadlity kdonasUon
a FacItlynam. _______________________________________
b MaInga ess _________________________________________
c Contsc*peraon
Title
Phone nianber
d Facity .dc eu
(notro So s)
I l A ID NUMBER:
I( ’ olfiaaf us.. ont .)
PART 1: LIMITED BACKGROUND INFORMATiON I ____
This part should be .o ppIs4.d cinJy by”. dg. .only’ bdUIIs.—e.* I., sc JtIss ths óo not otinenuy tsw., nd s riot now applylna or alt NPQE5 permi. ..

F0 Hpo e wm’y tekra thiappilcani. Th b&W jtd pout bdII tslr o th$ ( aclltty or C p Q,Uón Wosmmlor,
.i Ferns App’ .d
I 0MB Msmber
—----
4k d
2. Appcsnl Information. (contd)
Tide _____
Phone nember _
Is Its IcanI the owner or operator (or both) ol this fsdkty?
F’• r ’ i ‘ . - t. —-
L j
\ _owI _____oporator : other (desa1w) _____________
Indca ccespondwsca perinhi ihodd be deaded bIts
SIaabtyotIw.pp 3
_app lscasi t
I
OunL Pio ld Its $obI y me tons p .r Islast 365.dey penod ol
sewa9e skidpe handled under Its Iollowlng practices.
a. Amount gunersbd sI the Iscilty:
b Amount rocaived from o so.
c Amount tested or blended on sate
g Amount placad on a swtace thpos site.
ft Amount tsd ta sewage skidge Inanersior
I. Amount sent to a municipal solid waste landil
I. Amount used or dsposed by anodwi pracec.
Oescdbe.
1 0F3
-------
FACIUTY NAME: NPDES PERMIT NUMBER:
4, Pollutant Cona.nttetlons. UsIng th tat , below u separata attachment. plovid.
exIstJ 9 data on thi polkitani enncen abcns In sewage ikidQe from tin tacthty
Provids up ta tw.. data poInts taken SI lea it one month spat &rv,g tie last two
years II data from us last two year. a. unav .uable, provede the mod receni data
. Fonn Appovud
I 0MB Number
I Approval Ens , ., XX-XX.XX
I. Tre.tm.ni Provld.d ul Your Pselhlty.
a Which dais of pathogen redaction dees the sewage skidge meet at your lac6ty?
Clue A — Class B — Neither or unknown
b Desati*, on INs lomi or another sheet of paper, any hatn.nt pro sa.s used St
your lec9lty le tedjne pathogen. In sewage shidge.
I redaction option Is r for lie sewage sludge at you
pemeru In tola s solds)
fr tk Iór ploonas, with s i-icaI. d.mcnstration)
3 (AerobIc ploness, with be oh.sc.ls demonstrauon)
4 (SpecifIc oxygen uptak. r or serobscaly digested sludge)
5 (AerobIc pro sses plus i ed tempefalure)
S (RslsepHte 12andmtabIit Il 5)
Opbon 7 (75 poroerd sohcle anti no unstabtiz.d sdth)
— Opbcn 9 (90 pereeni sohds with iaist .b ized solids)
— Option 9 (kiJe lon below lend sixtace)
Opbon 10 (lnccrpoistton lab soil withIn 6 hours)
Opbon 11 (CotetIng active sewage sludge und
DU TANT
CAB REGSO1RY
:NUUBER
1 IEPAIDNUMBER:
I I(luroffidalu,.c r)
. -
SAMPLE
‘bAtE-.
ANALYT ICAL
METHOD
DETECflO thEI
FOA AHLYBIS
011
CD
C i
Ci
01
- ‘S
0
z
0
I . )
C.)
-S
CD
0-
CD
(a
0
CD
B
0
CD
-I
0 )
(0
C c
U ’
-S
‘O
0
Ca
CD
0-
CD
Ca
C,
N
C,
N
5. 51
EPA Fcnn 35 10-2S (Rev 9-95)
PAGE 2 OF 3
-------
S.w.gs Sludg. Sent So Other f.cIMIiss. Is sewage sk dg. (mm ya laclity prestded
b soother i ctdy for (mflnont ds*ibu5on, us.. or disposal?
_Yss _No
yss. provide tie lo1towk g l01cm st n for tie ioc ty iscaivVig thu sewage siudga
a
b
Name of iocáty.
F.city conSoa
Hams.
rile.
7.
Us. and Disposal Sites. (rontd)
d.
type
— Agricu ltural
Forest
— Public contact
Rodamauon
— Other (dos s).
— Lawn orhome garden
— Surtac. disposal
— inc e wiabon
— Umicipal Solid Waa S oL a n I
an ofl for purposes of lti certhcalion)
01 a that this dorsj$ and all allathmsnts were FlpaI.d
i r pupgmisian In ac rc npo with the sys m designed So
qiabhed personnel property a* o! and evaluals lb InNamation
used on my Inquiry of the per br persons wiio manage lie sysiem
ons drecly rusponslUe lot gal vig the Inf o rmation, thu uilamialion -
S OS my ksiowiedge and belief, accurate, and cropfste I en
rs are slgni cenX punalbes kI.ubrTuUzng latsi m maIon , kiciothig
of line and inWrlsonment lot knowing violalons.
Name.
Tile’
one(
lte localon. (Canpleta I or 2)
. SveelorRoutel.
Comty.
City or Town.
2 Latitude ____________
Slgnatir. of CItcer.
Name of Officer
(typed or pooled)
1 qsh Titi 9 Sclbce I•k P ft
I Tek tho tp Number I
.i E)a S ed 11 1 ‘4n .
II r tL __
Send the completed application form to:
S.
Form Ap ov.d
.(8 Nwnbe,r
C
CIty or Town.
d
Landi
7.
C.
State._ Zip ___
Longitude ___________
EPA Form 35 10-2S (Rev 9-95)
PAGE 3 OF 3
-------
NPOES PERMIT NUMBER:
PART 2: PERMIT APPLICATION INFORMATION
1 Form 4proved
I CUB Number
I Aj
— P - - ’ -
tomptà. thb pert Uyou answered ‘yes t to u of the questions hi the PflEUtIINA9 INFOflUATION sectioti (cover pegs). In other words, complet, this pert 11 your facIlIty h ” or
I a applying for, en NPOEG pennil wit your tscloly Qncludlng swdg*onif IaclIIty} quseI$ng, a Is required to ban, sheepecmc pollutant ftmits in It. p.rmtt.
S
st to qpilcM ‘Itf IMP’yOUr dUtrrsIe I r i4 i p om tlonls S*thTmIUe&’
APPUCATION OVERVIEW — SEWAGE SLUDGE USE OR DISPOSAL INFORMA11ON__I
‘ S Pars I I. dIvided V it o five section s (A- ) Section A pesthhi to at) appllosMa lb. Ippt)cablIlty of Sictiens B 0, D, end S d.p.nds on your lacillif. sawegs
-audg. near d i sposal jaoiion. lit. Wotmellun provided on hls peg. bidicatos which auctions of Part 21*011 ouL 2
J $ECTION : SURFACE DISPOSAL
f jt5ecfl nD t tbetsbyappl
\suilace dis posal s e 4 ttrj
‘ ‘ L
5. S&XIION
SectlWj E iji j t be corrpleted by app
sewage sludge incinerator.
1. SECTION A: GEN L INFORIhON. ri ILii
Section A must be, leled by atáWllca fle.
L ‘ t. %
19 (-“ ‘rY’
2. SECTiON 0: GENERATION OF SEWAGE SLUDGE OR \
PREPARATION OF A MATERIAL DERIVED FROM 5EV/ACE ç-
SLUDGE. :t_ j L i K
Section B must betoflh$iLidby applicants ho either
1) Generate sewage sludge, or
2) Derive a material from sewage sludge.
3. SECTION C: LAND APPLICATION OF BULK SEWAGE SLUDGE.
Section C musi be completed by applicants who either;
fl ji) P#i)lY’iOw’igi t t&the tar çEiP 1 A’ % g 1 Z %
N eneraii sevèsge sludq whacifis appliØd hIhoIànd bfother$ Ifr
H NCY E: ftØlcan è who môt edhetom bot*ot the Mo aX cnte r’
VI t’—-’ tI 4 t’—’’ ‘ ‘r’
are exempted from this re Iremeni sail sew ge sludge front meir
facility falls into one oP the following three categories:
1) The sewage sludge from this faclidy meets the ceiling and pollutant
concentrations. Class A pathogen reckiction requirements, and one of
vector attraction reduction options 1-fl, as kientif led In the instructions,
or
2) The sewage sludge from this facility Is placed In a bag or other
container for sale or give-away far application to Ihe land, or
3) The sewage sludge from this lacility Is sent to another faculty for
treatment or blending.
- ts who own or operate a
ants who own or operate a
r n# tfl A F r r r’ t ’
U 1% 11
I I I t J I I Lonr L I
PT ’
m
0 -
FAOUTT NAME:
I EPA IDNUMBER:
(*w offiaat use only)
EPA Form 3510-25(Rev 995)
-------
IEPA W NUMBER:
(for offiaa us. only)
.
I OM8Miythsr
I A vciExpvesXX-XY C
F.dI1 iIgIMadQm.
A.l. V.dUty kdorrn.IIon.(oonVd)
a Fsc nwne
b
C
d
M ng addists
Tile
Phone mb
F.cèty idi*ess
(noIPO Boi)
k dca Ii. t Vp. 01 faah?y:
— PubIicI owned Postrrwn* wodit (P01W)
Piivi owned flsbi * works
— Fed.c.ly owned Sea nsoI worki
— 2ien ng or Vialn,ent opeiahon
— Surlao.dispos .I il ls
— ud 9 !lncm
— 0 ij r.
Facéty I ngifl4e. __________
— Other (desaibé)
Ia this Iscétys Cl ii i I sL s manop.m.nI l.cillty?
iaa e rilSct pptis I
U , 11
ri( u L __
Phon. nembor
d Is l applicwt 1w owner or op rs r(orbothJ c i IN. iacibty?
lyss. s* mk 1w rsuiis c li taxidly dw.clsdslc I.athb g oc zs (TCLP)
psdcim.d on INs s s ssw s ilud s Si.tml* the estils claM TC&Ps
padormed ztn Its liii l w yeors I net previously suba tisd.
Facity d .sI n Inlkwnl low at..
Total population sar sd:
1
____owner
0pera ______ ol (do.atbs) ____________
• Indcata whether corTupomdon(. regaidn this pw lI shocid be sd.d ls It.
faabtyor Iwapp& z*
t.011 1y
a—
A. ).
a
Facity libbjds
Metbodot laubiM1ongIe d. dota,niin.don:
— USGSm.p
Fm ld
N
I.
N
N
L
— Y.s
_No
9
Pt
EPA Font 3510-2S (Rev -95)
PAGE 1 OF 6
-------
FACIIJTY NAME: NPOES PERMIT NUMBER IEPA ID NUMBER:

Form Appro.
0MB Mjnrber
Approval Espies ZX-XX.XX
AS. Topographic Map. Provide a tepographic map or maps (or other eppropna map(s) li
a pogapluc map Is imaval table) that shoes the loliosaig Items c i kiformabon Map(s)
hotL W1 liidø the N a e lTsie Oycrid sit 9t d* b ic I live tar li
4 ,
ti \\
s s and caboflhi whet. se nge ie aród. teat d, or
b. Location of ii wa r bodes w1li n on n I. beyond the taciutys property
C. Location of .1 teak used br drkiking ws hind 1’. pithlc ecads or oth.rwlsi
known bits appkard wvitw I/I ide of liv. laakty property boundaries
A.e. uns Drawl rig. Provide. I . dtwkig wd’or a nwt v, description that IdentifIes .1
sewage sbchj. procaisos that w be ernpby.d óslng lie Iann of the permit. kiCliJ&ig
eli processes used br coliecting. dewutelbig. siodeg. or Pealing sewage ikidg.. 14
deslsvauon(s} of ii c Jkls aid solids Ieavmg eadi umi. and ii methods used lot
pathogen redaction and ve or sWar.tion ro&Ictlofl
EPA Form 3510-23 (Rev 9-95)
F fl A
U I I ‘4
I U I r t L) J L
*3. PermIt iolonn.tlon.
• Facitys NPDES permit number (li applicable) __________________
• b List, on V ii . form or at atioctiment, ii other Federal. State and loc*l permits or
ccuvstnjclcm approvals received or applied ( i that regulate this tac*htys sew.gs
Os e management practices
Permit Number Tvo ol Pem,li
A.4.
Resorvsion?
A.?. Contractor blorrrsiton.
Ar. any operstlonal or msitdenance .speds of SO facility related te soweg. stadg.
generation. *Uazmertt. use or dspesal lv responstlay a? a ri5 -rnctor?
. ._Yss _No
If yes, provide the bolkrmteg lot sadi conPedar (audi adillional pages I necessaiyj
N .m. __________
SpeelciPO Boa: -
City cr Slate ____
As. Poiutent Concentration,. Uskig Vi. tal,ls below era separate sxlac*imsnl pwvkle
date on ths palkitait concenV onj In sewage sludge kori-, is lac* y specifIed In
A 8. arid A Sb. (NOTE Vax psnntnmg authority may ror ies you te
adthitonal knlom - iation)
ill
to
I
I
PAGE 20F8
-------
I
CD
ii
a
0
“3
‘3
I -
ft
co
€0
05
I - .
C D
(n
0
In
€0
€0
In
FA UTY NAME:
I PERMIT NUMBER: I EPA ID NUMBER:
I I I (toroth use only)
—, Form Approes
0MB Number
I Aooroval Espeas XXXX-Xx
C S
“3
Cs
‘3
C
Al. .. Uor.l$oilng ks$ormsllon toe All FscUItl.s. Al tauhims must provide the Inlom abon
requested below lniomauon must be based on at hail one sample Ilyou hays sW Ing
rmaaon iun rmgçis sample. provide up to live. data pomls taken at least ens month
apart Data pro tded I x the pollutants haled below must be no (flora that two yeas old.
A lb. Additional Monitoring informatIon for Cl. .. I Bludg. Usnagem. (d F.ckttles.
Class I skidge management taakses must provide th. kslorma on requested below.
Inlormaaon must be based on at least one sample It you have ousting irdomiation tram
mL bple samples, provide up te three data points token at lout one month sport Di i.
provided for the polutants hiled below must be no more than two yeas old
LUA I? S I AT0N I &IM, DAt& J MALVflCA&
cas risolamt uuimii I w j J ‘MITHOP”
pouuTun$*h i i cor,€ pai ow Is,msoaTeJ AIMLYTICM . J
CA. REOJSTOY NUI E P’ , nJ J I
PART 503 METALS
J ror. aj.* y ’
OTHER METALS AND CYANIDE
ARSENIC
7440-382
CADMIUM
ANTiMONY
—l1i .R Y
EI 1IITLL IUM
43R
liI&)MIOM
7440-41-7
S ILVE I4
1t !$ 11 ?
70-50.8
LEAD
7139921
- - -


>
; _


Li
.
*
‘s-:
\
‘•-
- ..
J44O -28-0
CYANIDE
M-12& .
£ “J
) -
.
c Y
MOLYBDENUM
f 1
7440-02-0
SELENIUM
ZINC
7440-fi -fi
1
u.
s ’-.


-
- /


‘ - f -
_____
j

•
-
i
1E
‘
1,
j
VOLAtflEORGAI CCOUPO
ACRO .E1N
4 4 . P1TRlLE j

ENE s
F fW
75-25-2
NDS

-
1
—
-
- . .j
NUTRIENTS
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
5623-5
TKN
CHLOROBEN2ENE
100 9Q-7
CHLOR DIBROMOMEThANL
124-48-I
AMMONIA
r’ SOUd
E
z::

jr
t
It
CI - ILOROETH ANE

Ut ORJJ -
LOROBA6M6METHANEi
75-27-4
1. l-DICHLOROETI4ANE
75-34-3
I.2-DICHLOROETI - IANE
107-06-2
tRANS-1.2-DICHLORO-
ETHYIENE 1 156- 60-5
j j
)
‘-
- .
,
.
Ii- OICHLOROETHYLENE
75-35-4
1.2-D ICHLOROPROPANE
78q7
t.3-DICHLOROPROPENE
542-75.6
.
ITHVI.BENZENE
100 41-4
METHYL BRONIDE
EPA Form 3510.29 (Rev 9-95)
PAO 0F6
-------
CD
0
I
C
0
0
z
0
t 3
C D
CD
Cn
0
p3
CD
9
CD
•1
(0
C D
a ’
-I
0
‘0
0
(I ’
CD
0 -
CD
C l)
:AORJTY KANE:
1 HPDES PERMIT NUMBER:
A.B.b. Monitoring Information for Class I Skidge Management Facililles (conrd)
I IEPA ID NUMBER:
. .J_. t( ro u 01 W
- Fom, Appoved
0MB Num be,
j Appioval Expv , s XX-XX-XX
: KtLttTAlfl NAUI ’ ICONCIWD 1AI,rnW
I ”
M$ L bATt IkAt VflCU.
WETHOO
nej y
PouvrAIñ N* l8 oos ck? * mN IauPU DA1 *ni nc*i ,
T i a • ‘
vitr ’ u vji
FOR A CALT S.
VOLATiLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (conl’d)
BASE-NEUTRAL COMPOUNDS
METHYL. CHLORIDE
74-87-3
ACENAPHTHENE
63-329
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
75-09-2
ACENAPHIHYLENE
206-96-6
I1 ,2.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
79-34.5
ANTHRACENE
120-12- i
__________
LETNAC HLOROETHYLENE
BENZIDINE
12l I8-4
TOLUENE
! .88-3
, . - - - - -

\-
.

‘ I . ’
- - .

.
‘ ,
Q2-47-5
BENZO(A)ANTHRACE$E ,.
66-65-3
-,
f L
. -, .
I.I.I-TR ICHLOROETHANE
71 55 6 -
I.l.2-TRJCHLCROETHANE
79-00-5
‘
r
I

- .
/
I
EENZO(A)PYF1EN
5-32-a I
3,4 BENZOFLUORANEHENE - —,-—
205-99.
-
TR ICHLOROETHYLENE
79-01-6
r
I
‘
I
..
BENZO(QHI)PERYLENE
lS f -24-2
t
-
-
ViNYL CHLORIDE
75-0I-4
— . ,- -
7
t ‘. -‘
BEN2O(K)R .UORANY 4ENE
207-069
.
iA
BIS(2-C 1LOf4OEfl4O cv’ )
METHANEI
L
ACID-EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS
S(2 -CHLOROETHYL) -
P- CHLOHO-M-CRESOL
59-50-7
BIS (2-CHLOROISOPROPYL.
ETI -IERI1O6 -60-l
2.CHLOROPHENO L.
IS (2-ETHYIHEXYL)
9 9-57-0
3,4-DIC OROPHENQL ’
7 ‘
U. O1METHYIPHENOL
Ib5 .674 r I
1,6-DINII 1 HO-thlfkSOL
)

j ‘.

k

A’
- ‘-
-
I
‘
• ‘
r • ‘
(
ilH

PH HALATE II7-8 -7
4. J OPH NYL.
PHE 4YLETMERh1pI .5s-3
bUTbI. BENZ’fl. PHTHALATE
05 -7
2-CJ4LORONAffi’HTkALF
J I. fl
i? ’ )1


,i - :.
[
1)

L
- -=
S . .
)Jt

,
*
-.

- . ;:..--,
53 1-52-I
9 1-58-7
2,4- DINITROPHENOL
5 1-26-S
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL
ETHERI7005-72 .3
2-NITROPHENOL
88-7 8 - 5
CHRYSENE
216-01-9
4-NITROPHENOL
100-02-7
01-N- BUTYL PHTHALATE
84-74-2
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
67-8 6-5
0I-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
PHENOL
106-95-2
DIBENZO(A,HJANTHRACENE
2.4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
66-06-2
53-70-3
I.2-OICHLOROBENZENE
9 5-50-I
-
I .3-DICHLOROSENZENE
54 1-73-I
EPAForm35I0-25(Rev 9-95)
N
C,
PAGE 4 OF 6
-------
A.8 .b. Monitoring Infoimallon br Class I Sludg. Management Facilities (conE ci ).
1 FovmAppio .,
I 9Mmth
I Ap o f Exnir.i XZ’.YM.T
EPA Fom 351029 (Rev 9-95)
PAGE 5 OFS
rn .aI • fl Cj
NPOES PERMIT NUMBER:
I IEPA ID NUMBER:
I I(bf0 0a1IJ5.On v)
‘a
I ..
* _I
BASE .NEUIRAL cOMPOUNDS f-S)
PESTIQOES
1.4 OICFII -OROBENZENE
*06-46 7
ALORIN
3.3-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
9194 I
309-00-2
ALP I - IA-BHC
DIETHYL PHTHAL TE
319-84-6
84 -65 - 7
DIUETHYL. PHTHALATE
8ETA-BHC
3*9-85-7
.
24DIPIIIROTOLUENE r
121-142
2 6-DINITROTOLUENE r
605 202
I 2DIPHENYLHY [ )RAZINE
Ifl-651 -
i ?
‘
•-•________

‘

‘ \
-1
1 4 1
7
DELTA-BIIC
0jWMABHC
¶
CH .ORDANE -
•57-74-ö
4.4-bDD Lr -
‘
- ‘
.t.


LUORANTHENE
20644-0
‘ -
) ‘ I
-‘ . 4

72-54-8k
4,4-tiDE
FLUORENE
86)3-7
IIEXACHLOROBENZENE
1*8 74 I
.:
- .-

L2 _i

72. -9
4,4 -DDT -v
50-29-3
DIEI.DRIM
60-57-1
ALPHA-ENDOSULF AJI
959-98-8
BETA-ENDOSU [ .FAN
33213-65-9
4
IIEXACHLOAOB IJTArJ IENE
87-68-3
HEXACHLOROCYCLO-
PENTADIENE / fl-47-4
I -IEXACHL0I%OEfl4ANE
6172 I
C3P EN [
j
NAPHTHJ LENE
( .r-
.
NDOSULFAN 5ULI-AT
1031-07-8


- -
— ‘
‘
— -
91-20-3
HEI rACIfl .ofl
w,
NITROBENZENE
98-95-3
76-44-8
l-IEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
N4 1ITROSCOI
N-PROPYLAM NEI62I-64-7
1024-57-3
PCB- 10 16 (AROCLOR 1016)
N-NITAO$OOIUflH YLAMNE
62-75-9
12674-11-2
PCB- 122 1 (AROCLOR 1221)
N NITROSOOIPIIENYLAMJNE
8630-6
11104 28.2
PCB-1232 (AROCLOR 1232)
PHENANTHRENE
85-0* 8
PYRENE
11141-16-5
PCB- 1242 (AROCLOR 1242)
53469-21-9

ia -mo
PCB- 1248 (AROCLOR 1248)
I.2.4. -TRICHLOROBENZENE
12092-I
12672-296
PCB-1254 (AROCLOR 1254)
-------
AQUTY NAME:
NPDES PERMIT NUMBER:
I IEPAtONUMBER:
( J(bf ofltaal us. ordy)
Fonn App-eyed
OMBMsnthar
I Ap wo Expr,a •XX-XX
A.8.b. Monitoring Information for Class I Sludge Management Facilities (conrd).
POuu VAIfl 5MW I cO,(tINTPA 11011
CM p 5 0 T R Y 5np4
$* I DAn
AiaLThOAL I’ e ci
1 TH0D
..cWI1ar rMA
CU 5E0 liTRyKU i Efl
0o11tvrt ATstN
u %I i i4
suru D t
.1.Yflcjii.
TH0O
PESUCIDES (conrd)
PCB- 1260
11096 D2-S
TOXAPHENE
600135-2
5
OTHEII
2.3.7.B-TETRACH I -OAODIBENZO-
P-DioxiN (TCC)0Y 1746-0t4
r
r
L
.

ç” r
i
. 5. Ceillllcadon. Read wiid iubmt ths blowing corl6cabon sleloment with this applicibon Rebor the 1ii ucdons to determine wtio Is wi dicer br pi .pos.u of this cert,Dcadon
Indicate which parts of Form 2$ you hay. completed and are submitting:
0 LImited Background information packet P.rmi Application Information packet:
R Pad A (General Inlorinstbn)
S Pail B (Generaton of Sewage Studg. or Preparation of a Material
Derived brom Sewage Sludge)
Part C (tand Application of Buli Sewage Sludgs)
Pail D (Surface Disposal)
Part E (incineration)
I certily under penalty of law Ihat this doaim on! and all attachments wer. prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with th, system designed to assure
that qualdied personnel properly gather and evatuale the Information submitted. Based on my Inquiry of the person ci persons who manage the system or those
persons directly responsible for gathering th. Information, the information Is. to ths boil of my knowledge and belief, true. accurate. and complete. I am awar, that
there are significant penalties for submdllng false information, Including the posthdtty of fine and k ipnsonment for knowing violation..
Signatur . of Officer:
Name of Officer:
(typed or printed)
Official Tile of Officer
Telephone Number:
Date Signed:
Upon request ci the permitting authority, you must submit any other information necessary to assess sewage sludge use or dlapoul prectk.s at your facility or Identity
appropriate permitting requirements.
Send this completed application to: -
is
0
I
EPA Form 35 10-2S(Rev 9-95)
PAGE S OFS
-------
NPO(5 PERMIT NUUEER:
I IEPA ID NUMBER:
I I( ol*aaI us. onty)
‘ J”1I
B. GENERATION OF SEWAGE SLUDGE OR PREPARATION OF A MATERIAL DERIVED FROM SEWAGE SLUDGE
- —
eIudpa-
II. A1m 1 Ow sI.d 0.811..
Total th 7 msSlc Sons p .r 365day psiod generated at your Iasahty: ___________
Form Ap ovd
0MB Nun,be,
I Approval Exjwi.s XX-XX-XX
8.2. Aa ounS R...ati.,d froi. oe Ells. N yoiz la ay roçeives sewage sludge h n another
Iaabty lar twatment. us.. or thposat. potade Via iallowmg U*ima Von each facility
torn w$ilth sewagi sfridgs received. N you recelee sewage sludge from mere thwi
oria tautly, math .ddrnonei pages is n u y
a- Fac8tynsm.
b Contact person
Phone oum
o MaIImg ktwSI
d Facilyadcfresi
(nd P0. Box)
8.3. Trsstm.nl Provtd.d at You, Facility.
a. Which cuss of pathogen reduclion Is athlevud le. the sewage sludge at your
tsc Fy?
— Class A — Class B — Neitheroris iknown
b Desaibo. on this form or another sheet of paper, any Vemnent processes used at
1 -
‘-4
o \Whach ve *Of atbwctlon ro&icbon opion Is lot P se sewage sludge atyoix
Li
• Total thy m.1 Sons p.r 3B5day pealed received from ttss facility
N
N
— Option 1 (Mmimum 38 pefcant redj ion In votalile sohde)
— Option 2 (Aneorobic process, with beidi-scale demonstration)
— Option 3 (Aerobic process, with bench-scale demon Ws lIOn)
— Option 4 (Spocdtc oxygen uptak. rat. lot aerobicaty digested
Fi
None or unknown
E
d. Describe, on this form or another sheet of paper, any treatment processes used m l
your facility 1. reduce vecter a acbon properties of sewage s idga.
EPA Form 3510-29 (Rev 9-95)
paw “FE
-------
*auu NAME:
NPDES PERMIT NUMBER:
Ut Tiwatmeni Provided it Your FacUlty. fconrd)
• Ooscrte. on die lam or another sheet ol paper, wry other sewege sludge
Veatmenl or Uondng ctMlUS Aol kientlied hi(s) - (d) above

ç d*adons in TfltOI .14* an isia *0 poljutanl .oncentr.tioni hp Tab
$*ttL *0 tIns A pI*iogIn mr ’ !n t32 s), j 4 oaEôt *0 .
— smaclion ndácUeq taqu n.ntabt flOt3$(b Ifl6) errS I . lend ., M
i’ t-
Preparation of Sewag Sludge Meeting OiIIl g sn Pâuut.ns CcunaunSdons.
Clan A Pathogen R turnouts and Or s VeCtOr Aitnc4on I
Option. 14. I
• Total ó 7 moist bn par S65rday p j S of sowag akpdge subject tal
ttls.ppledtaU4d —
b fs sewage sbdge subject ta hi secbon placed In bags or other conta i ners trials
or ve away by appbcston tate land?
Yes No
BA .
St 5.1. or GiveAway hia Sag or Other Container for Appflcflon to the Land.
t Total ày meet tons per 365-day period ol sewage sbdga pieced in • beg a other
container at yotr lacthty for sale or give-away lot apptcaton to the land _____
EPA Form 35102S(Rev 9-95)
. Form Appoted
I Approval Expvxn XK-XK-XX
B A. Bale or Give-Awey hi a Beg or Other Con MIner for Appicetlon to the Land4conrd)
b Auath. with h. appllcetlcn. eooay of .1 labels or noitcee that amompany the
sawege sk dge being ac i d or given nay hi a bag or other container tar application
to the laid
- - -
, -
omøs EtIoe fli sluSge bin your tedity is povidrid to anotliar facility
that provides eetmeflt a bIsndtkg. Thtaeédon doe Nq eppty to iewege eludge -
statS dlr.ouy to I pitS sppdeadoe or st ffSi . disposal skt Bldp this sao1ho U 5*
èewage eludgsi 4. covered ir s Ssctlopa BA * B A ! If you jradde sewage slUdge to
01* torlity. $ Iim*nM papa s!ss e,. : C ; ;
? <- : - . :bt ? ! -
Ifl
tS.\ 5 Milpmsni Off fle Sor Truetsnent or Start
b j4biy a ______
Name.
1i6r
c. Faclhty mahPng adthess
SbeetorPO Box ____________________________________
City or loan- ______________ Stale: — Zip
a a a a a •crtr 3flJeE
flot 1 s 7 eDk it 36 y a nwago bdge V pc4ing
ejS4LaLnjJSJcn
sewage skidge from pots toaSty? — Yea — No
WhWr class of pathogen reà on la soltieved tarts awage sludge afire
realvitig facirty?
_CIaasA __ClrnB _Neltherortarknoan
PA GE 2 OF S
I ID NUMBER:
I use only)
11
a
a
-------
ftQLETYNAME: - I INP0E5PERM TM 5EM I IEPAIDNUMBER:
I I [ _ I( toTh0e luao1*)
as. Sh$ueanl 0051 1. S TrnIm.nl c i Shsndkig. (onnfd)
Dssa*s. on d l i loin a another sliest ci paper. any Pennant procsisss used at
th e receiwig IsCSIy ta red.a psthcgens Vi snags sbaigs
• Doss the rsS*g Iwildy paSs eddlonal naenenl re&a star attention
thazaflssa d D e snags s*adge? — Via _____ No
— Opuon I ( 38 go ‘!sdactlon Vols We ed t)
— Opton2 (Af%awobc process. wen- 1 t*$tmonitTsl!Q Qf
— Opecn 3 ( rhc proass. withbs4incjl. ‘ StF . K
— Opeon 4 (SpediG osygen upt peaS ssiothcelly
1Qe 5tadtk 1d 4 c:j 1 --1
— bonS (Pf4c N
eneQ becawidmlsmsIItv g ‘ LA
— Opion 1 Q5 paceS ed t with no uniabluod Sit)
— Opeon I (SO percent solt with imslthdzzod sc Si) ____
None
N
Dsscdas. on dli Sm or another steel ci paper, any eoaenent proco
es ng1 Wva moJotn&rPo roPrn*4ewaoe $
L
sass used at
%s i :F 1 I
. , ‘
a- Doss the isoeldag (icily pro5. wy editionS flstnsnt a ttndng adviSes not
ldenflsd l o(s)aQ) toys? — Yes — No
Ilyss. dssalbe—on It bm w wiSer sl i est ci piper—the IssbnetI c i blendng
aotv*ee not Senatisd In(s) ci (I) above
n
as
Form 4poied
I awMnb.
I Azannal Fraaas Yx.fl.rM
0.8. Wilpm.nl DO Site (or Tr.stznens Wending. (confd)
ii Uyousnswesdyssb4e).(t) or4g).eftsthacqiycisiy hionnsionyoupmv .
the rocetw (scaly ta comØy with die noec. and nocessaly kibmssorr
reqâamentot4OCFR 503 *2(g)
I. Does the roceh*ig tidily place sewage skchje from yois (idly Via bag a other
contsinr lot sale or s-swsy lot spplcsaon l athe land?
_ _Yes _ _No
or g Wen nay
I yes, provIde • ropy o le ) labels or nodcss that oncompaiy the prodacs be log scat
essa*s oepi i4gs)emov )n: — ‘L 4 AL c
sY 1 -
&3eøanL4UtmOltTsbI.1 ba llrlg Jope, Tsblp4pornspl
4 4 14- - 9s 4Q ‘
;- t - i ;
; s.cds o e4($unp4ftSv*tnr sdMty beeImaftp )s4tn4t
0.7. Land App’I t lon ci OiMk Snag. SAidgs.
a. Total dsy motto tans pa 365’dsy period *1 sn i pe sk.st s qaØwd l a S bid
V no, submi a onpy of lis tend spplalon Mn with Iii apfUni sI (en
VtstsCauu)
o Are any laid spçllcsllon sites bcslad Vi Slfls other than the Slats stirs you
genera snags skxtae or derive a material Worn iew.gs sAx o?
— It’.,
No
EPA Form 3510-25 (Rev 0-05)
P*GE SUE S
-------
AQUTY KAME: P4POE8 PERMIT NUM8ER
PT. L.i d A Uc.tlo, l Bulk Sewage Sluig.. (con(d)
Ilyes. .-on l Is ban ci mother shoal c i g ec—how you nosly I .
perrnntmg.uronty kw the Sta s when W (and appl cahon ittau are located
P,otw a y ci tt nobl atcn
co ppW. Be O W$ O tbid from ,o a frcl*yfi placadon I aU ne ’
d1.poesIsl I.
91. :
• Total y me9ic n sewage skIdgw!Om your f*C4 ty aned on el
disposal S I lO S per $d Y period 1. :
Ii
b Do you own oropentoal sIsIace dspQsd tile, I) which you send Sewage
I oi â po I? / I
_Ye,
S.
tine. sniwer Bec- BI I breach a . sposcisae Isal youda ownci
opolule I I you send sewage skldge le more esan one such iurtac disposal sIle
attach adiuiconal pages as necassary
1 Total diy metric long a? .ewaçe sludge from your ?adkfy placed en this stxf.ce
disposal silO pot 365-day penod ___________
EPA F0nn35 10-2S (Rev 995)
I IEPA ID NUMBER;
J I(A official use only)
Form Approiwd
I 0MB Number
- , Approval Expire, XX.XX.XX
Compbebe$ecUon 91 fl Ww.ge d e from e4W?adflzy I. fired In isawug. Wudg.
- - .. -.. - - .
_4 - ;.
B.B. kicln.rstlon.
a. Total th 7 m.tdc Ions of uwag. sludge from your I.dbp, lied In *1 sewage sbdgs
ksclnø,abrs per 365-day period- ___________
b Do you own or operate .1 sewage skidg. Iidnerator, In which sewag. kdg. Irom
your taak!y Is 1usd?
____Yoi _ . .__No
, r Nno.co4 .th.tyoud g ner
opena p u sand sewage skaclg. le moia pan on. such sewag. sludge ksciwralOr.
-i \ \ atlathddlilpagesssnooesaazy
p Mdneivtr _______ ________________
‘dne _____
‘ ‘3
ntact Nanis _______
I us. _____
Phon. ( )_
Contact Is Ineivlor
• Incinerate, mdiog addiuss.
•1
_Owner _c e
Contact Is — SilO owner — Si opsra
llhJstseIIt IIsp i sneden.mucidpal
i - Si
SIB. OIspout ki u M&mldpal Solid Wss Landill. Pmi*M ba to (Inek g Inb ,mation tor
m d i municipal sold wasle Isnd I or, isI ’Sd, lewag. sludge fran -i your lacIty Is placed I
sewage sludgs Is placed on roar. than one msj*Ipal solid weato I.ndtl attach
diuIUonM pages asneceuasy.
PAGE SOF5
-------
B.*O.
Dhpoul N a Municipal Snild Wad. LandM. o.nrd)
S
b
t4sn 04 lai SI
Lan&I ccvitact
ro cial us. o * )
C
This
ConXa Ii. — Lin&I ner — LxU opeislo,
B.10. Disposal is a Munldpsl Solid West. LandSil. (conrd)
Ma ig ad ers x numkçal so’d was lmndkl
S eo%oiPO
COy c i Toeei. ___________
4
List. On 1 1 lorm or an sttaduT%ent. 1* inxi ben 04 al other Fe ssl, Sist., and Io 1
permos Sot regiOaiu So opera on 04 this munk 04 sold wait. w :
Pemni Nixnbei. T rne ol Permi
Locan i .4 flIWIId Si I
Ssaslw
G a! ci Toan.
Sat. — llp ________
.
TotsI y me 1c t.vss
sold iuW lanc I
0 4 t h hIs application. iolcrm.lion det.nniss ahethor So sawags aki e
meets apphcabl re *emenIs isi dispoisl ci sewape ahj . i sa iTiu itidpiI solid
wait s tandts (a g iasi4ts ci pas t that liquids test and TCLP t.st).
Doss th
CFR I
cnleda sat is In
OT FO 0
at
at
03
E
I
II
II U
(PA Foem 3510.29 (Rsv 9-95)
PAGE SOF S
-------
FA UTY NAME: NPOES PERMIT NUUBER:
I
CoetpNI. B.ctlon C I c r aw.g. iludgi I tIJI Ii applied t O he land, unless any of the fouoMng condidon. eppIy ’ -
• The seesge I1Ud e meets the Table 1 csithig obMentrations, the T .W.a pdIIjtlnt een l,slkna’, Cfju*p.thbgeø tequftentente, end onof vaoto , .tt,eo lon ,.duolioO
oplloit. 14 IaWlout 0.4 Mst.. or
U t. sew . siudgs is iold 01 givee sw.p kte ba or other container for pihse o the land (I 711 out ft5 b e dJ or
e You pru .M. l i t. emg. sludge t o snouts, acBiIy Pa, t,.stment or blandln (A) out R b fls.d)
5.vtle, 0 fo me on 1doh I tt. wwpgs akd s that ou isporledin SectIon a 7 Ig .ppkd.
C.I. Idsntlflc.don of Land Appuca eon C.4. Sits Type. Idonsly I type of le d s1lon ails frun among ths blowing
a. She name or mather

b S lebc.Ion (Con ólor 2 Z
I Sto rRc l
CoIEty_
City or Tow
2 L.tmit
Ci. Ownsr Information.
a. Are you the owner ot thu land ication si& — Yes
b U no. pro..tde the bollowlng Information about Ste owner
a. Are you t s person who apples, or who Is responsible br applicatIon of. seweg.
silidge to PU land ippicabon sib? Yes — No
b Itno, pIov4 Ste toflowing Wo,mstton bar Ste person who appims
Name.
EPA Form 3510-28 (Rev 9-95)
( )
StaWi’ — Zip
ReclamatIon site
4d
mon Wis site?
V?g.tadon Crown on Sit..
Lp or other vegetatIon Isi
I
b What Is the nisogen reqtaremste for this acp or vegetatIon?
— - S •4.. S It . . ..t L S X.
- ‘ 1 ( . ‘t
U W - -.
Q J ti I Li
PAGE 1 0F2
“1
If
C. LAND APPLICATION OF BULK SEWAGE SLUDGE
II
ID NUMBER:
omaof use only)
Form Appoved
0MB Numbs,
I ,val Expv,es XX-XX-XX
— Aq ti n d land
— No
C i. Applsnhifonn.don.
Phone
StroetorPO Box
City or Town
-------
A UTY HAM : NPDES PERMIT NUMBER:
Cs. V.c*o Atv.ct cn Rsduc on.
Ass any ve r .wacscn rs ic*on is mania met wtwn sewage .h g. la a ed to
U . land appkaiion sda?
_Yss ___No
yes. an.wst CS. wd C 6 b
a. kithata wtlch vector aflrec$on rs I1aorl oj i Is met
— B (k ec t1 and stitac.)
— Opton 10
b Oesa cnINsio
515 land spçi
C.?. G,wi4 .W.$ Monhoring.
Are any undwater monitomeg data avwtsbie tot 51 s land applcabOn $ le?
QvW0ak t SJu 1Y20,
1993 ,1* .uliJ.c1 lIt. m 4ath. poluton* oa n pat. CCPU n 43 CF I
B03.151(1)Ia.hlAs1*lk*A
: y
CS. umi4a5vs LeadIngs end Rams Wng ABetment..
. Have you contacted 51. pom Bmg suthonty kt the Stale whets 515 buk sewage
akxtg. tubtect In CPIRs ml be appled. to ascettatn whe*wt bul’ sewage a e
•uCPLRibesbeenaedtothius ,taon&srnceJutV2O. 1993?
(EPA ID NUMBER:
] t(k octaal us. on’y )
CS. Cunut.Ua, Losdings s od RamsInlmg AIIo*mssU.. (oon$d)
_No
M j. sewage &udge subjedbCPLfla may b. applied to *iis alta.
I I yss. pmvide the fr410*lng ntadon.
P.rm iUk suthotity. _________________________________
Cn@lact person: ______________
Phcns ( 1
b Based a cn 511. lnqtisy. hi. bs* sewage skidge .t*4ed to CPLRa been pa,d to
Ids a lle ____
tolorma$cn tor every idlty other then yours 51M Is sondag. et
sewage ü.idgs autlect to C . to lii sita itc .kiIy 20. 1993 5
more Sian one such twHy sends sewage sAidge to las si ms. s ch e 5ion pages
as neouussy
- Fern, Ap wed
I OMBM ,,6.,
I Approvh Eirprss ZX-XX.XX
snd 1. gro4rbdwatar mcndoniç ocec ,es used to cbta
Hams ci lacilty.
City or Town:
Siaw_ Z ,:____
EPA Fomi 35 10-ZS (Roy -95I
pP — 2 OF 2
-------
i AUUTY NAME: NPDES PERMIT NUMBER:
D. SURFACE DISPOSAL I
C pills this s.cden you ow t s’ opes.s.s su,tacs disposal s it ..
ee* 0 ,1 . D i o q*ch polJ s sessep . iudØ. unit .
Dl. lolonn.Oon on AcVv, 8.w.ge Sludge Units.
a UnM name or
b Unit localon:
C.
S
ToWóymselclon on isawageAsuth
P 0t r d 0 d \\ 1 L 1
Total ity metlc n o ieesgs shidge thac d on ‘S $MWUUi ikidg. unit
ovuitl ielt.o l t hsuçi lt)
-‘ f
Qonslisaca wmaxui umhy&J / T
ancbdzvt?y c i i a lb cxn/ .oc? Yes #lo
ilyss. desa*s Sis Iner (or attach a desa don)
i r .’ i 4:
t s the 5ve sewage skid 0 unit ha a leajilie i 0 ct d . systen#
1) I -___
H J
de.c*fbe Ii. me od used for loechalo dispOsal and probido I . numbers 01 any
Federal, Stalo, or local psrnat(s) lo leachat. disposal.
g uanswwadno stthsrOi .erD I I,answvthslollowlogquesifon.
Is It. boundary of It. .clve sewage skidg. unit less than 150 melots bern lie
propsfty ie of Its aurtans dsposal sits? — Yes — No
U yes, provide the actial thtanca ki melon ____________
0.1. hiiotmsdon on Achy. Sewage Sludg. Unit.. (confd)
I i. Provid, the blowing Wornialon:
1 IEPA ID NUMBER:
I offiw si UsS only)
-‘ Form Approb.d
I 0MB M..n,ha,
IA
— ‘ ; . . / 1
Aemak*ig cap.diy of adlvs sewage sludge w t itt y metrIc lon.. ______
Anlc atad closure daM br sdfvs sewage sk dgs unit, If known _______
Provide, with thIs apploslon. a onpy of any dosurs plan that has been d.vstcped
lot lila sdive sewage sludge unit.
sitid t. SI. actrvs sewage
ôjojs unit tr4in pny I.of es other than your unity?
1 .i ___ Yes
\Wyos. ptovic4 tsit àb f&inet1on lot .. L Mich tanify if swags skidge Is sent
is athvs lawag. sludge unit from more than hte such taaily. attach adi onal
‘ P 41as nSc 4*aiy
b * ty ctnt d Name ____________________________
ills ___________________________
Phone()__
C FacMty mitig ad bess
i1
C s
Cs
•1
0
c i
0
z
a
CD
CD
In
0-
C)
CD
0
CD
a-
CD
1
ci
-.
(0
(0
C ,’
‘1
0
‘O
0
In
CD
0
CD
(4
C)
I - ’
C1aasA — classe _Nonsorimknown
e D.scts, on SIc fomi or another shesi of paper, any isavnsnt proonus used et
lie other IsdIly li i x* p.ltogens itt sewage sitidge
EPAFerni35tO .2S(Rev 9 5)
PAGE 1 OFZ
-------
FAØLflY NAUE
JNPOES PERMIT NUMOER;
I
I
I
JE A ID NUMBER:

I
I xx.x -xx
I Wtildi c i p i m ic$on op on I ad,lowd bulore swsg sludge lives
the othci lnhty?
— Op on I (I man 34 psi g.ôjUioia in otat s sobib)
— Oplon 2 (AnwthiC pocua. with bench-scale mcnsIiatIOn)
— OpIon3 Aerob.c pm ai. with bench-scale manstraUon)
— eofl 4 Speuicoqgun Upbe. tata be aewbicaly digesNd
—I
— Oponl MiOIII pto u.spkiaraisadlmpeiskie)
— OponS RH4 12andretabiatlI5)
— Opl n7 st Ià thnoi
— bOnO (9f
— I loneol
MQ.Lk i oF
& VilWch vs r stfldlon ra tr1on cplon. 4 soy. IIIIwt when wewgi akidge I
plac.d on thI .clve sewag skidga I.wii?
— Opdon 4 (in .dlon belew lend swfacs)
— Opson 10 (tnccipomlon ee sob within S beuls)
— bei II (Go wàig iee sewage sludge imit da4y)
0.3. V.cto, AtUsdion Reduction. (comtd)
b Desc tie. on this k im ci anothci sheet of paper, any esVn.mtpIoc.ssu used at
the acbve sewage skidgo 1mM I ,o ki voclof st a ion pmperbes of sewugo
0.4. Ground-Wets, Monitoring.
monibtmg data Alsoprowdas
rOssna1a depth V-cued waso. and
in c&ilam these data.
b Has a ground-wslr montloong progmm boon prepared to, use ocavs sewage
ibdgo unC? ‘
Yes
S i ‘ r
tIyo s 4mii s bpy 1* ind -aeeor n progtaqi w k
- ! 1Ippatk n i iL h t
r \ r j
a Have you obtamod a co,t3ca1on oni a qua1a ed ground-wslsr scienOst that th
q.iiler bolew the awve sewage sitalgo unzt hu not been contan*iald?
_ 14o
ifyos. s thmM a copy of Sw carekason with this pemul app4cabost
D.5. Sh. .Sp.cIflo UinIts. Are you seeking slIsped pollutant knIIa ki the sewage
sludge placed on Uro ictve sewage skidg. unit?
_Yws _ , ,No
I I yes. sithml* kthmwdon ta supped the request to, sita-spec o polisM Smite alth SO
pWcawin
F 20P2
DL B.weg. Skidgs frew Othee FocIUUes (confd)
a is grnwid-wster inon*oimg amenity conducted at this a v sewage sludgs 1mg. or
a te orounf .wi s aivs sewage s i t a I g s
w a tt
above
it. 0.aath.. on 40 kim ci another sheet of paper. my other sewage sludge
seatziwnt .drnass pudo ,m.dby the other beAty that are not ldosthSod in id)-
EPA fomi 3510 .2S fRay 945)
-------
E. INCINERATION
flrU r u i , !Iuo n;
IE ID NUMBER:
I(toro daIus. or ’,
- Fan ,, Approiwd
I 0MB Numb.,
Cor pIsfi thf$ 1 .iction 0 you Ii. *.w*g ,lud e ma uw. . sludge Inc Inerator

Coiviptofa this escIloi once la . lach Incbisrcto to wtdch you fit. I.wsg. .Iddg.. U ou Rr Mws ..hldg. hi nor. bnb sewage sludg. b icfne,uleI, attach PddIiloh.I cofIs Of
We esdon . eosussy. i , ..
El. k,clns,ato, ldwatlflcation.
a. hidnera rum. or numbs.
b kudnerstor locaben
E.4. If.rcuiy NESHAP. (cont’d)
A cor IeW usport of stack sthug and docun.nta on of ongo g k dn.r.tor
opening p.ms tars Ui csdng that the kidnsrstor has met, and wul
contkiu to meet. 5u metuxy NESHAP imisslon rita EmIL
• Copies of .ner xy arnissiun nato tosts kir th two most racant years Ii
comptanc.. submit a compete
has met. and wul ooruinu. to
Su ret. with this apptcabon. VItoITTuaDOn. tost dal& and desa bon of measures
takon that domons ato whether t.i sewage sludge Incawrsted Is berylhar .-
4w
I that 1u
has beon and eu corutsius to be met.
El. Mercury NESHAP.
• How complanc. ofth the meroity NESHAP be .ng demonspatod?
Stack tosthug — Sewage sludge s.n Ung
(W ctuedied, conupleto E 4 b) (d cluedied. c.mpleta E 4 C)
b
Arsenic
Ca , kjm:
Chromium:
Lead
Nickof.
Submit a copy of t ie results of psdonnanc. tasang end supportfrig doo msn(aDon
(kucludng tos1 g dales) with this allan
b If stack tost g is conduced. submit the IoNowIng k fonnsDon with * s application
E.2.
E.3.
S.
Yes
N
No
PT ’
S
EPA Form 35l0-2S (Rev 9-95)
PAGE 1 0F2
-------
I INPDE3PERWTNU 5 H: I IEPAWNUMDER:
I I I I(#we1 aatus.on ’J
a. Raw v01us r CO sn sLat 1 s c mlssbns. k ppm:
b. M stiaw Ii s k gas. I i percsid.
C. Oxygen concenDalon 10 stadi gu. V
d Canucied s ( CO n sdon k sladi emlss ons. k ppm:
, Fern, Appoivd
I 0 MB Men be ,
I Apprnval Ezpus, Z -BX-XN
NAMES
E.7. Risk 5 .cIlio Conos@Wall.is lot Chromium.
a-
Rik spealc concsnvsicn (RSC) used Icr chrnmium. In miao wis per cs.èIc
male ’.
b. Uth bash was used w deasrmsis the RSC?
TibIa 2 In 40 CFR 503 4
— Ec .as5on $1040 CFR 50343 sl*spedk deanninscon)
E.t Operating Paasm.t.se.
S.
kidneralor type:
b
Cornbus Won iornpersbu:
c. N TibI. 2 was used. IdenWy Was type oh Indnsiathi used u Pie bush:
— Fkudzad bad with wet scnthbe ,
— FbAdz.d bed with we;scn.tbe’ md awl
— Othert
— Oth e ’•
d UaIcn6wu
Submi. With Pu .ppkilIon laippOrkig deairnenta om eudi ii hung dew(s)..
deswpdon 01 Seniperas.aw meaaaxemonl end dat. recor*ig e’id bending iysw*ns.
end. loscflpdon ol hma eud combuakon $mperalur. deli have bee’, aveasged.
Deamal Viciom 0*
c0n nIraUon Ill I
E .S.
Gubm$ r.wlssl è k Wits 10 haiav d and Ial
concuntralions. klc*dng date(s) oh mel. with this appkaxa
Ops,stlonsl Standstd 104 Total I$ydr0cMboms flHC) or Casban Ilonoxide (GO).
II you moruacr I l- iC. couplets the tolhcwmg
vakis aubinined Is:
— Actial stsd height
I
— Credlibli e l i height
5. Sutam . wali this ipi - aaon, itsion usad ta deiM mw ThC concontrslion.
mdsbss renlei* oxygen concora aWon. and sctad THC aon04nPaDon.
• Submi. with this appbcabon kibimabon docunonong Sw oparseng pereivelets
the alt poUuUon convat dewico(s) used lot Las sewage skidgeencmersw
U you monbar CO. omriØei. Li blowIng.
I I np isc e I
ot cerbon mcnoiddo:
b. Percent oxygen.
G Molst*ze conwnt
d Coenbus Won tsmpefebire:
a Other.
a. Submi. with lila IpØGSWOn. dec*ensnlibon used toderivi raw COco..c.snw.lon.
malstur . consent. oxygen concenvaion.sndc,eci dCOconcentraton.
E.1l. Ais Poluilon Control Equipment. 8rlimL with lU uppilcalon. a Wslel 51 *
poltxlon control eqldpm.nI used with *4s sewage ikatipe kicloerabt.
EPA Fom 35l0 2S (Rev $- 5)
P 20F2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 I Wednesday, December 6. 1995 / Proposed Rules
62645
Instructions for Completing Form ZS
Application for a Sewage Sludge Permit
Paperwork Reduction Act Notice: The
public reporting and recordkeeping burden
for this collection of information is estimated
to average 11.6 hours per response. This
estimate includes the tune needed to review
instructions: develop, acquire. install, and
utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information: adjust the existing
ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements:
train personnel to respond to a collection of
information; search existing data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information: and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information. An Agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person Is not
required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a ctirrently
valid 0MB control number.
Send comments regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this collection
of information, including suggestions for
reducing the burden, to Chief, OPPE
Regulatory Information Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2136), 401
M St.. S.W . Washington. DC 20460 and to.
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs. Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th St., N.W., Washington, DC 20503,
Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, Include the
0MB control number in any conespondence.
Do not send the completed application form
to these addresses,
Overview
This application form collects
information from persons that are
required to apply for a sewage sludge
use or disposal permit.
Who Must Submit Application
Information?
The following persons are “treatment
works treating domestic sewage” that
are required to submit sewage sludge
permit application information:
• Any person who generates sewage
sludge that is ultimately regulated by
Part 503 (i.e., it is applied to the land,
placed on a surface disposal site, fired
in a sewage sludge incinerator, or
placed in a municipal solid waste
landfill unit);
• Any person who derives material
from, or otherwise changes the quality
of, sewage sludge (e.g., an intermediate
treatment facility such as a composting
facility, or a facility that processes
sewage sludge for sale or give away in
a bag or other container for application
to the land), if that sewage sludge is
used or disposed in a manner subject to
Part 503;
• Any person who owns or operates
a sewage sludge surface disposal site;
• Any person who fires sewage
sludge in a sewage sludge incinerator;
and
• Any other person required by the
permitting authority to submit permit
application information.
For purposes of this form, you refers
to the applicant. This facility and your
facility refer to the facility for which
application information is being
submitted.
Facility should be interpreted to
include activities potentially subject to
regulation under the sewage sludge
program—e.g., areas of sewage sludge
treatment, storage, land application,
surface disposal, or incineration, even if
such activities do not occur at the same
location.
Which Parts of The Form Apply?
Form 2S is presented in a modular
format, enabling information collection
to be tailored to your facility’s sewage
sludge generation, treatment, use, or
disposal practices. The form is divided
into two main parts:
Part I is limited screening
information that must be submitted by
“sludge-only” (non-NPDES) facilities
that are not applying for site-specific
pollutant limits and have not been
directed to submit a full permit
application at this time.
Part 2 must be submitted by
facilities that are submitting a full
permit application at this time. These
include the following:
—Facilities with a currently effective
NPDES permit.
—Facilities that are required to have, or
are requesting, site-specific pollutant
limits, including “sludge-only”
facilities that are applying for site-
specific pollutant limits. (Note: all
sewage sludge incinerators are
required to have site-specific
pollutant limits.)
—Facilities that have been directed by
the permitting authority to apply for
a permit at this time.
Complete either Part 1 or Part 2, but
not both (unless otherwise instructed by
the permitting authority).
Part 2 is divided into the following
sections:
• Section A is general information to
be provided by all applicants that fill
out Part 2.
• Section B must be completed by any
facility that generates sewage sludge or
derives a material from sewage sludge.
• Section C must be completed by
any facility that applies bulk sewage
sludge to the land, or whose bulk
sewage sludge is applied to the land.
(Most applicants that provide this
information will also submit Section B
information, because it is unlikely that
EPA would permit a land applier who
does not generate or change the quality
of sewage sludge.)
• Section D must be completed by the
owner/operator of a surface disposal
site.
• Section Emust be completed by the
owner/operator of a sewage sludge
incinerator.
You need only submit the Sections of
Part 2 that apply.
Part 1: Limited Background
Information
Part I requests a limited amount of
information from “sludge-only”
facilities (facilities without a currently-
effective NPDES permit) that are not
requesting site-specific permit limits
and are not directed by the permitting
authority to submit a full permit
application at this time. This limited
screening information must be
submitted as expeditiously as possible,
but no later than 180 days after
publication of an applicable use or
disposal standard. It is intended to
allow the permitting authority to
identify these facilities, track sewage
sludge use and disposal, and establish
priorities for permitting.
1. Facility Information.
a. Provide the facility’s official or
legal name. Do not use a colloquial
name.
b. Provide the complete mailing
address of the office where
correspondence should be sent. This
may differ from the facility location
given in Question i.d.
c. Provide the name, title, and work
telephone number of a person who is
thoroughly familiar with the operation
of the facility and with the facts
reported in this application, and who
can be contacted by the permitting
authority if necessary.
d. Provide the physical location of the
facility. If the facility lacks a street
address or route number, provide the
most accurate alternative geographic
information (e.g., township and range,
section or quarter section number, or
nearby highway intersection).
e. indicate the type of facility.
A publicly owned treatment works
(POTW) is any device or system used in
the treatment (including recycling and
reclamation) of municipal sewage or
industrial wastes of a liquid nature
which is owned by a State or
municipality. This definition includes
sewers, pipes, or other conveyances
only if they convey wastewater to a
POTW providing treatment.
A privately owned treatment works is
any device or system which is (a) used
to treat wastes from any facility whose
-------
62646 Federal Register / Vol. 60,No . 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
operator is not the operator of the
treatment works and (b) not a POTW or
federally owned treatment works.
A federoily owned treatment works is
a facility that is owned and operated by
a department. agency, or Instrumentality
of the Federal Government that treats
wastewater, a majority of which is
domestic sewage, prior to discharge in
accordance with a permit issued under
section 402 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act.
A blending or treatment operation
means any sewage sludge or wastewater
treatment device or system, regardless of
ownership (including Federal facilities),
used in the storage. treatment, recycling,
and reclamation of domestic sewage,
including land dedicated for the
disposal of sewage sludge. For purposes
of this form, such devices or systems
indude blending or treatment
operations that derive material from
sewage sludge but do not generate
sewage sludge.
A surface disposal site is an area of
land that contains one or more active
sewage sludge units.
An active sewage sludge unit is land
on which only sewage sludge is placed
for final disposal. This does not include
land on which sewage sludge is either
stored or treated. Land does not Include
waters of the United States, as defined
in 4OCFR 122.2.
A sewage sludge incinerator is an
enclosed device in which only sewage
sludge and auxiliary fuel are fired.
2. Applicant Information.
a. If someone other than the facility
contact person is submitting this
application, provide the name of that
person’s organization.
b. Provide the complete mailing
address of the applicant’s organization.
c. Provide the name and work
telephone number of a person who is
thoroughly familiar with the operation
of the facility and with the facts
reported in this application, and who
can be contacted by the permitting
authorit if necessary.
d. Indicate whether this applicant Is
the owner or operator (or both) of the
facility. If it is neither, describe the
relationship of the applicant to the
facility.
a. Indicate whether you want
correspondence regarding this
application directed to the applicant or
to the facility address provided in
questIon 1.
3. Sewage Sludge Amount. List, on a
dry weight basis, the total dry metric
tons of sewage sludge per latest 365-day
period handled at this facility.
0 iy weight basis means calculated on
the basis of having been dried at 105
degrees C until reaching a constant
weight (i.e., essentIally 100 percent
solids content).
a. The amount generated Is, for
purposes of this application, the amount
of sewage sludge generated during the
treatment of domestic sewage at the
facility.
b. The amount received from off site
is any additional amount of sewage
sludge handled at your facility that is
not generated during the treatment of
domestic sewage at your facility.
c. The amount treated or blended on
site is the amount of sewage sludge
generated on site, plus the amount
received from off site, that undergoes
treatment on site. Treatment is the
preparation of sewage sludge for final
use or disposal. Treatment, for purposes
of this form, includeg the following:
• Thickening and stabilization;
• Processing (e.g., composting) for
purposes of pathogen reduction and
vector attraction reductIon; and
• Blending with a bulking agent or
with sewage sludge from another
facility.
Treatment does not include storage of
sewage sludge,
d. The amount sold or given away in
a bag or other container for application
to the land is the amount placed in a bag
or other container at your facility.
An other containeris either an open
or closed receptacle. Including but not
limited to, a bucket, box, carton,
vehicle, or trailer with a load capacity
of one metric ton or less.
a. The amount of bulk sewage sludge
shipped off site for treatment or
blending is the amount of sewage sludge
that is shipped to another facility in
bulk form (i.e.. not in a bag or other
container), where the other facility
derives a material from the sewage
sludge (I.e., it is a “person who
prepares”).
This question does riot cover sewage
sludge sent directly to a land
application site, surface disposal site,
municipal solid waste landfill, or
sewage sludge incinerator.
f. The amount applied to the land in
bulk form is the amount of bulk sewage
sludge from your facility that is sent
directly to a land application site from
your facility. It does not cover sewage
sludge placed in a bag or other
container, nor does it cover sewage
sludge shipped off site for treatment or
for sale or give-away in a bag or other
container.
g. The amount placed on a surface
disposal site is the amount of sewage
sludge from your facility that is placed
on a surface disposal site, regardless of
whether you own or operate the surface
disposal site.
h. The amount fired in a sewage
sludge incinerator Is the amount of
sewage sludge from your facility that is
fired in a sewage sludge incinerator.
regardless of whether you own or
operate the sewage sludge incinerator.
i. The amount sent to a municipal
solid waste landfill (MSWLF) is the
amount of sewage sludge from your
facility that is sent directly to a MSWLF,
which is a discrete area of land or an
excavation that receives household
waste and other solid wastes.
j. The amount used or disposed by
another practice is the amount of
sewage sludge generated on site or
received from off site that is not covered
in Questions 3.d—3.i above.
4. Pollutant Concentrations. Provide
available data on the concentrations of
the listed pollutants in the sewage
sludge from this facility. If
concentration data are available for
pollutants not on this list, provide those
data as well. Provide up to three data
points taken at least one month apart
during the last two years. If data from
the last two years are unavailable.
provide the most recent data.
Express pollutant concentrations as
dry weight concentrations.
You may use a separate attachment in
addition to, or instead of, the table
provided.
You need not perform additional
pollutant monitoring to comply with
this requirement; rather, only available
data are requested.
Calculations on a dry weight basis are
based on sewage sludge having been
dried at 105 degrees Celsius until
reaching a constant weight (i.e..
essentially 100 percent solids Content).
The Part 503 sewage skidge use or
disposal regulation requires the use of
Test Method SW—846 (in “Test Methods
(or Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical!
Chemical Methods,” Second and Third
Editions) to analyze samples of sewage
sludge for compliance with Part 503.
SW—846 is recommended, but not
required. for purposes of providing
sewage sludge quality information in
the permit application.
5. Treatment Provided at Your
Facility. Provide the following
information regarding sewage sludge
treatment on site. This question does
not request information on sewage
sludge treatment at an off-site use or
disposal facility.
a. Indicate the class of pathogen
reduction (Class A or Class HI that is
achieved at your facility. You may select
‘neither or unknown” only if sewage
sludge is placed on an active sewage
sludge unit that is covered with soil or
other material at the end of each
operating day, sent to another facility
-------
Federal Register! Vol. 60. No. 234 I Wednesday. December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
62647
for additional treatment, fired in a
sewage sludge incinerator, or placed on
municipal solid waste landfill unit.
Iptions for meeting Class A pathogen
iction are listed at § 503.32(a).
tions for meeting Class B pathogen
reduction are listed at § 503.32(b).
b. Provide a written description of any
treatment processes used to reduce
pathogens in sewage sludge, including
an indication of how the treatment
fulfills one of the options for meeting
Class A or Class B pathogen reduction.
You may attach existing documentation
(e.g., technical or process specifications)
to meet this requirement.
C. Indicate whether any of the vector
attraction reduction options in
§ 503.33(b) (i)—(1i) are met before
sewage sludge leaves the facility.
Options 1—8 are typically met at the
point where sewage sludge Is generated
or where a material is derived from
sewage sludge. and Options 9—11 are
typically met at the point of use or
disposal.
You may select “none or unknown”
only in the following cases:
• If sewage sludge is fired in a sewage
sludge incinerator; or
• If sewage sludge is placed on a
municipal solid waste landfill unit.
Land application: Sewage sludge
applied to agricultural land, a forest, a
,ublic contact site, or a reclamation site
st meet one of the vector attraction
action options 1—10, which are
ciefined at § 503.33(b) (1)—(10),
respectively. Sewage sludge applied to a
lawn or home garden, or placed in a bag
or other container for sale or give-away
for application to the land, must meet
any of options 1—8. defined at
§ 503.33(b) (1)—(8), respectively.
Surface disposal: Sewage sludge
placed on an active sewage sludge unit
must meet one of vector attraction
reduction options 1—11, which are
defined at § 503.33(b) (1)—(11).
respectively.
d. Provide a written description of
any treatment processes used to reduce
vector attraction characteristics of
sewage sludge. including an indication
of how the treatment fulfills one of
options 1—11 for vector attraction
reduction. You may attach existing
documentation (e.g.. technical or
process specifications) to meet this
requirement.
6. Sewage Sludge Sent to Other
Facilities. II sewage sludge from your
facility is sent to an off-site facility for
treatment, distribution, use, or disposal,
provide the information requested
below for each receiving facility. If
wage sludge is sent to more than one
site facility, attach additional pages
necessary.
For purposes of this form, an off-site
facility is a facility or site that is located
on land physically separate from the
land used in connection with your
facility. “Off site” may include facilities
or sites that you own if they are not
located on the same property or on
adjacent property.
a. Provide the facility’s official or
legal name. Do not use a colloquial
name.
b. Provide the name, title, and work
telephone number of a person who is
thoroughly familiar with the operation
of the facility receiving the sewage
sludge. and who can be contacted by the
permitting authority if necessary.
c. Provide the complete mailing
address at the off-site facility where
correspondence should be sent.
d. Indicate which activities the
receiving facility performs on the
sewage sludge from your facility.
7. Use and Disposal Sites. If sewage
sludge is sent directly from your f cility
to a use or disposal site (i.e., it is not
sent to another facility), provide the
following information for each such site
(attach additional pages if necessary):
a. Provide the site name and/or
number. The name and/or number is
any designation commonly used to refer
to the site. If the site has been
previously designated in another
permit, use that designation.
b. Provide the name, title, and work
telephone number of a person who is
thoroughly familiar with the operation
of the use or disposal site, and who can
be contacted by the permitting authority
if necessary.
c. Answer either question I or
question 2.
1. Provide the physical location (street
address) of the site. If the site lacks a
street address or route number, provide
the most accurate alternative geographic
information (e.g., township and range,
section or quarter section number,
nearby highway intersection).
2. Provide the latitude and longitude
of the center of the site. if a map was
used to obtain latitude and longitude,
provide map datum (e.g.. NAD 27, NAD
83) and map scale (e.g.. 1:24000,
1:100000).
d. The site type is the intended end
use of the land. Applicable sewage
sludge use and disposal standards, and
thus permit conditions, differ according
to type of site.
Agricultural land is land on which a
food crop. a feed crop. or a fiber crop
Is grown. This includes range land.
which Is open land with indigenous
vegetation, and pasture. which is land
on which animals feed directly on crops
such as grasses. grain stubble, or stover.
Forest Is a tract of land thick with
trees and underbrush.
A public contact site is land with a
high potential for contact by the public,
Public contact sites include public
parks, ball fields, cemeteries, plant
nurseries, turf farms, and golf courses.
A reclamation site is land that has
been drastically disturbed by strip
mining, fires, construction, etc. As part
of the reclamation process. sewage
sludge is applied for its nutrient and
soil conditioning properties to help
stabilize and revegetate the land. -
For purposes of this form, a lawn or
home garden is privately-owned land on
which crops or other vegetation are
grown for private, non-commercial use
and on which use by the general public
does not occur.
A surface disposal site is an area of
land that contains one or more active
sewage sludge units. An active sewage
sludge unit is land on which only
sewage sludge is placed for final
disposal.
A sewage sludge incinerator is an
enclosed device in which sewage sludge
and auxiliary fuel are fired.
A municipal solid waste landfill is a
discrete area of land or an excavation
that receives household waste and other
solid wastes.
8. Certification. All permit
applications must be signed and
certified.
An application submitted by a
municipality, State, Federal, or othef
public agency must be signed by either
a principal executive officer or ranking
elected official. A principal executive
officer of a Federal agency includes: (1)
The chief executive officer of the
agency. or (2) a senior executive officer
having responsibility for the overall
operations of a principal geographic
unit of the agency (e.g.. Regional
Administrators of EPA).
An application submitted by a
corporation must be signed by a
responsible corporate officer. A
responsible corporate officer means: (1)
A president, secretary, treasurer, or vice
president in charge of a principal
business function, or any other person
who performs similar policy- or
decision-making functions; or (2) the
manager of manufacturing, production,
or operating facilities employing more
than 250 persons or having gross annual
sales or expenditures exceeding $25
million (in second quarter 1980 dollars).
if authority to sign documents has been
assigned or delegated to the manager in
accordance with corporate procedures.
An application submitted by a
partnership or sole proprietorship must
be signed by a general partner or the
proprietor, respectively.
-------
62648 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No, 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
Part 2: Permit Application Information as well as “sludge-only” facilities that sections of Part 2 cover your facility’s
Part 2 of this form pertains to facilities are applying for site-specific pollutant sewage sludge use or disposal practices.
that are submitting a full permit limits. Table 1, below, summarizes which
application at this time. This includes Review items 1—5 of the Application sections cover which activities.
facilities applying for an NPDES permit Overview section to determine which
TABLE 1 .—GIJIDEUNES FOR COMPLETiNG PART 2
Activity(les) performed
A
B
C
0
E
Generates sewage sludge or derives material from sewage sludge
That meets ceiling concentrations in Table 1 of 40 CFR 503.13,
pollutant concentrations in Table 3 of §503.13. Class A patho-
gen requirements ui § 503.32, and one of the eight vector attrac-
tion reduction options in §503.33 (b) (1)-(8) ..._ .. ..
That Is sold or given away in bag or other container for application
totholand ........
That is shipped off site for treatment or blending...................
That is applied to the land ui bulk form .. ....... ..... ..
That is placed on a surface disposal site ......... .. .........
That is fired in a sewage sludge incinerator .. . ..
That is sent to a municipal solid waste landfill ......... ...
Applies bulk sewage sludge to land
Owns or operates a surface disposal site .._..
Fires sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incinerator ..
. ‘
s
s .
s. ’
s.’
V
v ’
V
V
V
V
1
(0.1—8.3)
l (8.4)
s.’(B5)
./ (B 6)
V (B.7)
v’ (8.8)
V (8.9)
V (8.10)
.
V
V
V
V
Section A: Generai’Information
All applicants must complete Section
A. which requests general information
about the facility.
A.1. Facility Information.
a. Provide the facility’s official or
legal name. Do not use a colloquial
name.
b. Provide the complete mailing
address of the office where
correspondence should be sent. This
may differ from the facility location
given in Question i.d.
c. Provide the name, title, and work
telephone number of a person who is
thoroughly familiar with the operation
of the facility and with the facts
reported in this application, and who
can be contacted by the permitting
authority if necessary.
d. Provide the physical location
(street address) of the facility, if the
facility lacks a street address or route
number, provide the most accurate
alternative geographic information (e.g.,
township and range. section or quarter
section number, nearby highway
intersection).
e. Provide the latitude and longitude
of the facility. This information is
required by EPA ’s Locational Data
Policy. 11 a map was used to obtain
latitude and longitude, provide map
datum (e.g.. NAD 27. NAD 83) and map
scale (e.g.. 1:24000, 1:100000).
L Indicate whether the facility is a
Class I sludge management facility. A
Class I sludge management facility is
eitheri
Any POTW required to have an
approved pretreatment program under
40 CFR 403.8(a), induding any POTW
located in a State assuming local
pretreatment program responsibilities
pursuant to 40 CFR 403.10(e)); or
• Any treatment works treating
domestic sewage. as defined in 40 CFR
122.2, classified as a Class I sludge
management facility by the EPA
Regional Administrator, or, in the case
of approved State programs, the
Regional Administrator in conjunction
with the State Director, because of the
potential for its sewage sludge use or
disposal practices to adversely affect
public health and the environment.
If your facility is a Class I sludge
management facility, you must perform
a toxicity characteristic leaching
procedure (TCLP) on this facility’s
sewage sludge. Submit the results (pass
or fail) of all TCLP tests you have
performed during the past five years
that you have not already submitted to
the permitting authority.
g. Provide the facility’s design
influent flow rate. “Design influent flow
rate” means the average flow the
treatment works was designed to treat
Enter the design influent flow rate in
million gallons per day (mgd), to two
decimal places (e.g.. 3.12 mgd translates
to three million one hundred twenty
thousand gallons per day).
h. For all areas served by the
treatment works (municipalities and
unincorporated service areas), enter the
best estimate of the actual population
served at the time of application. If
another treatment works discharges into
this treatment works, pmvide on a
separate attachment the name of the
other treatment works and the actual
population it serves (it is not necessary
to list the communities served by the
other treatment works).
i. Indicate the type of facility.
A publicly owned treatment works
(POTW) is any device or system used in
the treatment (including recycling and
reclamation) of municipal sewage or
industrial wastes of a liquid nature
which is owned by a State or
municipality. This definition incluc .
sewers, pipes, or other conveyances
only if they convey wastewater to a
POTW providing treatment.
A privately owned treatment works is
any device or system which is (a) used
to treat wastes from any facility whose
operator is not the operator of the
treatment works and (b) not a POTW or
federally owned treatment works.
A fedemily owned treatment works is
a facility that is owned and operated by
a department. agency, or instrumentality
of the Federal government that treats
wastewater, a majority of which is
domestic sewage, prior to discharge in
accordance with a permit issued under
section 402 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act.
A blending or treatment operat ion
means any sewage sludge or wastewater
treatment device or system. regardless of
ownership (including Federal facilities),
used in the storage, treatment, recycling,
and reclamation of domestic sewage,
including land dedicated for the
disposal of sewage sludge. For purposes
of this form, such devices or systems
include blending or treatment
operations that derive material from
sewage sludge but do not generate
sewage sludge.
-------
Federal Register I Vol 60. No 234 / Wednesday. December 6. 1995 / Proposed Rules
62649
A surface disposal site is an area of
land that contains one or more active
sewage sludge units. An active sewage
udge unit is land on which only
wage sludge is placed for rmal
disposal. This does not include land on
which sewage sludge is either stored or
treated. Land does not include waters of
the United States. as defined in 40 CFR
122.2.
A sewage sludge incinerator is an
enclosed device in which sewage sludge
and auxiliary fuel are fired.
A.2. Applicant Information.
a. If someone other than the facility
contact person is submitt.ing this
application, provide the name of that
person’s organization.
b. Provide the complete mailing
address of the applicant’s organization.
c. Provide the name and work
telephone number of a person who is
thoroughly familiar with the operation
of the facility and with the facts
reported in this application. and who
can be contacted by the permitting
authority if necessary.
d. Indicate whether this applicant is
the owner or operator (or both) of the
facility. If it is neither, describe the
relationship of the applicant to the
facility.
e. Indicate whether you want
correspondence regarding this
application directed to the applicant or
o the facility address provided in
questiOn 1.
A.3. Permit Informatiort. Provide the
facility’s NPDES permit number, if any.
Also provide the number and type of
any relevant Federal, State. or local
environmental permits or construction
approvals received or applied for,
including but not limited to permits
issued under any of the following
programs:
• Hazardous Waste Management
program under RCRA;
• UIC program under SDWA;
• Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program under the
Clean Air Act;
• Nonattainment program under the
Clean Air Act;
• National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)
preconstruction approval under the
Clean Air Act;
• Ocean dumping permits under the
Marine Protection, Research. and
Sanctuaries Act; or
• Dredge or fill permits under Section
404 of CWA.
A.4. Federal Indian Reservation.
Identify any generation, treatment,
storage. application to land, or disposal
of sewage sludge that occurs on a
Federal Indian Reservation.
A.5. Topographic Map. Provide a
topographic map or maps (or other
appropriate map(s) if a topographic map
is unavailable) that shows the items
identified below, including the areas
one mile beyond the property
boundaries of the facility.
a. Location of all sewage sludge
management facilities, including land
application sites and locations where
sewage sludge is generated. treated, or
disposed;
b. Location of all water bodies within
one mile beyond the facility’s property
boundaries; and
c. Location of all wells used for
drinking water listed in public records
or otherwise known to you within ¼
mile of the facility property boundaries.
On each map. include the map scale.
a meridian arrow showing north, and
latitude and longitude at the nearest
whole second. Use a 7½-minute series
map published by the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), which may be obtained
through the USGS Earth Science
Information Center (ESIC) listed below.
If a 7½-minute series map has not been
published for your facility site, then you
may use a 15-minute series map from
the U.S. Geological Survey. If neither a
7½-minute nor 15-minute series map
has been published for your facility site,
use a plat map or other appropriate
map, including all the requested
Information; in this case, briefly
describe land uses in the map area (e.g.,
residential, commercial). If you have
previously prepared a map that includes
these three items, that map may be
submitted to fulfill this requirement if it
is still accurate.
Maps may be purchased at local
dealers (listed in your local yellow
pages) or purchased over the counter at
the following USGS Earth Science
Information Centers (ESIC):
Anchorage-ESIC. 4230 University Dr., Km.
101. Anchorage. AK 99508—4664.
(907)786—7011
Lakawood-ESIC, Box 25046, Bldg 25, Rm.
1813, Denver Federal Center, MS 504,
Denver. CO 80225—0046. (303)235—5829
Lakewood Open Files.ESIC. Box 25286. Bldg.
810, Denver Federal Center, Denver. CO
Menlo Park ESlC. Bldg. 3. Kin. 3128, MS 532,
345 Mlddlefleld Rd., Menlo Park. CA
94025—3591. (4151329—4309
Reston-ESIC. 507 National Center. Reston.
VA 22092, (703)648—6045
Rolla-ESIC, 1400 Independence Rd.. MS 231,
Rolla. MO 65401—2602, (314)341—0851
Salt Lake Clty-ESIC. 2222 West 2300 South.
Salt Lake City. UT 84119. (801)975—3742
Sioux Falls ’ESIC, EROS Data Center, Sioux
Falls, SD 57198—0001. (605)594—6151
Spokane-ESIC. U.S. Post Office Bldg., Km.
135 904 W. Riverside Ave.. Spokane. WA
99201—1088, (509)353—2524
Stennis Space Center ESIC. Bldg. 3101.
Steams Space Center. MS 39529. (601)688—
3541
Washington. D.C. ESlC. U.S. Dept. of Interior,
1849 C St.. NW. Kin. 2650. Washington.
D.C. 20240, (202)208-4047
All maps should be either on paper or
other material appropriate for
reproduction. If possible. all sheets
should be approximately letter size with
margins suitable for filing and binding.
As few sheets as necessary should be
used to clearly show what is involved.
Each sheet should be labeled with your
facility’s name, permit number, location
(city, county, or town), date of drawing,
and designation of the number of sheets
of each diagram as “page _______ of
A.6. Line Drawing. Attach to this form
a line drawing, simple flow diagram. or
narrative description that identifies all
sewage sludge processes employed
during the permit term, including the
information requested on the
application form.
A.7. Contractor information.
If a contractor carries out any
operational or maintenance aspects
associated with this facility, provide the
name, mailing address, and telephone of
each such contractor. Also provide a
description of the activities performed
by the contractor. Attach additional
pages if necessary.
A.8. Pollutant Concentrations.
• All facilities must complete Section
A.B.a. (Part 503 Metals. Nutrients, and
percent solids).
• Complete Section A.8.b. if this
facility is a Class I sludge management
facility.
A Class I sludge management facility
is either
—Any POTW required to have an
approved pretreatment program under
40 GFR 403.8(a). including any POTW
located in a State assuming local
pretreatment program responsibilities
pursuant to 40 CFR 403.10(e)): or
—Any treatment works treating
domestic sewage, as defined in 40
CFR 122.2. classified as a Class I
sludge management facility by the
EPA Regional Administrator, or, in
the case of approved State programs.
the Regional Administrator in
conjunction with the State Director,
because of the potential for its sewage
sludge use or disposal practices to
adversely affect public health and the
environment
Provide pollutant concentration data
as follows:
• Submit data for each of the
pollutants listed in the appropnate
section.
• For the listed pollutants. data may
not be mote than two years old. U
existing data are not available for a
pollutants you must obtain and analyze
at least one sample for that pollutant.
-------
62650 Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 234 / Wednesday , December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
• In addition, if you have any
available concentration data for
pollutants not listed in the section you
are completing, provide those data as
well. If data for such additional
pollutants are not available from the last
two years, provide the most recent data.
• Express pollutant concentrations as
dry weight concentrations.
• You may use a separate attachment
in additiàn to or instead of the table
provided.
Calculations on a thy weight basis are
based on sewage sludge having been
dried at 105 degrees Celsius until
reaching a constant weight (i.e.,
essentially 100 percent solids content).
The Part 503 sewage sludge use or
disposal regulation requires the use of
Test Method SW—846 (In “Test Methods
for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physlcall
Chemical Methods,” Second and Third
Editions) to analyze samples of sewage
sludge for compliance with Part 503.
SW—848 is recommended, but not
required, for purposes of providing
sewage sludge quality information in
the permit application.
A.9. Certification. All permit
applications must be signed and
certified. Also indicate in the boxes
provided, which sections of Form 25
you are submitting with this
application.
An application submitted by a
municipality, State, Federal, or other
public agency must be signed by either
a principal executive officer or ranking
elected officiaL A principal executive
officer of a Federal agency includes: (1)
The chief executive officer of the
agency, or (2) a senior executive officer
having responsibility for the overall
operations of a principal geographic
unit of the agency (e.g., Regional
Administrators of EPA).
An application submitted by a
corporation must be signed by a
responsible corporate officer. A
responsible corporate officer means: (1)
A president, secretary, treasurer, or vice
president in charge of a principal
business function, or any other person
who performs imlhir policy- or
decision-making functions; or (2) the
manager of manufacturing. production,
or operating facilities employing more
than 250 persons or having gross annual
sales or expenditures exceeding $25
million (In second quarter 1980 dollars).
If authority to sign documents has been
assigned or delegated to the manager In
accordance with corporate procedures.
An application submitted by a
partnership or sole pmprietorship must
be signed by a general partner or the
proprietor, respectively.
Section B: Generation of Sewage Sludge
or Preparation of a Material Derived
From Sewage Sludge
Complete this section if you are a
“person who prepares sewage sludge.”
A person who prepares sewage sludge is
a person who generates sewage sludge
during the treatment of domestic sewage
in a treatment works or who derives a
material from sewage sludge. This
section, therefore, pertains to any POTW
or other treatment works that generates
sewage sludge, as well as to any facility
that derives a material from sewage
sludge (e.g., it composts sewage sludge
. or blends sewage sludge with another
material). Simply distributing sewage
sludge or placing it in a bag or other
container for sale or give-away for
application to the land is not considered
‘deriving a material” from sewage
sludge (because it does not change
sludge quality), and thus a facility that
only distributes or bags a sewage sludge
would not be automatically required to
provide the information in this section,
B.1, Amount Generated On Site.
Provide the total dry metric tons per
365.day penod of sewage sludge that is
generated at your facility. Report only
the amount of sewage sludge that is
generated during treatment of domestic
sewage l.a a treatment works, not the
amount of material that is derived from
sewage sludge.
B.2. Amount Received from Off Site.
Provide the following information if
your facility receives any sewage sludge
from an off-site facility for further
treatment (includin blendlng). use, or
disposal at your facility. If your facility
receives sewage sludge from more than
one off-site facility, provide this
Information separately for each such
facility. Attach additional pages as
necessary.
For purposes of this form, an off-site
facility is a facility or site that is located
on land physically separate from the
land used in connection with your
facility. “Off site” may include facilities
or sites that you own if they are not
located on the same property or on
adjacent property.
a. Provide the official or legal name of
the off-site facility. Do not use a
colloquial name.
b. Provide the name and work
telephone number of a person who is
thoroughly familiar with the operation
of the off-site facility and with the facts
reported In this section, and who can be
contacted by the permitting authority if
necessary.
c, Provide the complete mailing
address at the off-site facility where
correspondence should be sent.
d. Provide the physical location
(street address) of the off-site facility. If
the facility lacks a street address or
route number, provide the most accurate
alternative geographic information (a
township and range, section or quar
section number, nearby highway
intersection).
The off-site facility providing the
sewage sludge is, by definition, also a
“person who prepares sewage sludge”.
Both you and the off-site facility are
required to apply for a permit and are
required to ensure that applicable Part
503 requirements are met.
a. Provide the total dry metric tons
per 365-day period received from the
off-site facility.
f. Describe any treatment processes
occurring at the off-site facility,
including blending activities and
treatment to reduce pathogens or vector
attraction charactenstics. “Treatment”
does not include dewatering.
B.3. Treatment Provided at Your
Facility. Provide the following
information regarding sewage sludge
treatment at your facility. This question
does not request information on sewage
sludge treatment at an off-site use or
disposal facility.
a. Indicate the class of pathogen
reduction (Class A or Class B) that is
achieved before sewage sludge leaves
the facility. You may select “neither or
unknown” only if sewage sludge is
placed on an active sewage sludge Un
that is covered with soil or other
material at the end of each operating
day, sent to another facility for
additional treatment, fired in a sewage
sludge incinerator, or placed on a
municipal solid waste landfill unit.
Options for meeting Class A pathogen
reduction are listed at § 503.32(a).
Options for meeting Class B pathogen
reduction are Listed at § 503.32(b).
b. Provide a written description of any
treatment processes used to reduce
pathogens in sewage sludge, Including
an indication of how the treatment
Mflll one of the options for meeting
Class A or Class B pathogen reduction.
You may attach existing documentation
(e.g., technical or process specifications)
to meet this requirement
c. Indicate whether any of vector
attraction reduction options 1—8 are met
before sewage sludge leaves the facility.
Options 1—8 are published at § 503.33(b)
(1)—(8) . and typically are met at the
point of sewage sludge geri ration.
Options 9, 10, and 11 (published at
§503.33(b) (9)—(11), respectively) are
also available, but are typically met at
the point of use or disposal and are
covered elsewhere In this form.
You may select “none or unknown”
only in the following cases:
• If sewage sludge is sent to anothe.
facility for additional treatment,
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday. December 6, 1995 ,‘ Proposed Rules
62851
• If option 9 (injection below land
surface) or option 10 (incorporation into
coil within six hours) is met at a land
pphcatzan sac
• If option 9 (injection below land
surface), option 10 (incorporation into
soil within six hours), or option it
Waily coves) is met at an active sewage
sludge urut at asurface disposal site;
• 11 sewage sludge is fired in a sewage
sludge incinerator, or
• If sewage sludge is placed on a
municipal solid waste landfill unit.
Land app l ication: Sewage sludge
applied to agricultural land, a forest, a
public contact site. or a reclamation site
must meet one of the vector attraction
reduction options 1—to, which are
defined at § 503.33(b ) (t I—ftC ).
respectively. Sewage sludge applied to a
lawn or home garden. or placed In a bag
or other container for sale or give-away
for application to the land, roUst meet
any of optionst—6, defined at
§ 503.33(b) (i}—(8), respectively.
Surface disposal: Sewage sludge
placed on an active sewage sludge unit
must meet one of vector attraction
reduction options 1—it, which are
defined at § 503.33(b) (i)—4t1),
respectively.
d. Provide a written description of
any treatreect processes used to reduce
vector attraction characteristics of
sewage sludge. including an Indication
of how the treatment fulfills one of
options 1—8 for vector attraction
reduction. You may attach existing
documentation (e.g.. technical or
process specifications) to meet this
requirement.
e. Provide a written description of any
other treatment or blending activities
not described in 8.3.b or B.3.d above.
“Other treatment” does not include
dewatenng or placement of sewage
sludge in a bag or other container for
sats or give- away for application to
land. You may attach ex isting
documentation (e.g., technical or
process specifications) to meet this
requirement.
8.4. Preparation of Sewage Sludge
Meeting Ceiling Concentrations,
Pollutant Concentrations, Class A
Pathogen Requirements. and One of
Vector Attraction Reduction Options 1—
8.
Complete this section if sewage
sludge from this facility meets oil of the
following criteria:
• The ceiling concentrations in. Table
1 of 5503.130 ,1 (t) and the pollutant
concentrations In Table 3 of
§ 503.13(b)(3);
• The Class A pathogen reduction
requirements in § 503.32(a): and
• One of the vector attraction
reduction options in 5503.33 (b) (11-401.
Sewage sludge meeting all of these
criteria is exempt from the general
requirements of S 503.12 and the
management practices of 4503.14, and
thus fewer permitting and permit
application requirements typically
pertain to facilities generating such
sludge. For this reason, if you are
eligible to comp late Section. 8.4. you
tray skip Sections S.S—&7 unless
specifically required to complete any of
them by the permitting authority.
a. Provide the total dry metric tons
per 355-day period of sewage sludge
that is applied to the land and that
meets the Table 1 ceiLing
concentrations, the Tables pollutant
concentrations, Class A pathogen
requirements. and one of vector
attraction reduction options i—a.
b. indicate whether sewage sludge
that meets the Table 1 ceiling
concentrations, the Table 3 pollutant
concentrations, Class A pathogen
requirements. and one of vector
attraction reduction options 1—8 is
placed in bags or other containers at
your facility.
Sewage sludge placed in a bag or
other container must meet the Table I
ceiling concentrations, the Class A
pathogen requirements. one of vector
attraction reduction options 1—S arid
either the Table 3 pollutant
concentrations or the annual pollutant
loading rates (APLRs) in Table 4 of
§ 503.13. This question does not pertain
to sewage sludge meeting API _Ks.
An other container Is either an open
or closed receptacle, including but not
limited to a bucket, a box, a carton, and
a vehicle or trailer with a load capacity
of one metric ton or less.
8.5. Sale or Give-Away in a Bag or
CtherContainer (or Application to the
Land. Complete this section if sewage
sludge from this facility is sold or given
away in a bag or ether container for
application to the land. S/cap this
section. however, for any sewage sludge
you reported in Section 8.4 (i e., sludge
meeting Table I ceiling concentrations.
Table 3 pollutant concentrations, Class
A pathogen requirements. and one of
vector attract ion reduction options 1—8).
A bog or other container includes an
open or closed receptacle such as a
bucket, box, carton, or vehicle or trailer
witha load capacity of one metric ton
or less.
a. Provide the total d i v metric tons
per 365-day period placed in bags or
other containers for sale or give-away.
b. Attach with this application a copy
of any label or in.formation sheet that
accompanies the product being sold or
given away. When sewagrsludge is
placed In a bag or other container for
sale or give.away for application to the
land, either a label must be affixed to
the bag or other container, or an
Information sheet must be provided to
the person receiving the sewage sludge.
The label or information sheet must
contain the following information:
The name and address of the person
who prepared the sewage sludge that is
sold or given away in a bag or other
container for application to the land;
A statement that application of the
sewage sludge to the land is prohibited
except In accordance with the
Instructions on the label or information
sheet; and
• The annual whole sludge
application rate for the sewage sludge
that does not cause any of the annual
pollutant loading rates in Table 4 of
5503-13 to be exceeded.
8.6. Shipment-Off Site for Treatment
or Blending. Complete this section ii
you provide sewage sludge to another
facility, and that facility provides
treatment or blending (I.e.. it derives a
material from sewage sludge).
Sk ip thIs section, however, for any
sewage sludge that is:
• Covered In Section 8.4 (I.e., it meets
the Table 1 ceiling concentrations, the
Table 3 pollutant concentrations. Class
A pathogen reduction requirements and
one of vector attraction reduction
options 1-81;
• Covered in Section 8.5 (i.e.. it is
placed in a bag or other container at
your facility); or
• Sent directly from your facility to a
land application site or surface disposal
site.
If you provide sewage sludge to more
than one facility that provides treatment
or blending. complete Section 8 6 for
each such facility. Attach additional
pages as necessary.
a. Provide the official or legal name of
the facility receiving the sewage s udge.
Do not use a colloquial name.
b, Provide the name, title, and work
telephone number of a person who is
thoroughly faxni.liar with the operation
of the facility receiving the sewage
sludge, and who can be contacted by the
permitting authority if necessary.
c. Provide the complete mailing
address of the receiving facility where
correspondence should be sent.
d. Provide the total dry metric tons
per 365-day period your facility sends to
the receiving facility. Do not include
sewage sludge that other facilities send
to the receivIng facility.
e. Indicate whether the facility
receiving the sewage sludge provides
additional treatment to reduce
pathegens in sewage sludge from your
facility. Also indicate whether Class A
or Class S pathogen reduction is
-------
62652 Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6. 1995 / Proposed Rules
achieved before the sewage sludge
leaves the receiving facility.
Options for meeting Class A pathogen
reduction are listed at § 503.32(a).
Options for meeting Class B pathogen
reduction are listed at § 503.32(b).
Provide a written description of any
treatment processes used at the
receiving facility to reduce pathogens in
sewage sludge including an indication
of how the treatment fulfills one of the
options for meeting Class A or Class B
pathogen reduction. You may attach
existing documentation (e.g.. technical
or process specifications) to meet this
requirement.
f. Indicate whether the facility
receiving the sewage sludge provides
additional treatment to reduce vector
attraction characteristics of the sewage
sludge from your facility. Also indicate
whether any of vector attraction
reduction options 1—8 are met before the
sewage sludge leaves the receiving
facility. Options 1—8 are typically met at
the point of sewage sludge generation or
treatment; additional options are
available, but these are typically met at
the point of use or disposal.
Land application: Sewage sludge
applied to agricultural land, forest, a
public contact site, or a reclamation site
must meet one of vector attraction
reduction options 1—10, whIch are
defined at § 503.33(b) (1)—(1o),
respectively. Sewage sludge applied to a
Lawn or home garden, or placed in a bag
or other container for sale or give-away
for application to the land, must meet
one of vector attraction reduction
options 1—8, defined at § 503.33(b) (1)—
(8), respectively.
Surface disposal: Sewage sludge
placed on an active sewage sludge unit
meet one of vector attraction reduction
options 1—11. which are defined at
§ 503.33(b) (1)—(ii), respectively.
Provide a written description of any
treatment processes used at the
receiving facility to reduce vector
attraction reduction characteristics of
sewage sludge. including an indication
of how the treatment fulflhI one of
options 1—8 for vector attraction
reduction. You may attach existing
documentation (e.g., technical or
process specifications) to meet this
requirement.
g. Provide a written description of any
other treatment or blending not
described in B.6.e or B.6.f above. This
does not include dewateruig of sewage
sludge. You may attach existing
documentation (e.g., technical or
process specifications) to meet this
requirement.
h. U you generate sewage sludge or
derive a material from sewage sludge,
and you provide that sewage sludge to
another person who derives a material
from the sewage sludge, § 5 03.12(g)
requires you to provide that person with
notice and necessary information to
comply with land application
requirements of Part 503. If you
answered “yes” to B.6.e, B.6.f. or B.6.g,
the receiving facility is a “person who
prepares sewage sludge” and you must
provide, with this application, a copy of
any notice and other information you
provide to the receiving facility.
i. If the receiving facility places
sewage sludge from your facility in a
bag or other container for sale or give-
away for application to the land,
provide a copy of all labels or notices
that accompany the product being sold
or given away.
A bag or other container includes an
open or closed receptacle such as a
bucket, box, carton, or vehicle or trailer
with a load capacity of one metric ton
or less.
When sewage sludge is placed in a
bag or other container for sale or give-
away for application to the land, either
a label must be affixed to the bag or
other container, or an information sheet
must be provided to the person
receiving tke sewage sludge. The label
or information sheet must contain the
following information:
• The name and address of the person
who prepared the sewage sludge that is
sold or given away in a bag or other
container for application to the land;
• A statement that application of the
sewage sludge to the land is prohibited
except in accordance with the
instructions on the label or information
sheet: and
• The annual whole sludge
application rate for the sewage sludge
that does not cause any of the annual
pollutant loading rates in Table 4 of
§ 503.13 to be exceeded.
B.7. Land Application of Bulk Sewage
Sludge. Complete this section if bulk
sewage sludge from your facility is
sprayed or spread onto the land surface,
injected below the land surface, or
incorporated into the soil in order to
condition the soil or fertilize crops or
vegetation grown in the soil.
Skip this section, however, for sewage
sludge that is:
• Covered in Section 8.4 (i.e.. it meets
the ceiling concentrations in Table I of
§ 503.13(b)(1), the pollutant
concentrations in Table 3 of
§ 503.13(bli3), the Class A pathogen
reduction requirements in § 503.32(a),
and one of the vector attraction
reduction options in § 503.33(b)(1).(8));
1
• Covered in Section 8.5 (i.e., it is
placed in a bag or other container for
sale or give-away for application to the
land): or
• Covered in Section B.6 (i.e.. it is
sent to another facility for treatment or
for blending).
Bulk sewage sludge is defined as
sewage sludge that is not sold or given
away in a bag or other container for
application to the land. (A bog or other
container includes an open or closed
receptacle such as a bucket, box, carton,
or vehicle or trailer with a load capacity
of one metric ton or less.)
If you complete this section (which
requests summary information for all
bulk sewage sluage that is applied to the
land), also complete Section C for each
land application site.
a. Provide the total dry metric tons
per 365.day period your facility sends to
all land application sites. Do not
include sewage sludge sent to land
application sites by other facilities.
b. Indicate whether all land
application sites are identified in
Section C of this application. If you are
not identifying all sites in Section C,
provide a copy of the land application
plan with this permit application.
(Information is collected in Section C
for each land application site that has
been identified at the time of permit
application.)
Current regulations require you to
submit a land application plan at the
time of permit application if you intend
to apply sewage sludge to land
application sites that have not been
identified at the time of permit
app lication. (This requirement does not
apply if your sewage sludge meets the
ceiling concentrations in Table 1 of
§ 503.13(b)(1), the pollutant
concentrations in Table 3 of
§ 503.13(b)(3), the Class A pathogen
reduction requirements in § 503.32(a),
and one of the vector attraction
reduction options in § 503.33(b) (1)—(8).)
At a mininium, the land application
plan must:
• Describe the geographical area
covered by the plan;
• Identify site selection criteria;
• Describe how sites will be managed:
• Provide for advance notice to the
permitting authority of specific land
application sites and a reasonable time
for the permitting authority to object
prior to the sewage sludge application;
and
• Provide for advance public notice
as required by State and local law, but
in all cases require notice to land
owners and occupants adjacent to or
abutting the proposed land application
sites.
The permit writer will work with you
to develop additional details of the land
application plan on a case-by-case basis.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
62653
Such details include site selection
criteria (site slope, run-on and run-off
control. etc.) and site management
guidelines (sludge application rates,
access controls. etc.).
The land application plan is an
alternative to either (1) requiring
identification of, and permit conditions
for, all potential land application sites at
the time of permit issuance, or (2)
requiring an individual permit action
for each approval of a land application
site. A land application plan provides
for public notice when the land
application plan is developed as part of
the permit, and it discusses how the
public will be notified on a case-by-case
basis. For this reason, public notice of
the permit will be required to reach
areas within the territorial scope of the
land application plan. The public notice
must indicate that the permit includes
a land application plan. and the fact
sheet must briefly describe the contents
of the land application plan.
c. If any land application sites are
located in States other than the State
where you generate the bulk sewage
sludge or derive the material from
sewage sludge. describe how the
permitting authority will be notified in
the States where the land application
sites are located.
The permitting authority is either
• The State, In cases where the State
has an EPA-approved sewage srudge
management program; or
• The EPA Region, in cases where a
State sewage sludge management
program has not yet been approved.
The notice must include the
following:
• The physical location, by either
street address qr latitude and longitude,
of each land application site;
• The approximate time period bulk
sewage sludge will be applied to the
site;
• The name, address, and telephone
number of the person who prepares the
bulk sewage sludge and the NPDES
permit number (if applicable) of their
facihty; and
• The name, address, and telephone
number of the person who will apply
the bulk sewage sludge and the NPDES
permit number (if applicable) for their
facility.
B.8. Surface Disposal. Complete this
section 11 sewage sludge from your
facility is placed on a surface disposal
site. If you own or operate a surface
disposal site, also complete Section D.
a. Provide the total dry metric tons
per 365-day period that Is sent from
your facility to all surface disposal sites.
Do not Include sewage sludge sent to
surface disposal sites by other facilities.
A surface disposal site is an area of
land that contains one or more active
sewage sludge units. An active sewage
sludge unit is a sewage sludge unit that
has not closed. A sewage sludge unit is
land on which only sewage sludge is
placed for final disposal. excluding land
on which sewage sludge is either stored
or treated.
b. If sewage sludge from your facility
is placed on any surface disposal sites
that you do not own or operate,
complete B.8.c.-B.8.f for each surface
disposal site that you do not own or
operate. 11 you send sewage sludge to
more than one surface disposal site that
you do not own or operate, attach
additional pages as necessary.
c. Provide the official or legal name
(or number) of the site receiving the
sewage sludge. Do not use a colloquial
name.
d. Provide the name, title, and work
telephone number of a person who is
thoroughly familiar with the operation
of the surface disposal site, and who can
be contacted by the permitting authority
If necessary.
Indicate whether the facility contact is
the site owner, the site operator, or both.
For purposes of this form, the owner is
the person that owns a part of or the
entire facility. The operator is the
person responsible for the overall
operation of the facility, and may be
different from the owner. In general, the
operator Is the parson responsible for
the daily functioning of the facility.
including sewage sludge use or
disposal.
e. Provide the complete mailing
address for the surface disposal site
where correspondence should be sent.
f. Provide the total dry metric tons of
sewage sludge per 365-day period from
your facility placed on this surface
disposal site. Do not include sewage
sludge sent to this surface disposal site
by other facilities.
B.9. Incineration. Complete this
section if sewage sludge from your
facility is fired in a sewage sludge
incinerator. If you own or operate a
sewage sludge incinerator, also
complete Section E.
a. Provide the total dry metric tons of
sewage sludge per 365-day period that
is sent from your facility to all sewage
sludge incinerators. Do not include
sewage sludge sent to sewage sludge
incinerators by other facilities.
A sewage sludge incinerator is an
enclosed device in which sewage sludge
and awdliary fuel are fired. Auxiliar/
fuel Is fuel used to augment the fuel
value of sewage sludge. including
natu.ral gas. fuel oil, coal, gas generated
during anaerobic digestion of sewage
sludge. and municipal solid waste (not
to exceed 30 percent of the dry weight
of sewage sludge and auxiliary fuel
together).
b. If you do not own or operate a
sewage sludge incinerator in which
sewage sludge from your facility is fired.
complete B.9.c—B.9.f each sewage sludge
incinerator that you do not own or
operate.
c. Provide the official or legal name or
number of the sewage sludge
incinerator. Do not use a colloquial
name.
d. Provide the name, title, and work
telephone number of a person who is
thoroughly Familiar with the operation
of the sewage sludge incinerator, and
who can be contacted by the permitting
authority If necessary.
Indicate whether the incinerator
contact is the owner, the operator. or
both. For purposes of this form, the
owner is the person that owns a part of
or the entire facility. The operator is the
person responsible for the overall
operation of the facility, and may be
different from the owner. In general, the
operator Is the person responsible for
the daily functioning of the facility.
including sewage sludge use or
disposal.
e. Provide the complete mailing
address at the sewage sludge incinerator
where correspondence should be sent.
£ Provide the total dry metric tons of
sewage sludge per 365-day period from
your facility fired in this sewage sludge
incinerator. Do not include sewage
sludge sent to this incinerator by other
facilities.
B.10. Disposal on a Municipal Solid
Waste Landfill.
Complete this section if sewage
sludge from your facility is placed on a
municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF)
unit.
Provide the information in this
section once for each MSWLF on which
sewage sludge from your facility is
placed. If sewage sludge from your
facility is placed on more than one
MSWLF. attach additional pages as
necessary.
The Part 503 sewage sludge use or
disposal regulation does not impose
additional requirements on sewage
sludge that is sent to a MSWLF, but they
cross-reference existing criteria for
MSWLFs at 40 CFR Part 258. Therefore.
if sewage sludge from your facility is
placed on a MSWLF unit, your permit
must contain conditions regulating such
disposal.
A MSWLF unit Is a discrete area of
lend or an excavation that receives
household waste, and that is not a land
application unit, surface impoundment.
injection well, or waste pile, as those
terms are defined under § 257.2. A
-------
62654 Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 234 1 Wednesday, December 6. 1995/Proposed Rules
MSWLF unit also may receive other
types of RCRA subtitle D wastes, such
as commercial solid waste,
noniiazardous sludge, small quantity
generator waste and industrial solid
waste. Such a landfill may be publicly
or privately owned.
a. Provide the official or legal name of
the MSWLF. Do not use a colloquial
name.
b. Provide the name, title, and work
telephone number of a person who is
thoroughly familiar with the operation
of the MSWLF, and who can be
contacted by the permitting authority if
necessary.
c. Provide the complete mailing
address for the MSWLF where
correspondence should be sent. This
may differ from the MSWLF location
given below.
d. Provide the physical location
(street address) of the MSWLF. If the
MSWLF lacks a street address or route
number, provide the most accurate
alternative geographic information (e.g.,
township and range, section or quarter
section number, nearby highway
intersection).
e. Provide the total dry metric tons
per 365-day period that is sent from
your facility to this MSWLF. Do not
include sewage sludge sent to the
MSWLF by other facilities.
f. Provide the number and type of any
relevant Federal, State, or local
environmental permits or construction
approvals received or applied for by the
MSWLF.
g. Submit information to determine
whether the sewage sludge placed on
this MSWLF meets applicable
requirements for disposal of sewage
sludge on a MSWLF.
Sewage sludge placed on a MSWLF
must meet requirements in Part 258
concerning the quality of materials
placed on a MSWLF unit. In particular:
Placement on a MSWLF of bulk or
noncontainerized liquid waste, as
determined using the Paint Filter
Liquids Test (Method 9095 in “Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes,
Physical/Chemical Methods—EPA Pub.
No. SW-846.), is prohibited.
• Placement on a MSWLF of a
regulated hazardous waste, as defined In
40 CFR 281.3, is prohibited.
• U sewage sludge is used as a cover
at a MSWLF, the MSWLF owner/
operator must demonstrate that the
sewage sludge is suitable for use as a
cover, and that it provides sufficient
control of disease vectors, flies, odors,
blowing litter, and scavenging and does
not present a threat to human health
and the environment.
h. Indicate whether the MSWLF
complies with criteria set forth in 40
R Part 258.
Part 258 specifies minimum Federal
criteria for MSWLFS, including landfills
that accept sewage sludge along with
household waste. Among these
requirements are location resthctlons,
facility design and operating criteria,
ground-water monitoring, and corrective
action, closure and post-closure care.
along with financial assurance
requirements. In contrast to Part 503,
Part 258 controls sewage sludge placed
on MSWLFs through a facility design
and management practice approach. In
Part 503, EPA has adopted the Part 258
criteria as the appropriate standard for
sewage sludge disposed of with
municipal waste. EPA concluded that if
sewage sludge is disposed of in a
MSWLF complying with Part 258
criteria, public health and the
environment are protected.
Note that the POTW is legally
responsible for knowing whether a
MSWLF is in compliance with Part 258
and may be liable if it sends its sludge
to an MSWLF that is not in compliance
with Part 258.
Section C: L.and Application of Bulk
Sewage Sludge
Complete this section if you
completed Section B.7 (Land
Application of Bulk Sewage Sludge).
Unless the permitting authority
specifically requires you to complete
this section, you may skip this section
for sewage sludge that is covered in any
of the following sections of this.
application:
• Section 8.4 (the sewage sludge
meets the ceiling concentrations in
Table 1 of § 503.13(b)(l). the pollutant
concentrations in Table 3 of
§ 503.13(b)(3), the Class A pathogen
reduction requirements in § 503.32(a),
and one of the vector attraction
reduction options in § 503.33(b) (1)—(8)).
Such sewage sludges are exempt from
the general requirements and
management practices of Part 503 when
they are land applied (unless the
permitting authority requires
otherwise), and thus the site
information in Section C is not required
for permitting.
• Section B.5 (the sewage sludge Is
placed in a bag or other container for
sale or give-away for application to the
land). Section C does not cover the sale
or give-away of sewage sludge in a bag
or other container for application to the
land because EPA typically will not
control the users of such sewage sludge
(typically, home gardeners or other
small-scale users). or the land on which
the sludge is applied, through. the
generator’s permit.
• Section 8.6 (the sewage sludge is
sent to another facility for treatment or
for blending). Section C does not apply
to a generator that sends sewage sludge
to another facility for treatment or for
blending, because the Part 503
requirements addressed by Section C
will largely be the responsibility of the
receiving facility.
Bulk sewage sludge is defined as
sewage sludge that is not sold or given
away in a bag or other container for
application to the land. (A bag or other
container includes an open or closed
receptacle such as a bucket, box, carton,
or vehicle or trailer with a load capacity
of one metric ton or less.)
Provide the information in this
section for eoch land application site
that has been identified at the time of
permit application. Attach additional
pages as necessary. In cases where the
sewage sludge is applied to numerous
sites with similar characteristics, you
may combine the information for several
sites under a single response (the name
and address of each site must still be
provided, however).
C,i. Identification of Land
Application Site.
a. Provide the site name or number.
The name or number is any designation
commonly used to refer to the site. If thi
site has been previously designated in
another permit, use that designation.
b. Answer either question 1 or
question 2.
1. Provide the physical location (Street
address) of the land application site. If
the site lacks a street address or route
number, provide the most accurate
alternative geographic information (e g..
township and range. section or quarter
section number, nearby highway
intersection).
2. Provide the latitude and longitude
of the facility. If a map was used to
obtain latitude and longitude, provide
map datum (e.g., NAD 27, NAD 83) and
map scale (e.g., 1:24000, 1:100000).
C.2. Owner Information.
a. Indicate whether you are the owner
of this land application site. For
purposes of this form, the owner is the
person that owns a part of or the entire
land application site.
b. If you are not the owner of this land
application site; provide the name.
telephone number, and complete
mailing address for the site owner.
C,3. Applier Information.
a. Indicate whether you are the person
who applies sewage sludge to this land
application site.
b. If you are not the person who
applies sewage sludge to this land
application site, provide the name,
-------
Federal Register if Vol. 60. No. 234 I Wednesday. December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
62655
telephone number, and mailing address
of the person who applies sewage
Ige to this land application site.
4. Site Type. The “type of land
d )plicauOri site” is the uitended end use
of the land. Part 503 regulates bulk
sewage sludge applied to agricultural
land, forest, public contact sites.
reclamation sites, and lawns and home
gardens. Proper identification of the
type of land application site is
important because the applicable Part
503 requirements—end thus permit
conditions—differ according to the type
of site.
Agricultural land is land on which a
food crop, a feed crop, or a fiber crop
is grown. This includes range land.
which is open land with Indigenous
vegetation, and pasture. which is land
on which animals feed directly on crops
such as grasses. grain stubble, or stover.
Forest is a tract of land thick with
trees and underbrush.
A public contact site Is land with a
high potential for contact by the public.
Public contact sites include public
parks, ball fields, cemeteries, plant
nurseries, turf farms, and golf courses.
A reclamation site is land that has
been drastically disturbed by strip
m i ning. fixes, construction. etc. As part
of the reclamation process. sewage
cludge Is applied for its nutrient and
1 conditioning properties to help
Abilize and revegetate the land.
C.5. Crop or Other Vegetation Grown
on Site.
a. Identify the type of cop or other
vegetation grown on this land
application site. If the crop or vegetation
to be grown on the site is not yet known,
or is likely to change in an
unforeseeable manner during the life of
the permit, you may so indicate instead
of provid.ing the type of cop or other
vegetation.
b. Provide the nitrogen requirement
for the crop or other vegetation Listed in
C.5.a. Information on the nitrogen
content of vegetation grown on the site
may be obtained from local agricultural
extension services, a local Farm
Advisor’s Office. or published sources.
C.6. Vector Attraction Reduction.
Identify any vector attraction reduction
requirements that are met at the land
application site.
a. Specifically. indicate whether
vector attraction reduction option 9
(Injection belOw soil surface) or option
10 (incorporation into soil wIthin 6
hours) is met.
Bulk sewage sludge that is applied to
the land may meet any of vector
‘ ttract1on reduction options 1—10. as
jentified in § 503.33(b) (1)—(lo),
respectively. Options 1—8 were covered
In Section B.3, which requests
information on sewage sludge treatment
at the facility generating the sewage
sludge. If you met any of options 1-8
(e.g., processes to red ce volatile solids.
reduce specific oxygen uptake rate, raise
pH, raise percent solids), you should
have identified that option in Question
B.3.c and described how the option is
met in Question B.3.d.
By contrast, vector attraction
reduction options 9 and 10 are typically
met at the land application site. Options
9 and 10 are not available for sewage
sludge applied to a lawn or home
garden.
b. Provide a written description of
how the vector attraction reduction is
met.
C.7. Ground-Water Monitoring. If any
ground-water monitoring data are
available for this land application site,
submit the following with the
application:
• Available ground-water monitoring
data; and
• A written description of the well
locations. approximate depth to ground
water, and the ground-water monitoring
procedures used to obtain these data
(you may attach e,dsting documentation
to fulfill this requirement).
For purposes of this form, ground-
water monitoring means the Installation
and periodic sampling and analysts of
small-diameter wells screened in the
aquifer below the base of the deepest
active sewage sludge unit.
C.8. Cumulative Loadings and
Remaining Allotments.
Complete Section C.8. only for sewage
sludge that is applied to the site subject
to cumulative pollutant loading rates
(CPL.Rs). Sewage sludge applied to the
site on or before July 20, 1993, is not
subject to this section.
a. Indicate whether you have
contacted the permitting authority in
the State where the bulk sewage sludge
will be applied to ascertain whether
bulk sewage sludge subject to CPLRs has
been applied to the site since July 20.
1993.
If applicable. provide the name of the
permitting authority and the name and
phone number of the contact person at
the permitting authority.
You may not apply bulk sewage
sludge subject to CPLRs to the site until
you have contacted the permitting
authority in that State.
The permitting authontyis either.
• The State. in cases where the State
has an EPA-approved sewage sludge
management program; or
• The EPA Region. in cases where a
State sewage sludge management
program has not yet been approved.
If you answered yes to C.8.a, continue
on to C.6.b. If you answered no, skip the
rest of Section C.8.
b. Indicate whether, based on your
investigation in Section C.8.a or other
information, sewage sludge subject to
CPLRs has been applied to the site since
July 20, 1993.
If you answered yes to C.8.b, continue
on to C.8.c. If you answered no. skip the
rest of Section C.8.
c. Provide the following information
for every other facility that sends (or has
sent since July 20. 1993) bulk sewage
sludge subject to CPLRs to this site:
• The official or legal name of the
facility. Do not use a colloquial name.
• If available, the name, title, and
work telephone number of a person who
Is thoroughly familiar with the facility,
and who can be contacted by the
permitting authority if necessary.
• The complete mailing address at the
facility where correspondence should be
sent.
Section D: Surface Disposal
Complete this section if you own or
operate a surface disposal site and are
required to submit a full permit
application (i.e., Part 2 of Form 2S) at
this time.
A sewage sludge surface disposal site
Is. by definition, a treatment works
treating domestic sewage, and the
owner/operator of the site is required to
apply for a permit. You are required to
sub ixu(Part 2 of this form (Including
Section D) If:
• The surface disposal site is already
covered by an NPDES permit (e g., a
POTW’s NPDES permit);
• You are requesting site-specific
pollutant limits for an active sewage
sludge unit at the surface disposal site;
or
• You have been required by the
permitting authority to submit a full
permit application at this time.
If none of these criteria apply, you
should submit Part I instead of Part 2
(and may therefore skip Section Dl. Part
1 requests a limited amount of
information from so-called “sludge-
only” facilities (facilities without a
currently-effective NPDES permit) that
are not requesting site-specific permit
limits and are not otherwise required to
submit a full permit application at this
time. Part I is intended to allow the
permitting authority to identify these
facilities, track sewage sludge use and
disposal. and establish priorities for
permitting.
D.1. Information on Active Sewage
Sludge Units. Complete Sections Dl.
through D5 for each active sewage
sludge unit you own or operate. If you
own or operate more than one active
-------
62656 Federal Register / Vol. 60. t Io. 234 / Wednesday, December
6, 1g95 . / Proposed Rules
sewage sludge unit, attach additional
pages as necessary.
An active sewage sludge unit is an
area of land on which only sewage
sludge is placed for final disposal.
Sewage sludge units include, but are not
limited to, natural topographical
depressions, man-made excavations, or
diked areas designed to dispose of (not
treat) sewage sludge. Sewage sludge
units do not include areas where sewage
sludge is generated as a result of
ongoing treatment (e.g., polishing
ponds) or land on which sewage sludge
is placed for either treatment or storage.
Sewage sludge may be stored on an area
of land for a period equal to or less than
two years. If sewage sludge remains on
an area of land for greater than two
years, the person who prepares the
sewage sludge must develop a rationale
for why the land should not be
considered an active sewage sludge
unit.
Most requirements for surface
disposal of sewage sludge under Part
503 pertain to individual active sewage
sludge units at a surface disposal Site.
Permit conditions for your facility may
be developed on a unit-by-unit basis, or
may be developed for the entire surface
disposal site if all units are sufficiently
similar.
a. Provide the name or number of the
active sewage sludge unit. The name or
number is any designation commonly
used to refer to the unit. If the active
sewage sludge unit has been previously
designated in another permit, use that
designation.
b. Provide the physical location (Street
address) of the active sewage sludge
unit. If the active sewage sludge unit
lacks a street address or route number,
provide the most accurate alternative
geographic information (e.g.. township
and range, section or quarter section
number, nearby highway intersection).
c. Provide the total dry methc tons
per 365-day period placed on the active
sewage sludge unit. The amount of
sewage sludge placed on an active
sewage sludge unit determines the
frequency of monitoring for sewage
sludge placed on the active sewage
sludge unit.
d. Provide the total number of dry
metric tons of sewage sludge placed on
the active sewage sludge unit over the
life of the unit to date.
e. Indicate whether the active sewage
sludge unit has a liner. A liner is
defined as soil or synthetic material
with a maximum hydraulic conductivity
(permeability) of I x 10’ cm/sec.
If the active sewage sludge unit has a
liner, describe the material from which
the liner is constructed and specify the
design hydraulic conductivity of that
material.
f. Indicate whether the active sewage
sludge unit has a I chate collection
system. A leachate collection system is
a system or device installed
immediately above a liner that is
designed, constructed, maintained, and
operated to collect and remove leachate
from a sewage sludge unit.
If the active sewage sludge unit has a
leachate collection system, describe
how the system is designed and
operated. Also describe the method
used for leachate disposal, such as
discharge to surface water (provide all
applicable permit numbers) or disposal
at a hazardous waste treatment, storage,
or disposal facility (provide Federal,
State. and local permit numbers for this
facility).
g. If you answered yes to both D.1.e
and D.i.f, pollutant limits do not apply
to the active sewage sludge un.it.
If the boundary of the active sewage
sludge unit without a liner and leachate
collection system is less than 150 meters
from the property line of the surface
disposal site, provide the actual
distance in meters.
When the boundary of an active
sewage sludge unit without a liner and
leachate collection system is less than
150 meters from the property line of the
surface disposal site, the pollutant
limits for the unit are determined
according to the actual distance, as
indicated in Table 2 of § 503.23.
h. Provide the remaining capacity of
the active sewage sludge unit, in dry
metric tons, and the anticipated closure
date of the active sewage sludge unit, if
known. Attach to the application a copy
of any closure plan that has been
developed for the active sewage sludge
unit.
D.2. Sewage Sludge from Other
Facilities. If sewage sludge is sent to this
active sewage sludge unit by any
facilities other than your facility.
complete this section for each such
facility. If sewage sludge from more than
one facility other than your facility is
placed on this active sewage sludge
unit, attach additional pages as
necessary.
a. Provide the official or legal name of
the facility providing the sewage sludge.
Do not use a colloquial name.
b. Provide the name, title, and work
telephone number of a person who is
thoroughly familiar with the operation
of the facility that is providing the
sewage sludge, and who can be
contacted by the permitting authority if
necessary.
c. Provide the complete mailing
address of the facility providing the
sewage sludge.
d. Indicate the class of pathogen
reduction that is achieved before sewage
sludge leaves the facility that genern” .
the sewage sludge.
Options for meeting Class A path -
reduction are listed at § 503.32(a).
Options for meeting Class B pathogen
reduction are listed at § 503.32(b).
e. Provide a written description of any
treatment processes used at the facility
providing the sewage sludge to reduce
pathogens in the sewage sludge,
including, where applicable, how the
treatment fulfills one of the options for
meeting Class A or Class B pathogen
reduction. You may attach existing
documentation (e.g., technical or
process specifications) to meet this
requirement.
f. Indicate whether any of the vector
attraction reduction options 1—8, (at
§ 503.33(b) (1)—(8), respectively) are met
at the facility providing the sewage
sludge. Options 1—8 are typically met at
the point of sewage sludge generation.
Additional options are available, but
these are typically met at the point of
disposal.
You may select “none or unknown”
only if option 9 (injection below land
surface), option 10 (incorporation into
soil within six hours), or option 11
(daily cover) is met at the point of
disposal at this active sewage sludge
unit (see Section D.3.a).
g. Provide a written description of
treatment processes used at the facility
providing the sewage sludge to reduce
vector attraction reduction
characteristics of sewage sludge.
including an indication of how the
treatment fulfills one of options 1—8 for
vector attraction reduction. You may
attach existing documentation (e.g.,
technical or process specifications) to
meet this requirement.
h. Provide a written description of
any other treatment processes at the
facility providing the sewage sludge that
are not described in D.2.d—D.2.g. You
may attach existing documentation (e.g.,
technical or process specifications) to
meet this requirement,
D.3. Vector Attraction Reduction.
Complete this section for each active
sewage sludge unit.
a. Indicate whether any of vector
attraction reduction options 9—11 (at
§503.33(b) (9)—{ii), respectively) are
met when the sewage sludge is placed
on this active sewage sludge unit.
Sewage sludge placed on an active
sewage sludge unit must meet one of
vector attraction reduction options
defined at § 503.33(b) (i)—(ii). Options
1—8 are typically met at the point of
sewage sludge generation (see Questic
D.2fl. Options 9—11 are typically met..
the point of disposal.
-------
Federal Register / Vol 60. No 234 / Wednescay December 6. 1995 / Proposea Ru:e
b2657
b. Provide a written descripuon of an
treatment processes used at the active
ewage sludge unit to reduce vector
Itraction reduction characteristics of
sewage sludge. including an indication
of how the treatment fulfills one of
options 9—11 for vector attraction
reduction. You may attach existing
documentation (e.g.. technical or
process specifications) to meet this
requirement.
D.4. Ground-Water Monitonng.
Placement of sewage sludge on an
active sewage sludge unit must not
contaminate an aquifer. Compliance
must be demonstrated through either:
(1) the results of a ground-water
monitoring program developed by a
qualified ground-water scientist, or (2)
certification by a qualified ground-water
scientist that contamination has not
occurred.
Contaminate an aquifer means to
introduce a substance that causes the
maximum contaminant level (MCL) for
nitrate in 40 CFR 141.11 to be exceeded
in ground water, or that causes the
existing concentration of nitrate in
ground water to increase when the
existing concentration of nitrate in the
ground water exceeds the MCL for
nitrate in 40 CFR 141.11.
The MCL for nitrate is 10 rnilLigrams/
t iter.
This section solicits existing ground-
water monitoring data and other
documentation to indicate the potential
for contamination of an aquifer at the
active sewage sludge unit, and the
capability of the owner/operator of the
surface disposal site to demonstrate that
contamination has not occurred.
a. If ground-water monitoring is
conducted for this active sewage sludge
unit, provide the following:
• Available ground-water monitoring
data; and
• A written description of the well
locations, approximate depth to ground
water, and the ground-water monitoring
procedures used to obtain these data
(you may attach existing documentation
to fulfill this requirement).
For purposes of this application.
ground-water monitoring means the
installation and periodic sampling and
analysis of small-diameter wells in the
aquifer below the base of the deepest
active sewage sludge unit.
b. If a ground-water monitoring
program has been prepared for this
active sewage sludge unit (regardless of
whether ground-water monitoring Is
currently conducted), submit a copy of
the program with this permit
pplication. The program should
include the number, depth. and location
of all wells; the frequency and method
of sampling, and the parameters for
which the ground water is tested.
c. If you have obtained a certification
from a qualified ground-water scientist
that contamination of the aquifer below
the active sewage sludge unit has not
occurred, submit a copy of the
certification with this permit
application.
A qualified ground-water scientist is
an individual with a baccalaureate or
post-graduate degree in the natural
sciences or engineering who has
sufficient training and experience in
ground-water hydrology and related
fields, as may be demonstrated by State
registration. professional certification,
or completion of accredited university
programs. to make sound professional
judgments regarding ground-water
monitoring, pollutant fate and transport.
and corrective action.
D.5. Site-Specific Limits. Indicate
whether you are seeking site-specific
pollutant limits in your permit for the
sewage sludge placed on this active
sewage sludge unit.
After August 18, 1993. you are
allowed to seek site-specific pollutant
limits only for good cause, and must do
so within 180 days of becoming aware
that good cause exists. If you request
site-specific pollutant limits with this
permit application, you are required to
submit information supporting the
request, Including a demonstration that
existing values for site parameters
specified by the permitting authority
differ from the values for those
parameters used to develop the
pollutant limits in Table I of § 503.23.
You must also submit follow-up
information at the request of the
permitting authority.
If the permitting authority determines
that site-specific pollutant limits are
appropriate, the permitting authority
may specify site-specific limits in the
permit as long as the existing
concentrations of the pollutants in the
sewage sludge are not exceeded.
Section E: Incineration
Complete this section if you own or
operate a sewage sludge incinerator. If
you own or operate more than one
sewage sludge incinerator, complete this
section for each incinerator unit. Attach
additional pages as necessary.
A sewage sludge incinerator is, by
definition, a treatment works treating
domestic sewage. and the owner/
operator of a sewage sludge incinerator
Is required to submit a full permit
application (I.e., Part 2 of Form 2S).
Li. Incinerator Identification.
a. Provide the name or number of the
sewage sludge incinerator unit. The
name or number is any designation
commonly used to refer to the unit. If
the unit has been previously designated
in another permit. use that dr’signation
b. Provide the physical location (street
address) of the sewage sludge
incinerator. If the incinerator lacks a
street address or route number, provide
the most accurate alternative geographic
information (e.g., township and range,
section or quarter section number,
nearby highway intersection).
E.2. Amount Fired. Provide the total
dry metric tons of sewage sludge (dry
weight basis) fired in the sewage sludge
incinerator unit per 365-day period.
E.3. Beryllium NESHAP.
The firing of sewage sludge in a
sewage sludge incinerator must not
violate the National Emission Standard
(NESHAP) for beryllium as established
in Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 61. The
beryllium NESHAP only applies.
however, to sewage sludge incinerators
fixing ‘beryllium-contaui.ing waste.”
The beryllium NESHAP is 10 grams of
beryllium in the exit gas over a 24-hour
period, unless the incinerator owner/
operator has been approved to meet a
30-day average ambient concentration
limit on beryllium in the vicinity of the
sewage sludge incinerator of 0.01 jig/rn 3 .
Complete this section to demonstrate
compliance with the beryllium
NESHAP.
a. Indicate whether sewage sludge
fired in this sewage sludge incinerator is
- beryllium-contAlning’waste. Beryllium-
containing waste is material
contaminated with beryllium or
beryllium compounds used or generated
during any process or operation
performed by one of several sources
Submit information, test data, and a
description of measures taken that
demonstrate whether the sewage sludge
fired in this sewage sludge incinerator is
beryllium-containrng waste, and will
continue to remain as such.
b. If the sewage sludge fired in this
sewage sludge incinerator is beryllium-
containing waste, submit a complete
report of the latest beryllium emission
rate testing, as well as documentation of
ongoing incinerator operating
parameters indicating that the NESHAP
emission rate limit for beryllium has
been and will continue to be met.
E.4. Mercury NESHAP.
The firing of sewage sludge in a
sewage sludge incinerator must not
violate the NESHAP for mercury as
established in Subpart E of 40 CFR Part
61. Complete this section to
demonstrate compliance with the
mercury NESHAP.
a. Indicate whether stack testing or
sewage sludge sampling Is being used to
demonstrate compliance with the
mercury NESHAP. If stack testing is
-------
62658 Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 I Proposed Rules
used, complete E.4.b. below. if sewage
sludge sampling is used, complete EAc.
below.
b. Stack testing option. Stack testing
must be conducted using Method lOlA
in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix S
(“Determination of Particujate and
Gaseous Mercury Emission ., from
Sewage Sludge Incinerators”). The total
quantity of mercury emitted into the
atmosphere from all incinerators at a
site must not exceed 3200 grains over a
24-hourperiod.
If stack testing is used, submit the
following with this application:
A complete report of stack testing
and documentation of ongoing
incinerator Operating parameters
indicating that the incinerator has and
will continue to meet the mercury
NESHAP emission rate limit.
• Copies of mercwy emission rate
tests for the two most recent years in
which testing was conducted.
C. Sampling option. Sewage sludge
must be sampled and analyzed using
Method 105 in 40 CFR Part 61
Appendix B (“Determination of Mercury
in Wastewater Treatment Plant Sewage
Sludge”), and the mercury emissions
calculated using the following equation
must not exceed 3200 grams over a 24-
hour period:
= ( M)x(Q)x(F ( )
where:
E ,=inercury emissions, g/day
M=inercury concentration In sewage
sludge on a dry solids basis, in
micrograms/gram
Q=sludge charging rate, in kg/day
F weight fraction of solids In the
collected sewage sludge after
mixing.
if sewage sludge sampling is used,
submit a complete report of sewage
sludge sampling and documentation of
Ongoing incinerator operating
parameters indicating that the
Incinerator has and will continue to
meet the mercury NESHAP emission
rate limit.
E.5. Dispersion Factor -
a. Provide the dispersion factor, in
micrograms/cubic meter/gram/secon
for the sewage sludge incinerator.
The dispersion factor is the ratio of
the increase in the ground-level ambient
air concentration for a pollutant at or
beyond the property line of the site
where the sewage sludge incinerator Is
Located to the mass emission rate for the
pollutant from the incinerator stack. The
dispersion factor is calculated
individually by each applicant based on
the results of an air dispersion model
specified by the pemutting authority.
b. Provide the name and type of the
air dispersion model used to obtain the
dispersion factor.
Approved air dispersion models are
listed in EPA’s Guideline on Air Quality
Models and EPA’s Support Center for
Regulatory Air Models (SCRAM)
bulletin board. Unless a pro-existing
modeling effort has been used to
calculate dispersion factor (and the
results have been approved by EPA).
you should work closely with the
permitting authority to prepare a
modeling protocol.
c. Submit a copy of the modeling
results and supporting documentation
with this application.
E.6. Control Efficiency.
a. Provide the control efficiency, in
hundredths, for arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, lead, and nickel at this
sewage sludge Incinerator.
Control efficiency Is the mass of a
pollutant in the sewage sludge fed to an
incinerator minus the mass of that
pollutant in the exit gas from the
incinerator stack, divided by the mass of
the pollutant In the sewage sludge fed
to the incinerator.
b. Submit a copy of the results of
performance testing and supporting
documentation, including testing dates.
Control efficiency must be determined
by a performance test, the protocol for
which must be approved by EPA.
F..7. Risk Specific Concentration for
ChromIum. The risk specific
concentration (RSC) for arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, and nickel Is used
to calculate pollutant limits for these
metals in the permit. With the exception
of chromium, the RSC for these metals
Is provided in Table 1 of § 503.43. The
RSC for chromium, however. may be
determined in two ways: (i) it may be
located in Table 2 of § 503.43 accordIng
to the type of indnerator- or (2) it may
be calculated based on the ratio of
hexavalent chromium to total chromium
In the exhaust stack gas.
a. Provide the RSC to be used in
establishing a permit limit for
chromium, in micrograms per cubic
meter.
b. Specify whether the RSC was:
• Provided in Table 2 of § 503.43; or
• Calculated, using Equation 6 in 40
CFR 503.43, based on the ratio of
hexavalent chromium to total chromium
in the exhaust stack gas.
c. If the RSC was looked up in Table
2 of § 503.43. identify which category of
Incinerator type you used to obtain the
RSC.
d. If you calculated the RSC using
Equation 6 in 40 CFR 503.43, provide
the decimal fraction of hexavalent
chromium concentration to total
chromium concentration in the stack
exit gas. Also submit the results of
incinerator stack tests for hexavalent
and total chromium concentrations
including date(s) of test.
E.a. Operational Standard for Totai
Hydrocarbons (THC) or Carbon
Monoxide (CO).
Total hydrocarbons (ThC) means the
organic compounds in the exit gas from
a sewage sludge incinerator stack, as
measured using a flame ionization
detection instrument referenced to
propane. Carbon monoxide (CO) can be
rnomtored instead of THC. The
operational standard for THC or CO
requires that the THC or CO
concentration in the exit gas be
corrected for zero percent moisture and
to seven percent oxygen.
a. Provide the raw value for the THC
or CO concentmtion in stack emissions,
in parts per million (ppm). The raw
value is the concentration measured
directly by the flame ionization
detection instrument.
b. Provide the percent of moisture
content in stack gas. This is used to
correct the raw THC or CO
concentration value for zero percent
moisture.
c. Provide percent oxygen
concentration in stack gas (in dry
volume/dry volume). This is used, after
correction of the THC or CO
concentration for zero percent moisti
to correct the mc or CO concentrati(.
to seven percent oxygen.
d. Provide the corrected value for the
THC or CO concentration in stack
emissions. in ppm. The corrected value
Is the raw concentration, corrected for
zero percent moisture and to seven
percent Oxygen.
The raw mc or CO value is first
corrected for zero percent moisture by
multiplying by the following Correction
factor (from 40 CFR 503.44):
Correction factor (dimensionless) — _____
(0% moisture) — (l—X)
where X Is the decimal fraction of the
percent moisture in the sewage
sludge incinerator exit gas in
hundredths.
The dry value Is then corrected to
seven percent oxygen using the
correction factor determined according
to the following equation
Correction factor(dimensionless) 14
(7% moisture) (2 1-Y)
where Y = percent oxygen concentration
in the sewage sludge incinerator
stack exit gas (dry volume/dry
volume).
e. Submit documentation used to
derive the raw THC or CO
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 234 I Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
62659
concentration, moisture content, oxygen
concentration, and corrected THC or CO
concentration.
E.g. Operating Parameters.
a. Provide the type of sewage sludge
incinerator—i.e.. whether the
incinerator is multiple hearth, fluidized
bed, flash drying. electric furnace, or
other.
b. Provide with the application the
following data on combustion
temperature: temperature data
(including testing date(s)), a description
of temperature measurement and data
recording and handling systems. and a
description of how such combustion
temperature data have been averaged.
The permitting authority will use
performance test data to specify the
maximum combustion temperature in
the permit as a “never to exceed” value.
Regulated facilities must also install,
calibrate, operate, and maintain an
instrument that measures and records
combustion temperatures continuously.
c. Provide the sewage sludge feed rate
in dry metric tons per day, and indicate
whether the average doily amount or the
maximum design capacity feed rate was
used. Submit supporting documentation
describing how the feed rate was
calculated.
The average daily amount feed rate is
the average daily amount of sewage
sludge fired in all sewage sludge
incinerators within the property line of
the site where the sewage sludge
Incinerators are located for the number
of days in a 365-day period that each
sewage sludge incinerator operates.
The maximum design capacity feed
rate is the average daily design capacity
for all sewage sludge incinerators within
the property line of the site where the
sewage sludge incinerators are located.
The permitting authority will use the
feed rate you report as the basis for
calculating pollutant Limits and will
include It as an enforceable condition in
the permit.
d. Provide the incinerator stack height
(In meters) for each stack, and indicate
whether actual or creditable stack height
was used.
The actual stack height is the
difference between the elevation at the
top of the stack and the elevation of the
ground at the base of the stack, when
the difference is equal to or less than 65
meters.
The creditable stack height is used if
the difference is greater than 65 meters.
This is determined in accordance with
40 CFR 51.100(u).
e. Submit information documenting
the operating parameters for the air
pollution control device(s) used for this
sewage sludge incinerator.
E.1O. Monitoring Equipment. Provide
a detailed list of the equipment in place
to monitor total hydrocarbons or caibon
monoxide. percent oxygen. moisture
content, and combustion temperature.
Monitoring equipment includes, but is
not limited to. thermocouples, oxygen
continuous emissions monitors, furnace
temperature gauges, sewage sludge and
awdliary fuel feed rate monitors.
differential pressure detectors, liqiud or
gas flow detectors, and air pollution
control devices.
E.11. Air Pollution Control
Equipment. Provide a list of the
equipment In place to control emissions
from the sewage sludge incinerator
stack. Indicate the type and capacity for
each piece of equipment listed.
(FR Doc. 95—28213 Filed 12—5—95. 845 amj
WWNO cO D
-------
10—10—95
Vol. 60 No. 195
Tuesday
October 10, 1995
J )l)I)Ii 1)))JIIb)HI1)IHII I
A PR SAIC 7IOSCSEP 96 p
SA2 C
EHSG L1ER R’1 MS 1- -8
73O GOODRXDQE DR
MCI .-EAM VA 22102
SECOND CLASS NEWSPAPER
Pc tago and Fe Paaj
US Go eiiirn t Pnntng Office
(ISSI l X97-6 6)
Unfted States
Government
Printing Office
SUPERiNTENDENT
OF DOCUf ENTS
Wa nçton. DC 20402
OFRCfAI. B INESS
Penafly Ici p va2e tee. 0O
-------
Federal Register I VoL 60. No. 195 / Tuesday, October 10. i n
52677
period. The credit will equal
between the actual net
t ‘, id projected net revenue,
t 5 eiited by the following formula:
,pNR;C At R — PNR
Net Revenue
, protected Net Revenue
, 05 dli
f actual net revenue is less than the
“L . ted net revenue for the RAC
P iauon period, a revenue surcharge
allocated during the RAC
‘ r nnent period.
i th actual net revenue j
- ‘tlve, the surcharge wilj be equal to
j njnjnium investment payment plus
annual deficit. represented by the
formulai
gO SaMW — ANR
(If ANR> MIP. S a 01
Where:
ANR a Actual Net Revenus
FNR = Projected Net Revenue
M W a Minimum Investment Payment
provided, that lithe actual net revenue
Is greater than the minimum investment
payment. the surcharge will be equal to
ears.
3. The maximum MC credit
allocation will equal $20 million plus.’
the amount of the Pacific Gas and
Electric Company refund credit applied
to Western power bills for the fiscal
year. The maidmum allocation for a•,,
RAC surcharge shall not exceed $20
million.
4. The RAC credit or surcharge shall
be allocated to each CVP commercial
Sim power customer based on the
proportion of the custome?s billed
obligation to Western for CVP
commercial firm capacity and energy to
the total billed obligation for all CVP
commercial finn power customers for
CVP commercial firm capacity and
energy for the RAC calculation period.
5. For purposes of the RAC
ralculatlon. the following terms are
defined:
5.1 Actual Net Revenue—The
Recorded Net Revenue.
5.2 Annual Deficit—The amount the
recorded annual expenses. Including
Interest, exceeding recorded annual
revenues,
5.3 Minimum Investment Payment—
The lesser of 1 percent of the recorded
unpaid Investment balance at the end of
the prior FY that the RAC is being
calculated, or the projected net revenue.
5.4 Projected Net Revenue—The
annual net revenue available for
investment repayment projected in the
PRS for the rate case during the FY that
the RAC Is being calculated (see Table
1).
5.5 MC Adjustment Period—The,
period January 1 through September 30,
following the MC calculation period
when credits or surcharges will be
applied to the power bills.
5.6 MC Calculation Period—The
last recorded FY (October 1 through
September 30).
5.7 Recorded Net Revenue—The
annual net revenue available for
repayment recorded In the PRS for the
FY that the MC is being calculated.
6. Subject to modification by a
superseding rate schedule, the final
MC will be allocated to the customers
during the period January 1, 1999. to-
September 30. 1999.
TABLE 1.—PROJECTED NE REVENUE
AVAILABLE FOR INVESNENT REPAY-
MENT FOR REVENUE ADJUSNENT
CLAUSE
Penod
October 1, 1995-SeØeiw
ber 30.1996 . ---.—
O 1. 1996-
bet 30. 1897 ...._.....
October 1, i997-Se
ber 30. 1998 .__._—.
$11,7 53 44
4sce,910
‘
5.307.779
For Transformer Losses
If delivery Is made at tranqmic 1Oii ..
voltage but metered on the low-voltage--
side of the substation, the meter’
readings will be increased to
compensate for transformer losses as
provided for in the contract.
For Power Factor
The customer will be required te
maintain a power factor at all points of
measurement between 95-percent
lagging and 95-percent Leading. The low
power factor charge (LPFC) will be
calculated by multiplying the
customer’s maximum monthly demand
by the kVar/kW rate for the customer’s’
mean power factor as provided l.a the
following Table 2:
TABLE 2.— VARMW
Power factor
Rat
0.94 .._.__ .. .........
0.93 .....
$0.09
0.17
024
—.
0.91 - ___
0.32
0.39
0.48
0.90
..._....... —.
.._____
0.89...._........___ —.....—....—.—.—.
0.88...... . .. ... . . . ..
0.53
0.60
0.66
0.73
0.79
0.87 ...... ................. . ... . ...—.
0.88 ......
0.85 ...
O.84__..... —. —-—....——-—
0.83
0.86
0.92
0.99
105
1.12
1.18
125
1.32
1.38
0.92 -
0.81
0.80
0.79

0.77 _-...-—--...
0.78 ......._. .
0J5&beiow. . . ..———..
A LPFC will be assessed when a
customer’s power factor is less than 95
percent..-
(a) A charge of $2.50 per kVar will be
aueseed for every kVar required to raise
a customer’s power factor to 95 percent.
The calculated power factor used to
determine if a charge will be assessed is
the arithmetic mean of a customer’s
measured monthly average power factor
and their measured onpeak power
factor, rounded to the nearest whole
percent with 0.5 percent or greater
rounded to the next higher percent.
(b) The mean power factor will be
calculated at each customer’s point of
delivery. If a customer has multiple
points of delivery. the power factor will
be determined from totalized
information from the points of delivery.
(c No credit will be given for
customers operating between 95 percent
and ’ 100 percent.
(d) Customers’ that have a monthly
pen demand less than or equal to 50
kW will not be subject to the LPFC.
(e) The Contracting Officer may waive
the LPFC for good cause in whole or in
pert
(PR D cc. 95—25643 Flied 10—6—95; 8:45 soil
‘ coat ii-ii-
ENV OIIMENTAL PROTECTiON
AGLNCY
L -U1$-2)..
OuR G.nsu NPOES Permit for
od Processors Within Thre.
Nsu cal Miles .1 th. Pribliof Islands,
AIaelaa General NPOES Permit No. AK-
G52-P000
e&isc’v: Environmental Protection
Agency. RegIon 10.
-------
52678
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 195 I Tuesday, October 10. 1995 / Notices
ACTION: Notice of Draft General NPDES
Permit. and Notice of Finding of No
Significant Impact.
SUMMARY: The Director. Water Division,
EPA Region 10, is proposing to issue a
general National PoLlutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit no.
AK- .C52—P000 for seafood processors
within three nautical miles of the
Pribilof Islands, Alaska. pursuant to the
provisions of the Clean Water Act. 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq. The proposed
general NPDES permit will authorize
discharges from facilities discharging
through stationary outfalls on St. Paul
and St. George Islands, and from mobile
vessels discharging within the three
nautical mile coastal zone of the Pribilof
Islands. These facilities are engaged En
the processing of fresh, frozen, canned,
smoked, salted and pickled seafoods.
Discharges authorized by the proposed
permit include processing wastes.
process disinfectants, sanitary
wastewater and other wastewaters,
including domestic wastewater. cooling
water, boiler water, gray water.
freshwater pressure relief water. -
refrigeration condensate, water used to
transfer seafood to a facility, and live,
tank water. The proposed permit wllF
authorize discharges to waters of the
United States in and contiguous to thei
State of Alaska. except for receiving
watars excluded from coverage as
protected or adjacent to a designated
•‘seafood processing center.”
The proposed general NPDES permit
for seafood processors within the
Pribilof Island coastal zone will not
authorize discharges from the
processing of fish mince, paste or meal.
The proposed permit will not authorize
discharges of petroleum hydrocarbons
toxic pollutants, or other pollutants not
specified in the permit
A draft NPDES permit. fact sheet and’.
other documents of the administrative-
record are available upon request
PUBLIC NOTICE ISSUANCE DATE: October’
10, 1995.
PUBLIC NOTICE EXPIRATION DATE
November 13, 1995.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Interested persons
may submit written comments on the’..
draft general NPDES permit to the
attention of Florence Carroll at the
address below. All comments should
include the name, address, and
telephone number of the cominenter
and a concise statement of comment and
the relevant facts upon which It. is
based. Comments of either support or
concern which are directed at specific,
cited permit requirements are -
appreciated. Comments must be
submitted to EPA on or before the
expiration date of the public notice.
After the expiration date of the public
notice, the Director, Water Division,
EPA Region 10, will make a final
determination with respect to issuance
of the general permit. The tentative
requirements contained in the draft
general permit will become final
conditions if no substantive comments
are received during the public comment
period. The permit is expected to
become effective on January 15. 1996.
Persons wishing to comment on State
Certification of the proposed general
NPDES permit should submit written
comments within this 30-day comment -
period to the State of Alaska, Alaska
Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC), 410 Willoughby
Avenue. Suite 105. Juneau, Alaska
99801—1795. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of Alaska
Water Quality Standards Consistency’
Review.
Persons wishing to comment on the
State Determination of Consistency with
the Alaska Coastal Management
Program should submit written
comments within this 30-day comment
period, to the State of Alaska. Office of
Management and Budget, Division of
Governmental Coordination. P.O. Box
110030, Juneau, Alaska 99811—0030.
Comments should be addressed to the
attention of Alaska Coastal Management
Program Consistency Review.
Persons wishing to comment on the
EPA Finding of No Significant Impact
(FNSI), based on the environmental
assessment, should submit written
comments Within this 30 day period. All
comments should include the name,,
address and telephone number of the
commenter and a concise statement of
the basis of any comment and the
relevant facts upon which It is based.
Comments should be submitted to
Florence Carroll at the address below.
PUBLIC HEARING: No public hearings
have been scheduled. Persons
requesting a public hearing should
submit their request to Florence Carroll
at the address below. Notice of a public
hearing will be published in the Federal
Register. Notices will also be mailed to’
all interested persons receiving copies
of the proposed permit
APPEAL CF PERMiT: Within 120 days
following the service of notice of EPA ’s
final permit decision under 40 CFR
124.15, any interested person may
appeal the Permit in the Federal Court
of Appeal in accordance with Section
509(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act.
Persons affected by a general permit
may not challenge the conditions of the
Permit as a right of further EPA
proceedings. Instead, they may either
challenge the Permit in court or apply
for an individual NPDES permit and
then request a formal hearing on the
issuance or denial of an individual
permit.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD: The complete
administrative record for the draft
permit is available for public review at
the EPA Region 10 Library. 10th Floor,
at the address listed below. Copies of
the draft general NPDES permit, fact
sheet, the environmental assessment,
the biological assessment, and the
Pribilof Seafood Ocean Discharge
Criteria Evaluation are available upon
request from the Region 10 Public
Information Center at 1 -800-424-4EPA
(4372).
ADDRESSES: Public comments should be
sent to: Environmental Protection
Agency Region 10, NPDES Compliance
Unit (WD—135), 1200 SIxth Avenue.
Seattle, Washington, 98101.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Florence Carroll, of EPA Region 10, at
the address listed above or telephone
(206) 553—1760.
REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT: After
review of the facts presented in the
notice printed above, I hereby certify
pursuant to the provision of 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this general NPDES permit
will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, the permit reduces a
significant administrative burden on
regulated sources.
Dated.’ September 21.1995.
David Teeter,
Acting Director. ()fficeof Water,
Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI)
To All Interested Government Agencies,
Public Groups. and Individuals
In accordance with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) procedures for
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 40
CFR Part 6, Subpart F. EPA has
conducted an environmental review of
the following proposed action:
Issuance of general National Pollutant
Discharge F Iiminntion System
(NPDES) Permit, no. AK-G52—P000, to
owners and operators of facilities,
both mobile and,shore-based, engaged
in the processing of seafood within
three nautical miles of the Pribilof
Islands. Alaska
The general NPDES permit
requirements. including effluent
limitations, monitoring provisions, and
other conditions applicable to the
operations covered are specified in the
proposed permit. The permit Fact Sheet
-------
Federal Register / Vol . 60, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 10, 1995 / Notices
52678
the basis for the permit
eas.
environmental assessment (EA) for
this proposed action has been prepared.
on the EA and the proposed
nnit conditions, and in accordance
the guidelines for determining the
5 njficance of federal actions (40 CFR
1508.27) and EPA criteria for initiating
environmental impact statement
FiS) (40 CFR 6.605), EPA has
concluded that issuance of this general
jpDES permit will not result in a
5 jficant effect on the human
5 nvjronmeflt This action will not
5 ificantly affect land use patterns or
population. wetlands or floodplains, -
threatened or endangered species,
formiands. ecologically critical areas,
historic resources, air quality, water
quality. noise levels, fish and wildlife
uzces, nor will it conflict with
approved local, regional, or state land
,çe plans or policies. For the above
masons EPA has determined that an EIS
1l not be prepared.
The term of the proposed NPDES
permit is two years only, during which
tune additional field data will be
collected. Another EA will be prepared
for the subsequent ve-year permit
based on analyses Utfli1ing that
additional field data.
A copy of the EA evaluating the
potential impacts of the proposed action
is available upon request by calling
(206) 553—1214, or at the above address,
and is incorporated into this FNSI by-
reference.
Comments supporting or disagreeing
with this FNSI may be submitted to the
following address for consideration:
Rick Seaborno, U.S. Environmental -
Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200
Sixth Avenue, WD-126, Seattle,
Washington 98 ’lOl.
After evaluating the comments -
received, EPA will make a final.
decision. No administrative action will
be taken on the proposed permit for at
least 30 days after the release date
(indicated above) of this FNSL EPA will
folly consider all comments received
during this public notice period before.
tiking final actleai.
Sincerely,
Duvid Teeter,
Acting Dae or , Water Division.
(FR D 95—25047 Piled 10-40-9 5; 8:45 emi
NJJIUSoea UN N P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Public Information Collection
Approved by Office of Managenient
and Budget
September 29. 1995.
The Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) has received Office
of Management and Budget (0MB)
approval for the following public
information collection pursuant to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. Pub.
L 96—511. For further information
contact Shoko B. Hair, Federal
Communications Commission, (202)
418—1379: -
Federal Communications Comniieeion
0MB Control No.: 3080-0680.
Expiration Date: 12/31/96.
Title: ARMIS Video Dialtone
Quarterly Report; ARMIS Video
Dialtone Fourth Quarter Report.
Form Nos.: FCC Report 43-09A; FCC
Report 43—0gB.
Estimated Annual Burden: 4.620 total
annual hours; average 462 hours per
respondent; 10 respondents.
Description: FCC Report 43-09A
provides a quarterly report of wholly
dedicated and shared video dialtone
investment, expense, and revenue
captured in a carrier’s subsidiary
accounting records. FCC Report 43-098
provides a fourth quarter report of videG
dlaltone investment, expense, and
revenue disaggregated by regulated and
nonregulated classification and by
Jurisdictional categories. The reports ar
prescribed for every local exchange
carrier (LEC) that has obtained Section
214 authorization from the Commicalcm .-
to provide video dialtone trials or
commercial services. The reports wIll”
enable the Commission, State regulatory-
agencies, local exchange carriers and
other interested parties to analyze LECa ,
video dialtone investment, revenue, and
costs.
Federal oxnmunI tion, Commission,-
Wifihem F. Caton, , -
Acting Secietnr,. -
(FR Dcc. 95—24945 FIled 10-6—95; 8:45 aml
IlLL C CC I 1711.41.4 -
Public Information COlleCtiOn
Approved by Office of Mana eancmt,
and ludget
October 2, 1995.
The Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) has received Office’
of Management and Budget (0MB)
approval for the following public
information collection pursuant to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub
L 96—511. An agency may not conduct
or sponsor and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid
control number. For further information
contact Shoko B. Hair, Federal
Communications Commission, (202)
418-137g.
Federal Communications Commission
0MB Control No.: 3060-0370.
Expiration Date: 09/30/98.
Title: Part 32 - Uniform System of
Accounts for Telecommunications
Companies.
Estimated Annual Burden: 3,031,868
total annual hours: average 12,685 hours
per respondent; 239 respondents.
Description: The Uniform System of
Accounts is a historical financial
accounting system which reports the
results of operational and financial
events in.a manner which enables both
management and regulators to assess
these results within a specified
accounting period. Subject respondents
are telecommunications companies.
Entities having annual revenues from
regulated telecommunications
operations of less than $100 million are
designated as Class B companies and are
subject to a less detailed accounting
system than those designated as Class A
companLes.
0MB Control No., 3060-0675.
Expiration’ Date: 09/30/96.
Title: Accounting and Reporting
Requirements for Video Dialtone
Service (RAO Letter 25).
Estirnate4 Annual Burden: 8500 total
annual hours; average 850 hours per
respondent: 10 respondents.
Description: Camera offering video
dlaltotie are required to establish two
sets of subsidiary accounting records:
one to capture the investment, expense
and revenue wholly dedicated to video
dlahone the other to capture the
Investment, expense and revenue shared
between video dialtone and other
seMons. RAO Letter applies to those
carriers that have been authorized by
the Commission to provide video
dialton. service. RAO 25 provides
guidance to carriers on establishing the
subsidiary accounting records they use
to track the investment, expense and
revenue related Co their provision of
video dialtone service. RAO 25 rs
needed to ensure-that the subsidiary
records maintained by the camera
Include all relevant data and to ensure
that the data is auditable.
0MB Control No.: 3060-0976. -
Expiration Date: 09/30/98.
Title: Policies and Rules Concerning
Changing Long Distance Carrier (CC
Docket No. 91—64), Section 64.1100.
-------
Monday
August 7, 1995
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 122 and 124
Storm Water Discharges; Amendment to
Requirements for National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permits;
Final Rule -
-------
40230 Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 151 / Monday. August 7, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
ENViRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
4OCFR Partsl22and 124
(FRL-6271-7 l
Amendment to Requirements for
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPOES) Permits
for Storm Water Discharges Under
Section 402(p)(6) of the Clean Water
Act - -
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACflON: Final rule: withdrawal of direct
final rule.
SUMMARY: Today. EPA is withdrawing
the storm water phase II direct final rule
published on April 7, 1995 (60 FR
17950) and promulgating a final rule in
its place based on an identical proposal
published that same day (60 FR 17958).
By today’s action. EPA is promulgating
changes to the National Pollutant
Discharge Elinunation System (NPDES)
storm water permit application
regulations under the Clean Water Act
(CWA) for phase II dischargers. Phase [ I
dischargers generally include all point
source discharges of storm water from
commercial, retail and institutional
facilities and from municipal separate
storm sewer systems sewing
populations of less than 100.000.
Today’s rule establishes a sequential
application process in two tiers for all
phase II storm water discharges. The
first tier provides the NPDES permitting.-.
authority flaiability to require permits
for those phase U dischargers that are
determined to be contributing to a water
quality impairment or axe a significant
contributor of pollutants to waters oLthø
United States. (“Permitting authority”
refers to EPA or States and Indian Tribes
with approved NPDES progr iñs. EPAs
expects this group to be small because.
most of these types of dischargers have
already been included under phase I of
the storm water program. The second
tier includes all other phase U
dischargers. This larger group will be
required to apply for permits by the end
of six years. but only if the phase II
regulatory program in place at that time
requires permits. As discussed in more
detail below. EPA is open to. and
committed to, exploring a number of
non-permit control strategies for the
phase U program that will allow
efficient an&effeclive targeting of real
environmental problems. As part of this
commitment, EPA has initiated a
process to include stakeholders in the
development of a supplemental phase U
rule under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA). This rule will
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I . OverviCW of Today’s Action
Today. EPA is promulgating the phase
I I storm water application regulations as
proposed on April 7. 1995 (60 FR
17958). EPA also is withdrawing the
direct final rule published on that same
date (60 FR 17950); corrected at 60 FR -
l9464 Aptil 18, 1995. The direct final.’
and proposed rules contained identical
requirements. By today’s rule, EPA
promulgates changes to the NPDES
storm water permit application
regulations under the CWA to establith
a common sense approach far all phase
II storm water dischargers. Phase II
storm water dischargers include those - -
storm water discharges not addressed -
imder phase I of the storm water
program. 1 . Generally, phase U
dischargers are point source discharges
of storm water from commercial, retaiL
‘Phase I diachargers include: dischargers Lseueé
a permit before Februaty 4. i987: discharges -
associated with industrial activity discharges fioi
a cnunlClpai separate storm sewer system serving
population of iOO.000 or more, and discharges that’
the permitting authonty determines to be
coninbuting toe violation of a water quality
standard or a significant contributor of pollutants to
the watets of the United States
IL Background’
EPA provided an extensive discussion
of the statutory and regulatory
background of the storm water program
in. the direct final rule published in the
April 7, 1995, Federal Register notice
(60 FR 17950). For the sake of brevity.
EPA refers the reader to that notice and
be finalized by March 1, 1999 and will.’ light industrial and instjtutjonai
determine the nature and extent of fàcthtles, COnStrUCtion activities under
requirements. if any. that will apply to five acres, and from municipal separate
the various types of phase U facilities storm sewer systems serving
prior to the end of the six.year po, ulations of less than 100,000.
application period defined by today’s today’s rulemaking will promote the
rule. public interest by relieving most phase
DATES: The direct final rule published u dischargers of the immediate
on April 7. 1995 at 60 FR 17950 and requirement to apply for permits.
corrected on April 18, 1995 at 60 Consequently. this rule relieves most
19464 is withdrawn and this final rule phase II dischargers from citizen suit
is effective on August 7. 1995. In liability for failure to have an NPDES
accordance with 40 CFR 23.2. EPA permit over the next six years. If a phase
explicitly providing U at this rule sliail discharger complies with the
be considered final for purposes of application deadlines established by
judicial review at 1 p.m. (Eastern time)’ today’s rule, the facility will not be
subject to enforcement action for.
on August 7. 1995. discharge without a permit or for failure
ADDRESSES: The docket for this to submit jermit application.
rulemaking is available for public Under t ay’s rule, application
inspection at EPA’s Water Docket, Room deadlines are in two tiers. The first tier
L—102, 401 M Street. SW, Washington. - allows the permitting authority to focus
DC 20460. For access to the docket i rrent efforts on those facilities that
materials, call (202) 260—3027 between will produce the greatest environmental
9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. (Eastern time) for benefit. The first tier is for those phase
an appointment. Please indicate that the ii dischargers that the NPDES permitting
docket to be accessed is for the April 7. authority determines are contributing to
1995 Federal Register notice on the a water quality impairment or are a
storm water phase U regulations. AS significant contributor of pollutants to
provided in 40 CFR part 2. a reasonable waters of the U.S. Those ,.ischargers
fee may be charged for copying services, that have been so designated are
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACYr - required to obtain a permit and must
Nancy Cunningham. Office of submit permit applications to the
Wastewater Management, Permits - permitting authority within 180 days of
DivisIon (4203). Environmental ing notified that such an application
Protection Agency. 401 M Street SW. is required. The permitting authority
Washington. DC 20460, (202) 260-953& “has.the flexibility to extend this
— deadline. Under the second tier, all
remaining phase II facilities must apply
for permits by August 7, 2001, but only
If the phase II regulatory program in
place at that time requires permits. EPA
is actively exploring alternative control
strategies wi broad stakeholder
Involvement. EPA is also establishing
application requirements for phase U
dlschargers. as well as making other
conforming changes to other portions of
the NPDES regulations in today’s rule.
EPA Is subject to a court order to
propose supplemental rules for phase U
sources by September 1, 1997, and
flnali them by March 1, 1999. Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc. v.
Browner. Civ. No. 95-634 PLF (D.D.C.,
April 6,1995). However, if the CWA is
amended prior to these dates to address
some of these storm water issues. EPA
will, of course, move to expeditiously
implement the statutory changes.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 151 I Monday. August 7, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
40231
only briefly repeats the background
necessary to explain the need for today’s
final rule.
As explained in CWA section 101.
Congress enacted the CWA “to restore
and maintain the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of the Nation’s
waters” through reduction and eventual
elimination of the discharge of
pollutants into those waters. CWA
section 301 prohibits the discharge of
pollutants from a point source except Ia
compliance with certain other sections
of the Act. One of those sections, sectIon
402, established the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
the permitting program for control of
point source discharges including storm
water.
In the 1987 amendments to the CWA,
Congress enacted section 402(p). -
Section 4 O 2 (p)(1) relieved certain storm
water dischargers (commonly referred to
as phase 11 dischargers) from the
requirement to obtain a permit until
October 1. 1992. SectIon 4O 2 (p)( 6 )
provided that EPA was to publish
regulations by October 1. 1992. Congress
later extended the date for the
permitting moratonum until October 1,
1994. and the data for publication of
phase II regulations until October 1.. -
1993. See Water Resources Development
Act of 1992, Public Law No. 102—580, -.
section 364, 106 Stat. 4797, 4862 (199*
Though the relief from the permit
requirement lapsed on October 1, 1994,
EPA had not published phase 11 storm--j
water regulations. On October 18. 1994,
EPA issued guidance explaining that
regulations had not yet been
promulgated for the phase II storm
water program. and that the Agency was
unable to waive the statutory
prohibition against unpermitted
discharges of pollutants to waters of the
United States in the absence of such. -
regulations. EPA is not attempting to -
extend the CWA deadlines in today’s -
rule, but rather is establishing the phase
II storm water program under section
4 O 2 (p)(&). (See Response to Comment
section below for further discussion of”
this issue.)
111. Regulation (2ianges
In today’s rule, EPA is designating
under section 402(p)(6) all phase II
sources as being part of the phase II
program. EPA is establishing permit--
application deadlines for these
dischargers in two tiara in today’s rule.
To obtain real environmental results
early, the first tier applies to those phase
I I dischargers that the NPDES permitting
authority determines are contributing to
a water quality uripainnent or are a
significant contributor of pollutants.
Those discbargersthathavebeenso’ ....
designated by the permitting authority
are required to obtain a permit and must
submit a permit application within 180
days of being notified that such an
application is required. The permitting
authonty has the flexibility to extend
this deadline. Under the second tier, all
other phase U facilities must apply for
permits by August 7. 2001, but only if
the phase II regulatory program in place
at that time requires permits.
EPA also is establishing application
requirements for phase II dlischargers, as
well as making other conforming
changes to other portions of its NPDES
regulations in today’s rule. For example,
EPA is providing flexibility to the
permitting authority to modify the
specific application requirements for
phase I I dlschargers. Again EPA believes
this Is a common sense approach to
alleviate unnecessary burden on phase
U dlschargers. The specifics of the
application requirements and other
conforming changes are explained in the
April 7, 1995. notice published at 60 FR
17950. EPA has not changed the
regulatory text in today’s final rule from
that notice.
W. Responses to PubLic Comment
A comprehensive “response to
comment” document is available in the
administrative record for this.
rulemaklitg. Many significant
comments, and EPA’s responses, are
summarized below.
Many coxnmenters disagreed with
EPA’s interpretation of section 402(p) of
the CWA in which EPA determined that
section 402(p) sets a statutory deadline
for the issuance of permits to phase U
storm water dischargers. The
commenters argued that 402(p) does not
require permits for all discharges of
storm water after October 1. 1994, rather
it prohibits the need for such permits
before this date.
EPA disagrees. CWA section 301(a)
states that it is illegal to discharge
pollutants to waters of the U.S. except
in compliance with Section 402. The
current regulations under section 402
establish a permit program for point
source discharges. In the 1987
amendments to the CWA. Congress
added Section 402 (p) to ensure the
orderly evolution of the NPDES storm-
water program. Section 4O2(p)(1) did
not alter the basic underlying
prohibition in Section 301(a) as it
applied. to storm water discharges.
Section 4O2(p)(1) did, however,
establish temporary relief from
permitting requirements for certain•
storm water discharges for a specified
period of time. Section 4 O 2 (p)( 6 )
provided EPA with the authority to
consider alternative control strategies
for the phase UProgrR . Because EPA
had not established alternatives under
section 4O2(p)(6), the existing
permitting requirements under section
402 applied to phase II dischargers after
October 1. 1994.
The legislative history behind 402 (p)
supports EPA’s position that when the
date lapsed, phase U sources became
subject to the pre-existing statutory
requirement to obtain a NPDES permit.
The Congressional Record from October
15, 1986 includes the fo.llowing
statements from the House of
Representatives:
The relief afforded by this provision
extends only to October 1, 1992. After that
date, all municipal separate storm sewers are
subject to the requirements of 301 and 402.
After October 1.1992. the permit
requirements of the Clean Water Act are
restored for municipal separate storm sewer
systems serving a population of fewer than
100.000.
132 Cong. Rec. H10532 (Oct 15, 1986)
More recent Congressional actions
provide even clearer support for EPA’s
interpretation of Section 4 O 2 (p). The
original deadline for permits for phase
II storm water discharges was October 1,
1992. At the time of this original
deadline, the Agency wes not ready to
issue regulations for Implementation of
the phase II program. When Congress
recognized the severe liability problem
this would create for phase II
discharges, Congress decided to extend
the relief deadline in section 4O 2 (p)(l)
to October 1, 1994. At the same time,
Congress extended the deadline for
phase U regulations in section 402(p)(6)
to October 1, 1993, to allow EPA more
time to develop phase U regulations. If
phase II dischargers were not subject to
enforcement for violations of section
301(a) until EPA promulgated the phase
II regulations. Congress would not have
extended seetlons 402 (p)(1) and
4O2(p)(6) with differing deadlines. If
Congress had not intended unregulated
phase U sources to be liable for -
violations of section 3OUa) on October
1, 1992, there would have been no need
to amend section 4O 2 (p)(1) at all.
In related comments, concern was
expressed that if such statutory
deadlines are valid, EPA does not have
the authority to extend statutory permit
deadlines. In response, EPA disagrees
that this regulation extends statutory
deadlines. The statutory deadline lapsed
on October 1,1994. EPA recognized that
fact, as well asthe consequences
thereof, when It issued the October 18,
1994, guidance. The Agency’s authority
to act under these circumstances arises
from the clear text of section 402(p)(&).
That section directs EPA to issue
regulations which (1) designate storm
-------
40232 Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 1St Monday. August 7. 1995 I Rules and Regulstions
water discharges to be regulated to
protect water quality and (2) establish a
comprehensive program to regulate
those sources, including, among other
things. expeditious deadlines. In today s
rule. EPA relies on section 402(p)(6) to
designate all phase U discharges for
regulation under a comprehensive
program which, for most of those
dischargers. does not require permits for
6 years. During the six•year period, EPA
will investigate alternative control
strategies for the phase II program and
will develop supplemental regulations
through the FACA process.
Commenters also raised concern
regarding the potential for citizen suits.
As explained above, today’s final rule
effectively protects most phase II.
dischargers from citizen suit liability for
failure to have an NPDES permit for up
to sIx years.
A few commenters criticized EPA for
the delay in publishing a Report to
Congress on storm water discharges not
covered under phase L Further, they did
not believe that President Clinton’s
Clean Water In itiative adequately
addressed procedures and methods to
control storm water discharges to the
extent necessary to mitigate impacts on
water quality. The Agency believes that -
the Storm Water Report to Congress.
which incorporates the President’s
Initiative, fulfills the requirements of
section 402(p) (5). The Report to;
Congress cites to data confirming the
continuing threat to surface wators
caused. in significant part, by
unregulated storm water discharges. The
AdministratiOn’s Clean Water Initiative
proposed a variety of procedures and
methods through which permitting
authontles could most flexibly addrese’
rem .uning unregulated discharges of
storm water to the extent necessary to’
mitigate impacts on. water quality.. - - -.
Severn! commenters questioned- - -. -
whether State and local officials had’
been consulted in developing the
proposed rule as directed by CWA
section 402(p)(B). In a September 9,
1992, Federal Rogistes uotlce. EPA
invited public commenron reasonable,.
alternative approaches.for the phase II.
storm water program. Pricrto
publication of the direct final and
proposed rules on April 7.1995. EPA
met with representatives of key
municipal organizations to discuss the’
content of the rule and to gather
feedback and input. EPA will continue”
its outreach efforts by seeking additional
public input through FACA
subcommittee participation, and other
means, in developing supplementai_
regulations for the phase U program.
Commenters expressed their opinion
that the proposed rule should be
considered an unfunded mandate as
described under the Unfunded Mandate
Reform Act of 1995. That is, the
comxnenters believed that the estimated
cost of the regulation to State. local, or
tribal governments, or to the private
sector, will be $100 million or more in
any one year. EPA disagrees. This
rulemaking actually reduces the
immediate regulatory burden imposed
on phase U facilities. EPA believes that
the cost to phase II dischargers that are
immediately designated under tier 1
will be small due to the extremely few
designations that are anticipated.
Furthermore, EPA has the authority to
modify permit application requirements
to require less information and alleviate
unnecessary burden on all phase II
facilities. Because of these reasons, costs
are expected to be weU below $IUO
million for each of the next six yeami
EPA believes that any costs that might
be imposed after the sixth year will still
be below $100 million because of the
application flexibility, but in any event. -
those costs will not exceed existing
costs (multiplied by the rate of inflation)
because of the current statutory
requirement that phase [ I dischargers
apply for permits immediately, absent
promulgation of today’s rule.-
The costs of a “comprehensive” phase
U program after the sixth year wilLbe
more Fully characterized through-
additional rulemaking as a result of the ’-
FACA process. Under a judicial consent
order in Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc. v. EPA, Clv. No 95-O634
PLF (D.D.C. ApnI 6.1995). EPA Is-
required to propose by September 1.
1997. and take final action by March 1.
1999. supplemental rules whidrdarify
the scope of coverage and control
mechanisms for the phase II program. -
The cost to potential dischargers of this - -
action will be identified in the
subsequent rulemaking and cannot’ be
accurately predicted in today’s final -
rule. However, EPA does not expect thar
regulation to cost over $100 million in’
any one year.
ommenters questioned EPA’s
justification to designate all phase IL
dischargers to protect water quality .
Many commenters argued that
construction sites that disturb less than’.
5 emes should not be so designated
because they do not present significant”
water quality concerns. In response,
EPA relies on the Report to Congress to-
conclude that unregulated storm water
discharges remain a significant threat to-
the health of surface water quality.
While EPA recognizes that individual
facilities within the total phase U
universe may not represent equal
threats, EPA believes that there is -
sufficient Information concerning water
quality problems to designate the en
class of phase II dlschargers as en
interim matter pending Further study j
the context of the rulemaking des ’ 1 j
above. EPA will make more specific
designations in the context of that
rulemnking. In response to comments
about small construction sites, EPA
notes that these commenters did not
present any data to support a conclu j
that small construction presents only
negligible water quality concerns. As
explained in the earlier notice, the
FACA subcommittee will explore the
appropriate scope of the phase II
program.
Today’s rule states that permit
applications are required within 180
days from receipt of notice for those
phase II discharges that the NPDES
permitting authority determines are
contributing to a water quality
Impairment or area significant
contributor of pollutants. Conunenters
requested and suggested further
clarification on both of these
determinations. EPA purposefully did
not provide explicit definitions of these
phrases in order to provide flexibility to
permitting authorities. Interpretive
flexibility is warranted due to clima
and geographic differences across th
United States. EPA published guidance
for designations under phase I of the
storm water program. Such guidance is
also applicable for the phase U program
designations and is included in the
record of this nilemaking
One conimenter took Issue with the
180-day deadline for permit
applications, particularly for municipal
separate storm sewer systems that are
designated under tier 1.. The commenter
felt that such a short period of time
would not be sufficient top p and
submit a municipal application. In
response. EPA reminds the commenter
that the Director has the authority to
grant permission to submit the
application at a later date. Some
municipalities may not need more time
because they may be able to simply
reference Information already submitted
for an adjacent or nearby large or
medium municipality under phase L
Additionally, the permitting authority is
able to modify the permit application
requirements and may require much
less information than what was required
for phase I dlschargers. -
Another corninentor asked that the
period during which a permitting
authority may designate a facility be
limited to one year. EPA is not limiting
the time frame for designations because
the permitting authority will need to
account forthanging conditions and
new information that becomes available
over time.-
-------
Federal Register I Vol . 60, No. 151 I Monday, August 7, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
40233
Some commenters stated that the
“direct final rule” is not specifically
orovided for in the Administrative
‘rocedure Act (APA) nor has EPA
demonstrated good cause” to issue a
“direct final rule” under 5 U.S.C.
section 553. This comment is no longer
relevant because EPA is withdrawing
the direct final rule and instead issuing
a final rule that responds to comments
received.
One cornmenter disputed the
assertion that urban storm water runoff
is a cause of real water quality use
impairment in the United States. The
commenter also believed that it is
inappropriate to base the
implementation of phase 11
requirements on exceedance of water
quality standards associated with urban
storm water runoff. The comxnenter
believed that water quality criteria were
not developed to regulate many of the
chemical constituents in urban storm -
water runoff. EPA disagrees. The fact
that urban runoff is a real cause of water
quality use impairment is very well
supported throughout the literature and
is summarized by EPA in the Water
Quality Inventory: Reports to Congress
prepared on a biannual basis under
section 305(b) of the CWA. EPA believes
that basing the implementation of phase
11 reqi,iirements on exceedance of water
quality standards is appropriate because
ittainment of water quality standards is
one of the explicit goals of the NPDES
program. EPA further disagrees that
water quality criteria have not been
developed for many of the chemical
constituents in urban storm water. To
the contrary, water quality criteria exist
for many such constituents, particularly
haavy metals and oil and grease.
A few commenters argued that
comments received on the rule are
unrepresentative of the groups affected.
because small cities and commercial
establishments were unaware of the
direct final and proposed rules. In
response, EPA believes that the 60-day
comment period was sufficient for small
entities to formulate their comments
and/or review those drafted by their
representative associations. Many of the
comments received were from national
organizations representing such small
cities and businesses, including.
National Association of Counties, -
National Association of Convenience
Stores, Society of Independent Gasoline
Marketers of America, National
Association of Flood and Stormwater
Management Agencies. American
Petroleum Institute, National
Association of Home Builders, and
mencan Car Rental Association;
One commenter disagreed that this
rulemaking significantly reduces the
immediate regulatory burden imposed
on phase 11 facilities because phase II
municipalities would have the same
burden imposed on phase I
municipalities. In response, EPA points
out that today’s rule provides the
Director with discretion to modify the
application requirements for phase II
dzschargers. EPA expects Directors to
exercise this discretion to reduce the.
application burden to both
municipalities and individual facilities.
Several commenters questioned the
types of permits that will be available to
dischargers in 2001. Currently. the
permitting authority has the option of
‘Lndivldual or general permits. However
EPA does not anticipate that permits
will be necessary for all phase U
dischargers in 2001. The Agency is
committed to promulgate supplemental
rules that further consider the scope of
the phase II program as well as
alternative control mechanisms.
Many cominenters made suggestions
for the second tier of the phase U
regulations such as to allow and
encourage phase II municipalities to
join phase I municipalities in the same
watershed, standardize procedures
across the United States, and delegate
construction permitting to local
governments.. Such suggestioTis will be:
provided to the FACA subcommittee.’
and will be taken into cOnsideration.
when a lopthg the subsequent phase
[ I regulations. Commenters also made
suggestions for representation on the
FACA subcommittee. Such suggestions
are being considered in formulating the
subcommittee.
Supporting Documentation
A. Executive Order 22866
Under Executive Order 12866, the
Agency must determine whether the
regulatory action is “significant.” and
therefore subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget (0MB) and
the requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines “significant
regulatory action” as one that is likely
to lead to a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or
adversely and materially affecting a
sector of the economy, productivity.
competition, jobs, the environment.
public health or safety, or State. local,
or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially altar the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs, or the rights and
obligations, of recipients thereof;
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
EPA has determined that this
rulemaking significantly reduces the
current regulatory burden imposed on
phase II facilities. The proposed rule
was submitted to 0MB for review. 0MB
cleared the proposed rule with minor
changes. Review of this final rule was
waived by 0MB wider the provisions of
Executive Order 12866.
B. Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875,
entitled “Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership”, issued
by the President on October 26, 1993,
the Agency is required to develop an
effective process to allow elected
officials and other representatives of
State and Tribal governments to provide
meaningful and timely input in the
development of regulatory proposals.
EPA fully supports this objective and
has initiated a consultation process with
both States and Tribes which will be
continued through the development of
additional phase I I rules. Specifically,
EPA has discussed this action with the
representatives of the States, local
governments, the Agency’s American
Indian Environmental Office (AIEO).
and parts of the regulated community.
The reaction of the States is positive.
The States and the Association of State
and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators (ASIWPCA) support the
approach that is being taken under
existing law; the States and ASIWPCA
also support concurrent changes to the
law. ASIWPCA has submitted a letter to
the Agency dated March 3, 1995. which
is included in the record for this matter.
EPA has responded to many of
ASIWPCA’s comments in this preamble.
The reaction of many municipalities
is that they prefer a statutory change
now to clarify the issue once and for all.
Municipalities’ representatives
(National Association of Counties,
National League of Cities, U.S.
Conference of Mayors. and the National
Association of Flood and Stormwater
Management Agencies) have raised
many issues to the Agency and have
submitted a letter dated February 16,
1995, which is contained in the record
for this matter. The municipalities
believe that it is inappropriate for EPA
to act now when Congress may act on
this matter; that the action taken by EPA
is noUn conformance with the law, and
that EPA did not consult with local
officials on this matter. EPA has
responded to many of the
municipalities’ concerns in this
preamble. EPA did consult with various
-------
40234 Federak Register I VoL 60, No. 151 / Monday, August 7, 1995 / Rules and Ri1atj
representatives of local governments
early in the development of this
regulation as well as more
comprehensively in February 1995.
This rule was also coordinated with
EPA s American Indian Environment
Office (AIEO). The Office of Water will
work through the AIEO to provide for a
Tribal representative to participate in
the FACA process.
EPA believes that it has developed an
affective process to obtain input from
State, Tribal and local governments
before issuing this rule, as well a&
receiving comments on the direct final.
rule and accompanying proposed
rulemaking, and has met the
consultation requirements for States..
federally recognized Tribes and
localities under the terms of Executive
Order 12875.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act. 44
U.S.C. 3501 at seq., is intendedto
minimize the reporting andrecord
keeping burden on the regulated
community. as well as to minimize the
cost of Federal information collection
and dissemination. In general, the Act
requires that information requests and
record-keeping requirements affecting.
ten or more non-FederaL respondents be
approved by the Office of Management -
and Budget.
EPA s existing information collection..
request (ICR) entitled ‘Application for
NPDES Discharge Permit and Sewagn.
Sludge Management Parmit COMB
Number 2040-4)088) contaIns
information that responds to this Issue-.
for all storm water discharges; including.
those facilities designated into the.
program under this regulation as
causing water quality problems. The-. -
burden of similar water quality .’
designations . utilized under thephassl
storm water program, were accounted
for in the ICR and remain appli bJ .eto ’r .
the designations that may be mad.. -
under this rule. EPA will review and
revise the estimates contained in this
IQ . as appropriate, in its renewaL
process. -
D. Reguiatorj Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility A
(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 at seq.. EPA must
prepare a Regulatory Flexibllity
Analysis for regulations having a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entiti The RPA
recognizes three kinds of small entities,,.
and. defines them as follows
(1) Small governmental
jurisdictions—any govermuent of a
district with a population of less than -
50.000.
(2) SmaLl business—any businesa .-
which is independently owned and
operated and not dominnnt in Its field;
as defined by the Small Business
Administration regulations-under the
Small Business Act.
(3) Small organi zAtion —any not-for
profit enterprise that is independently
owned and operated and not dominant
in its tlekL
EPA has determined that today’s rule
would not have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities,
and that a Regulatory Flexibility.
Analysis therefore Is unnecessary.
Through today’s action EPA Is
benefiting small entities by (1) adopting
a common sense approach to deal with
the issue of storm water phase II
requirements. (2) providing the ability’
for the permitting authority to manag
for results by providing flexibility to
deal with storm water phase 11
permitting at this time based on water
quality violations or significant
contribution of pollutants, arid (3)
clarifying and reducing applicable
burdens for those facilities currently -
subject to phase It requirements The
rule provides additional time for EPA to
work with all stakeholders, including
small entities, to lop additionaA
phase I L regulations under a FACA. . -
process. The Agency Is committed tev
Issue these supplemental. phase 1L
regulations by March1..1999 in that
rulemaking EPA %yill reconsider -ita
Regulatory Fle dbility Act anaLysia . .-
S. Unjiinded Mandates -
Under section 202 of tim Unfunded.
MaIubLtos Reform Act of 1995-
(“Unfunded Mandates ACt”). signet
Into law on March 22, 1995.EPAinuats.
prepare a written statement to... -,
accompany proposed rules where the .
estimated costs to State, local; or tribal
governments. orto the private sector, . -
will be $100 million or more in anyone
year. Under section 205. EPA must- -
select the most cost-effective and Ieast _
burdensome alternative that.achlsves
the objective of such a rule and: that 11 -
consistent with statutory requirements. :
Section. 203 requires EPA to esthh1iake
plan for informing and advising eny:
small governments that may be
significantly and uniquely affected.by
any niln.
EPA estimates that the costs to State,
locaL, or tribal governments, or the
private sector, from this rule will be less
than $100-rnilllom This rulemaking
significantly reduces the immediate
regulatory burden imposed on phase II
facilities. EPA has determined that am
unfunded mandates statement therefore
is unnecessary.
Although not required tomaka
finding under section 206. EPA-
concludes that this rule is -effe
and a significant reduction in bn
State and local governments. In a 0?
September 9, 1992. Federal Regiat ...
notice, EPA Invited public
consideration of and comment o
reasonable alternative approaches for
the phase CI storm water program.
Today’s rule provides for the first step
for many of those alternatives by
providing for an orderly process for
developing supplemental regulations.
By establishing regulatory relief until
development of these alternative
approaches. today’s rulemaking itself
provides the most cost-effective and
least burdensome alternative to achieve
the objectives of tim rule at this stage .
consistent with statutory requirements.
As dlsctissed previously. EPA
initiated consultation with
representative organizations of small
governments under Executive Order
12875. In doing so. EPA provided notice
to potentially affected email
governments to.enable them to provide
m aningfuLand timely input EPA plans
to inform, educate, and advise small
governments on compliance with any
requirements that may arise in further
development of the storm water phase U
rules.
F Procedural Requirements and
Effective Date-
Today’s rule is affective .on.Augus* 7.
1995. SectIon. 553 of the. APA provides
that the required publication or service
of a substantive rule shall be made not
less than..3t) days before its effective
date except, -as relevant here, (1) for .
substantive rule which grants or
racognizeesa exemption or relieves a
iestri oa.or (2) when the agency finds
and publishes good cause for foregoing
delayed eff 1vwiess . Today’z rule
relieves phase ltdlschsrgers from the -
nmedlats requirasneni to obtain a
pernnt. .Addfflonall the Agensy bas
datesmined. that good cause exists for
rn.ikingthiz regulation effective
in1 l4ilAtaLy becaus. today’s final rule
does not differ from the withdrawre—
directfinaknilewhichwould have
- .become eff8athe on August 7, 1995.
List o(Subjects . ,
40 0 1 ’R Port 122..- -
Enviromental protection,
Administrative ’practlce and procedure.
Confidential business information.
}1azardauasubstAn . Reporting and
recozdkaeping requirements, Water
pollution control..
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 151 / Monday. August 7, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
40235
4OCFII Part 124
Administrative practice and
procedure. Air pollution control,
Hazardous waste, Indian lands.
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Water pollution control,
Water supply.
Dated. July 31. 1995.
Carol M. Browner.
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in this
preamble, parts 122 and 124 of Title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations are
amended as follows
PART 122—(AMENDEDJ
1. The authority citation for part 122
continues to read as follows:
Authortty Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C 1251
et seq.
2. SectIon 122.21 Is amended by
adding a sentence to the end of
paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:
§ 122.21 ApplIcation for a permit
(applicable to Stale programs, see 123.25).
a a a * a
c) Time to apply.
(1)’ * * New discharges composed.
entirely of storm water, other than those
dischargers identified by § 122.26(a)(1),
shall apply for and obtain a permit
according to the application
requirements in 122.26(g).
3. Section 122.26(a)(1) is amended as
follows:
a. In paragraph (a)( l) the introductory
text is amended by revising the date
“October 1, 1992” to read “October 1.
1994”;
b. By adding paragraph (a)(9) as sat
forth below;
c. By revising the title of paragraph (e)
as set forth below;
d. In paragraph (e)(1)(il), by revising
the phrase “permit application
reqturements are reserved” to read
‘ permit application requirements a le
contained in paragraph (g) of this
section”; and
e. By adding paragraph (g) as set forth
below.
§ 122.28 Storm water dIscharges
(applicable to State NPDES programs, see
§123.25).
(a) a a a
(9) On and after October 1, 1994.
dischargers composed enlarely of storm
water, that are not otherwise already
required by paragraph (a)(1) of this
section to obtain a permit, shall be
required to apply for and obtain a
permit according to the application
requirements in paragraph (g) of this
section. The Director may not require a
permit for discharges of storm water as
provided In paragraph (a)(2) of this
section or agricultural storm water
runoff which is exempted from the
definition of point source at § 122.2
and 122.3.
a * a a *
(e) Application deadlines under
paragraph (a)(1). • *
a * a a a
(g) Application requirements for
discharges composed entirelyof storm
water under Clean Water Act section
402(p)(6). Any operator of a point
source required to obtain a permit under
paragraph (a)(9) of this section shall
submit an application in accordance
with the following requirements.
(1) 4pplication deadlines. The
operator shall submit an application in
accordance with the following
deadlines:
(i) A discharger which the Director
determines to contribute to a violation
of a water quality standard or is a
significant contributor of pollutants to
waters of the United States shall apply
for a permit to the Director within 180
days of receipt of notice, unless
permission for a later date is granted by
the Director (see 40 CFR 124.52(c)); or
(ii) All other diachargers shall apply
to the Director no later than August 7.
2001.
(2) Application requirements. The
operator shall submit an application In
accordance with the following
requirements, unless otherwise
modified by the Director
(i) Individual application for non.
municipal discharges. The requirements
contained in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section.
(ii) Application requirements for
municipal separate storm sewer
discharges. The requirements contained
in paragraph (d) of this section.
(iii) Notice of intent to be covered by.
a general permit issued by the Director.
The requirements contained in 40 CFR
1Z2.28I b)(2).
PART 124—(AMENDEDJ
4. The authority citation for part 124
continues to read as follows:
Authorlty Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act. 42 U.S.C. 3901 et seq: Safe
Drinking Water Act. 42 U S.C. 300(f) et seq.;
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C 1251 ei seq.;
Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C 7401 et seq.
5. Section 124.52(c) is amended by
revising the parenthetical statement and
the next to the last sentence to read as
follows:
§ 124. Permits required on-a caae .by-
case bae
a * * * *
(c) * * (see 40 CFR 122.26 (a)(1)(v),
(c)(1)(v), and (g)(1)(i)) * * The
discharger must apply for a permit
under 40 CFR 122.26 (a)(1)(v) and
(c)(1)(v) within 60 days of notice or
under 40 CFR 122.26(g)(1)(i) withi.n 180
days of notice, unless permission for a
later date is granted by the Regional
Administrator, a a
(FR Doc. 95—19191 Filed 8—4—95. 8.45 am)
case
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 128 I Wednesday. July 5, 1995 I Notices
34991
cy is in accordance with the
.tcy’s statement of policy as
prescribed in Federal Register No. 123.
Vol 56. dated June 26. 1991. Exceptions
to this general rule will be madif if a
product poses a risk concern, or is in
noncompliance with reregistration
requirements, or is subject to a data call-
in. In all cases, product-specific
disposition dates will be given in the
cancellation orders.
Existing stocks are those stocks of
registered pesticide products which are
currently in the United States and
which have been packaged. labeled, and
released for shipment prior to the
effective date of the cancellation action.
Unless the provisions of an earlier order
apply, existing stocks already in the
hands of dealers or users can be
distributed, sold or used legally until
they are exhausted, provided that such
further sale and use comply with the
EPA-approved label and labeling of the
affected product(s). Exceptions to these
general rules will be made in specific
cases when more stringent restrictions
on sale, distribution, or use of the
products or their ingredients have
already been imposed, as in Special
Review actions, or where the Agency
‘‘a identified significant potential risk
.cerns associated with a particular
.... emica1.
List of Subjects
Environmental protection. Pesticides
and pests, Product registrations.
Dated June 15. 1995
Frank Sanders,
Director. Program Management and Support
Division. Office of Pesticides Program
(FR Doc. 95—16188 Filed 7—3—95. 8 45 aml
w L 000€ J
(FRL-5250-8 1
Availability of Proposed Approval
Decision and Ust under CWA 303(d)
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Region VU.
ACTiON: Notice of availability .
SuMMARY: This notice announces the
availability of the list for the state of
Iowa pursuant to CWA section 303(d)(2)
as well as EPA’s proposed approval and
disapproval decisions, and requests
public comment.
DATES: Comments must be submitted to
PA on or before August 4, 1995.
DRESSES: Copies of these items can be
..otained by writing or calling Jerome
Pitt, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region VII; Water Management
Division; 726 Minnesota Ave.; Kansas
City, Kansas 66101; Phone.
913.551.7766; FAX: 913 551.7765
Comments on the e items should be
sent to Jerome Pitt, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region VU, Water
Management Division; 726 Minnesota
Ave.; Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATiON CONTACT:
Jerome L Pitt at 913.551.7766.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ‘Section
303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
requires that each State identify these
waters for which existing required
pollution controls are not stringent
enough to implement State water
quality standards. For those waters.
states are required to establish total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs)
according to priority ranking. The
identified waters and loads are req ui.red
to be submitted to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
for approval from “time to time.”
On January 11. 1985 EPA published a
final rule (50 FR 17751 that established
40 CFR part 130 (Water Quality
Planning and Management). This rule
established certain requirements for
State and local government water
quality programs. including
requirements related to the
implementation of section 3 03(d) of the
CWA. The regulation did not specify
dates for State compliance with the
section 303(D) requirements but
reiterated the statutory provision calling
for submission from time to time. On
July 24, 1992, EPA published a final
rule (57 FR 330401 that amended 40 CFR
130.7 to establish that, for the purposes
of identifying water-quality limited
waters still requiring TMDLs must also
Include a priority ranking and must
identify the waters targeted for TMDL.
development during the next two years.
Consistent with EPA’s amended
regulation Iowa has submitted to EPA
for approval their list decisions under
section 303(d)(2), EPA today proposes to
approve this list submittea by Iowa and
solicit public comments on the approval
decision and on the state list
Dated: June 14, 1995.
Kenneth S. Buchbolz.
Acting Director Water. Wetiands. and
Pesticides Division, US EPA Region V I I
(FR. Doc. 95—16280 Filed 7—3—95, 8.45 amj
BlUiNG CODE 6560-60-M
(FRL-6250-3 1
Final General NPDES Permit for
Seafood Processors In the State
Waters of Alaska and In Receiving
Waters Adjacent to Alaska and
Extending Out 200 NautIcal Miles from
the Coast and Baseline of Alaska:
Alaskan Seafood Processors General
NPDES Permit (No. AKG-62-0000)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency. Region 10.
ACTION: Notice of Final General NPDES
Permit.
SUMMARY: The Director, Water Division,
EPA Region 10, is rmssuing General
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit no
AX—C52—0000 for seafood processors in
Alaska pursuant to the provisions of the
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
The General NPDES permit authorizes
discharges from offshore, neazshore and
shore-based vessels and onshore
facilities engaged in the processing of
fresh, frozen, canned, smoked, salted
and pickled seafoods. The permit also
authorizes discharges from offshore
vessels (operating more than one
nautical mile from shore at MLLW) that
are engaged In the processing of seafood
paste, mince 6r meal. The permit
authorizes discharges of processing
wastes, process disuifectants, sanitary
wastewater and other wastewaters,
including domestic wastewater. cooling
water, boiler water, gray water.
freshwater pressure relief water,
refrigeration condense, water used to
transfer seafood to a facility, and live
tank water. The permit authorizes
discharges to waters of the United States
in and contiguous to the State of Alaska.
except for receiving waters excluded
from coverage as protected. special. at-
risk, degraded or adjacent to a
designated “seafood processing center”
The general NPDES permit for seafood
processors in Alaska does not authorize
discharges from nearshore or shore-
based seafood processors of mince.
paste or meal (operating one nautical
mile or less from shore at MLLW). The
permit does not authorize discharges of
petroleum hydrocarbons, toxic
pollutants. or other pollutants not
specified in the permit. The permit does
not authorize discharges to waters
excluded from coverage as protected,
special, at-risk, degraded or adjacent to
a designated “seafood processing
center”
Notice of the draft Alaskan seafood
processors general NPDES permit was
published July 28, 1994 in the Federal
Register (59 FR 384731 and the
Anchorage Daily News, the Juneau
Empire and the Seattle Times.
-------
34992
Federal Register / Vol. 60 , No. 128 / Wednesday, July 5, 1995 / Notices
The final permit is printed below and
establishes effluent Liizutations,
standards, prohibitions, monitoring
requirements and other conditions on
discharges from seafood processors in
the area of coverage. The conditions are
based on material contained in the
administrative record, including an
ocean discharge criteria evaluation, an
environmental assessment, a finding of
no significant impact, and a biological
evaluation of potential effects on
threatened and endangered species.
Changes made in response to public
comments are addressed in full in a
document entitled “Response to Public
Comments on the Proposed Reissuanca
of the Alaskan Seafood Processors
General NPDES Permit.” This document
In being sent to all commenters, current
permittees and applicants and Is
available to other parties from the
address below upon request.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The general NPDES
permit shall become effective August 4,
1995.
ADDRESSES: Unless otherwise noted in
the permit. correspondence regarding
this permit should be sent to
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10, Attn: Wastewater Branch,
WD—134, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
Washington, 98101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Burney Hill or Florence Carroll, of EPA
Region 10, at the address listed above or
telephone (208) 553—1761 or 553—1760
respectively. Copies of the final general
NPDES permit. response to public
comments and today’s pubLication will
be provided upon request by the EPA
Region 10 Public Information Center at
1—800—424—4372 or 206—553—1200.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATiON: EPA
reissues this general NPDES permit
pursuant to its authority under Sections
301(b), 304, 306. 307, 308, 401, 402, 403
and 501 of the Clean Water Act. The fact
sheet for the draft permit, the response
to comments document, the ocean
discharge criteria evaluation, the
biological evaluation, the environmental
assessment, the 401 certIfication issued
by the State of Alaska , and the coastal
zone management plan consistency
determination issued by the State of
Alaska set forth the principal facts and
the significant factual, legal and policy
questions considered in the
development of the terms and
conditions of the final permit presented
below.
The State of Alaska, Department of
Environmental Conservation, has
certified that the subject discharges
comply with the applicable provisions
of Sections 208(e), 301, 302, 303. 306
and 307 of the Clean Water Act.
The State of Alaska, Office of
Management and Budget, Division of
Governmental Coordination, has
certified that the general NPDES permit
is consistent with the approved Alaska
Coastal Management Program.
Changes have been made from the
draft permit to the final permit in
response to public comments received
on the draft permit, the final coastal
management plan consistency
determination from the State of Alaska.
and the final 401 certification issued by
the State of Alaska.
The following identifies several
specific areas of change, among others,
which have been embodied in the final
permit: the areas excluded from
coverage do not include the proposed
category “special resource waters of
Alaska” and have been expanded to
include national wilderness areas,
seabird colonies larger than 1,000
individuals, Udagak Bay, Ward Cove
and the coastal seas of the Pribilof
Islands; offshore seafood processors
(discharging more than one nautical
mile from shore) are required to develop
and operate in accordance with a best
management practices plan; one acre
zones of deposit are authorized by the
State of Alaska; circular mixing zones
with radii of 100, 200 and 300 feet are
authorized respectively for onshore,
nearshore and offshore seafood
processors by the State of Alaska: dive
surveys are required for discharges of
more than 7 days to receiving waters
within one nautical mile of shore and in
less than 20 fathoms of depth: requests
for waivers from the monitoring of the
seafloor, sea surface and shoreline are
allowed; and an appendix describes the
areas excluded from coverage under the
permit in detail.
Within 120 days following this
service of notice of EPA’s final permit
decision under 40 CFR 124.15, any
interested person may appeal the
general NPDES permit in the Federal
Court of Appeal in accordance with
Section 509(b)(i) of the Clean Water
Act. Persons affected by a general
NPDES permit may not challenge the
conditions of the permit as a right of
further EPA proceedings. Instead, they
may either challenge this permit in
court or apply for an individual NPDES
permit and then request a formal
hearing on the issuance or denial of an
individual permit.
Dated: June 21, 1995.
Janis Hastings.
Acting Director. Water Division
BIt.UNG COO! 5510-6O-M
Authorization To Discharge Undr
National Pollutant Olaharge
ElImination System For Seafood
Processors in Alaska
8
(General Permit No.: AKG—52—0000I
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq. (hereafter, CWA or the Act), the
owners and operators of seafood
processing facilities described in Part I
of this general National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permit are authorized to discharge
seafood processing wastes and the
concomitant wastes set out in Part II of
this Permit to waters of the United
States, except those excluded from
authorization of discharge in Part II I of
this Permit, in accordance with effluent
limitations, monitoring requirements
and other conditions set forth herein.
The discharge of wastes not specifically
set out in Part II of this permit is not
authorized under this permit.
The general NPDES permit AK—CS 2—
0000 reissued in 1989 is invalid as of
the effective date of this reissued
permit. except as provided for in the
State of Alaska Consistency Conditions
A copy of this general permit must be
kept at the seafood processors facility
where the discharges occur.
This permit shall become effecth
August 4, 1995.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight, 5
years from the effective date of the
permit.
Signed this 21st day of June.
Jams Hastings,
Acting Director. Water Division. Region 10.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Table of Contents
Cover Page
I . Authorized Facilities
II. Authorized Discharges
Ill. Areas Excluded From Authorization
Under This General NPDES Permit
A. Protected Water Resources and Special
Habitats
B. At-risk water resources and waterbodies
C. Degraded waterbodles
0. Designated fish processing center
E. Waiver
IV. Application to be Permitted Under This
General NPDES Permit
A. Submittal of a Notice of Intent to be
covered under this general NPDES
permit
B. What constitutes a ‘timely” submittal of
a Notice of Intent
C. What constitutes a ‘complete’ submittal
of a Notice of latent
D. Flow does an applicant request a w
to discharge in an excluded area ur.
this general NPDES permit
V Categoriea of Pernuittees and Requirements
A. Offshore seafood prncessors
B. Neershors’ seafood processivs
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 128 / Wednesday. July 5, 1995 / Notices
34993
C. Shore-based seafood processors
Specific Waste Minimization and
Monitoring Requirements
A. Best management practices plan
B. Annual report
C. Seafloor monitoring requirements
D. Sea surface and shoreline monitonng
requirements
VII. Recording and Reporting Requirements
A. Records contents
B. Retention of records
C. Twenty-four hour notice of
noncompliance reporting
D. Other noncompliance reporting
VIII. Compliance Responsibilities
A. Duty to comply
B. Penalties for violations of permit
conditions
C. Need to halt or reduce activity not a
defense
D Duty to mitigate
E. Proper operation and maintenance
F. Bypass of treatment facilities
C Upset conditions
H. Planned changes
I. Anticipated noncompliance
IX. General Provisions
A. Permit actions
B Duty to reapply
C. Duty to provide information
D Incorrect information and omissions
E Signatory requirements
F. Availability of reports
G. Inspection and entry
H. Oil and hazardous substance liability
I. Property rights
J. Severability
K. Transfers
L. State laws
M Reopener clause
X DEFINITIONS and ACRONYMS
APPENDIX. List of Areas Excluded from
Coverage
ATTACHMENT State Consistency
Conditions
Authorized Facilities
Subject to the restrictions of Part III of
this Permit (excluded areas), the
following categories of dlschargers are
authorized to discharge the pollutants
set out in Part II of this permit once a
Notice of Intent has been filed with, and
an authorization is received from. EPA.
A. Owners and operators of the
facilities operating offshore or nearshore
vessels, and shore-based vessels or
onshore facilities engaged in the
processing of fresh, frozen, canned,
smoked, salted or pickled seafoods.
B. Owners and operators of the
facilities operating offshore vessels that
are engaged in the processing of seafood
paste, mince or meaL
Shore-based and nearshore seafood
processors discharging seafood paste.
mince or meal process wastes to
receiving waters within one (1) nautical
mile of shore at MLLW are not
authorized to discharge under this
general NPDES permit.
Operations which catch and process
“ nfnnd and which discharge less than
one thousand (1,000) pounds of seafood
waste per day and less than fifteen tons
(30.000 Ibs) of seafood waste per year
may be but are not required to be
covered under this general NPDES
permit.
II. Authorized Discharges
A. This Permit authorizes the
discharge of the following pollutants
subject to the limitations and conditions
set forth herein:
Seafood process wastes;
Process disinfectants;
Sanitary wastewater and
D. Other wastewaters. Including
domestic wastewater, cooling water.
boiler water, gray water, freshwater
pressure relief water, refrigeration
condensate, water used to transfer
seafood to the facility. and live tank
water.
The discharge of wastes not
specifically set out in this Part is not
authorized under this Permit.
HI. Areas Excluded From Authorization
Under This General NPDES Permit
Subject to the waiver provision set out
in Part fiLE below, this Permit does not
authorize the discharge of pollutants in
the following circumstances.
A. Protected Wafer Resources and
Special Habitats
This Permit does not authorize the
discharge of pollutants in the protected
water resources and special habitats as
described below and listed in the
Appendix.
1. Within one (1) nautical mile of a
State Game Sanctuary, State Game
Refuge or State Critical Habitat.
2. Within one (1) nautical mile of a
National Park or Preserve.
3. Within one (1) nautical mile of a
National Wildlife Refuge.
4. WIthin one (1) nautical mile of a
National Wilderness Area.
5. Within three (3) nautical miles of
the seaward boundary of a rookery or
major haul-out area of the Steller sea
lion which has been designated as
“critical habitat” by the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS).
6. Within one (1) nautical mile of the
seaward boundary of a rookery of the
northern fur seal during the period May
I through November 15. -
7 Within one (1) nautical mile of the
seaward boundary of a nesting area of a
colony of one thousand or more of the
following seabirds during the period
May I through September 30: auklets,
cormorants. fuirnars. guillemots.
kittiwakes, murrelets. murres, puffins
and/or terns.
B. In a river designated as wild or
scenic under the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act.
B. At-ask Water Resources and
Waterbodies
This Permit does not authorize the
discharge of pollutants in the following
at-risk water resources and waterbodies.
1. Areas with water depth of less than
ten (10) fathoms mean lower low water
(MLLW) that have or are likely to have
poor flushing, including but not limited
to sheltered waterbodies such as bays,
harbors, inlets, coves and lagoons and
semi-enclosed water basins bordered by
sills of less than ten (10) fathom depth.
For the purposes of this section. “poor
flushing” means average currents or
turbulence of less than one third (0.33)
of a knot at any point in the receiving
water within three hundred (300) feet of
the outfall.
2. Akun Island: Lost Harbor.
3. Streams or rivers within one (1)
statute mile upstream of a permanent
drinking water intake.
4. Lakes or other impoundments of
fresh water.
C. Degraded Waterbodies
This Permit does not authorize the
discharge of pollutants in the following
degraded waterbodies.
1. Akutan Island: Akutan Harbor west
of longitude 165 04600 W.
2. Unalaska Island: Unalaska Bay and
continuous inshore waters south of
latitude 53°57’50” N.
3. Udagak Bay: waters of the bay from
a line extending between latitude
53°44’32”N, longitude lii6° 19’14”W
and latitude 53a44.04..N longitude
166° 18’32”W.
4. Ward Cove.
5. Any waterbody included in ADEC’s
CWA § 305(b) report or CWA § 303(d)
list of waters which are “Impaired” by
seafood processor discharges or ‘water
quality-limited” for dissolved oxygen or
residues (i.e.. floating solids, debris.
sludge, deposits, foam or scum).
D. Designated Fish Processing Center
This Permit does not authorize the
discharge of pollutants to receiving
waters adjacent to the City of Kodiak.
including Kodiak Harbor, St. Paul
Harbor. Near Island Channel, Women’s
Bay and Woody Island Channel.
E. Waiver
An owner or operator of a seafood
processing facility may request a waiver
to discharge under this Permit in the
excluded areas listed in Parts ffl.A.-D.
above. In order to obtain a waiver to
discharge in one or more of these
excluded areas, an applicant must
submit a timely and complete request
for a waiver in accordance with the
requirements listed in Part IV D. below.
Pre-existing. permanent onshore siting
-------
34994
Federal Register / Vol. 60 , No. 128 / Wednesday, July 5. 1995 / Notices
may be considered justification for a
waiver.
A waiver will not be granted until
after consultation between EPA, ADEC
and other appropriate government
offices to determine that the proposed
discharge will comply with applicable
State and federal laws and regulations
and State-approved Coastal Zone
Management Plans.
IV. Application To Be Permitted Under
This General NPDES Permit
In order to be authorized to discharge
any of the pollutants set out in Part U
above to waters of the United States
under this general NPDES permit, one
must apply for coverage under this
Permit. This general NPDES permit does
not authorize any discharges from
facilities that have not applied for and
received permission to discharge under
this Permit from EPA.
A. Subznittai of a Notice of Intent to be
Covered Under This General NPDES
Permit
An applicant wishing authorization to
discharge under this Permit shall submit
a timely and complete Notice of Intent
(NOl) to EPA and ADEC in accordance
with the requirements listed below. A
qualified applicant will be authorized to
discharge under this Permit upon its
certified receipt from EPA of written
notification of inclusion and the
assignment of an NPDES permit
number.
EPA may require any discharger
applying for coverage under this general
NPDES permit to apply for and obtain
an individual NPDES permit in
accordance with Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Vol. 40. Section
122.28(b)(3).
A permittee authorized to 1scharge
under this Permit shall submit to EPA
and ADEC an updated and amended
NO! when there is any material change
In the information submitted within its
original NO!.
In compliance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act. 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
the Office of Management and Budget
has approved the information in a
Notice of Intent for permit application
(0MB No. 2040-0086).
A permittee shall submit its Notice of
Intent to be covered under this general
NPDES permit to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10, NPDES Compliance (WD-
135), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
Washington 98101
and, to the responsible ADEC office at
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation. Southeastern Regional
Office, 410 Willoughby Avenue. Suite
105. Juneau. Alaska 39801
Attention: Wastewater Program
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation., Southcentral Regional
Office. 3601 C Street, Suite 1334,
Anchorage, Alaska 99503, Attention:
Wastewater Program
or
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, Western District Office,
Unalaska Field Office, P.O. Box 1071,
Unalaska, Alaska 99692, Attention:
Wastewater Program
B. What constitutes a “timely” submittal
of a Notice of Intent
1. A new permittee seeking coverage
under this Permit shall submit an NO!
at least 60 days prior to commencement
of operation and discharge.
2. An existing permittee authorized to
discharge under the general NPDES
permit for seafood processors, effective
for the perIod October 30, 1989, through
October 31, 1994, should submit an NO!
at least 60 days prior to the expiration
of that permit and shall submit an NO!
no later than 60 days after the effective
date of this Permit.
3. An existing permittee authorized to
discharge under an individual NPDES
permit and applying for authorization to
discharge pollutants under this Permit
should submit an NOl at least 60 days
prior to the desired date of authorization
to discharge under this Permit and at
least 180 days prior to the expiration
date of the individual NPDES permit.
C. What Constitutes a “Complete”
Subm1ttaJ of a Notice of Intent
1. Permit Information
An N0J shall include any NPDES
number(s) currently or previously
assigned to the facility and the ADEC
seafood processor license number.
2. Owner Information
An NO! shall include the name and
the complete address and telephone
number of the owner of the facility and
the name of its duly authorized
representative. If a facsimile machine is
available at this address, it is useful to
provide a FAX number.
3. Company Information
a. Aji NO! shall include the name and
the complete address and telephone
number of the company operating the
facility and the name of its duly
authorized representative. If a facsimile
machine is available at this address, it
is useful to provide a FAX number.
4. Facility Information
a. An NO! shall include the name.
address and telephone number of the
facility. If the name of the facility has
changed during the last five years. the
NO! shall include the previous na
of the facility and the date(s) of U
changes. If a facsimile machine is
available at this address, it is useful to
provide a FAX number.
b. For nearshore and shore-based
facilities, an NO! shall Include a
desaiption of the physical location of
the facility and its accurate location in
terms of latitude and longitude with a
precision of at least 15 seconds of a
degree (—0.25 mile). In addition, the
NO! should provide the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game’s (ADFG)
Fishery Management Areas in which a
facility will operate and discharge.
The NO! shall also include an area
map of the facility and its outfall(s).
This map shall be based upon an officia
map or chart of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) or the U.S. Geologic Survey
(USGS) of a scale of resolution of from
1:20,000 to 1:65.000.
c. An NO! should include the nuznbe:
of seasonal and annual employees of th’
facility.
d. For floating facilities, an NO! shall
include the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
vessel number, the type, length and dat
of purchase of the vessel, and the ADFG
Fishery Management Area(s) in whirh i
facility will operate and discharge
5. Facility Classification
An NO! shall include the
classification(s) of the facility as one or
more of the following categories of
seafood processors.
a. Offshore seafood processor: a
processor operating and discharging
more than one (1 nautical mile from
shore at MLLW.
b. Nearshore seafood processor: a
processor operating and discharging
from one (1) to one half (0.5) nautical
mile from shore at MLLW.
c. Shore-based seafood processor: a
processor operating and discharging less
than one hall (0.5) nautical mile from
shore at MLLW.
6. Production Information
An NO! shall include prolected
production data based upon historical
operations and design capacity.
Production data includes an
identification of the process applied to
the product. the name and quantity of
the raw product(s) by species, the type
of the finished product(s), and the
maximum quantity of each raw product
which can be processed in a 24.hour
day The NOT shall also include the
pro;ected processing location(s) an
number of operating days by month.
the facility.
7 Receiving Water Information
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No . 128 / Wednesday, July 5, 1995 I Notices
34995
An NOI shall include the name(s) of
the waterbody(ies) receiving the
discharges of the facility and the name
of any larger, adjacent receiving
waterbody.
The NO! shall include information
concerning any areas within three (3)
nautical miles which are excluded from
coverage under the Permit in Part UI
above.
For nearshore and shore.based
processors, an NO! shall include a
bathymetric map of the receiving water
within one (1) nautical mile of the
discharge.
8. DescriptIon of Discharge(s)
An NOl shall include the depth at
MLLW and distance from shore at
MLLW of the end of the outfall pipe at
which the effluent is discharged.
An NO! shall include information
concerning all the discharges from the
facility.
a. Sanitary wastes. The NO! shall
identify the type and capacity of the
sanitary wastewater treatment system.
b. Seafood process wastes. The NO!
shall include a list of the number, type,
waste solids weights and wastewator
volumes of each discharge and the
maximum quantity of process wastes
which can be produced in a 24 ’hour
day. Discharges should be described in
‘erms of specific seafood products
?rocessed and component wastewaters
on a monthly basis for one year of
operation.
c. Other wastewaters. The NO! shall
include information on process
disinfectants, domestic wastewater,
cooling water, boiler water, refrigeration
condensate, transfer water, graywater,
live tank water and freshwater pressure
relief water.
g. Signatory Requirements.
All permit applications shall be
signed as follows:
a. For a corporation: by a principal
corporate officer.
b. For a partnership or sole
proprietorship: by a general partner or
the proprietor, respectively.
c. For a municipality, state, federal, or
other public agency: by either a
principal executive officer or ranking
elected official.
D How Does an Applicant Request a
Waiver to Discharge in an Excluded
Area Under This General NPDES Pen-nit
An applicant who seeks a waiver of
one or more of the requirements for
discharge location in Part III above must
3Ubrmt a timely and complete request
a waiver in accordance with the
llowing requirements.
I A Notice of Intent to be authorized
n lischarge under this general NPDES
permit in accordance with the
requirements of Paris !V.A-C. above.
2. A detailed description of the
circumstances requiring discharges to
the excluded areas. This description
should address alternatives to
discharging within the excluded area.
3. A detailed description of the
nature, magnitude and duration of the
seafood processing operation and its
discharges.
4. A detailed map showing the
proposed facility location, outfall
location, receiving water bathymetry,
surrounding upland topography, and
any protected water resources, special
habitats or areas listed in Part III above
which are located within three (3)
nautical miles of the site or its outfall.
This area map of the facility and its
outfall(s) shall be based upon an official
map or chart of NOAA or USGS of a
scale of resolution from 1:20.000 to
1:85,000.
5. A description of how and why the
discharges will not cause a violation of
State water quality standards, including
antidegradation, in the receiving waters
IAb ckn Administrative Code (AAC) VoL
18, Part 701.
6. A description of how and why the
discharges will not cause a significant
degradation of the physical, chemical or
biological integrity of the receiving
water, including but not limited to
seafloor deposits of settleable residues.
shoreline deposits of residues and
increased mortality in communities of
marine life.
7. A description of how and ‘. ry the
discharges will not harm or impair the
reproduction and growth of any
threatened or endangered species within
three (3) nautical miles of the proposed
operation and discharge.
A wwver will not be granted until
after consuJtatjon between EPA, ADEC
and other appropriate government
offices to determine that the proposed
discharge will comply with applicable
State and federal laws and reguiations
and State-approved Coastal Zone
Management Plans.
V. Categories of Permittees and
Requirements
A. Offshore Seafood Processors
(a processor operating and discharging
more than one (1) nautical mile from
shore at MLLW)
1. Effluent Limitations and
Requirements
a. Amount of seafood process wastes.
A permittee shall not discharge a
volume or weight of seafood process
wastes on a daily or annual basis which
exceeds the amount reported in the
permittee’s Notice of Intent to be
covered under this Permit.
b. Treatment and limitation of seafood
process wastes, A permittee shall route
all seafood process wastes through a
waste-handling system. The waste
solids discharged from the end of pipe
shall not exceed one half (0.5) inch in
any dimension.
c. Scupper and floor drain wastes. A
permittee shall route all seafood process
wastes from scuppers and floor drains
through a waste-handling system. The
waste solids discharged from the end of
pipe shall not exceed one half (0.5) inch
in any dimension.
d. Sanitary wastes. A permittee shall
route all sanitary wastes through a
sanitary waste system that meets the
applicable Coast Guard pollution
control standards then in effect (33 CFR
part 159: “Manne sanitation devices”).
Nonfunctioning and undersized systems
are prohibited.
e. Other wastewaters. A permittee
shall not discharge any other such
wastewaters that contain foam, floating
solids, grease, or oily wastes which
produce a sheen on the water surface,
nor wastes which deposit residues
which accumulate on the shoreline or
sea floor. The incidental foam and scum
produced by discharge of seafood
transfer water must be minim ‘ ,ed to the
extent practicable as described In the
best management practices plan of Part
VI.A. Wastewaters which have not had
contact with seafood process wastes are
not required to be discharged through
the seafood process waste-handling
system.
f. State water quality standards (18
AAC Part 70). Discharges shall not
violate Alaska Water Quality Standards
for floating or suspended residues,
dissolved oxygen, oil and grease, fecal
coliform, pH. temperature, color,
turbidity. and total residual chlorine
beyond the mixing zone. For the
purposes of offshore seafood processors,
the m1 ng zone shall be measured as
three hundred (300) feet radius from the
point of discharge. Discharges shall not
violate Alaska Water Quality Standards
for settleable sohd residues beyond a
one (1) acre zone of deposit.
g. Additional wastes. A permnittee is
reminded of the requirement that
vessels comply with 33 CFR part 151.
(Vessels carrying oil, noxious liquid
substances, garbage, municipal or
commerciai wastes, and ballast water).
h. Monitoring. A permnittee shall
monitor its processing and discharges to
the extent necessary to develop and
submit a timely and accurate annual
report.
-------
34996 Federal Register
/ Vol. 60, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 5, 1995 / Notices
2. Best Management Practices
Requirements
During the terra of this Permit all
pernuttees shall operate in accordance
with a Best Management Practices Plan
as described in Part VLA. below.
3. Annual Reporting Requirements
During the term of this Permit all
permittees shall prepare and submit an
accurate and timely annual report of
noncompliance, production, discharges
and process changes as described in Part
VLB. below.
B. Nearshore Seafood Processors
(a processor operating and discharging
from one (1) to one half (0.5) nautical
mile from shore at MLLW)
1. Effluent Limitations and
Requirements
a. Amount of seafood process wastes.
A permittee shall not discharge a
volume or weight of seafood process
wastes on a daily or annual basis which
exceeds the amount reported in the
permittee’s Notice of Intent to be
covered under this Permit.
b. Treatment and limitation of seafood
process wastes. A permittee shall route
all seafood process wastes through a
waste-handling system. The waste
solids discharged from the end of pipe
shall not exceed one half (0.5) inch in
any dimension.
c. Scupper and floor drain wastes. A
permittee shall route all seafood process
wastes from scuppers and floor draini
through a waste-handling system. The
waste solids discharged from the end of
pipe shall not exceed one half (0.5) Inch
In any dimension.
d. Sanitary wastes, A pernhittee shall
route all sanitary wastes through a
sanitary waste system that meets the
applicable Coast Guard pollution
control standards then in effect (33 CFR
Part 159: “Maxine sanitation devices”))
Nonfunctioning and undersized systems
are prohibited.
e. Other wastewaters. A permittee
shall not discharge any other such
wastewaters that contain foam, floating
solids, grease, or oily wastes which
produce a sheen on the water surface,
nor wastes which deposit residues
which accumulate on the shoreline or
sea floor. The incidental foam and scum
produced by discharge of seafood
transfer water must be minimized to the
extent practicable as described in the
best management practices plan of Part
VLA. Wastewaters which have not had
contact with seafood process wastes are
not required to be discharged through
the process waste-handling system.
f. Residues. A permittee shall not
discharge seafood sludge, deposits.
debris, scum, floating solids, oily wastes
or foam which alone or in combination
with other substances
(1) make the water unfit or unsafe for
use In aquacuiture, water supply,
recreation, growth and propagation of
fish, shellfish, aquatic he and wildlife,
or the harvesting and consumption of
raw mollusks or other raw aquatic life;
(2) cause a leaching of deleterious
substances:
(3) cause a film, sheen, emulsion or
scum on the surface of the water
(4) cause a scum, emulsion, sludge or
solid to be deposited on the adjoining
shorelines; or
(5) cause a scum, emulsion, sludge or
solid to be deposited on the bottom.
g. State water quality standards (18
AAC Part 70). Discharges shall not
violate Alaska Water Quality Standards
for floating or suspended residues.
dissolved oxygen, oil and grease. fecal
coliforrn, pH, temperature, color.
turbidity, and total residual chlorine
beyond the mixing zone. For the
purposes of nearshore seafood
processors, the mixing zone shall be
measured as two hundred (200) feet
radius from the point of discharge.
Discharges shall not violate Alaska
Water Quality Standards for settleable
solid residues beyond a zone (I) acre
zone of deposit.
h. Discharge pipe location. A
perm.ittee shall discharge its
wastewaters at a point at least three (3)
feet below the sea surface.
i. Additional wastes, A permittee is
reminded of the requirement that
vessels comply with 33 CFR part 151
(“Vessels carrying oil, noxious liquid
substances, garbage, municipal or
commercial wastes, and ballast water”),
j. Monitoring. A permittee shall
monitor its processing and discharges to
the extent necessary to develop and
submit a timely and accurate annual
report and to detect and minimize
occurrences of noncompliance.
2. Best Management Practices
Requirements
During the term of this Permit all
permittees shall operate in accordance
with a Best Management Practices Plan
as described in Part WA. below.
3. Annual Reporting Requirements
During the term of this Permit all
permittees shall prepare and submit an
accurate and timely annual report of
noncompliance, production, discharges
and process changes as described in Part
VLB. below.
4. Seafloor Monitoring Requirements
During the term of this Permit all
permittees classified as nearshore
floating seafood processors an
discharging to receiving wate:
depths of less than twenty (20, ...,io
at a fixed position for more than sevv
(7) days within a reporting year shal
conduct a seafloor monitoring progr.
as described in Part W.C. below. A
“fixed position” refers to a circular
anchorage area of radius equal to on
quarter (0.25) nautical mile.
5. See Surface and Shoreline Monito
Requirements
During the term of this Permit all
permittees classified as riearshore
floating seafood processors shall
conduct a daily sea surface and a
weekly shoreline monitoring prograrr
described below in Part Vl.D. below
C. Shore-based Seafood Processors
(a processor operating and dischargin
less than one half (0.5) nauticaJ nb
from shore at MLLW)
1. Effluent Limitations and
Requirements
a. Amount of seafood process wastc
A permittee shall not discharge a
volume or weight of seafood process
wastes on a daily or annual basis whi
exceeds that reported in the permittee
Notice of Intent to be covered iii- 1.
Permit
b, Treatment and limitation of seafo
process wastes. A permittee shall routt
all seafood process wastes through a
waste-handling system. The waste
solids discharged from the end of pipe
shall not exceed one half (0.5) inch in
any dimension.
c. Scupper and floor drain wastes A
permittee shall route all seafood proce5
wastes from scuppers and floor drains
through a waste-handling system. The
waste solids discharged from the end o
pipe shall not exceed one half (0 5) inc
In any dimension,
d. Sanitary wastes. A permittee shall
route all sanitary wastes through a
sanitary waste treatment system.
Nonfunctioning and undersized system
are prohibited.
Sanitary wastes roust be either:
(1) Discharged to a shore-based septic
system or a municipal wastewater
treatment system,
(2) Treated prior to discharge to meet
the secondary treatment limitations for
biochemical oxygen demands (BOD )
and total suspended solids (TSS) of 60
rug/I daily maximum, 45 mg/I weekly
average, and 30 mg/i monthly averaQe.
or.
(3) If a OSGC’llcensed vessel. tra
prior to discharge by a sanitary waste
system that meets the applicable Coast
Guard pollution control standards then
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 128 / Wednesday , July 5, 1995 / Notices
34997
ri effect 133 CFR part 159: “MarIne
,anitation devices”).
e. Other wastewaters. A permittee
shall not discharge any other such
wastewaters that contain foam, floating
solids, grease, or oily wastes which
produce a sheen on the water surface.
nor wastes which deposit residues
which accumulate on the shoreline or
sea floor. The incidental foam and scum
produced by discharge of seafood
transfer water must be minimi,ed to the
extent practicable as described in the
best management practices plan of Part
VIA. Wastewaters which have not had
contact with seafood process wastes are
not required to be discharged through
the process waste-handling system.
f. Residues. A perinittee shall not
discharge seafood sludge, deposits,
debris, scum, floating solids, oily wastes
or foam which alone or In combination
with other substances
(1) make the water unfit or unsafe for
use in aquaculture, water supply,
recreation, growth and propagation of
fish, shellfish, aquatic life and wildlife.
or the harvesting and consumption of
raw mollusks or other raw aquatic life:
(2) cause a leaching of deleterious
substances;
(3) cause a film, sheen, emulsion or
scum on the surface of the water:
(4) cause a scum, emulsion, sludge or
solid to be deposited on the adjoining
shorelines; or
(5) cause a scum, emulsion, sludge or
solid to be deposited on the bottom.
g. State water quality standards (18
AAC Part 70). Discharges shall not
violate Alaska Water Quality Standards
for floating or suspended residues,
dissolved oxygen, oil and grease. fecal
coliform, p11, temperature, color.
turbidity, and total residual chlorine
beyond the mi.xing zone. For the
purposes of shore-based seafood
processors, the m1. ang zone shall be
measured as one hundred (100) feet
radius from the point of discharge.
Discharges shall not violate Alack
Water Quality Standards for settleable
solid residues beyond a one (1) acre
zone of deposit.
h.Discharge pipe location. A
permittee discharging to marine water
shall discharge its wastewaters at a
point at least ten (10) feet below the
surface of the receiving water. A
permittee discharging to fresh water
shall discharge its wastewaters at least
three (3) feet below the surface of the
receiving water. An applicant may
request a waiver to this condition by
‘rovidlng a description of the
ircuznstances which make this
condition onerous and unnecessary to
the protection of State water quality
standards.
I. Monitoring. A persnittee shall
monitor its processing and discharges to
the extent necessary to develop and
submit a timely and accurate annual
report and to detect and minimize
occurrences of noncompliance.
2. Best Management Practices
Requirements
During the term of this Permit all
permittees shall operate in accordance
with a Best Management Practices
(BMP) Plan as described in Part VI,A.
below.
3. Annual Reporting Requirements
During the term of this Permit all
permittees shall prepare and submit an
accurate and timely annual report of
noncompliance, production, discharges
and process changes as described in Part
VLB. below. -
4. Seafloor Monitoring Requirements
During the terra of this Permilall
permittees classified as shore-based
seafood processors and discharging to
receiving waters of depths of less than
twenty (20) fathoms at a fixed position
for more than seven (7) days within a
reportIng year shall conduct a seafloor
monitoring program as described in Part
V1.C. below.
5. Sea Surface and Shoreline Monitoring
Requirements
During the term of this Permit all
permlttees classified as shore-based
seafood processors shall conduct a daily
sea surface and daily shoreline
monitoring program as described below
in Part VI.D. below.
VI. Specific Waste Minimization and
Monitoring Requirements
A. Best Management Practices Plan
1. Applicability
During the term of this Permit all
permittees shall operate in accordance
with a Best Management Practices
(BMP) Plan.
2. Implementation
A permittee shall develop and
implement a BMP Plan within 18
months of the date of that permittee’s
authorization to discharge under this
Permit.
3. Purpose
Through imp lementatlon of a BMP
Plan a permittee shall prevent or
minimize the generation and discharge
of wastes and pollutants from the
facility to the waters of the United
States. Pollution should be prevented or
reduced at the source or recycled in an
environmentally safe manner whenever
feasible. Disposal of wastes into the
environment should be conducted in
such a way as to have a minimal
environmental Impact.
4. Objectives
A permittee shall develop its BMP
Plan consistent with the following
objectives.
a. The number and quantity of wastes
and pollutants shall be rnirnmi,ed by a
perinittee to the extent feasible by
managing each effluent waste stream in
the most appropriate manner.
b. Any Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs) shall ensure proper
operation and maintenance of the
facility.
c. Evaluations for the control of
wastes and pollutants shall include the
following.
(1) Each facility component or system
shall be examined for its waste
mInimi7Rtlon opportunities and its
potential for causing a release of
significant amounts of pollutants to
receiving waters due to the failure or
improper operation of equipment. The
examination shall include all normal
operations, Including raw material and
product storage areas, in-plant
conveyance of product, processing and
product handling areas, loading or
unloading operations, spillage or leaks
from the processing floor and dock, and
sludge and waste disposal.
(2) Equipment shall ba examined for
potential failure and any resulting
overflow of wastes and pollutants to
receiving waters. Provision should be
made for emergency measures to be
taken in such an event.
5. Requirements
The BMP Plan shall be consistent
with the purpose and objectives in Parts
VI.B.3.-4. above.
a. The BMP Plan shall be documented
In narrative form, shall Include any
necessary plot plans, drawings or maps.
and shall be developed in accordance
with good engin ring practices. The
BMP Plan shall be organized and
written with the following structure.
(1) Name and location of the facility;
(2) Statement of BMP policy:
(3) Materials accounting of the inputs.
processes and outputs of the facility;
(4) Risk identification and assessment
of pollutant discharges;
(5) Specific management practices
and standard operating procedures to
achieve the above objectives, including,
but not limited to,
(a) the modification of equipment,
facilities, technology, processes and
procedures. and
(b) the improvement in management,
Inventory control, materials handling or
-------
34998
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 128 / Wednesday. July 5, 1995 / NOtiC!S
general operational phases of the
facility;
(6) Good housekeeping;
(7) Preventative maintenance:
(8) Inspections and records; and
(9) Employee training.
b. The BMP Plan shall indude the
following provisions concerning its
reviewi
(1) Be reviewed by the facility
manager and appropriate staff: and
(2) Include a statement that the above
review has been completed and that the
BMP Plan fulfills the requirements set
forth in this Permit. The statement shall
be certified by the dated signature of the
facility manager.
Documentation
A perrnittee shall submit to EPA
written certification, signed by a
principal officer or a duly appointed
representative of the pernuttee, of the
completion and implementation of its
BMP Plan. A permittee shall maintain a
copy of its BMP Plan at its facility and
shall make the plan available to EPA or
ADEC upon request. All offices of a
permittee which are required to
maintain a copy of this Permit shall also
maintain a copy of the BMP Plan.
7. BMP Plan Modification
A pemi lttee shall amend the BMP
Plan whenever there is a change In the
facility orin the operation of the facility
which materially increases the
generation of pollutants and their
release or potential release to the
receiving waters. A permattee shall also
amend the Plan, as appropriate, when
facility operations covered by the BMP
Plan change. Any such changes to the
BMP Plan shall be consistent with the
objectives and specific requirements
listed above. All changes in the BMP
Plan shall be reviewed by the facility
manager.
8. Modification for Ineffectiveness
At any time. If a BMP Plan proves to
be r.neffectlve in achieving the general
objective of preventing and minimizing
the generation of pollutants and than
release and potential release to the
receiving waters and/or the specific
requirements above, this Permit and/or
the BMP Plan shall be subject to
modification to incorporate revised
BMP requirements.
B. Annual Report
1. Applicability
During the term of this Permit all
perniittees shall prepare and submit a
complete. accurate and timely annual
report of noncompliance. production.
discharges and process changes to EPA
and ADEC.
in compliance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act. 44 U.S.C § 3501 et seq.
the Office of Management and Budget
has approved the information In an
annual report for compliance
assessment (0MB No. 2040-0110).
2. Purpose and Objectives
The annual report serves to inform the
regulatory agendas of the use and
potential degradation of public water
resources by facilities discharging
pollutants to these receiving waters
under this Permit. The permittee shall
provide the following information.
(1) VerIfication of the permittee’s
NPDES permit number, facility owner,
facility operator. name of the facility or
vesseL mailing address, telephone
number and facsimile number.
a. A summary of periods of
noncompliance with any of the
requirements of this Permit between
January 1st through December 31st of
the previous year. the reasons for such
noncompliance, the steps taken to
correct the problem and prevent further
occurrences.
b. A summary of information of
production and discharge during the
previous year. including
(1) Dates of operation by month.
(2) Type and amount fIbs) of raw
product per month.
(31 Type and amount fibs) of finished
product per month.
(4) Type and amount fibs) of
discharged residues per month, and
(5) Location of discharge (name of
receiving water(s)). If a floating
processor operating and discharging
within three miles of shore for a
continuous 24-hour period or more, the
name of the receiving water(st and the
latitude and longitude, the date and the
depth of the discharge location(s).
c. A statement of any changes to a
permittee’s Notice of Intent to be
covered under this Permit (especially
process changes. locations and
production Levels).
3. Signatory Requirements
A pernuttee shall ensure that the
annual report is signed by a principal
officer or a duty appointed
representative of the permittee.
4. Submittal
A perrnrttee shall submit its annual
report by january 31st of the year
following each year of operation and
discharge under this Permit. A
perinittee shall submit its annual report
to:
U S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10, NPDES Compliance (WD—
135). 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle.
Washington 98101
and, to the responsible ADEC
Alaska Department of Envfronm.
Conservation, Southeastern Regiona
Office, 410 Willoughby Avenue. Sui
105. Juneau, Alaska 99801, Attentlo;
Wastewater Program
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation. Southcentral Regiona
Office, 3601 C Street. Suite 1334.
Anchorage. Alaska 99503, Attention
Wastewater Program
or
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, Western District Office
tirialaska Field Office. P .O. Box 1071
Unalaska. Alaska g9692. Attentioiv
Wastewater Program
Seafloor Monitoring Requirements
1. Applicability
During the term of this Permit all
permittees classified as shore-based or
nearshore seafood processors and
discharging to receiving waters of
depths of less than twenty 120) fathoms
at a fixed position for more than seven
(7) days shall conduct a seafloor
monitoring program. A “fixed position’
refers to a circular anchorage area of
radius equal to one quarter (0.25)
nautical mile.
2. Purpose
A permuttee shall conduct a seafloor
morutoring program to determine
compliance with the Alaska water
quality standards for settleable residues
In marine waters. Alaska Administrative
Code Part 18 § 70.020 states that
“(sattleable residues) shall not *
cause a sludge. solid, or emulsion to be
deposited on the bottom.”
ADEC has authorized a zone of
deposit of up to a maximum area of one
(1) aa’e for facilities permitted under
this Permit in accordance with 18 AAC
§ 70.033.
3. ObjectIve
The seafloor monitoring program shall
determine the areal extent (in square
feet) of the continuous deposit of
sludge. solid or emulsion, any of which
is one-half inch or thicker, art the
bottom that persists throughout the year.
a. Monitoring shall provide an
accurate estimate of the area of the
discharge waste pile of settleable
residues which persists throughout the
year. It is recommended that such
persistence can be determined by
surveying the waste pile generated
during the previous year prior to the
recommencoment of discharge.
b. Monitonrig shall provide a
determination of the outer boundary of
the area of the discharge waste pile It
is recommended that such precision
-------
Federal Register / VoL 60. No. 128 / Wednesday. July 5. 1995 i Notices
34999
.11 require a visual, photographic or
1 deo assessment.
Schedule
permittee shall develop and
inpleiiieflt a morutonng program to
.urvey the area of its discharge waste
?Ile during the first full year of coverage
of its facility under this Permit.
Tiered Monitoring
The monitoring program shall be
tiered in levels of ncreasmg complexity
which are determined by the area of the
discharge waste pile as assessed in
previous seafloor monitoring surveys.
Tier one survey. A permittee shall
develop and implement a monitoring
program to survey the area of its
discharge waste pile’ during the first full
year of the facility’s coverage under this
Permit, II’ a permlttee has relocated its
discharge pipe during the preceding
year of operation and discharge. has
added a new production line, or has
increased production over the-
production of the year of the previous
seafloor monitoring survey by more than
25%, then a pernuttee shall develop and
implement a monitoring program to
survey the area of Its discharge waste
pile during the current year of the
facility’s coverage under this Permit.
a. The tier one bottom survey shall be
conducted along two transects. The
pnncipal transect shall be onented
along the maximum horizontal
dimension of the waste pile (“the
length”) The second transect (“the
width”) shall be perpendicular to the
principal transect, and shall cross it at
the point where the waste pile is widest
in that direction. The survey shall
record and report the measurements of
the distances of each transect under
which any continuous part of the waste
pile occurs.
nr
8ILU *O CODE
b. Tier two survey. If a permittee has
co;cluded from its seafloor monitoring
.urvey of the last previous year of
)peratlon and discharge that iLs waste
Due is greater than one half of an acre
n size (21,780 sq. ft.) and less than
riree quarters of an acre in size (32,670
q. ft.), then a permittee shall develop
iid implement a monitoring program to
;urvey the area of Its discharge waste
plle during the current year of its
facility’s coverage under this Permit.
The tier two bottom survey shall be
conducted along four transects. The
principal transect shall be oriented
along the maximum bciizontal
dimension of the waste pile (“the
length”) The second transect (‘the
width”) shall be perpendicular to the
principal transect, and shall cross it at
the point where the waste pile is widest
in that direction. The remaining two
transects shall pass through the point
where the first two transects intersect,
and shall be at 45 degree angles to the
first two transects. The survey shall
record and report the measurements of
the distances of each transect under
which any contirnious part of the waste
pile occurs.
Lsngm
-------
35000
Federal Register / Vol . 60. No. 128 / Wednesday, July 5, 1995 / Notices
BA.UNQ COOl 56O-6O-C
C. Tier three survey. If a permittee has
determined in its seafloor monitoring
program of the last previous year of
operation and discharge that its waste
pile is equal to or greater than three
quarters of an acre in size (32,670 sq.
ft.). then a permittee shall develop and
implement a monitonng program to
survey the area of its discharge waste
pile during the current year of its
facility’s coverage under this Permit.
The tier three bottom survey shall be
conducted along four transects. The
principal transect shall be onented
along the maidmum horizontal
dimension of the waste pile (“the
length”). The second transect (“the
width”) shall be perpendicular to the
principal transect, and shall cross it at
the point where the waste pile is widest
in that direction. The remaining two
transects shall pass through the point
where the first two transects intersect,
and shall be at 45 degree angles to the
first two transects. The survey shall
include measurements of the distances
from the point where the transects
intersect to the edge of the waste pu
each end of each transect. The su.rve,
shall also include measurements of the
thickness of the waste pile at the point
where the transects intersect, and at the
eight points that are half way between
the intersection point and the edge of
the waste pile at each end of each
transect
1LLU0 cOO! 65e0-6O.D
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 128 I Wednesday. July 5. 1995 / Notices
35001
•IWNO Cool suo-so-e
6. Monitoring Report
A permittee shall submit a bnet report
the seafloor monitoring survey which
cribes the methods and results of the
survey. The description of the methods
shall include at least the name, address
and phone number of the surveyor, the
date of the survey and the observational
method and equipment used in the
survey. The description of the results
shall include at least the required
dimensions and estimated area of the
waste pile and a map of the
configuration of the waste pile in
relation to the discharge pipe and the
bathymetry of the seafloor.
The area of the wastepile may be
calculated by treating it as the sum of
the areas of two parabolas which are
joined at a common base (the “width”)
and which have heights that together
equal the “length” of the waste pile. An
approximation of the area of the waste
pile is provided by the equation.
Area = (width length) (2/3)
A permittee shall submit a report of
the monitoring program to EPA and
ADEC on or before January 31st of the
year following the survey. It is
recommended that this report be
submitted with the Annual Report.
7. Signatory Requirements
A pormittee shall ensure that the
onitoring report is signed by a
principal officer or a duly appointed
representative of the perrnittee.
Modification of Monitoring Program
The monitoring program may be
modified If EPA and ADEC determine
that It is appropriate. A modification
may be requested by a permittee. The
modified program may include changes
in survey (1) stations, (2) times, (3)
parameters or (4) methods.
Request for a Waiver
A permittee may request a waiver of
the seafloor monitoring requirements. A
request for a waiver must provide a
detailed description of the
circumstances supporting a waiver of
monitoring and a demonstration that the
discharge meets the Alaska water
quality standard for settleable solid
residues.
Requirement to Apply for an Individual
Permit
EPA, In consultation with ADEC, may
require a permittee to apply for an
Individual NPDES permit if the seafloor
monitoring program indicates a
probable violation of the Alaska water
quality standards for settleable residues
In marine waters.
D. Sea Surface and Shoreline
Monitoring Requirements
1. Applicability
During the term of this Permit all
permittees classified as shore-based or
nearshore seafood processors and
discharging within one (1) nautical mile
of shore at MLLW shall conduct a sea
2. Purpose
A permittee shall conduct a sea
surface and shoreline monitoring
program to determine compliance with
the Alaska water quality standards for
floating residues in marine waters.
Alaska Administrative Code Part 18
§ 70.020 states that
“(floating solids, debris, foam and scum)
shall not • cause a film, sheen, or
discoloration on the surface of the waler
or cause a sludge, solid, or emulsion
to be deposited ‘upon adjoining
shorelines.”
3. Objectives
The sea surface and shoreline
monitoring program will provide
periodic assessments as defined in the
above categories of operation during
periods of operation and discharge. The
monitoring of the sea surface shall
record the incidence of occurrence and
estimate the areal extent of contiguous
films. sheens. or mats of foam within a
three hundred (300) foot radius of the
end of the outfall(s) and, in the case of
shore-based facilities, within a one
hundred foot distance of the seaward
physical boundary of the facility (e.g..
docks and piers). The monitoring of the
shoreline shall record the total number
f days for which observations were
iiade and the incidence of occurrence
and estimated area! extent of deposits of
surface and shoreline monitoring
program.
-------
35002
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 128 / Wednesday . July 5, 1995 / Notices
seafood waste sludge. solidia, or
emulsions upon the adjacent shorelines.
a. Monitoring shall provide an
accurate identification of the occurrence
of these pollutants on the surface of the
water or upon the shoreline.
b. Monitoring shall estimate the
area(s) of occurrence of these pollutants
with a precision of ±25%.
4. Schedule
A permittee shall conduct a sea
surface and shoreline..monitonng
program during each year of coverage
under the permit.
5. Monitoring Report
A permittee shall submit a brief report
of the monitoring survey which
descnbes the methods and results of the
survey. The description of the methods
shall include at least the name, address
and phone number of the surveyor(s),
the observational method and
equipment used in the survey, and the
point(s) of observation. The report of
positive observations shall include the
date and time of observation, an
estimate of the area of scum, sheen, film
or foam on the sea surface, and/or the
area of sludge, solids, emulsion or scum
deposited on the shoreline.
A permittee shall submit the report to
EPA and ADEC on or before January
31st of the year following the survey. It
Is recommended that this report be
submitted with the annual report of
production and effluent monitoring.
6. SIgnatory Requirements
A permittee shall ensure that the
monitoring report is signed by a
principal officer or a duly appointed
representative of the permittee.
7. Modification of Monitoring Program
The monitoring program may be
modified if EPA and ADEC determine
that it is appropriate. A modification
may be requested by a permittee. The
modified program may include changes
in survey (1) stations, (2) t.lmes or (3)
parameters.
8. Request for a Waiver
A permittee may request a waiver of
the sea surface and shoreline monitoring
requirements. A request for a waiver
must provide a detailed description of
the circumstances supporting a waiver
of monitoring and a demonstration that
the discharge meets the Alaska water
quality standard for residues. Individual
monitoring days may be waived due to
conditions (e.g., weather or sea state)
which make this monitoring hazardous
to human health and safety.
9. Requirement to Apply for an
Individual Permit
EPA, in consultation with ADEC. may
require a permittee to apply for an
individual NPDES permit if the sea
surface and shoreline monitoring
program indicates a probable violation
of the Alaska water quality standards for
residues in marine waters.
VU. Recording and Reporting
Requirements
A. Records Contents
All effluent monitoring records shall
bear the hand-written signature of the
person who prepared them. In addition,
all records of monitoring information
shall include:
1. the date, exact place. and time of
sampling or measurements;
2. the names of the individual(s) who
performed the sampling or
measurements;
3. the date(s) analyses were
performed;
4. the names of the individual(s) who
performed the analyses;
5. the analytical techniques or
methods used; and
6. the results of such analyses.
B. Retention of Records
A permittee shall retain records of all
monitoring information, including but
not limited to. all calibration and
maintenance records, copies of all
reports required by this Permit, a copy
of the NPDES Permit, and records of all
data used to complete the application
for this Permit, for a period of at least
five years from the date of the sample,
measurement, report or app).icauon. or
for the term of this Permit, whichever is
longer. This period may be extended by
request of the Director or ADEC at any
time.
C. Twenty-four Flour Notice of
Noncompliance Reporting
A permittee shall report the following
occurrences of noncompliance by
telephone (206—553—1846) within 24
hours from the time a permittee
becomes aware of the circumstances:
a. any discharge(s) to the receiving
waters not authorized for coverage
under this Permit including, but not
limited to. waters described In Part II I
above or listed in Appendix I below;
b. any noncompliance that may
endanger health or the environment;
c. any unanticipated bypass that
results in or contributes to an
exceedance of any effluent limitation in
this Permit;
d. any upset that results in or
contributes to an exceedance of any
effluent limitation in this Permit; or
e. any violation of a maximum daily
discharge limitation for any of the
pollutants listed in this Permit.
2. A permnittee shall also provi
written submission within five days of
the time that a permittee becomes awaj
of any event required to be reported
under subpart I above. The written
submission shall contain
a. a description of the noncomplian
and its cause;
b. the period of noncompliance,
including exact dates and times;
c. the estimated time noncompliamic
is expected to continue if it has not bef
corrected; and
d. steps taken or planned to reduce.
eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of
the noncompliance.
3. The Director may. at his sole
discretion, waive the written report on
a case-by-case basis if the oral report hc
been received within 24 hours by the
NPDES Compliance in Seattle.
Washington, by telephone. (206) 553—
1846.
4. Reports shall be submitted to the
addresses in Part VIB. of this Permit.
D. Other Noncompliance Reporting
A permnittee shall report all instances
of noncompliance, not required to be
reported within 24 hours, with the
annual report.
VU!. Compliance Responsibilities
A. Duty’to Comply
A permitteo shall comply with all
conditions of this Permit. Any permit
noncompliance constitutes a violation
of the Act and is grounds for
enforcement action, for permit
termination, revocation and reissuance.
or modification, or for denial of a permi:
renewal application. A perniittee shall
give reasonable advance notice to the
Direttor and ADEC of any planned
changes in the permitted facility or
activity that may result in
noncompliance with permit
requirements.
B. Penoities for Violations of Permit
Conditions
1. Civil and Administrative Penalties
SectIons 3 09(d) and 309(g) of the Act
provide that any person who violates a
permit condition implementing CWA
§ 301. 302. 308. 307, 308, 318, or405
shall be subtect to a civil or
administrative penalty, not to exceed
$25,000 per day for each violation.
2. CrIminal Penalties
a. Negligent violations. Section
309(dlll) of the Act provides that ai.
person who negligently violates a
permit condition implementing CWA
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 128 / Wednesday. July 5, 1995 / Notices
35003
301. 302. 306. 307. 308. 318, or 405
all be punished by a fine of not less
Lnan 52.500 nor more than $25,000 per
day of violation, or by imprisonment for
not more than 1 year. or by both.
b. Knowing violations. Section
309(c)(2) of the Act provides that any
person who knowingly violates a permit
condition unplementmg CWA § 301.
302. 306.307, 308, 318, or 405 shall be
punished by a fine of not less than
55.000 nor more than 350,000 per day
of violation, or by imprisonment for not
more than 3 years. or by both.
c. Knowing endangerment Section
309(c)(3) of the Act provides that any
person who knowingly violates a permit
condition implementing CWA § 301,
302, 303. 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405, and
who knows at that time that he thereby
places another person in imminent
danger of death or serious bodily injury,
shall, upon conviction, be subject to a
fine of not more than $250,000 or
imprisonment of not more than 15
years. or both. A person that is an
organization shall be subject to a fine of
not more than 51,000 .000.
d. False statements. Section 309(c)(4)
of the Act provides that any person who
‘cnowingly makes any false material
ateinent, representation, or
ertificaUon in any application, record,
report, plan, or other document filed or
required to be maintained under this
Act or who knowingly falsifies, tampers
with, or renders inaccurate any
monitoring device or method required
to be maintained under this Act, shall
be punished by a fine of not more than
$10,000, or by imprisonment for not
more than 2 years. or by both.
Except as provided in Permit
conditions in Part VflLF. (“Bypass of
Treatment Facilities”) and Part VIILG..
(“Upset Conditions”), nothing in this
Permit shall be construed to relieve a
permittee of the civil or criminal
penalties for noncompliance.
C. Need to Hait or Reduce Activity Not
a Defense
It shall not be a defense for a
permittee in an enforcement action that
it would have been necessary to halt or
reduce the permitted activity in order to
maintain compliance with the
conditions of this Permit.
D. Duty to Mitigate
A permittee shall take all reasonable
teps to mlnimi2P or prevent any
iischarge in violation of this Permit that
has a reasonable likelihood of adversely
affecting human health or the
environment.
E. Proper Operation and Maintenance
A perniittee shall at all times properly
operate and maintain all facilities and
systems of treatment and control (and
related appurtenances) that are installed
or used by a pernuttee to achieve
compliance with the conditions of this
Permit. Proper operation and
maintenance also includes adequate
laboratory controls and appropriate
quality assurance procedures. This
provision requires the operation of back-
up or auxiliary facilities or similar
systems only when the operation is
necessary to achieve compliance with
the conditions of this Permit.
F. Bypass of Treatment Facilities
1. Bypass not Exceeding Limitations
A permittee may allow any bypass to
occur that does not cause effluent
limitations to be exceeded, but only if
It also is for essential maintenance to
assure efficient operation. TheseS-
bypasses are not subject to the
provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this
Part.
2. Notice
a. Anticipated bypass. If a permittee
knows in advance of the need for a
bypass. it shall submit prior notice, if
possible at least 10 days before the date
of the bypass.
b. Unanticipated bypass. A permittee
shall submit notice of an unanticipated
bypass as required under Part VII.F.
(“Twenty-four hour notice of
noncompliance reporting”).
3. Prohibition of Bypass
a. Bypass is prohibited. and the
Director or ADEC may take enforcement
action against a perxmttee for a bypass.
unless:
(1) The bypass was unavoidable to
prevent loss of life, personal injury, or
severe property damage:
(2) There were no feasible alternatives
to the bypass. such as the use of
auxiliary treatment facilities, retention
of untreated wastes, or maintenance
during normal periods of equipment
downtime. This condition is not
satisfied if adequate back-up equipment
shall have been installed in the exercise
of reasonable engineering judgment to
prevent a bypass that occurred during
normal periods of equipment downtime
or preventive maintenance; and
13) A permittee submitted notices as
required under paragraph 2 of this Part.
b. The Director and ADEC may
approve an anticipated bypass, after
considering its adverse effects. if the
Director and ADEC determine that it
will meet the three conditions listed
above in paragraph 3.a. of this Part.
G. Upset Conditions
1. Effect of an Upset
An upset constitutes an affirmative
defense to an action brought for
noncompliance with such technology-
based permit effluent limitations if a
perrnittee meets the requirements of
paragraph 2 of this Part. No
determination made during
administrative review of claims that
noncompliance was caused by upset.
and before an action for noncompliance.
is final administrative action subject to
judicial review.
2. CondItions Necessary for a
Demonstration of Upset
To establish the affirmative defense of
upset. a permittee shall demonstrate,
through properly signed,
contemporaneous operating logs, or
other relevant evidence that:
a. An upset occurred and that a
permittee can identify the cause(s) of
the upset;
b. The permitted facility was at the
time being properly operated;
c. A permittee submitted notice of the
upset as required under Part VILF.
(“Twenty-four hour notice of
noncompliance reporting) and
d. A permittee complied with any
remedial measures required under Part
VULD. (“Duty to Mitigate”).
3. Burden of Proof
In any enforcement proceeding, a
permittee seeking to establish the
- occurrence of an upset has the burden
of proof.
H. Planned Changes
A perinittee shall give notice to the
Director and ADEC as soon as possible
of any planned physical alterations or
additions to the permitted facility
whenever
1. The alteration or addition to a
permitted facility may meet one of the
criteria for determining whether a
facility is a new source as determined in
40 CFR § 122.29(b). or
2. The alteration or addition could
significantly change the nature or
increase the quantity of pollutants
discharged. This notification applied to
pollutants that are not subject to effluent
limitations in this Permit.
A perinittee shall give notice to the
Director and ADEC as soon as possible
of any planned changes in process or
chemical use whenever such change
could significantly change the nature or
increase the quantity of pollutants
discharged.
I. Anticipated Noncompliance
A permittee shall also give advance
notice to the Director and ADEC of any
-------
35004
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 128 I Wednesday , July 5. 1995 / Notices
planned changes in the permitted
facility or activity that may result in
noncompliance with this Permit.
IX. General Provisions
A. Pemvt Actions
This Permit may be modified, revoked
and reissued, or terminated for cause.
The filing of a request by a pernuttee for
a permit modification, revocation and
reissuance, or termination, or a
notification of planned changes or
anticipated noncompliance, does not
stay any permit condition.
B. Duty to Reapply
if a permittee intends to continue an
activity regulated by this Permit after
the expiration date of this Permit, a
permittee must apply for and obtain a
new permit. The application shall be
submitted at least 60 days before the
expiration date of this Permit.
C. Duty to Provide Information
A permittee shall furnish to the
Director and ADEC. within the time
specified in the request, any information
that the Director or ADEC may request
to deterrniiie whether cause exists for
modifying, revoking and reissuing, or
terminating this Permit, or to determine
compliance with this Permit. A
permittee shall also furnish to the
Director or ADEC. upon request, copies
of records required to be kept by this
Permit.
D. Incorrect information and Omissions
When a permittee becomes aware that
it failed to submit any relevant facts in
a permit application, or that it
submitted incorrect Information in a
permit application or any report to the
Director or ADEC, it shall promptly
submit the omitted facts or corrected
information.
E. Signatory Requirements
All applications, reports or
information submitted to the Director
and ADEC shall be signed and certified.
1. All permit applications shall be
signed as follows:
a. For a corporation: by a principal
corporate officer.
b. For a partnership or sole
proprietorship: by a general partner or
the proprietor, respectively.
c. For a municipality, state, federal, or
other public agency: by either a
principal executive officer or ranking
elected official.
2. All reports required by this Permit
and other information requested by the
Director or ADEC shall be signed by a
person described above or by a duly
authorized representative of that person.
A person is a duly authorized
representative only if:
a. The authorization is made in
writing by a person described above and
submitted to the Director and ADEC,
and
b. The authorization specifies either
an individual or a position having
responsibility for the overall operation
of the regulated facility or activity, such
as the position of plant manager,
superintendent, position of equivalent
responsibility, or an individual or
position having overall responsibility
for environmental matters for the
company. (A duly authorized
representative may thus be either a
named individual or any individual
occupying a named position.)
3. Changes to authorization, If an
authorization under subpart 2 above is
no longer accurate because a different
individual or position has responsibility
for the overall operation of the facility,
a new authorization satisfying the
requirements of subpart 2 must be
submitted to EPA and ADEC prior to or
together with any reports, information,
or applications to be signed by an
authorized representative.
4. Certification. Any person signing a
document under this Part shall make the
following certification:
I certify under penalty of law that this
document and all attachments were prepared
under my direction or supervision in
accordance with a system designed to assure
that qualified personnel property gather and
evaluate the Information submitted. Based on
my inquiry of the person or persons who
manage the system. or,those persons directly
responsible for gathering the information, the
information submitted is. to the best of my
knowledge and belIef, true, accurate, and
complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false
information, including the possibility of line
and imprisonment for knowing violations.
F. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be
confidential under 40 CFR § 2, all
reports prepared in accordance with this
Permit shall be available for public
inspection at the offices of the state
water pollution control agency and the
Director and ADEC. As required by the
Act, permit applications, permits and
effluent data shall not be considered
confidential.
C. Inspection and Entry
A permittee shall allow the Director,
ADEC. or an authorized representative
(including an authorized contractor
acting as a representative of the
Administrator), upon the presentation of
credentials and other documents as may
be required by law. to
1. Enter upon a permittee’s prer “s
where a regulated facility or actii
located or conducted, or where rec. ds
must be kept under the conditions of
this Permit;
2. Have access to and copy, at
reasonable times, any records that mus:
be kept under the conditions of this
Permit;
3. Inspect at reasonable times any
facilities, equipment (including
monitoring and control equipment),
practices, or operations regulated or
required under this Permit; and
4. Sample or monitor at reasonable
times, for the purpose of assuring permi
compliance or as otherwise authorized
by the Act, any substances or
parameters at any location.
H. Oil and Hazardous Substance
Liability
Nothing in this Permit shall be
construed to preclude the institution of
any legal action or relieve a pertiuttee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or
penalties to which a permittee is or ma
be subject under Section 311 of the Act
I. Property Rights
The issuance of this Permit does not
convey any property rights of any sort,
or any exclusive pnvileges. nor do’
authorize any injury to private proi
or any Invasion of personal rights, nor
any infringement of federal, state or
local laws or regulations.
J. Severability
The provisions of this Permit are
severable. If any provision of this
Permit, or the application of any
provision of this Permit to any
circumstance, is held invalid, the
application of such provision to other
circumstances, and the remainder of
this Permit, shall not be affected
thereby.
K Transfers
This Permit may be automatically
transferred to a new perrnittee if:
1. The current permittee notifies the
Director at least 60 days in advance of
the proposed transfer date:
2. The notice includes a written
agreement between the existing and new
pennhttees containing a specific date for
transfer of permit responsibility.
coverage, and liability between them.
and
3. The Director does not notify the
existing permittee and the proposed
new peirnittee of his or her intent to
modify, or revoke and reissue the
permit.
If the notice described in subpart 3
above is not received, the transfer is
effective on the date specified in the
-------
Federal Register I Vol . 60. No. 128 / Wednesday, July 5, 1995 / Notices
35005
agreement mentioned In subpart 2
bove.
State Laws
Nothing in this Permit shall be
construed to preclude the institution of
any legal action or relieve a permittee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or
penalties established pursuant to any
applicable state law or regulation under
authority preserved by Section 510 of
the Act.
M. Reopener Clause
1. This Permit shall be modified, or
alternatively, revoked and reissued, to
comply with any applicable effluent
standard or limitation issued or
approved under Sections 301(b)(2)(C)
and (D), 304(b)(2), and 307(a)(2) of the
Act, as amended, if the effluent
standard, limitation, or requirement so
issued or approved:
a. Contains different conditions or is
otherwise more stringent than any
condition in this Permit; or
b. Controls any pollutant or disposal
method not addressed in this Permit.
This Permit as modified or reissued
under this paragraph shall also contain
any other requirements of the Act then
applicable.
2. This Permit may be reopened to
Ijust any effluent limitations if future
water quality studies, waste load
allocation determinations, or changes in
water quality standards show the need
for different requirements.
X. Definitions and Acronyms
AAC means Alaska Aditurustrative
Code.
ADEC means Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation,
ADFG means Alaska Department of
Fish and Game.
BMP means best management
practices.
Bypass means the intentional
diversion of waste streams from any
portion of a treatment facility (see Part
IV C).
CFR means the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Cooling water means once-through
non-contact cooling water.
CWA means the Clean Water Act.
Daily discharge means the discharge
of a pollutant measured during a
calendar day or any 24.hour period that
reasonably represents the calendar day
for purposes of sampling. For pollutants
with limitations expressed in units of
mass, the doily discharge is calculated
• the total mass of the pollutant
.charged over the day. For pollutants
nih limitations expressed in other
units of measurement, the doily
disciiarge is calculated as the average
measurement of the pollutant over the
day.
Discharge of a pollutant means any
addition of any pollutant or
combination of pollutants to waters of
the United States from any point source.
Domestic wastes means materials
discharged from showers, sinks, safety
showers, eye-wash stations, hand-wash
stations, fish-cleaning stations, galleys.
and laundries.
EPA means the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
Excluded area means an area not
authorized as a receiving water covered
under this general NPDES permit, as
desaribecj in Part Ifl.A-D. above and
Appendix I below.
Fixed position means to a circular
anchorage area of radius equal to one
quarter (0.25) nautical mile.
Garbage means all kinds of victual,
domestic, and operational waste,
excluding fresh fish and part thereof,
generated during the normal operation
and liable to be disposed of
continuously or periodically except
dishwater, graywater, and those
substances that are defined or listed in
other Annexes to MARPOL 73/78.
Graywater means galley, bath and
shower wastewater.
Marine sanitation device includes any
equipment for installation on board a
vessel which is designed to receive,
retain, treat, or discharge sewage, or any
process to treat such sewage.
Maximum means the highest
measured discharge or pollutant in a
wastestream during the time period of
interest.
MLLW means mean lower low water.
mg/I means milligrams per liter.
Mixing zone means the area adjacent
to a discharge or activity in the water
where a receiving water may not meet
all the water quality standards; wastes
and water axe given an area to mix so
that the water quality standards are met
at the mixing zone boundaries.
Monthly average means the average of-
daily discharges over a monitoring
month, calculated as the sum of all daily
discharges measured during a
monitoring month divided by the
number of daily discharges measured
during that month.
MSD means marine sanitation device.
NMFS means United States National
Marine Fisheries Service.
NO! means a “Notice of Intent,” that
is, an application, to be authorized to
discharge under a general NPDES
permit.
Pollutant means dredged spoil, solid
waste, incinerator residue, filter
backwash, sewage, garbage, sewage
sludge, munitions, chemical wastes.
biological materials, radioactive
materials, heat, wrecked or discarded
equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and
industrial, municipal. and agricultural
waste discharged into water.
Sanitary wastes means human body
waste discharged from toilets and
urinals.
Seafood means the raw material,
including freshwater and saltwater fish
and shellfish, to be processed, in the
form in which It is received at the
processing plant.
Seafood process waste means the
waste fluids, organs, flesh, bones,
woody fiber and chitinous shells
produced in the conversion of aquatic
animals and plants from a raw form to
a marketable form.
Severe property damage means
substantial physical damage to property,
damage to the treatment facilities which
causes them to become inoperable, or
substantial and permanent loss of
natural resources which can reasonably
be expected to occur in the absence of
a bypass. Severe property damage does
not mean economic loss caused by
delays in production.
Sewage means human body wastes
and the wastes from toilets and other
receptacles intended to receive or retain
body wastes.
Upset means an exceptional incident
in which there is unintentional and
temporary noncompliance with
technology.based permit effluent
limitations because of factors beyond
the reasonable control of the permittee.
An upset does not include
noncompliance to the extent caused by
operational error, improperly designed
treatment facilities, inadequate
treatment facilities, lack of preventive
maintenance, or careless or improper
operation (see Part IV.H.).
U.S.C. means United States Code.
USFWS means United States Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Water depth means the depth of the
water between the surface and the
seafloor as measured at mean lower low
water (0 0).
Zone of deposit (ZOD) means an area
of the bottom in marine or estuarme
waters in which the Alaska Department
of Environmental Conservation has
authorized the deposit of substances in
exceedence of the water quality criteria
of 18 AAC 70.020(b) and the
anudegradation requirement of 18 AAC
70.0101(c).
-------
STATE GAME REFUGES:
(SGR; see Figure 1)
Anchorage Coastal SGR
Cape Newenham SGP ..
Creamers Field SGR
Goose Bay SGR .....
Izembek SGR
McNeil River SGR ..
Mendenhall Wetlands SGR.
City of Juneau
Minto Flats SGR
Palmer Hay Flats SGR
Susitna Flats SGR
Trading Bay SOP
YakatagaSGR ...........
STATE CRITiCAL HABITAT
AREAS
(SCHA, see Figure 1)
Anchor RIver-Frr Creek
SCHA.
Chilkat River SCHA ......
Cinder River SCHA
Clam Gulch SCHA
Copper River Delta SCHA..
Dude Creek SCHA .....
Egegik SCHA
Fox River Flats SCHA
Kachemak Bay SCHA
Kalgin Island SCHA
Pilot Point SCI4A
Port Heiden SCHA
Port Moller SCHA
Redoubt Bay SCHA
Tugidak Island SCHA
Willow Mountain SCHA
STATE GAME SANC-
TUARIES.
(SGA; see Figure 1)
McNeil River SGS
Stan Price SGS
Walrus-Islands SGS
NATiONAL PARKS. PRE-
SERVES AND MONU-
MENTS. Admiralty Island
Nail Island, SE Alaska
Monument
Aniakctiak Nail Monument
Alaska Perimsula arid
Preserve.
Glacier Bay Nail Park Ar-
chipelago. arid Preserve.
Katmai Nail Park and Pre-
serve.
Kenai Fjords Nail Preserve
Lake Clark Nail Park and
Preserve.
Misty Fiords Nail Monu-
ment
Wrangell-SL Elias Nail Park
and Preserve.
NATiONAL WILDIJFE REF-
UGES.
(NWR)
Alaska Maritime NWR
Alaska Peninsula NWR
c ltyolAnchorage. . . . . .. .
NCooklnlet........ ... .......... .. .. ..
Chagvan Bay; S Kuskokwin Bay .. ...
Isab lta River wetlands ,................. ... ... ... -
Goose Bay. Knik Arm; N Cook Inlet
Isernbek Lagoon; SE Bristol Bay
Paint River arid Karnishak Bay
Tanana River wetlands
Knik Arm; N Cook Inlet _.. -
N Cook Inlet ... ... ..
Gompertz Channel. Trading Bay
Tsiu River delta N Gull of Alaska
Chilkat River ..... ......
Cinder River Delta, E Bristol Bay
Cook Inlet ....... .. . . ..
SE of the City of Cordova. ..... ..
Dude Creelç Icy Passage
Egeg lk8ayandEBnsto jBay ..... ..
Fox River Delta, Kactiemak Bay .. _..

Swan Creek wetlands; Cook Inlet
Ugashik Bay and E Bristol Bay ..........
Port Heiden and E Bristol Bay
Port Moller and Nelson Lagoon ........
Big River wetlands, Redoubt Bay; Cook Inlet
NWGulicfAlaslca .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Willow Creek tributanes ..
Kamishak Bay; NW Cock Inlet
WincIfafi Harbor Seymour Canal ..
Togiak Bay; N Bnstol Bay .....
National monument ... . ... —
Katmai Bay, Kinaic Bay, Kukak Bay. Hallow Bay,
Kamishak Bay.
Nuka Bay, Two Arm Bay ..
NcoastofCooecl nlet .. ..
Bering Sea, N Gulf of Alaska
S Port Moller and S Herendeen Bay and me coastal
waters from NE Cold Bay to Alinchak Bay
Knik Ami, Tumagam Ann.
South of the City of Good News.
City of Fairbanks.
North of the City of Anchorage.
NW terminus of the Alaska Peninsula.
SE base of the Alaska Peninsula
NW Gastineau Channel.
West of the City of Fairbanks.
NE of the City of Anchorage.
West of the City of Anchorage
SW of the City of Anchorage.
West of Cape Yakataga.
North of the City of Haines.
SW of the City of Pilot Point
South of the City of Kasilof.
Copper River delta; N Gulf of Alaska.
West of the City of Gustavus.
West of the City of Egegik.
NE of the City of Homer.
Adjacent to the City of Homer.
SW Kalgin Is.
West of the City of Pilot Point.
Nonhcentrai Alaska Peninsula.
City of Poit Molter.
West ci the City of NikIski.
Trinity Islands. SW of Kodiak Is.
NW of the City of Palmer.
S base of Alaska Peninsula.
S Kenai Peninsula.
Chiratlia Bay. Tuxedni Bay.
Tongass Nail Forest. SE Alaska.
Aleutian Islands and Pnbilof Islands.
Alaska Peninsula.
35006
Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 128 / Wednesday. July 5, 1995 / Notices
APPENDIX—CATEGORICAL LISTiNG OF AREAS EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE UNDER GENERAL PERMIT
Excluded area
Receiving wat I Location
East of the City of Anchor Point ...... ........ .. Anchor River and Fnt Creek.
SE base of the Alaska Peninsula.
E Admiralty Is.. SE Alaska.
Walrus Is. (aic.a. Round Is.), Crooked Is.. High Is.
Summit Is., Black Rock the Twins.
River, and coastal waters of Admiralty.
Aniakchak Bay. Amrl er Bay. South central.
Dixon Harbor. Palma Bay. Lituya Bay; N Gulf of Alaska Glacier Bay. Cross Sound, North Alexander. SE Alaska
NW of the City of Yakutat. N Gulf of Alaska .. N Icy Bay, W Yakutat Bay.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 128 / Wednesday. July 5. 1995 / Notices
35007
APPENDIX—CATEGORICAL LISTING OF AREAS EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE UNDER GENERAL PERMIT—Continued
Excluded area
zembekNWR
i(enai NWR
(odiak NWR
rogiakNWfl
Yukon Delta NWR
NATIONAL WILDERNESS
AREAS.
(NWA: see Figure 2)
Chuck River NWA
Coronation Island NWA
Enthcofl River NWA
KartaNWA
Kootznoowoo NWA
Kuru NWA ...... .... ...
Mauretle Islands NWA
Misty Fiords NWA
Petersburg Creek NWA
Pleasant Islands NWA
Russell Fiord NWA
South Baranof NWA
South Etolin NWA ..
South Pnnce of Wales NWA
Stikune -Leconte NWA
Tebenkof Bay NWA
Tracy Arm-Fords Terror
NWA.
“ rren Island NWA
St Chichagof-Yakobi
.4WA.
STELLER SEA LION
ROOKERIES AND HAUL-
OUT AREAS
(see Figures 3 and 4)
58 Federal RegIster 45278
NORTHERN FUR SEAL
ROOKERIES
(see Figures 5 and 6)
St Paul Island ..
Otter Island -
St. George Island .......
SEA BIRD NESTING
AREAS:
(see Figure 7)
Receiving waters
Cold Bay. lzerrtek Lagoon ....
S Tumagain Arm N Cock Inlet
Kiliuda BaY. Sitkaiidak Strait. Alitak Bay, Sitkinak Strait,
Olga Bay, Uyak Bay. Ugaruk Bay; Ban Bay; W Gulf
of Alaska.
Jacksnuth Bay. Goodnews Bay. Chagvan Bay.
Hagemeister Strait, Togiak Bay, Kuiukak Bay,
Nushagak Bay; N Bnstol Bay.
Scamrnon Bay, Kokechik Bay, Hooper Day, Hazen Bay.
Baird lnle E Bering Sea.
Rivers and coastal waters of NWA
Rivers and coastal waters ci NWA
Rivers arid coastal waters of NWA
Rivers and coastal waters ci NWA
Rivers and coastal waters of NWA
Rivers and coastal waters of NWA
Rivers and coastal waters of NWA
Rivers and coastal waters of NWA
Rivers and coastal waters of MWA
Rivers and coastal waters of NWA
Rivers and coastal waters of NWA
Rivers and coastal waters of NWA
Rivers and coastal waters of NWA
Rivers and coastal waters of NWA
Rivers and coastal waters of NWA
Rivers and coastal waters of P4WA
Coastal waters
Coastal waters
Coastal waters
SW terminus of Alaska Perurioula.
Kenai Peninsula.
Kodiak Is.. Afognaic Is. and Trinity Islands
Surrounding the City of Togiak
Yukon River delta, Kuskokwin River delta, Nunivak Is.
Tongass Nan Forest, SE Alaska.
Tongass Nati Forest. SE Alaska.
Tongass Nan Forest. SE Alaska.
Tongass Nati Forest, SE Alaska.
Tongass Nan Forest, SE Alaska.
Tongass Nail Forest, SE Alaska.
Tongass Nail Forest, SE Alaska.
Tonqass Nail Forest, SE Alaska.
Tongass Nail Forest. SE Alaska.
Tongass Nail Forest. SE Alaska.
Tongass Nail Forest, SE Alaska.
Tongass Nail Forest, SE Alaska.
Tongass Nail Forest, SE Alaska.
Rivers and coastal waters of NWA Tongasa.
Tongass Nan Forest, SE Alaska.
Tongass Nail Forest, SE Alaska.
Tongass Nail Forest, SE Alaska.
Benng Sea.
Bering Sea.
Benng Sea.
ALASKA RIVER SEGMENTS DESIGNATED UNDER THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT
Atagnak River
Alatna River ..
Aniakohak River
Charley River
Chilikadrotna River
John River
Kobuk River
North Fork Koyukuk River
Mulchalna River
Noatak River
Salmon River
Tinayguk River
Tlikakita River
Rivenne waters ..... .... ..
Rivenne waters .. _.. ___.. ..
Rivenne waters ...
Rivenne waters ..
R,venne waterS
Rivenrie waters ..
Rivenne waters -
Rivenne waters .... .. _.. .......

Rivenne waters
Rivenne waters ...__.._...-.. .... . . ..... -
Rivenne waters ..
Rivenne waters ..... . ... .... ..
Nushagak-Bnsto l Bay lowland.
Central Brooks Mountains Range.
Aleutian Mountains Range.
Yukon-Tariana uplands.
Central Brooks Mountains Range.
Central Brooks Mountains Range.
Central Brooks Mountains Range
Eastern Brooks Mountains Range.
Alaska Mountains Range.
Eastern Brooks Mountains Range.
Baird Mountains
Central-eastern Brooks Mountains Range.
Southern Alaska Mountains Range
Location
Rivers and coastal waters of NWA ....... Tongass Nail Forest. SE Alaska.
Rivers and coastal waters of NWA Tongass —. Nati Forest SE Alaska.
AIRED OR WATER QUALITY LIMITED WATERS USTED BY ADEC IN EITHER ITS CWA §305(b) REPORT OR § 303(d) LIST
Akutan Harbor, west I Waters of the bay west of 165°46t0”W I Akutan Is
-------
35008
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No.128 / Wednesday. July 5. 1995 / Notices
APPENDIX—CATEGORICAL US7ING OF AREAS EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE UNDER GENERAL PERMIT—Continued
Captains Bay ,.
Lidagaic Bay
Gibson Cove ..
Hemng Bay
Jamestown Bay ...
Rcwan Bay ..
Silver Bay
Thom Bay
Ward Cove
Receiving waters
Waters of UnWa*a Bay from me southwest poefl of
Amajmali Is at Arch Rock west to the western point
of Captains Bay at 53°52’45”N. 1663433. west
along shore to Dev flsh Point. north to the southern
tlpolHogIs .,aastoshoreofAmajcnajc(s. atnorth-
em end of alrstnp at 53 54’16”N, 166 33D9 ”W.
south along the shore of Amaknak Is. to the point of
angin
All of the waters of the bay to the Dndge separating
IIlukuk Hai or and a line at the mouth of the bay be-
tween Arch Rock point and the point of land at
53°5245 ”N. 166 ’34’33 ”W.
Waters of the bay from a line between 53 44’32”N ,
166°19’14 ”W and 53°4432 ”N, 1669 9’141N.
Gbson Cove ... .. - ..
Hemng Bay ... . . ...
Jamestown Bay .... .. .. . . . ......
Rowan Bay ..
Silver Bay .....
Thom Bay .. ..
Ward Cave .. - -.
City of Xoclialc.
City of Sdca.
Near Cannon Is.
Kuru Is.
City of Silka.
POW Is.
City of Ketchikan.
Excluded area
Unalaska Bay. south
Location
Unalaska Is.
Unataska Is.
Unalaska Is.
Bii.U O CODE
-------
I
a
•1
0
C
0
0
0 )
“I
C
C
lb
lb
U I
z
0
C,
-------
Federal Register / Vol . 60, No. 128 / Wednesday, July , 1995 I Notices
‘ -I
— Alaaka Mattonai Intst.,t
Linda Conservation Act
C
0
ON
le siL1 Fiord
2. ionrt aiver
3.
4. e t qof—Ta*oW.
S. Yoonq Like Addition
6 •
7. Tracy Ar —Porda Terror
6. uck River
. South Mra t
10. .nkot My
11.
12.
13.
14.
1. 5.
1.6.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Pst.raburq sek-E* ncan
Stiki n—LC onta
Coronation LsLand
Wa.gTsn IaL ar
Murull. Islands
arta liver
South £thlin
Misty Fiords
South Prince
35010
Figure 2. Locations of National Wilderness Areas.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 128 / Wednesday , July 5, 1995 / Notices
35011
61 SON
50 00
‘0
Serin Sea
Wakus L
0 /
SeaU
Akun
Ia L
Aitu L Semisopochnoi L
I. /
Buldirl.
K( a L
AmchftkaL/ Rock
L
I.
170E ‘180•
Gulf of Alaika
17 W
Figure 3. Locations of Steller sea lion rookeries in the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea.
-------
35012
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 128 / Wednesday , July 5. 1995 / Notices
130’
Figure 4. Locations of Steiler sea lion rookeries in the Gulf of Maska and southeast Alaska.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 5, 1995 / Notices 35013
Index chart
4
A
+
N
E
Rok.ry
l eu g rsnd
I S itMSufl9a
2 Lagoon
3 NIIISP.4
4 Mwooi Idl
C
Figure 5. Locations of northern fur seal rookeries and haulouts on St. Paul Island, Alaska.
-------
35014 Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 128 / Wednesday, July 5, 1995 / Notices
S araya Art.
B
N o r ‘
East Reef
Z aoadni
E asi
Figure 8. Locations of’ northern fur seal rookeries and haulout.s on St. George Island, Alaska.
-------
‘I ,
‘1
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
m
i
0
cJ1
-------
asoio ‘s
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No, 128 / Wednesday, July 5. 1995 I Notices
Attachment 10 NPDES Permit No. AK-
G32- OO0G -State Consistency
Conditions For § 401 Water Quality
Certification
As Developed by a Commissioner-Level
9oard and Coordinated by Alaska
Division of Governmental Coordination
(Kerry, Acting Director. ADEC. 12/23/94)
Position Reporting
4 ll floating processors operating
under this general NPDES permit,
during any calendar day that they
process and discharge waste from
pmcessing operadons Inside State
waters, shall report geographic
coordinates daily to Alaska Department
of Environmental Conservation (ADEC).
Reports shaU be submitted by telefax or
other approved communications
methods to ADEC’s Western District
Office, Unalaska Field Office. (907) 581—
1795. Reports shall be submitted once a
day when a vessel is processing and
discharging waste under way in State
waters and shall Identify geographical
coordinates of the vessel at
commencement of discharging When
processing within ¼ mile of the same
place for more than one day Inside State
waters, processing vessels shall report
upon the commencement of discharging
and again when discharging terminates.
A note shall be made in the first
position report that, if known, the vessel
intends to zemaj at that location for
more than one day, and shall provide an
estimate of the time to be spent at that
location. A note must be made on the
last position report that the vessel is no
longer discharging in State waters.
Reporting Requirement
Any observed violations of the
floating residues citeria of the state
water quality standards shall be
reported to the EPA and ADEC within
24 hours as provide in Section VMF) of
the permiL
Degraded Waterbodies
Akutan Island: Akutan Harbor west of
longitude 185°46 OO” W.
Udagak Bay: Waters of the bay from a
line extending between latitude
53°44’32”N, longitude 166’19’14”W and
latitude 53°44’04”N, longitude
166’18’32”W.
Any waterbody included in ADECs
CWA § 305(b) report or CWA § 303(d)
list of waters which are “Impaired” by
seafood ,processor discharges or “water
quality-limited” for dissolved oxygen or
residues (i.e.. floating solids, debris.
sludge, deposits, foam or scum).
Included are:
Gibson Cove, Kodiak, AK ID #20701-
605,
Herring Cove. Sitka, AK ID a10203—
603,
Jamestown Bay. Near Cannon Islan
AK ID #10203—604,
Rowan Bay, Kuru Island, AK ID
#10202—602.
Silver Bay. Sitka. AK ID #10203—601.
Thorn Bay. Prince of Wales Island.
AK ID #10203—602, and
Ward Cove, Ketch.ikan, AK ID
#10102—601.
Pribilof Islands
The coastal waters surrounding the
Pribilof Islands (out to 3 nautical miles)
are excluded from coverage under the
1995 general NPDES permit for seafood
processors in Alaska. Temporary
permitting provisions will be made for
discharges to these wRters while an
interagency workgroup completes a
problem identification and evaluation
process.
As Developed by Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation
(Henkins, ADEC, 4/27(95)
Authorization of Mixing Zones
Offshore processors: 300 ft. radius from
the point of discharge
Nearshore processors: 200 ft. radius
from the point of discharge
Shore-based processors: 100 ft. radius
from the point of discharge
-------